2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI think Sanders easily had far and away the best line of the night.
Lets not insult the intelligence of the American people. People arent dumb. Why in Gods name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it; they want to throw money around,That was a thing of beauty, it was.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)It was indeed a beauty. God this man excites me like no politician ever has.
dchill
(38,532 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They refuse to come to terms with the truth. I know not one person who is voting for Hillary. They are ALL Bernie supporters. No one trusts her.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Thanks for the thread, WarrenDeMontague.
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)..she can't hide from the issue of the speaking fees and the cozy relationship with Wall Street. Most people won't fall for that crap Chris Matthews was spewing about her taking their money the night before and turning on them the next day.
It's still the rigged economy, people!!
Response to tokenlib (Reply #5)
Unknown Beatle This message was self-deleted by its author.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)disingenuous: not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere : lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating
That fits Hillary to a T.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)That in my opinion insulted the intelligence of voters.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511207506
It also ignored his own votes to deregulate derivatives and benefits to other corporate industries, like immunity for the gun industry and as much as $1.3 trillion for Lockheed-Martin for the F-35, as well as his own fundraising from those same banks. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html
So yeah, the line was a good one. No one can deny Sanders skill at turning a slogan. The problem
is the lines don't hold up so well under examination of his record.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)But keep on trying,
It will exercise the futility and clearly it keeps you amused.
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)Here's how Sanders came to support Bill Clinton's Commodity Futures Modernization Act (the deregulation of derivatives)...
According to the (NOT particularly pro-Sanders) article at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-wall-street_5617f634e4b0dbb8000e5a58
The version Sanders voted for passed the House 377 to 4 in October of 2000. It did not include the really bad provisions. Those were later added by Phil Gramm in coordination with the Clinton administration. The revised version was made part of a "must pass" bill (the kind of bill that must be passed to avoid shutting down the government).
...
In October 2000, the bill passed the House by a vote of 377 to 4 (51 members didn't vote), and then sat on the shelf for weeks.
But in December, Gramm -- after coordinating with top Clinton administration officials -- added much harder-edged deregulatory language to the bill, then attached the entire package to a must-pass 11,000-page bill funding the entire federal government. After Gramm's workshopping, the legislation included new language saying the federal government "shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, a covered swap agreement offered, entered into, or provided by a bank." That ended all government oversight of derivatives purchased or traded by banks. He also created the so-called "Enron Loophole," which barred federal oversight of energy trading on electronic platforms.
This was an era in which voting against funding the federal government was considered a major governance faux pas. The bill sailed through both chambers of Congress
...
Sanders has since hammered the CFMA, its architects and specific provisions in Senate hearings and on the Senate floor. He helped push through legislation to close the Enron loophole in 2008.
Ironic that Hillary brought this up, accusing him of helping to crash the economy by stupidly voting for the bill President Clinton signed. Yeah, no way that could backfire...
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)He was fundraising for the Democratic party. Hillary was fundraising for herself.
Ironically, people here were only recently criticizing Bernie for not raising funds for the party. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Also, these were group fundraisers. Goldman Sachs being one of many groups in attendance at a party fundraiser is not quite the same as being personally paid to speak at Goldman Sachs at their request. I guess Bernie should have said, "I'm glad to speak to this room full of donors, but I must ask everyone from Goldman Sachs to leave"?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)not being spoken down to from lofty golden heights.