Sanders Pulls Nearly Even With Clinton in New Poll

[Midnight Rain]

For those that have said that Sanders is the weaker candidate and that they cant' believe his fairy tails here is what I say.

First he hasn't changed his position in decades. He has actively fought towards them. He has made real reform in his home state. I assume he will continue to do exactly what he has done for the last 20 years. If thats all he does then I will be far happier with him being president.

If you want to know what a candidate will do look at their actual voting history and look at who pays them. That will ALWAYS tell you what kind of candidate they are. I urge you to look at Sanders voting record and his political funding.

 

[LuisDantas]

How much of a risk do you see of Sanders wanting to make real reform nationally but being blocked by Congress?

 

[esmith]

Interesting article;
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/what-are-voters-looking-2016-presidential-candidates-n490706

Maybe this is why voters like Sanders over Hillary
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...concerned-about-clinton-campaign-506198595843

 

[metis]

I don't buy the old media stereotype.
I've read enuf about his administration to know that he was a strong leader.
And unlike Obama, he didn't need teleprompters to know what to say.

Except he said one thing and often did the opposite. I remember one conservative economist blowing his stack, saying that Reagan talked conservative but spent money "like a drunken sailor". But most people, especially Republicans, seemed to focus mostly on his words and not on his actions, but I gave him credit for being a really good orator.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except he said one thing and often did the opposite. I remember one conservative economist blowing his stack, saying that Reagan talked conservative but spent money "like a drunken sailor". But most people, especially Republicans, seemed to focus mostly on his words and not on his actions, but I gave him credit for being a really good orator.

Well, I don't entirely disagree.
I voted against him....twice.
Still, I see more merit in him than his foes attribute to him.

 

[metis]

And Obama has horribly mishandled what authority he has regarding
our economy.

And you seriously believe this? Exactly, what has he done or not done that supposedly led you to this conclusion, and please be specific?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

For those that have said that Sanders is the weaker candidate and that they cant' believe his fairy tails here is what I say.

First he hasn't changed his position in decades. He has actively fought towards them. He has made real reform in his home state. I assume he will continue to do exactly what he has done for the last 20 years. If thats all he does then I will be far happier with him being president.

If you want to know what a candidate will do look at their actual voting history and look at who pays them. That will ALWAYS tell you what kind of candidate they are. I urge you to look at Sanders voting record and his political funding.

I doubt anyone is questioning whether Sanders is a consistent, principled man who strongly believes in equality and improving his country.

The trouble is whether any of his ideas can be converted into reality, how could he actually pass laws through Congress, do Democrat congressmen even like him? And a Republican-controlled Congress just sounds like a nightmare for a President Sanders.

 

[metis]

Well, I don't entirely disagree.
I voted against him....twice.
Still, I see more merit in him than his foes attribute to him.

Such as...?

I always had mixed feelings towards him, but the reality is his "strength" was mostly illusional and more due to his talking ability.

 

[Revoltingest]

And you seriously believe this?

And you seriously believe otherwise?

Exactly, what has he done or not done that supposedly led you to this conclusion, and please be specific?

Again?
I've covered this so many times before.
A few problems under his reign I remember.....
- His troubled mortgage assistance program made those with real trouble ineligible, thereby hurting both the homeowners & their lenders.
- Ramped up lending regulation in a way which prevented borrowers from solving problems, without actually increasing financial stability.
- Fannie & Freddie continued their refusal to renegotiate troubled loans.
- The fed applied pressure on banks (Citizens, Charter One, RBS) to foreclose upon troubled borrowers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Such as...?
I always had mixed feelings towards him, but the reality is his "strength" was mostly illusional and more due to his talking ability.

That's the typical Democratic stereotype which your type so readily buys.
But I saw an evolving view of the world, & how to address it.
To learn & effectively adapt shows intelligence.

He started out expanding the cold war.
SDI became an ineffective boondoggle, but he effectively used it as a bargaining chip with the Soviets.
When Gorbachev assumed power, Reagan switched to negotiation.

And best of all, Reagan wasn't a lawyer.

What evidence do you offer that he was either weak or dim?

 

[metis]

And you seriously believe otherwise?

Again?
I've covered this so many times before.
A few problems under his reign I remember.....
- His troubled mortgage assistance program made those with real trouble ineligible, thereby hurting both the homeowners & their lenders.
- Ramped up lending regulation in a way which prevented borrowers from solving problems, without actually increasing financial stability.
- Fannie & Freddie continued their refusal to renegotiate troubled loans.
- The fed applied pressure on banks (Citizens, Charter One, RBS) to foreclose upon troubled borrowers.

So, you say that all of these are directly attributable to Obama. right? And of course none of this should ever be blamed on the Republicans that Obama had to work with but who didn't cooperate at all, right? So, you believe that Obama should have just waved his magic wand and solved these problems, right?

The banking system was a total mess for a variety of reasons, but the number one objective was to stop the "freefall", which, along with Paulson, Bernanke, and even Bush, was accomplished, even though it took a while. Then, the objective was to have the banks recover to get back into the groove of lending and investing, which did happen under his watch but also which took some illegal actions of the feds part because to not take those actions could have been catastrophic.

Did he and they do the right thing? Depends on how one might look at it. Did it work? Absolutely. Did it "taste good"? I'm still spitting. Are we better off now than before? Yes, but...

Did regulations or over-regulation cause this? That's illogical, as Greenspan testified and Bernanke has also stated. Did Freddie and Fannie mostly cause this? Only to those at Fox "News" and right-wing radio and blogs. Were the borrowers treated fairly? There were attempts to do so by the administration but there were all sorts of hurdles along the way.

There's all sorts of coulda-shoulda-woulda scenarios matched with Monday-morning quarterbacking, but we were in a jam, and Bernanke and Obama very much cooperated to perform an economic miracle of sorts, and the proof of that pudding is just how much better we're doing in this recovery than the Europeans and the Pacific-Rim countries.

Gotta go, but you get my drift anyway, so there!

 

[Revoltingest]

So, you say that all of these are directly attributable to Obama. right? And of course none of this should ever be blamed on the Republicans that Obama had to work with but who didn't cooperate at all, right? So, you believe that Obama should have just waved his magic wand and solved these problems, right?

Did I say that?
But the guy in charge either directs or allows that which is within his control.

The banking system was a total mess for a variety of reasons, but the number one objective was to stop the "freefall", which, along with Paulson, Bernanke, and even Bush, was accomplished, even though it took a while. Then, the objective was to have the banks recover to get back into the groove of lending and investing, which did happen under his watch but also which took some illegal actions of the feds part because to not take those actions could have been catastrophic.

I fault Bush even more in the approach to dealing with lender failures.
It isn't the larger objective of avoiding the crash which I criticize here.
It's about how they tried.
I must run, so I'll over-simplify it by saying it should've been about the litttle folk, & not the large Wall St campaign donators.
Surely, you must agree with my criticism of crony capitalism corrupting both government & business?

 

[Midnight Rain]

I doubt anyone is questioning whether Sanders is a consistent, principled man who strongly believes in equality and improving his country.

The trouble is whether any of his ideas can be converted into reality, how could he actually pass laws through Congress, do Democrat congressmen even like him? And a Republican-controlled Congress just sounds like a nightmare for a President Sanders.

Executive orders and actions. He has the ability to end money in politics, enforce laws and prosecute CEO's of wallstreet. He can pick Justices for the Supreme court.

I doubt he can get everything through. I really doubt that any person can get any of their ideas totally through congress. But he can make a meaningful difference that Hillary simply will not. Hillary isn't going to fair any better at making this nation better than Sanders will. But she stands quite a bit to make it worse or at least the same track we've been riding for the last two decades.

 

[metis]

That's the typical Democratic stereotype which your type so readily buys.
But I saw an evolving view of the world, & how to address it.
To learn & effectively adapt shows intelligence.

He started out expanding the cold war.
SDI became an ineffective boondoggle, but he effectively used it as a bargaining chip with the Soviets.
When Gorbachev assumed power, Reagan switched to negotiation.

And best of all, Reagan wasn't a lawyer.

What evidence do you offer that he was either weak or dim?

The Soviets were on their way down anyhow because of their shoddy economic programs, but his cooperation with Solidarity and the Pope undoubtedly sped up that process.

If you think I've stereotyped Reagan, I find that to be both disgusting and blatantly dishonest. As I previously said, I had mixed feelings about him, so maybe you should look up the word "mixed".

Also, his second term was pretty much a disaster, and some forget his approval rating had sharply plummeted. But I do agree that he was flexible.

 

[metis]

Did I say that?
But the guy in charge either directs or allows that which is within his control.

Nonsense, that's not how our system works, and you should know that. The president and the fed only have limited powers, and even those powers are often mitigated by what's happening on the ground.

Surely, you must agree with my criticism of crony capitalism corrupting both government & business?

Agree.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Executive orders and actions.

*shudders* We bow before thee o great Bernard

 

[Midnight Rain]

*shudders* We bow before thee o great Bernard

I don't fully understand the comment here. Are you under the assumption that other leaders have not used them?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I don't fully understand the comment here. Are you under the assumption that other leaders have not used them?

First off, executive orders are limited, they aren't really going to be a principal vehicle for change. And secondly I'm just generally uncomfortable with the whole concept of executive orders to begin with, I don't think one man should really have that power, and if they did it should be used sparingly and only when necessary. I am well aware that previous Presidents (and the current one) have used it.

 

[Midnight Rain]

First off, executive orders are limited, they aren't really going to be a principal vehicle for change. And secondly I'm just generally uncomfortable with the whole concept of executive orders to begin with, I don't think one man should really have that power, and if they did it should be used sparingly and only when necessary. I am well aware that previous Presidents (and the current one) have used it.

Indeed.

A good example of how he would use the executive power or orders would be to make sure the laws were enforced. A huge talking point of both Bernie and Warren (who is my golden girl) is that the people in charge of ruining the economy and creating the current income inequality are untouchable by laws. They rip off the American people and do illegal business practices, eh slap on the wrist. Or better yet a raise and a bonus. The president can create an executive action that these unenforced laws suddenly be enforced. It means people are going to be arrested and taken to jail and actually put on trial. that is a huge vehicle for change and it doesn't overstep his bounds at all. The only thing he would do is stop turning a blind eye to people with deep pockets.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Indeed.

A good example of how he would use the executive power or orders would be to make sure the laws were enforced. A huge talking point of both Bernie and Warren (who is my golden girl) is that the people in charge of ruining the economy and creating the current income inequality are untouchable by laws. They rip off the American people and do illegal business practices, eh slap on the wrist. Or better yet a raise and a bonus. The president can create an executive action that these unenforced laws suddenly be enforced. It means people are going to be arrested and taken to jail and actually put on trial. that is a huge vehicle for change and it doesn't overstep his bounds at all. The only thing he would do is stop turning a blind eye to people with deep pockets.

I think the problem with financial issues is that often they engage in questionable practices rather than downright illegal practices, and even if they do engage in illegal practices actually proving it and getting a conviction are exceedingly difficult. If laws aren't being enforced already, it's less the law enforcement agencies are in Big Money's back-pocket than it's just exceedingly expensive and time-consuming to take these people to court when it's very difficult to prove and often will just go over the jurors' heads anyway.