Bernie Sanders Closing In On Hillary Clinton

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



|King Joker|
A new Iowa poll shows that Bernie is a mere 7 points behind Hillary, a huge leap from when the campaigning started. Bernie has already passed Hillary in the polls in New Hampshire. What does this mean for Clinton and her campaign?

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-poll-sanders-catches-up-to-clinton_55e23422e4b0b7a96339423
2. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

Emperordmb
watch?v=MnQ_mp9TzZY

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by |King Joker|
A new Iowa poll shows that Bernie is a mere 7 points behind Hillary, a huge leap from when the campaigning started. Bernie has already passed Hillary in the polls in New Hampshire. What does this mean for Clinton and her campaign?

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-poll-sanders-catches-up-to-clinton_55e23422e4b0b7a96339423
2. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

I think it is more of a case of Hillary falling instead of Bernie rising in the poles. I think if Biden gets into the race, both Hillary and Bernie will fall.

Imagine a Biden verses Trump election. I will be laughing my ass off.

|King Joker|
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it is more of a case of Hillary falling instead of Bernie rising in the poles. I think if Biden gets into the race, both Hillary and Bernie will fall.

Imagine a Biden verses Trump election. I will be laughing my ass off. It's probably mostly because of Hillary's bad press. No one really trusts her. With Bernie, back in January nobody really knew who he was. With his increased campaigning, he's getting his name out there.

"Sanders, a Vermont U.S. senator, has become a liberal Pied Piper in Iowa not as a vote against Clinton, but because caucusgoers genuinely like him, the poll shows. An overwhelming 96 percent of his backers say they support him and his ideas. Just 2 percent say they're motivated by opposition to Clinton.

Back in January, half of likely Democratic caucusgoers were unfamiliar with Sanders, who has been elected to Congress for 25 years as an independent. He has jumped from 5 percent support in January to 30 percent. Clinton, a famous public figure for decades, has dropped in that period from 56 percent to 37 percent."
Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2015/08/29/iowa-poll-democrats-august/71387664/

carthage
These early polls are never dependable if he can win more important at yes than maybe he might have a shot. At the moment he's just riding a hype train like Ron Paul did in 2012

Digi
Nate Silver's recent article put it in perspective. As of about a week ago, Hillary had WAY more endorsements from Congress and Governors than either she or Obama did 8 years ago at this point. Meanwhile, Bernie has none. Her fundraising is also much more solid.

Bernie's doing a nice job shaking things up. And the poll gap was always going to tighten. Nobody knew who he was until recently. He remains a ridiculous underdog, though.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Digi
Nate Silver's recent article put it in perspective. As of about a week ago, Hillary had WAY more endorsements from Congress and Governors than either she or Obama did 8 years ago at this point. Meanwhile, Bernie has none. Her fundraising is also much more solid.

Ugh.


Nepotism at it's finest. Disgusting.


I really hope that Sanders wins. The things his biggest issues are are my issues, too. Even though we disagree on almost 35% of the issues, the ones I care about the most, we agree on.


But Sanders seems more like the GOP's Ron Paul. He has the much of the stuff that the young people want but is not a viable candidate.



I hope I have to eat my words from this post.

I hope his ugly ass face is giving an acceptance speech and you guys rub it in that I was wrong. sad

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ugh.


Nepotism at it's finest. Disgusting.
It's not nepotism unless they're all related to or friends with Clinton. You're thinking of cronyism.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's not nepotism unless they're all related to or friends with Clinton. You're thinking of cronyism.

No, I was thinking of nepotism.

"The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs."


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/nepotism



However, I looked up alternate definitions and I agree that cronyism is a better fit because this is less about family and much more about friends (which makes cronyism a better fit).


Edit - I was thinking they were her friends (and some are relatives) which is where my comment came from.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I was thinking of nepotism.

"The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs."


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/nepotism



However, I looked up alternate definitions and I agree that cronyism is a better fit because this is less about family and much more about friends (which makes cronyism a better fit).


Edit - I was thinking they were her friends (and some are relatives) which is where my comment came from.
For what it's worth, the media tends to use the words interchangeably and forgets that nepotism originally meant family (it comes for the word for "nephew" after all). I try to not use the word even to refer to friends, because I feel like cronyism is a better fit for preferential treatment for friends.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I try to not use the word even to refer to friends, because I feel like cronyism is a better fit for preferential treatment for friends.

No, no, you're definitely right. I agree that cronyism is a better fit for what I'm trying to say. Honestly, I had considered "cronyism" my first go around in that post but decided against it due to the politically dynastic nature of the Clintons (Clintons, Rodhams, Boxers, Mezvinskys, and Lockharts). But the list of endorsements for Hillary is much more about friends than it is family so I was in error, homie!

Omega Vision
Don't even fool about it, G.

Or B.

Or whatever letter you want to be.

Robtard
Wonder if either Clinton or Sanders will eventually try and grab the other as a possible VP, should either of them get the nom.

Time-Immemorial
Look at everyone here getting nervous..

Sanders will take her, if not Biden will.

**** Clinton

I bet yall didn't even know she had a second hidden server.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/email-timeline-suggests-second-server-may-exist/article/2570663

Surtur
At this point I think you can just stick a fork in Hilary, she is done. Likewise I think it would be truly stupid of Sanders to put her on the ticket for VP. Unless Sanders for some reasons wants her own legal problems to become his problems as way.

If I was going to be running for any kind of office I'd avoid Hilary like the plague.

I honestly can't help but find the recent turn of events amusing. There was a time people thought she was a shoe in, but a relatively tame scandal(as far as scandals go) is probably going to bring her down.

I'd almost feel bad for her if it wasn't for the fact she is a millionaire.

|King Joker|
Yeah, I think all of the bad press will **** her up. Sanders would have a far greater chance winning the national election compared to Hillary, IMO.

Q99
7 points isn't exactly close, and Bernie has the big problem that he still hasn't branched out demographically- Note this is an Iowa poll, a very white state, while he's lacking in other Democrat demographics, and she's quite strong.

This isn't overall, where she's a full 20 points ahead. In other words, the lead could cut in half and it'd still be a landslide win for Hillary.

Like Nate Silver said, this is more likely strength of Bernie than a problem with Hillary, but even so, a lot of enthusiasm from one group doesn't match up well against a much broader support base.


Originally posted by Surtur
At this point I think you can just stick a fork in Hilary, she is done. Likewise I think it would be truly stupid of Sanders to put her on the ticket for VP. Unless Sanders for some reasons wants her own legal problems to become his problems as way.

I think a lot of you are really getting caught up into the hype-of-the-moment.

By the numbers, Hillary is easily the best situated and has the biggest lead. And will the e-mail scandal- one which has yet to produce any real wrongdoing- really haunt her all the way to the end of the primaries, let alone the general? I doubt it. I don't know exactly why you think it will. It is, after all, a sign that there's not really anything bigger against her, and at the moment she's not making much in the way of moves even though we all know she has a huge treasure chest and major allies.


A lead getting smaller but still being substantially ahead is not a good time to call a candidate 'done.'

Time-Immemorial
Your kidding she has no lead any more every day that passes her unfavorably try rating rises.

Whatever you are smoking pass it.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Look at everyone here getting nervous..

Sanders will take her, if not Biden will.

**** Clinton

I bet yall didn't even know she had a second hidden server.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/email-timeline-suggests-second-server-may-exist/article/2570663
Again, I think you should stop conflating what you want to happen with what's likely or certain.

Digi
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Again, I think you should stop conflating what you want to happen with what's likely or certain.

thumb up

In this case it's even further removed from reality than the "liberals fear Trump" mantra. So this time we're afraid that a particular Democratic candidate will fall? Aren't Bernie and Biden, more or less, on the same team? Certainly everyone will prefer a particular candidate. But if she's really as unelectable as TI insinuates, I'd think we'd be happy at her replacement.

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your kidding she has no lead any more every day that passes her unfavorably try rating rises.

Whatever you are smoking pass it.

Look, here is a website called Realclearpolitics. 90% of what it does is simply list and adverage polls, with no weighting or prediction of the likes that, say, FiveThirtyEight does.

Here are the current presidential matchups according to many different polling places.

Here is how she matches against Bernie Sanders


You may look for yourself.

And from Gallup, one of the most reliable polling places there is, an older one that shows Hillary started higher in favorability than anyone else. Even a slide doesn't leave her in bad shape, especially not if she rebounds, which is not unlikely.


"People talking about something negatively," does not equal plummeting numbers, or the lead changing. Whether or not you are convinced that this eventually will affect her is neither here nor there, right the numbers are what they are.

On average, Hillary Clinton is 21% ahead of Bernie Sanders nationally, with the closest polling saying 18% ahead.

On average, Hillary Clinton is 8.8% ahead of Donald Trump, with the closest polling saying +4 ahead.


Do stop trying to substitute your opinion on what you want to happen to what the situation currently is. You can express what you favor and what you think will happen all you want, but obviously, those are currently in the realm of speculation and prediction, not fact.

Q99
Originally posted by Digi
thumb up

In this case it's even further removed from reality than the "liberals fear Trump" mantra. So this time we're afraid that a particular Democratic candidate will fall? Aren't Bernie and Biden, more or less, on the same team? Certainly everyone will prefer a particular candidate. But if she's really as unelectable as TI insinuates, I'd think we'd be happy at her replacement.


Basically if Hillary drops out tomorrow, Biden will have no problem stepping into her slot, will almost certainly beat Bernie, and be in a situation not much different than if Hillary continues on and wins the primary.


A wounded Hillary is actually much better for Republicans than a healthy Biden. Trumpeting "yay, we got one candidate to drop out early!" has pretty much no relevance on the race.

And even that is assuming Hillary really is wounded, which is far from sure.

|King Joker|
Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination. It's Time For America to Notice: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/polls-show-bernie-sanders-winning-the-democratic-nomination_b_8069452.html

Time-Immemorial
Bernie is tight on dat ass. Q99's dog is hurting.

Bentley
If Sanders beats Clinton, Democrats have it in the Pocket shifty

Star428
Originally posted by Bentley
If Sanders beats Clinton, Democrats have it in the Pocket shifty laughing laughing

Star428
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bernie is tight on dat ass. Q99's dog is hurting.


laughing out loud

Q99
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination. It's Time For America to Notice: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/polls-show-bernie-sanders-winning-the-democratic-nomination_b_8069452.html


Sure, if you go by pure trajectory. If you go by trajectory, Carson will pass Trump, since he's risen faster.

Also, that's not even entirely true since that article's release, the latest poll that came out showed Hillary expand the gap a little.


Polls are still showing Hillary with leads in the 20s and 30s, and Sanders still has a major weaknesses with several large Democratic demographics. Note that it's not that rare for eventual winners to have opponents surpass them occasionally, and still not be doom.

It's quite common for challengers to be good in a specific area, do well at first, even win a few states where their support is most concentrated, but then not be able to carry those numbers in the states outside their strongest base.


It's pretty similar to Howard Dean's run, for example, or a number of Republican candidates.


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bernie is tight on dat ass. Q99's dog is hurting.


I do notice you don't really respond to posts that analyze polls or look into things like demographics and area of support. Certainly not with arguments.

Do you think entirely in 'X is winning, Y is losing, everyone who disagrees must be dumb', without any thought to why specific things? No curiosity as to whom is supporting whom and why?


Simply insisting that the side you want to be winning/losing is winning/losing is not prediction, it's stating preference.

psmith81992
https://mises.org/library/economics-bernie-sanders

Bardock42

Q99
Originally posted by psmith81992
https://mises.org/library/economics-bernie-sanders




Mmm, I can't agree with that.

Wanting to fight inequality with socialism =/= resentment or hating people better off than them.


Lesse, another bit:



Note that the article says there's nothing that reverses the trends, but I left in five on the list that'd have a major or minor effect- giving higher income to the lower class will increase demand, which drives economic growth.
Labor unions protect worker's rights and have been statistically linked with better economic equality.
A trillion dollars on building and repairing roads, bridges, and utilities is not only one of the 'high value' uses the article just chided him on not doing, directly paying a lot of people to do a lot of jobs with good return, but it has major indirect value as worktime commutes, car repairs, and other inefficiencies in just about every business get reduced. Drop the daily commutes of tens of millions of people by minutes (sometimes more, where capacity can be increased), and you're pretty soon talking huge amounts of time saved, measured in big piles of person-years.

The US currently loses trillions of gallons of water *per year* due to aging infrastructure. Fixing the infrastructure simply saves money long term...

Youth job programs, well, that's facing unemployment in the most direct way of all, giving jobs.


And of course, Canada-style single payer healthcare costs notably less than Obamacare (and even further less than old health care) for even better covering, and it has positive economic/wealth inequality benefits by making health costs, which hit the poor quite heavily due to their lack of financial cushions, poof, vanish. Similarly, education costs. If better education is free, then it's easier to get higher paying jobs.

Which is not to say there's not problems with the list,


This includes institutions like the Federal Reserve, which played a large role in our recovery from the financial crash.



This'd put us in trade wars that'd cost us way more than it benefited.


Even so, Bernie clearly has a positive intent, despite a couple policies being quite iffy he has a lot of proposals which you can point to and say, "THIS is clearly intended to help with THAT."




The ironic thing is the article's own list of what Bernie does contradicts this.

Surtur
I think the problem is the scandal isn't over and it seems more and more every day something new comes out. If the scandal itself went away this very day I would think she has a chance at winning..but if it continues to persist? Eh, I can't imagine how that would be good for her.

Robtard
The email scandal by itself isn't a sure thing in ending Hillary; it's not evenly a likely thing. There are those that don't care; think it's a non-scandal and they'll will continue to not care, just as there are people (eg TI) who care and will talk about it for the next 4-8 years if Hillary wins the nom and Presidency, but these people were likely never Hillary supporters and will never be.

Where it really matters is the undecided supporter/voter and in another couple months they're going to get sick of hearing about Emailgate, they'll have moved on.

It's going to take sustained pressure from multiple "scandals" to end her, combined with another candidate shining brightly. Bernie seems the best one to do it atm.

Mindset
No one cares about emails.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Mindset
No one cares about emails.

So no one cares she broke the saw and violated security?

She is stupid, at least Bill is smart enough not to use email, like he claimed, which Hilary blew his cover when she said she emailed himlaughing out loud

Mindset
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So no one cares she broke the saw and violated security?

Not really, no.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Mindset
Not really, no.

So you trust her even though she lies and violated security?

Care to try and reason that one out?

Mindset
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you trust her even though she lies and violated security?

Care to try and reason that one out? I don't believe I said I supported her.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Mindset
I don't believe I said I supported her.

So why the hell would anyone else support a blatant liar with the security of this nation when she can't even secure her emails?

Mindset
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So why the hell would anyone else support a blatant liar with the security of this nation when she can't even secure her emails? Because

Originally posted by Mindset
No one cares about emails.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So why the hell would anyone else support a blatant liar with the security of this nation when she can't even secure her emails?

I also agree that the president of the US should be a cybersecurity and IT expert.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
I also agree that the president of the US should be a cybersecurity and IT expert.

So you buy the Hilary stupid bimbo card?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you buy the Hilary stupid bimbo card?

You think everyone that isn't well versed in cybersecurity and IT is a bimbo? Are you a bimbo?

Time-Immemorial
So her setting up her own two private servers which where against the law takes a cyber IT certificate to know it was stupid and wrong?

Sounds like when she outed Bill that he in fact does email.

Bardock42
Can you provide evidence that her setting up her own private servers was against the law?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Can you provide evidence that her setting up her own private servers was against the law?

Read the newspaper laughing

Robtard
Just waiting until it's "Hillary had three servers" myself.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
Just waiting until it's "Hillary had three servers" myself.



http://nypost.com/2015/08/18/hillarys-email-server-was-run-out-of-an-old-bathroom-closet/


"Oh I'm clueless, I just ran my server from my pooper closet."

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Read the newspaper laughing
Okay

"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account.



Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law"

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay

"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account.



Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law"

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

NPR. laughing out loud

This is who you want for pres?

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/01/ap981990082860_wide-36e9965ac6e25a3f88a0260c18cb8ef8be57c2df-s800-c85.jpg

Bardock42

Time-Immemorial
Thats a stretch, it was already confirmed she sent and received over 30 classified emails.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Thats a stretch, it was already confirmed she sent and received over 30 classified emails.

Emails that were deemed classified after she left office.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Read the newspaper laughing

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay

"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account.



Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law"

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

I LoL'd

Time-Immemorial
Your right, this is all made up, the FBI is part of the right wing conspiracy.

Nothing happenedlaughing out loud

|King Joker|
http://41.media.tumblr.com/b3f16fbb5fe0d8b0d2e0378fcee0f85f/tumblr_inline_ntp9gjWVuc1rnoko9_1280.jpg

Robtard
Yeah, Bernie's a badass.

jaden101
As good as he is, face facts, no one is voting for a guy called Bernie.

|King Joker|
Originally posted by jaden101
As good as he is, face facts, no one is voting for a guy called Bernie. thumb down People voted for guys named 'Barack' and 'Mitt'.

jaden101
Originally posted by |King Joker|
thumb down People voted for guys named 'Barack' and 'Mitt'.

Bernie is a 1980s comedy movie type name. Those are not evening they are shit

Q99
Originally posted by |King Joker|
(List)


Note the second one on the list- opposing the Tarp.

That is very bad. That's one of the major reasons I don't support Bernie, he will put his economic ideology over what's good for the country at times.


The TARP, as I've said several times, was vital to preventing a great depression 2.0.


While one can argue the follow-up needed much more accountability on the banks, if you think letting the banking industry collapse would be at all good for the country then you don't know how economies work, almost every industry relies on banks for loans and such and so many companies would lose massive amounts of money if the collapsing continued.


The opposition to trade pacts- trade pacts in general, including existing good ones- is also quite harmful.


Basically, I like Bernie more on quite a number of things on the list, but it's kinda like having someone with good advice on how to pilot a boat, run the sails, and steer it, but who doesn't see the problem with having big holes gushing water, and doesn't see the big deal with having enough fresh water aboard for the voyage.

They are straight deal-breakers for me.



Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your right, this is all made up, the FBI is part of the right wing conspiracy.

Nothing happenedlaughing out loud

Here's the thing, stuff happened, but you seem to misunderstand the nature of what happened.

Hillary had a private server. This is allowed, but unusual, and was as we see not the best call. She sent and received messages on it- also allowed. Some of these messages either were classified *later*- which is silly to try and get her in trouble for. There is definitely stuff that happened, but still no evidence of wrong-doing- even though everything is being gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

You can't get someone in trouble for sending information which was unclassified at the time.



Like I've told you before on other matters, you can't want a minor scandal into being a bigger one. You can't desire someone into retroactively sending nuclear codes and diplomatic information because it'd be convenient for you if they had-done so.

This is the problem, if you see something that may or may not be an issue, you automatically assume not only is it an issue, it's as big as the issue could possibly be, and that when the information comes out that it really was a minor one, you like to ignore that and push on anyway.

It's just assumption and wishful thinking on your part.


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So why the hell would anyone else support a blatant liar with the security of this nation when she can't even secure her emails?

Because they were completely unclassified e-mails at the time and it turns out she wasn't lying about that?


Why should I, or anyone, believe your arguments when you're caught lying about them?


That's one thing Hillary has going for- everyone knows full well her Republican opponents will lie up a storm to try and get her in trouble, and they consistently get caught in said lies.

Why should I support liars like that?

Q99
Originally posted by Surtur
I think the problem is the scandal isn't over and it seems more and more every day something new comes out. If the scandal itself went away this very day I would think she has a chance at winning..but if it continues to persist? Eh, I can't imagine how that would be good for her.


If it continues to persist, then that means no-one gets anything bigger on her than this, for the rest of the campaign, and the Republicans are pinning all hopes on 'she sent some at-the-time-unclassified emails sinking her'.


If that's the case, then it means she is in very good shape again.


That's like discovering a hairline leak at the start of a boat race, and calling the boat out because of it, when it only slightly slows the boat down.


I will note again, that when this scandal hit, the betting markets did not even adjust their odds. They *assumed* that she would get something of this level and weather it, because she's got a history of weathering stuff.


I mean, heck, Benghazi was way more vicious and that ended up making the attackers look like they were fools desperately grasping at straws. There will be no fuel in this tank by the election.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Q99
Note the second one on the list- opposing the Tarp.

That is very bad. That's one of the major reasons I don't support Bernie, he will put his economic ideology over what's good for the country at times.

The TARP, as I've said several times, was vital to preventing a great depression 2.0.


Aha. Makes sense. Because Bernie seems like he'd be your perfect choice.

But, I think I can help you feel better about Sanders' opposition to TARP. Some believe that TARP was actually a net negative on the economy. It did not prevent another Great Depression. Here's the deal with TARP: it was a very political and corrupt piece of legislation. It had lots of pork (buddy favors), too. It probably is the most corrupt thing the US Government has done in the last decade or two simply because of the raw volume of corruption and money involved. It was started by Bush and finished by Obama so, clearly, it is not a GOP or Dem. screw-up.

I don't want to speculate the reasons why you think TARP was necessary to prevent a Great Depression but, generally, when people state that, it is because they are drinking from the breasts of the TARP PR Machine and fell for the doomsayers exaggerations and outright lies.

Don't take my word for it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billisaac/2010/10/01/was-tarp-worth-it/

But this is a nice write-up of why TARP isn't what the PR Machine said it was/is:



http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/07/judging-tarp/



If you want more evidence from the oversight committee for TARP, they said this, and I quote, "In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures"..."Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending."

http://web.archive.org/web/20110106141711/http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-010909-report.pdf



A former FDIC chariman assessed that only Citigroup would have potentially collapsed and all other major banks would have survived: most without much issue. The "prevented the banking system from collapsing" is probably not true.

http://www.aei.org/publication/former-fdic-chairman-sheila-bair-tarp-wasnt-necessary/

Regardless, what IF 2 or 3 major banks did collapse? Where is the evidence that their collapse would have created a worse situation than we have now?

Time-Immemorial
Q99 is secretly for Bernie, he's just using Hilary as a smoke screen for now to hide the beating he's going to take from us for a few more months. Soon as the media puts Hill dog out of her misery, Bernie will be his numero uno.

Robtard
Are you anti Bernie now, TI?

psmith81992
Originally posted by dadudemon
Aha. Makes sense. Because Bernie seems like he'd be your perfect choice.

But, I think I can help you feel better about Sanders' opposition to TARP. Some believe that TARP was actually a net negative on the economy. It did not prevent another Great Depression. Here's the deal with TARP: it was a very political and corrupt piece of legislation. It had lots of pork (buddy favors), too. It probably is the most corrupt thing the US Government has done in the last decade or two simply because of the raw volume of corruption and money involved. It was started by Bush and finished by Obama so, clearly, it is not a GOP or Dem. screw-up.

I don't want to speculate the reasons why you think TARP was necessary to prevent a Great Depression but, generally, when people state that, it is because they are drinking from the breasts of the TARP PR Machine and fell for the doomsayers exaggerations and outright lies.

Don't take my word for it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billisaac/2010/10/01/was-tarp-worth-it/

But this is a nice write-up of why TARP isn't what the PR Machine said it was/is:



http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/07/judging-tarp/



If you want more evidence from the oversight committee for TARP, they said this, and I quote, "In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures"..."Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending."

http://web.archive.org/web/20110106141711/http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-010909-report.pdf



A former FDIC chariman assessed that only Citigroup would have potentially collapsed and all other major banks would have survived: most without much issue. The "prevented the banking system from collapsing" is probably not true.

http://www.aei.org/publication/former-fdic-chairman-sheila-bair-tarp-wasnt-necessary/

Regardless, what IF 2 or 3 major banks did collapse? Where is the evidence that their collapse would have created a worse situation than we have now?

Good argument against the TARP. That's how I basically feel about it.

|King Joker|
Bernie Sanders Leads Hillary Clinton by 9 in New Hampshire, Gains in Iowa: Poll
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-9-n-h-gains-iowa-n422111

|King Joker|
Bernie Sanders overtakes Hillary Clinton in Iowa: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/qpoll-iowa-213462

|King Joker|
?v=2avIVr0cu4w

Looks like Sanders would do far, far better against Republican candidates, and is only 3 points behind Clinton in Iowa.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.