Bernie Sanders Closing In On Hillary Clinton

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 happened😂

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?

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.

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:

Finally, TARP failed at the very thing enshrined in its name: doing something permanent to solve the problem of troubled assets at banks. Under its original conception, TARP was meant to be used to buy up those assets and get them off banks’ balance sheets. But that plan went by the wayside, and was never resurrected. And so all those troubled assets are still there, festering.

We’re still a long way from being able to render a final verdict on TARP. But the best that can be said for it at this point is that it helped to arrest the sickening downward spiral that the global financial system was falling into, and that it came in handy for bailing out the automakers. Against that, it failed to get banks lending again; it failed to do anything about the foreclosure crisis; it failed to make any kind of a dent in the unemployment crisis; it failed to hold bankers accountable for their actions; and it succeeded in generating a broad-based mistrust of institutions: the government and the financial-services industry certainly, and the judicial system possibly as well.

TARP was always a rushed, ad hoc policy; even its architects never really had much of a vision for how it should be used. As such, its failure comes as little surprise. But let’s not try to pretend that it was some great success. Yes, it’s good that most of the money is likely to be repaid. But that’s neither necessary nor sufficient for TARP to be considered a success.

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?

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.

Are you anti Bernie now, TI?

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.

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

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

?v=2avIVr0cu4w

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