Bernie Sanders Drops Frivolous Lawsuit Against DNC

[lego 44,165]

2 hours 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.

 

but...but...where was this comment when Bernie was repeatedly called ****TARD, son of a bitch, filth, idiot etc?

You can't teach people to not be immature over the Internet, I guess.

 

[JevyDuty 2,961]

5 hours ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

but...but...where was this comment when Bernie was repeatedly called ****TARD, son of a bitch, filth, idiot etc?

You can't teach people to not be immature over the Internet, I guess.

 

When did this happened? It probably did and still does happen. I'm not defending them either. 

It's politics. I mean, that's as bad as it gets as far as arguing is concerned, so why add on even more **** and actually guarantee that the debate will not be a substantive one. Everyone is going to start throwing up walls and getting ready for mudslinging.

I'm over it. Lol

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

23 minutes ago, Larry Hill said:

When did this happened? It probably did and still does happen. I'm not defending them either. 

It's politics. I mean, that's as bad as it gets as far as arguing is concerned, so why add on even more **** and actually guarantee that the debate will not be a substantive one. Everyone is going to start throwing up walls and getting ready for mudslinging.

I'm over it. Lol

When Bernie publicly claimed that he would not endorse Hillary despite her being a colleague, I lost my collective **** and had a meltdown, calling Bernie all sorts of colorful things. It was a minor lapse in judgement fueled by waking up on the wrong side of the bed, pent-up rage from an unfortunate e-mail, and scathing disappointment that the candidate I was low-key rooting for betrayed his word so proudly.

Of course the same Bernie bots would have to use one particular event to cast me as immature when they are quite consistent in their immaturity for no reason other than that they're sore losers who can't hold a conversation without resorting to name-calling because that's all they have to say on the matter.

I mean just look at how that one particular poster contributes nothing but shade and yet still tries to cast himself as superior. It's quite funny.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

'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_)

 

Right ...reform. That's exactly what must be done, not breaking them up as Sanders claims he wants to do. Here's the part in the article that I linked.

Reform is already working. The best way to prevent banks from imploding is to make sure they have enough capital to absorb potential losses. In other words, regulators should rein in leverage, which is basically the opposite of capital. This is vital for all banks, but especially for the biggest, which pose the biggest systemic threat when their bets go bad. They also tend to enjoy lower borrowing rates based on expectations that the government will bail them out of trouble, the so-called too-big-to-fail subsidy.

Guess what? The main thrust of America’s Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the world’s Basel 3 regulations has been to limit leverage and force banks to hold more capital. The capital requirements get progressively tougher as banks get bigger, essentially a tax on bigness. And they’re working. The big banks are better-capitalized and less dependent on overnight financing that can vanish in a crisis. Giants like AIG and Goldman Sachs that once escaped serious regulation because they weren’t considered commercial banks are now subject to close scrutiny by the Fed and a new Treasury-led Financial Stability Oversight Committee. That’s why General Electric is selling its finance arm, GE Capital. Big financial institutions can’t hide in the shadows anymore. They must also draw up detailed “living wills,” blueprints for how they could be dismantled with minimal chaos if they ever collapse.

The part about all banks having a role: 

Of course, bigness is not an unalloyed plus for financial stability. By definition, too-big-to-fail banks can pose a threat to the system. My point is just that bigness is not an unalloyed minus for stability, either. There was another example in 2012 with the so-called London Whale fiasco, when a rogue JP Morgan trader lost more than $6 billion on unauthorized bets. That kind of debacle could have destroyed a smaller firm, even a Bear-sized firm with systemic implications, but for JP Morgan it merely depressed profits.

By the same token, smallness is no guarantee of stability. It was a flurry of relatively small bank failures that launched the Great Depression. Before the recent crisis, many of the flounder and carp of Sherman’s analogy were even more reliant on sketchy real estate loans than Wall Street’s sharks were. And while mega-rescues for mega-banks dominated the headlines, over 900 community banks and regional banks received bailouts through the Troubled Asset Relief Program as well. The government also guaranteed unsecured bank debt, money market funds, and deposits of up to $250,000, which amounted to an even more generous bailout of Main Street banks. If moral hazard is a problem, it’s not just a problem of bigness. It’s not even clear how pervasive a problem it was before the crisis; the government had never provided aid to an investment bank before 2008, so Bear and Lehman had no reasonable expectations of bailouts when they were getting into their messes.

Nevertheless, for many Americans, the lesson of the crisis was the danger of size. That’s why populist politicians want to break up big banks. That’s also why they want to reinstate the Glass-Steagall rules separating commercial banks from securities firms, even though Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and the other firms at the heart of the crisis were totally unaffected by Glass-Steagall. Megabanks just seem scary.

They can be scary. But the main cause of hellacious crises is not overlarge banks. It’s overleveraged banks that make risky bets with borrowed money. Before the panic of 2008, the financial system had a risk problem, not a size problem. The U.S. and international responses to the crisis, quite sensibly, have focused on risk.

----

I'm only quoting the article because they put them in words far better than I could.

Regarding your very first sentence, those aren't socialist steps, so I'm not sure why you're quoting them as such.

In any case, I'm not disagreeing with you by the way. Even Hillary understands that socialist systems are necessary to help the people from universal healthcare to social security to free education.

The differences are in approaches. That's where they differ, and frankly, I personally believe that Hillary's calm and measured approaches to re-evaluation and reform on a step by step basis are much more applicable and understandable than attempting to enforce change through sweeping gestures.  Even Bernie's plans often fail to address how they would go about his sweeping changes (a 4 page manifesto regarding big banks is hardly enough), because ultimately if he did, they'd probably be quite close to using Hillary's approach except she's talking about the "what we can do do now" as opposed to "what I want there to be in the far future".

In any case, I'm enjoying our discussion but I think we're drifting off-topic too much and have begun debating issues that are far different in scope. You can reply if you wish but perhaps we can do so in another thread.

[Whispering 18,865]

6 hours ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

but...but...where was this comment when Bernie was repeatedly called ****TARD, son of a bitch, filth, idiot etc?

You can't teach people to not be immature over the Internet, I guess.

 

The same place it was when Hillary has been called a Bitch and other names for months now. A call for dialing back the namecalling should always be a welcomed request in this section of the forum. 

[lego 44,165]

12 minutes ago, Whispering said:

The same place it was when Hillary has been called a Bitch and other names for months now. A call for dialing back the namecalling should always be a welcomed request in this section of the forum. 

 

But you guys did complain about that too.

It's cute how you all jump to support each other here, just to make sure feelings are not hurt. 

The hypocrisy is only caring about name calling from one side as it's demonstrated in this thread. You were all active in that other thread, but all those offensive names somehow went under the radar.  

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

44 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

But you guys did complain about that too.

It's cute how you all jump to support each other here, just to make sure feelings are not hurt. 

The hypocrisy is only caring about name calling from one side as it's demonstrated in this thread. You were all active in that other thread, but all those offensive names somehow went under the radar.  

 

You can name one thread only. One instance does not constitute hypocrisy. That's an exception, especially when the offender (me) ended up apologizing for it towards the end and even edited out the name-calling later on after I had calmed down.

Can you say the same about you and your ilk? I've seen all of the below and more.

I mean honestly this is probably in character for you. You latch on one instance and use it to make sweeping generalizations, much like you do for Hillary, while ignoring the issue lies with yourself.

How petty. It's particularly funny how you feel compelled to make us seem like a coalition. Me + Whispering = All of us... God forbid two people disagree with you in the echo chamber that you surround yourself with. 

It's especially ironic since you are literally incapable of holding a conversation of your own with the only input being "likes" to posts that only disagree with the "coalition" and the occasional shade. Trying not to get your own feelings hurt when presented with facts is rough for you I suppose.

@Whispering Don't bother with that one. You're more than likely to get reported than a proper response when interacting with him. 

[lego 44,165]

When people say you're on their ignore list, tho they can't help themselves but check your posts and even quote to reply.

*pretending to care what someone on pop forum thinks about me* :'( 

 

The name calling was not only in the first post of the particular thread, but repeated and defended few pages later.

 

How petty to care about who LIKES which post, maybe the other side has better arguments and presents them in less delusional way, without resorting to writing essays, boring repetition and calling comrades to help you out. 

 

Anyway, this is all off topic. It was nice to notice the obvious hipocrisy tho.  

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

20 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

When people say you're on their ignore list, tho they can't help themselves but check your posts and even quote to reply.

 

*pretending to care what someone on pop forum thinks about me* :'( 

 

The name calling was not only in the first post of the particular thread, but repeated and defended few pages later.

 

How petty to care about who LIKES which post, maybe the other side has better arguments and presents them in less delusional way, without resorting to writing essays, boring repetition and calling comrades to help you out. 

 

Anyway, this is all off topic. It was nice to notice the obvious hipocrisy tho.  

 

Is it so difficult to address me directly? Do I intimidate you that much? 

I removed some people from my ignore list because I figured it's best to tackle this and do what I can rather than ignore the problem. 

Again and again? It was literally repeated once in another post when I was discussing the matter with a particular poster who then convinced me that I should not stoop to your level and use name-calling. I agreed. Why are you fixating on this instance though? Are you reveling in the fact that you have one instance to justify yourself? You can't even name a single other instance can you?

I don't care what posts you like. It's just interesting that you surround yourself in an echo chamber. You think it's not interesting that you are always relying on affirmation bias? You have never once engaged in a prolonged debate, act as a lurker, and only place your input in threads to maintain that bias. If you don't have it, you've never shown it. 

Whatever. I'll stop here before you report me for offending your delicate sensibilities. 

Edit: Oh God he reported me already. 

[lego 44,165]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You have never once engaged in a prolonged debate,

 

You've been a member since end of 2015, how the **** would you know? You don't know anything about me.

The fact that I'm ignoring people like you, means only that I value MY time.

I didn't quote you before, because I don't want you in my mentions and unlike you I'm not pretending to have someone on ignore while checking up what they wrote (this is not the first time).

It's not my fault you break the rules and resort to personal jabs every time you don't like someone or get into heated argument. 

Keep your word for once and stop right there, as you said. 

 

 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

  

[lego 44,165]

oh I love all the late EDITS. 

"ageist and ableist" after calling someone ****TARD and saying he has dementia and belongs to an institution because of his old age. 

Keep them coming.

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, YourSweet666 said:

oh I love all the late EDITS. 

"ageist and ableist" after calling someone ****TARD and saying he has dementia and belongs to an institution because of his old age. 

Keep them coming.

 

I thought we were stopping? Do you have no restraint  Just quote me directly man.

Look at my signature. I'm a serial editor  My original post was "Thanks for all the laughs" but then I was like...****..i got checkmate. I didn't expect you to come out and quote me when I was about to leave, but I suppose you did that because you came out of your hiding hole so good job on that tbh. It's why I liked your post. Such manipulation  

When did I even say ageist and ableist (is that even a word?).

You're still pressed about ****tard? Let it go honey. That other comment was literally in the same post. Why are you still quoting the exact some post which I have already admitted to being out of line and edited after my rage was soothed by friendly posters?  

Do you have no other ammo in your arsenal?  

No wonder you're talking to me now. You finally had a fact against me and can't wait to use it  

[lego 44,165]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

When did I even say ageist and ableist (is that even a word?).

are you even reading what you post?

is that even a word, lol

ask Whispering. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

thought we were stopping? Do you have no restraint  Just quote me directly man.

You were told before that I'm not a man, but you keep calling me he/him/man. That's interesting.

It was you who said "I'll stop here" and then proceeded to edit all your previous posts to add more. lol

Don't tell me what to do, you're not my boss. 

I'll do whatever I want. 

 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

are you even reading what you post?

is that even a word, lol

ask Whispering. 

You were told before that I'm not a man, but you keep calling me he/him/man. That's interesting.

It was you who said "I'll stop here" and then proceeded to edit all your previous posts to add more. lol

Don't tell me what to do, you're not my boss. 

I'll do whatever I want. 

 

 

 I was referring to things I've read in general. You have qualms with that?

Why not attempt to refute those points rather than justify their usage based on one situation where I may have as if that's any justification?

I don't remember your gender. I'm sorry if I don't keep a dossier. Sorry about that.

And I'm not telling you what to do. I'm telling you to refrain talking about me in third person as if you intend to shade me when it's clear you are talking about me. Just quote me. Don't hide. If you say something to someone you own it.

In any case let's stop. I'm compelled to reply to someone if they say something that irritates me especially when it's personal, so unless you wanna tango all night, I'm asking you to stop.