A basic difference between Bernie and Hillary. And why an asset made him look bad in interview.

[Armstead]

Because of the brouhaha over Bernie's interview on financial reform, I decided to look up Clinton's plans for comparison.

I looked on her website, in addition to the comments I have heard her say elsewhere.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

My overwhelming impression is that yes she has hired some experts to write up some fine sounding legalise to dress it up.

Maybe Bernie should hire a few people to write him some fancy sounding answers.

But in effect, Clinton says in many words what Sanders says in a few ones.

And Clinton has just as many generalities as she claims Sanders makes -- just gussied up a little. And as many things that would require Congressional approval, or other changes within existing frameworks.

She isn't really more specific about details of how to accomplish it than Bernie when you remove the fancy wrapping.

I'm not going to cut and paste it all. You can read it yourself. But here are a couple of examples.

Impose a tax on high-frequency trading. The growth of high-frequency trading has unnecessarily placed stress on our markets, created instability, and enabled unfair and abusive trading strategies. Hillary would impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading and reform rules to make our stock markets fairer, more open, and transparent.

Sanders proposed that, with an added larger moral and systemic context, instead of her mass-produced bloodlessness.

Prosecuting individuals when they break the law. Hillary would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting major financial frauds, enhance whistleblower rewards, and provide the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission more resources to prosecute wrongdoing.

Bernie? Check. Same thing in plain English.

It goes on like that.

But in terms of grasp of the issues...Well maybe Sanders ought to emulate Clinton and become better at saying say things like "This is a very serious issue that requires further study and full discussion of options to develop a consensus to proceed..." instead of "I honestly can't give you a specific answer at this point"

But that honest directness is one of his strengths. And what is important is that Sanders is actively proposing reform with clear current moral imperative of why it is important in a larger context.

he cares about the systemic distortions and abusive behavior and economic policy that have becen embedded into out system. And he actually cares about reforming it.

With Clinton it looks like just another laundry list of what are poll tested marketing points. telling voters what she thinks they want to hear.

[geek tragedy]

1. Here's the difference: Clinton knows those details herself

the politicking isn't her passion, the nitty-gritty policymaking is.

the reason you've never seen her give an interview like that is that she knows her shit forwards, backwards, and inside-out.

She obviously had very smart people who are experts in the field help her out.

But there's nothing in there she doesn't understand.

She'll get tripped up when she's trying to make a political calculation, but she'd never, ever, ever give a fumbling answer like he did on the peace negotiations in Colombia, or about the Met Life decision, or who has the authority under Dodd Frank to break up SISIs.

[Armstead]

3. You ever seen Bernie in a calmer non-campaign environment? He knows his shit too

And if you read about him as mayor, he obviously is a complete wonk who knows how to use policy to get things done as a government CEO....

[geek tragedy]

8. he keeps on giving "I haven't looked into that" answers

in interviews to questions that he should have expected.

he's been getting a lot of heat over TBTF, but check this answer out from the same interview on Israel/Palestine:

Daily News: I was talking about something different, though. Expanding settlements is one thing; coming into office as a President who said as a baseline that you want Israel to pull back settlements, that changes the dynamic in the negotiations, and I’m wondering how far and what you want Israel to do in terms of pulling back.

Sanders: Well, again, you’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer. But I think if the expansion was illegal, moving into territory that was not their territory, I think withdrawal from those territories is appropriate.

He may be a wonk on the Hill, but he gives the very distinct impression that he hasn't thought through all of his own positions.

You think Hillary answers, "if I had a cheat sheet in front of me, I could give you a better answer?"

Israel and war crimes


Daily News: Do you support the Palestinian leadership’s attempt to use the International Criminal Court to litigate some of these issues to establish that, in their view, Israel had committed essentially war crimes?

Sanders: No.

Daily News: Why not?

Sanders: Why not?

Daily News: Why not, why it…

Sanders: Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world? I’m just telling you that I happen to believe…

He can't answer the question as to why he holds a position.

The subway question was stupid bullshit. But some of these are not good.

Compare that to how Clinton handled the Benghazi committee.

[Armstead]

41. I'm not going to defend Bernie's impatience

Sometimes, he gets testy.

Although I'm easy going I can understand why he does that though. It has to do with big picture small picture stuff. And trying to summarize both the larger context and how a specific fits into it gets frustrating, because many things relate to otehr things.

The talk he uses in the campaign is shorthand for goals, biog picture . The intricacies of the financial system and related regulations is very complex. And he is a big picture guy.

But he's one who is smart enough to hire or collaborate with experts in specific subjects who can shepherd through his goals.That's what he successfully did as mayor in Burlington, and that's what he'd do as President on a larger scale.

So his goal is to -- rather then use the term break up -- I'd say restore a more competitive and broadly based banking environment in which there are more smaller players instead of being concentrated into a handful of huge abusive monopolies.

He has a sense of how, but he would have to hire/collaborate on the mechanics, which would be a combination of using existing laws and enforcement powers more agtgreesively as well as pushing for new laws to accomplish that.

You may disagree with that goal. But I am certain he is smart enough both to understand the factors of an issue he has been working on for two decades -- and also smart enough to bring in people who know all of the minuate to put those goals into practice.

[geek tragedy]

44. no one doubts that he's a big picture guy

but a President has to make a bewildering number of decisions during a day.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama

"You'll see I wear only gray or blue suits," [Obama] said. "I'm trying to pare down decisions. I don't want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make."

And of course presidents would depend on their staff and advisors for all of this.

But, who's Bernie going to appoint? Tad Devine doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.

And this is where the 'establishment' figures in.

Virtually everybody who's anybody with the relevant executive branch experience is going to have ties to (1) the Obama and Clinton administrations and/or (2) the private sector, which usually means really big and evil companies. Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce departments will need people who know the current issues backwards and forwards, and who know how to run the federal government.

You can find a few here and there from think tanks and university faculties, but not enough to run a government.

His values are absolutely in the right place. But values aren't self-executing.

What would happen when his economists tell him the numbers don't add up for something he wants to do--find a different plan or find new economists?

[Armstead]

45. The same questions can be asked about Clinton's inner circle

But I'll also repeat my mantra. If you want an example of how he wold govern look to his experience in Burlington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/bernies-burlington-what-k_b_7510704.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/us/politics/as-mayor-bernie-sanders-was-more-pragmatic-than-socialist.html


http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/01/bernie_sanders_made_burlington_s_land_trust_possible_it_s_still_an_innovative.html

[uponit7771]

13. I disagree, this is about the third different subject where he out and out doesn't give a damn about

... either answering the question or figuring out a solution

Foreign policy
"revolution" and its mechanics
braking up the backs.

No doubt a pattern there

[Armstead]

4. P.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511654514

[geek tragedy]

9. are you familiar with how the Senate works?

Deferring to the senior Senator from the state who's also on that committee is something that's completely unsurprising.

they all typically have their own niches and will rely on colleagues on questions in whose niche something falls.

[Armstead]

46. It indicates she did not really have a fire in her belly on financial reform, except where...

political expediency was involved, especially as she moved to a run for president.

[HumanityExperiment]

5. "But there's nothing in there she doesn't understand"...

Yeah, HRC 'knows' who to get into the pocket of... she has that locked down and it's well documented...

take fracking for instance, which will be a bigger issue with NY primary

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/09/hillary-clinton-wants-to-regulate-fracking-but-still-accepts-a-lot-of-fracking-money/

HRC is in the pocket of fossil fuel special interests

with NY in the cross hairs... HRC will have a tough time...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-ban-fracking-in-new-york-state-citing-health-risks.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-climate-change.html?_r=0

You hammer HRC on this and she's toast

[uponit7771]

12. That's right, she's not only down in the weeds she understands the soil... she's on top of topics

[geek tragedy]

14. can you imagine her walking into a NEW YORK paper, and whiffing

on multiple questions on Israel/Palestine?

[Skwmom]

22. Hillary knows the questions and rattles off something prepared by her staff.

Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

[geek tragedy]

24. you know absoultely nothing about her except your own hate. bye. nt

[riderinthestorm]

30. The guy who owns that paper is a Hillary supporter. I'm sure she'd have the ?? ahead nt

[geek tragedy]

31. that day's cover was "Don't be a Bum, Hil"

The NYDN has not played it soft with her.

[Skwmom]

39. No. I have watched too many debates not to notice the obvious.

[amborin]

26. LOL! You missed the whole point: HRC Doesn't WANT to break up the banks or rein them in! putative

knowledge that she possesses isn't worth squat, since she is fine with the status quo

[daleanime]

2. K&R.....

[basselope]

6. I don't think this "Bruhahaha" is actually going to influence a single voter.

People are so much starter than Clinton gives them credit for.

This is why her gun legislation attack has failed so miserably in the past. People would rather Bernie give an HONEST answer, even if it is not the one they want to hear, than have someone pander to him.

What he said in the interview is that breaking up the banks is a very complex process and requires many steps. It is a goal he wants to work towards.

What they are trying to do is turn that answer into "He doesn't know how".

Her argument reminds me very VERY much of the few republicans who believe in Climate Change. They say... yeah, its happening and yeah, we probably caused it, BUT.. we don't really know how to fix it, so why bother.

[Armstead]

7. I hope you are correct

But the older I get the more I come to believe that PT Barnum was correct

[basselope]

11. Oh, he absolutely was correct.. but they are already voting for Hillary or a republican.

So, look at it this way.

4 Million babies born in the US each year. There are 525600 minutes per year. So roughly 1/8th of those babies will grow up to be suckers.

Let's focus on the 3.5 million who are not

[uponit7771]

15. Doesn't have to, just affirms that he's full of shit... I expect less of Sanders if he wins the whit

... white house knowing he's about as full of shit as everyone else just in a different way.

[basselope]

17. I don't think you understand what the term "full of shit" actually means.

[uponit7771]

20. I listen to Sanders double speak and avoid answering with any topical details and I get a

... pretty good picture

[basselope]

23. As I said, i don't think you understand your terms.

Please identify the "double speak" and question he "avoided answering" and what "details" are missing.

[uponit7771]

25. double speak = "she ran against him (Obama)", avoid answering = what's the mechanics behind

... "revolution", details missing = "getting doctors, pharam and hospital groups to accept half of what they make now"

Regards

[basselope]

33. So, you definitely don't understand the terms.

"double speak = "she ran against him (Obama)""

How is that "double speak". Clinton was criticizing Bernie for attempting to hold Obama's feet to the fire on campaign promises he made (such as the public option which Obama abandoned). Bernie pointed out that she said MUCH MUCH MUCH worse things about Obama when she ran against him in a primary.

The mechanics behind the revolution are actually quite easy and have been explained MANY times. It's called a GOTV effort and reaching out to people who have lost interest in the political process because they feel left out of it. The 6 million donations he has received is evidence of how it works.

details missing = "getting doctors, pharam and hospital groups to accept half of what they make now"

What detail is missing here. That's exactly how and WHY single payer works better than our current system. It's called a very powerful negotiating tactic in which YOU control the ENTIRE customer base. The problem in the current system is that these entities get to set prices and reap HUGE profits because no one entity has enough power to fight them, since each only only controls a small portion of the market and lacks the leverage to say "no, you are not charging $2875 for a surgeon to be in a room for 1 hour"

However, when EVERY SINGLE CUSTOMER is backed by a single negotiator... we get to have the REAL discussion and say "no, you are going to accept $500 for that.. like it... or lump it." This is how every other major country on earth functions ad wind up with better outcomes from the US.

So.. explain to me again, the "double talk", missing details and what else is "missing" or should I say.. refuse to understand.

[amborin]

29. what a disgusting attack on a noble man! you are the quintessential Hillary supporter spewing bile

[uponit7771]

32. He noble cause the podium bird told you he was? Noble folk wouldn't vote coporations to have immunit

... immunity from anything and have them playing on the same level field as everyone else.

[amborin]

36. such a lame argument you are parroting; it is ludicrous but HRC will try to use anything for power

[uponit7771]

37. Lame = your wingerish sounding context less one liners.

[Zira]

18. +10000

[uponit7771]

10. Nah, it affirms he's full of shit about his "revolution" and doing anything else he's promising.

[basselope]

16. Yes, of course, NOTHING is possible all goals are dreams and DOA.

NO WE CAN'T NO WE CAN'T.

[uponit7771]

19. Sanders might as well say that vs good marketing... Sanders isn't even to start to look "slightly...

... better" he's just the same as everyone else.

[basselope]

21. Again, I don't think you understand the terms you are using.

You have to learn to distinguish between GOALS and process.

One will often have a goal with many steps in the process. You know the goal and you know the general steps in the process, but you don't know the specifics of each, but that doesn't mean you can't achieve the goal.

I "foolishly" once had a goal of becoming and entertainment lawyer (most boring job in the world by the way). But anyway.. I knew the goal and I BASICALLY knew the steps, but if you asked me specifics, I would have had to explain that I wasn't exactly sure.

Sanders gave a very detailed and complex answer to the question about requiring BOTH the legislative and fed to get involved to get this done. Then asked does the fed have the power. ON its own... it's actually questionable.. they MIGHT but the courts might overrule them.

If you asked me to today how to become an entertainment lawyer, as so many people who still want to seek that job do.. I would give you the same advice I have been giving for years. First, obviously graduate from law school. Second, let's assume you DON'T have a relative who is already an entertainment lawyer who can get you a job. Third, sign up for a temp agency as a legal assistant. You will likely get put in a studio working for one of the attorneys as their assistant (yeah, you're going to have to answer phones, get coffee, take dictation, etc..); however, if you impress that person they MIGHT get you in.

So followup question. Are you sure that someone will get hired on as a lawyer after temping as an assistant. Answer: I don't know.

So the goal is to break up the banks, because they NEED to be broken up. Dodd Frank is weak as water legislation that by the time you "using the tools" it is already too late, so we likely need BOTH new legislation AND action from the fed.. but it is POSSIBLE that the fed can take action on its own and try to use the weak tools in Dodd Frank, but no one really knows for sure.

[uponit7771]

28. I know when someone can't answer the question cause they don't know either process or goal...

... could care less about the rest.

Seems Sanders is slack on multiple fronts and confirms what we've thought of him; he's full of shit

I'm not paying attention to your overt attempts at ad homs through condescension.

[basselope]

34. So you failed to read the article.

Sanders actually explained the goal and the process quite well.

The single question that was left hanging is can the fed do this today on its own. The answer is "I don't know". It's called an honest answer.

[Armstead]

35. Good try...You can lead a horse to water but can't make him think

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Thanks!

[wilt the stilt]

38. Total crap

Look at their track records dating back to college. Bernie had no a heivements academically and never went on to expand his intellect in anyway. Hilary excelled at everyevel and finished 3rd in her class at Yale. She went on to work on Watergate and hS had a career of accomplishments. In all honestly heis a minorintellect compared to her.

[Armstead]

40. Your post is total crap

Thanks for the though

[wilt the stilt]

43. Name a single

Quality white paper he has written. A role where he showed an intellectual pursuit. Anything that moved the ball. He has hsd the same bitch for 35 years. I just left a top attorney in the country. I work with brilliant people all the time. I was in a sessipn a couple of weeks ago with the prosecutor of bridgegate, bernie is not in their league. When you around those people and you see bernie you shake your head. He was woefully unprepared. These people are never ever unprepared and that is why they excel intellectually.

[Armstead]

47. Well good for them and good for you

I've been paying attention to Sanders for 20 years. I think he is excellent. You are free to disagree.

[Mnpaul]

42. And yet, all those accomplishments didn't prevent foolish decisions

The guy with "few achievements" seems to get them right, seeing disasters waiting to happen years in advance. Talk is cheap, results matter.