And that’s what she’s said since the beginning of the campaign, up until now and I don’t think she feels she has to change. For example, she did an interview with Politico recently, and the line of questioning came up about how specific her policies are in her speeches compared to other candidates:
Clinton does get a lot of flack for being overly wonky (interestingly enough it seems that President Bill Clinton surrounded himself with wonks… his wife, his VP), but it seems to her that she think that’s the way to a better country, regardless of whether it inspires or no.
Yeah, but if a centrist wins the nomination and doesn’t get the progressives’ votes, it’s the progressives’ fault, to hear many on this board tell it. If a centrist can’t get progressives’ votes, you know whose fault it is? The centrists’.
you’ve got to be kidding. Did you even read the document. It states clearly that if elected Sanders would
A) Introduce legislation designed to break up the six biggest banks in the US.
B) Reintroduce Glass-Steagall protections into the financial system
C) Plans to tax Wall Street high-speed trading to fund education
What the fuck, how is that and all the other points made not indicating exactly what he would do? Do you want the text of actual legislation he would introduce or what?
Hillary’s list is better than I expected. For example, she pledges to go after individuals as well as corporations when they break the law or put the system at risk. Now that means jailing bankers when they do wrong. But then she says she’ll defend Dodd-Frank in Congress, but the problem is, Dodd-Frank has already been rendered fairly toothless by the current Congress.
I guess the thing is, both Sanders and Clinton look good on opposing Wall Street … on paper. But I just don’t believe Hillary will follow through, because you know, she keeps taking all that Wall Street money. They’re not paying her for nothing.
Any hard questions in that interview? Any push for specifics, or how she would get things done? There’s no comparison to the questions the DN asked Sanders.
Between the DN cite and this one, I see you must be subscribing to her campaign emails. This interview is part of the strategy to make her appear more likeable. Appear being the key word.
Wait seriously?! For A - What legislation? Is it going to be a Bill of Attainder or is there something more specific he’d use to determine the biggest banks? That’s the whole question involved in the Daily News article. How is he going to do this? I mean the “Too Big Too Fail Act” is woefully vague (have you read it? - it’s like 3 pages)
Reintroducing Glass-Steagall is a plan as is a financial transaction tax (which, interestingly enough, Clinton mentioned first… so it isn’t just Clinton ‘taking’ Sanders’ positions ;)) - but is that it? Does he really think that by itself will reign in “Wall Street”?
I guess text of actual legislation may be good ;), but barring that give me some specifics of how you are going to structure your plans.
Well Teddy Roosevelt SOMEHOW managed to break up AT&T by breaking it up into regional companies … I’m betting Bernie can reintroduce regional banking. We’d have Chase South, Chase West, Chase Mountains, Chase Midwest, Chase Northeast, etc. and the same for the five other banks Sanders mentioned.
A Bill of Attainder it would not be, it would not be a criminal prosecution for an act done in the past that once was once legal, but a preventative to prevent future illegality. Sanders has not proposed putting the bankers in jail for past acts … but i’m sure he’d go after them if they pulled shenanigans in the future … as they most certainly will.
I imagine its an attempt to characterize opponents as campaign shills, rather than actually asking important questions. In that way, serious concerns can be brushed aside as merely “campaign talking points”.
Declarations of intent are not plans! You need to actually come up with some comprehensive ideas of how to do things, rather than “we’ll just wing it when we get into office”.
Woo crackpottery in which women are responsible for their own cervical cancer because they aren’t sexually liberated enough (quite ironic considering the cause of most cervical cancer).
It was a long time ago, but it coincides with his current opinions on GMOs and nuclear power rather too well for me to brush it aside.
Yawn Can I characterize discussions of “Wall Street speaking fees” as just using talking points?
I’m fascinated by the attempted hand waving away of Sanders partisans of things by claiming they are just talking points. As if those on the other side can’t claim similar (the meme nickname “BernieBot” came from somewhere).
Of course the “Wall Street speaking fees” are talking points. Campaigns have talking points.
I’m actually actively campaigning for Sanders and other progressive down ballots right now, but I haven’t posted here using any of the scripted talking points. Just curious to see anyone who is doing that for any of the campaigns.
I’m not hand waving. The DN interview and the HRC politico interview are not comparable.