Bernie Sanders Drops Frivolous Lawsuit Against DNC

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 minutes ago, Didymus said:

No one's asking her to reveal her XTube profile. This is about professional speeches, no matter if she was a "private citizen" or not. Obviously a big difference. If she's that uncomfortable about something she's paid for then that's even more reason to worry imo.

There's no need to use quotations. She was a private citizen who has the right not to reveal information done as a private citizen. The speeches weren't professional either. They were done at events with her as the guest speaker. She wasn't in elected  office, so there's nothing to compel here.

Sanders has not made such speeches because he was irrelevant in comparison. What gives him the right to dictate what she should release? Don't fall for it. This is a breach of integrity.

8 minutes ago, Didymus said:

 

But the fact that she doesn't say this leads many people to conclude that she still owns some debt that is gonna be reflected after her election. And to be fair, why would I take that risk when I can vote for someone who doesn't present so many mysteries to me and who is largely in agreement about fundamental issues, and who is personally more to my liking based on his stances on a few non-fundamental issues?

If she said it, people would just call her a flipflopper or a liar who tells a different story depending on her audience, when she was probably just being overly polite and gracious to those who paid her a hefty sum for her presence.

I've seen hundreds of guest speeches at the conferences I've attended throughout the world and people almost always exaggerate the good aspects of the topic while minimize or even omitting the negative ones out of courtesy to the audience.

Also your last statement is out of place. Bernie has many mysteries, ones that have not been cracked open because of his relatively irrelevant position on politics. Had he secured the nomination, you would have seen Hillary-sized messes courtesy of the GOP. There's dirt. We just don't know it yet, as opposed to Hillary who's been in the spotlight for decades.

I do know that he spent his second honeymoon in USSR Russia. That was funny to read, and has some disastrous implications for an American.

[Lion Heart 15,041]

Can he drop out pls. I give him credit where credit is due, but it's time to focus on the General Election. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I do know that he spent his second honeymoon in USSR Russia. 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

17 minutes ago, Bebe said:

People trust Bernie Sanders because he isn't taking direct contributions from big money. He is absolutely different. He is not an establishment candidate.

"He represents the socialist structure which directly benefits the people at the cost of capitalism. You're speaking as if capitalism has no benefits and. socialism has no failures."

That's such a load of BS. I'm not anti-capitalism and neither is Sanders. It would be really nice if at least this far into the process you learned what a Social Democrat is. NOBODY has said that capitalism has no benefits and socialism has no failures. Not me, not Bernie Sanders. Nobody has claimed such a stupid thing and I'm not going to talk to you if you are going to be purposefully difficult. 

He doesn't take direct contributions because he doesn't have a PAC. Hillary still raises more money from campaign donations. 

Her PAC is necessary to combat the Republican's PAC candidate. She's a pragmatist. She's not going to refuse any source of money when it's given willingly and will let her win the presidency. 

People wanting to see that as a conflict of interest have their own issues.

If you think that's "corruption", tell that to Sanders' sudden infatuation with superdelegates after denouncing them, not to mention his joining the Democratic party to begin with.

LOL Sanders is very much anti-capitalism. 

And I know what a democratic socialist is. How is that relevant to a discussion on capitalism though? A democratic socialist has no capitalist leanings. 

Here's the quick google definition so there's no confusion

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system.

...

It's literally anti-capitalism.

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

There's no need to use quotations. She was a private citizen who has the right not to reveal information done as a private citizen. The speeches weren't professional either. They were done at events with her as the guest speaker.

She's Hillary ****ing Clinton. I don't think so.

When you enter a presidential race, I think it's reasonable that people want to know more about your personal backstory than would usually be the case. And releasing transcripts from speeches that could have a major impact on your voters is obviously a lot more relevant than debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim.

So I don't buy the whole "she has rights!" thing. Sure, she has them, but she also has the right to lose voters because she's not willing to comfort them with simple facts, even if they include "private matters". Her choice, not mine. She has to satisfy me and I don't care how uncomfortable she has to get to do it. I'm not going to get told by her fans that I need to play her game.

7 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

If she said it, people would just call her a flipflopper or a liar who tells a different story depending on her audience, when she was probably just being overly polite and gracious to those who paid her a hefty sum for her presence.

I've seen hundreds of guest speeches at the conferences I've attended throughout the world and people almost always exaggerate the good aspects of the topic while minimize or even omitting the negative ones out of courtesy to the audience.

Well then she'll have to eat it Who cares? I sure as hell don't. If she can't explain her way out of it then that's her fault, not mine.

10 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Also your last statement is out of place. Bernie has many mysteries, ones that have not been cracked open because of his relatively irrelevant position on politics. Had he secured the nomination, you would have seen Hillary-sized messes courtesy of the GOP. There's dirt. We just don't know it yet, as opposed to Hillary who's been in the spotlight for decades.

I mean, I guess that could be true but that's all vague and hear-say and come on, that's just not enough when you defend Hillary from every possible angle. You could also easily say that there are a lot more mysteries to crack open in Hillary's camp, even if she's been in the spotlight for decades, but you're not saying that, so it's just too transparent for me to care about, honestly

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, Larry Hill said:

 

The name calling by you Bernie stans show how young and immature you guys are. Make your point without the theatrics. If you were confident in your point, then you wouldn't resort to petty name calling.

Some people stay in ATRL slang mode, and debate serious topics and issues like they are discussing which pop star is the best. They don't know how to drop the slang and silliness snd have a mature or serious discussion. 

[Bebe 17,289]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

He doesn't take direct contributions because he doesn't have a PAC. Hillary still raises more money from campaign donations. 

Her PAC is necessary to combat the Republican's PAC candidate. She's a pragmatist. She's not going to refuse any source of money when it's given willingly and will let her win the presidency. 

People wanting to see that as a conflict of interest have their own issues.

LOL Sanders is very much anti-capitalism. 

Yes, Bernie doesn't have a Super Pac...

"Her PAC is necessary to combat the Republican's PAC candidate. She's a pragmatist. She's not going to refuse any source of money when it's given willingly and will let her win the presidency. "

Except Bernie has shown you can take a stance against big money in politics and run a successful campaign without PAC money.

"People wanting to see that as a conflict of interest have their own issues." It's really very clearly a conflict of interest whether or not you think Hillary is corrupted by the money or not...


Bernie is anti-crony Capitalism but he is hardly some Socialist against private property who wants the state to own banks and make cars. 

In a social democracy, individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under pure capitalism.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, Didymus said:

She's Hillary ****ing Clinton. I don't think so.

When you enter a presidential race, I think it's reasonable that people want to know more about your personal backstory than would usually be the case. And releasing transcripts from speeches that could have a major impact on your voters is obviously a lot more relevant than debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim.

So I don't buy the whole "she has rights!" thing. Sure, she has them, but she also has the right to lose voters because she's not willing to comfort them with simple facts, even if they include "private matters". Her choice, not mine. She has to satisfy me and I don't care how uncomfortable she has to get to do it. I'm not going to get told by her fans that I need to play her game.

Well don't buy it and you can construe your own perceptions from this event. It won't change anything. Considering that she hasn't released them, I'm certain she understands the risks involved so there's no need to try to use them as leverage. People who wont' vote for her because of this particular situation would not vote for her to begin with.

 

4 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I mean, I guess that could be true but that's all vague and hear-say and come on, that's just not enough when you defend Hillary from every possible angle. You could also easily say that there are a lot more mysteries to crack open in Hillary's camp, even if she's been in the spotlight for decades, but you're not saying that, so it's just too transparent for me to care about, honestly

Not really. The most recent attempt was Benghazi but the hearing was a hot mess. They have nothing left on her. 

[Whispering 18,865]

14 minutes ago, Lion Heart said:

Can he drop out pls. I give him credit where credit is due, but it's time to focus on the General Election. 

He's going to go until June to give his supporters in upcoming stated a chance to go out and vote for him. It's what Hillary did, as well. It's a good move, to stay in for those people. He knows he is done, though. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

9 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Yes, Bernie doesn't have a Super Pac...

"Her PAC is necessary to combat the Republican's PAC candidate. She's a pragmatist. She's not going to refuse any source of money when it's given willingly and will let her win the presidency. "

Except Bernie has shown you can take a stance against big money in politics and run a successful campaign without PAC money

Fascinating. Hillary could run one too. She has the money from general donations. What's the point you're trying to make? Even Hillary is against Citizens United, but this is a tool that she's using for her own gain for this particular election considering that the opponent has no qualms using it. A hundred million dollars in funding makes a difference. Hillary is no fool.

9 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Bernie is anti-crony Capitalism but he is hardly some Socialist against private property who wants the state to own banks and make cars. 

In a social democracy, individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under pure capitalism.

Well yeah I know. I'm not trying to paint Sanders as some Stalin worshiper.

Socialist democracy has its perks just as capitalism has its drawnbacks. One major issue I have with the former is that the regulation also leads to a significant decrease in private entrepreneurship and also has a huge hit on the scientific sector. 

 As a scientist, I find that prospect appalling. The mere fact that Sanders wishes to cut funding to NASA to essentially limit space exploration is like a punch in the gut. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Whispering said:

He's going to go until June to give his supporters in upcoming stated a chance to go out and vote for him. It's what Hillary did, as well. It's a good move, to stay in for those people. He knows he is done, though. 

It would be great if he and his supporters would dial down the rhetoric to mild loathing (Samantha Bee's words). Hillary can't spend any more money fighting back Sanders.

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

I can't wait for election season to be over with. Opinionated people defending their candidate and trying to throw facts left and right trying to change people's minds... But no one is going to change their mind

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Well yeah I know. I'm not trying to paint Sanders as some Stalin worshiper.

Socialist democracy has its perks just as capitalism has its drawnbacks, but the regulation also leads to a significant decrease in private entrepreneurship and also has a huge hit on the scientific sector. 

 As a scientist, I find that prospect appalling. The mere fact that Sanders wishes to cut funding to NASA to essentially limit space exploration is like a punch in the gut. 

It's actually possible to work as a social democrat within a capitalist framework - the two are not mutually exclusive.

This "regulation also leads to a significant decrease in private entrepreneurship " is not at all as simple as it sounds. Regulation is necessary in many areas and America is already a mixed economy. In a purely capitalist society, no regulations exist.

That means no food regulations to make sure that you are not ingesting dangerous chemicals among other things.

Regulation on Wall Street is important for the same reason, protection of the consumer.  The regulations and legislation proposed by Bernie limit the risks banks can take — and reduce the risk posed by bank failures to the rest of the economy. 

It would also be a great time to clarify, in regards to Bernie's "Robin Hood Tax", taxing a financial transfer does disincentivize selling a stock or bond. However, the small percentage of the tax means that only trading on the smallest of margins is no longer profitable. This tax would target the high-frequency trading that uses these tiny margins for profit without having meaningfully invested in a company.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

13 minutes ago, Bebe said:

It's actually possible to work as a social democrat within a capitalist framework - the two are not mutually exclusive.

This "regulation also leads to a significant decrease in private entrepreneurship " is not at all as simple as it sounds. Regulation is necessary in many areas and America is already a mixed economy. In a purely capitalist society, no regulations exist.

That means no food regulations to make sure that you are not ingesting dangerous chemicals among other things.

Regulation on Wall Street is important for the same reason, protection of the consumer.  The regulations and legislation proposed by Bernie limit the risks banks can take — and reduce the risk posed by bank failures to the rest of the economy. 

It would also be a great time to clarify, in regards to Bernie's "Robin Hood Tax", taxing a financial transfer does disincentivize selling a stock or bond. However, the small percentage of the tax means that only trading on the smallest of margins is no longer profitable. This tax would target the high-frequency trading that uses these tiny margins for profit without having meaningfully invested in a company.

Well yes it is mixed. True capitalism is much too unreliable and risky.

The issue is that Bernie wants to take it a step further.

Also you simplify the issue with Wall Street. Broader regulations may protect the consumer, but it limits cooperation with all societal systems.

I use this quote from politico: big banks swallowed smaller too-big-to-fail banks that were failing during the height of the crisis, preventing a financial calamity from becoming a financial apocalypse. Government officials begged them to assume the obligations of their dying competitors to help stabilize the system during a panic, and they agreed, sometimes with government help, sometimes without it. If JP Morgan hadn’t been big and strong enough to absorb the hemorrhaging balance sheets of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, we might well have endured a depression. Ditto if Wells Fargo hadn’t been big and strong enough to let Wachovia collapse into its arms. The world is also lucky Bank of America was big and (arguably) dumb enough to salvage Countrywide and Merrill Lynch from the jaws of death.

Hillary wants to impose more regulations on Wall Street as well, except she's willing to understand that cooperation is a two way street and the tight national regulation that Bernie espouses can have legitimately devastating consequences.

Bernie, despite all his talk, cannot reasonably go through with his plans without remodeling the entire framework of the USA. He'll have to resort to Hillary's more measured approach if he wants to get anything done.

I like to quote this article because it's very informative in a non-biased light

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/sanders-dont-break-up-the-big-banks-000054

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Well yes it is mixed. True capitalism is much too unreliable and risky.

The issue is that Bernie wants to take it a step further.

Also you simplify the issue with Wall Street. Broader regulations may protect the consumer, but it limits the corporations' ability to cooperate with the government when the government needs their help.

I use this quote from politico: big banks swallowed smaller too-big-to-fail banks that were failing during the height of the crisis, preventing a financial calamity from becoming a financial apocalypse. Government officials begged them to assume the obligations of their dying competitors to help stabilize the system during a panic, and they agreed, sometimes with government help, sometimes without it. If JP Morgan hadn’t been big and strong enough to absorb the hemorrhaging balance sheets of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, we might well have endured a depression. Ditto if Wells Fargo hadn’t been big and strong enough to let Wachovia collapse into its arms. The world is also lucky Bank of America was big and (arguably) dumb enough to salvage Countrywide and Merrill Lynch from the jaws of death.

Hillary wants to impose more regulations on Wall Street as well, except she's willing to understand that cooperation is a two way street and national regulation can have devastating consequences.

 

 

'The issue is that Bernie wants to take it a step further." Lol the sort of bailouts, tax loopholes and tax breaks corporations receive these days is an example of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

 

Anyway...

" use this quote from politico: big banks swallowed smaller too-big-to-fail banks that were failing during the height of the crisis...."

If only there was some sort of reform to break up such banks... 

During the 2008 financial crisis, our federal government lent a staggering amount of support and resources — at least 9 trillion dollars — to financial institutions in order to prevent their collapse. If these financial giants were allowed to go bankrupt, they would have dragged the entire economy down with them. Bernie believes banks that are “too big to fail” participate in risky behavior that threatens our economy — and are therefore too big to exist.

When banks are so large that their bankruptcy would devastate the economy, the government is forced to bail them out. If banks know that they’ll be bailed out, they’ll chase profit by gambling and making risky investments knowing that they can’t really lose. The 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law defines these “big banks” as having at least $50 billion in assets.

Breaking up the biggest financial institutions would reduce the level of financial monopolization in America and the corresponding political influence of the largest banks. Too few banks control too much of our money. Not only is it risky for the reasons stated above, but it gives them even more influence in Congress. At the end of 2014, the largest four banks held 35% of all bank deposits. These same four banks spent at least $21 million lobbying the federal government in 2014.

Glass Steagall Legislation, reversing tax loopholes that only help big banks, and fighting against roll backs of banking regulations is not going to lead to devastating consequences. Leading economists are calling for a tax on the dangerous speculation on Wall Street (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/financial-transaction-taxes-theory-and-practice_)