Longknife

Has anyone ever told you you have this wonderful habit of stating absurdly bold claims as fact and then not bothering to reinforce that idea with any evidence whatsoever? I mean you don't even live in the USA, the media is *insanely* biased in favor of Clinton, and yet you consider yourself in a good enough position to deduce that most of her critics surrounding this email scandal are "mostly people that don't like her." You feeling guilty LK? Yes I would be also if I was you. After all you have misread and been wrong about Hilary from day one, you were one of those that made absurd and belligerent comments like " Hilary will NEVER be president, its not possible. Anyone who thinks she may actually be president is utterly uninformed " Try to see it this way "The Clinton administration is inexorably coming like a slow-moving locomotive " Please ****ing quote me when I said Hillary will never be president. **** me man, let's double that down: please quote ANYONE here saying Hillary will never be President, because I'm super curious if your claim has ANY basis whatsoever or if you've completely invented this stance. I distinctly recall saying anyone that thinks she's trustworthy is blind as all hell, I do not recall for the life of me that I said she has no chance. I wish she has no chance, but she's far too much money backing her. Seriously though Bruce, do you pride yourself on being mentally retarded? I'm saying it again: please quote me, because I'm 99% sure you are falsely recollecting things I've said such as "It's obvious as hell Hillary subverted the law" or "you'd have to be blind to think Hillary is trustworthy" and somehow your brain has magically re-aligned this into me thinking she has zero chance of being president...? The only possible chance I ever said something along those lines would've been months ago. I'm seriously very very curious where the HELL you're getting this from. And guilty for what? For sake of argument, let's assume I did say she'll never be president. I should feel guilty for making that claim? I should feel guilty for being wrong? Let me connect the dots in that misfiring brain of yours for you: I believe you are trying to state people should feel guilty for accusing her of wrongdoing. If the point is that people accusing her of wrongdoing should be something we feel guilty about, well one, lol no it's not because hell yes people have a right to demand an investigation and potential trial, and two she has not been absolved of any guilt yet and you are already celebrating and calling it as if the FBI themselves publically announced her innocence and their opinion that we should all buy her a brand new car as an apology. None of that ****ing happened: they interviewed her under shady pretenses (not the FBI itself, but Bill's talk with Loretta is hella shady) and we must wait and see what comes of it. You are quoting an article with blatantly obvious bias, as even the wording they choose is clearly chosen to make the issue seem as non-controversial as possible (example, they call it "a discussion of her email arrangements" instead of a criminal investigation into her email scandal, call it a "voluntary interview" instead of "questioning," and then even PR as to why she won't comment further). Dude, no joke, you seriously worry me sometimes. The post you just wrote? Delusional. No joke, no hyperbole, no exaggeration: your post I'm quoting is 100% delusional. You've somehow convinced yourself that Hillary is hereby innocent and cased closed, that I've stated Hillary has no chance of winning, and what's more you have this childish attitude like you've "won" over Hillary's opponents. Dude it's a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!!! It's THE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If tomorrow there were some breaking story where Bernie smuggled 90% of campaign donations into Putin's Swiss Bank account, damned right me and every other damned American has an interest in seeing that matter investigated, because I want to know and understand the candidates I can vote for, lest I vote for someone I don't actually want. There is no "well hot damn, he's the candidate I stuck my claim in! I better childishly defend him to the death and immediately denounce anyone that dares claim that investigation is warranted" like you seem to think, because that would be childish and arguing in bad faith. This is serious business, and you're treating it like the Dallas Cowboys vs. the San Francisco 49ers. Grow the **** up or shut the **** up and don't bother us with your god awful uneducated opinions about politics. Bruce, for the love of God and for my sanity, please educate yourself for once in your life. It is PAINFUL to read this delusional **** from you and to see you argue politics so childishly. And before you say it: I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you uneducated, I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you childish. I'm saying you and your last ~3 posts make it crystal clear how little influence other's dissenting opinions have on your brain, and how you only seem to consult yourself on matters and even use your own confirmation bias to draw new conclusions completely out of left field, such as "Longknife said Hillary can never win." If the voice in your head told you that, kindly ask that voice to quote me, because I got news for you: Bruce's Mind Voice #2 might be full of it.

Has anyone ever told you you have this wonderful habit of stating absurdly bold claims as fact and then not bothering to reinforce that idea with any evidence whatsoever? I mean you don't even live in the USA, the media is *insanely* biased in favor of Clinton, and yet you consider yourself in a good enough position to deduce that most of her critics surrounding this email scandal are "mostly people that don't like her."

?? Merkel is one of the most respected leaders within many circles of the EU Germany is an excellent example of how a country can recreate and redefine itself despite a troubled past and jingoistic military history Germany was able to assume economic dominance in the EU through hard work and prudent economic views, they didnt have to do it through military means Merkel has made some mistakes but her overall leadership and outcome from that leadership should be recognized, respected and praised. Germany is a one of the core foundations of the EU and the EU is an economic success story considering the nature of the union and the countries involved So to say you think Merkel is worthless you must be saying the EU is worthless? I didn't call Merkel and EU worthless, re-read my post. Merkel and EU are far worse than worthless, they're catastrophically destructive. And yet some idiots keep voting for her. :C

And how so exactly? He put down his helmet, it will be obviously oral abuse, he will be reading poems to her Poems about darkness and crapping out dragons and how his parents "just don't understand!!!1" because they grounded him from X-Box.

Yeeeeah I mean I'm only 27 and I've already grown pretty cautious and on-guard whenever I see someone climbing up on a soap box.

WTF why are people thinking it was rape? He doesn't speak, he doesn't seem to feel, he doesn't seem to think much. He's some sort of zombie abomination now, Cersei just got done basically torturing her, and then Cersei walks out of the room, we IMMEDIATELY hear screams, and you guys discern the guy in big heavy armor with (seemingly) no brain to his name must be raping her rather than torturing her? wat

D&D apparently confirmed 15 episodes "at max" remaining. Honestly that seems a bit low. With that many remaining I wonder if the White Walkers won't win.

GD I see a real inconsistency in this type of statement, help please to understand this Patraeus and Snowden have both been found guilty of certain crimes...this is fact. Hilary has been accused of crimes....why is she associated with them? When the Cosby rape charges were revealed I said he was a disgrace and he was guilty, I said for this type of crime I dont need a jury to pronounce on his guilt ...to me thats just a technicality I was told by several members that in the USA people are not presumed guilty and there must be a legal obligation for them to go to court before we presume guilt So now it seems people give this courtesy to a truly deviant and reprehensible person like Cosby but Hilary we assume she is guilty before she even goes to court .....do you see why I appears hypocritical ? Because only someone completely blind to the situation would truly find themselves devoid of any suspicion that Clinton is guilty. No one is saying arrest her now, no one is saying don't give her a fair trial. What's being said is that why the HELL would anyone vote for someone with such obviously strong claims against them (she's doing a terrible job of denying said claims) and what's more there's concern she will walk away scot-free because of direct ties to the White House itself. Waiting for a fair trial is one thing. Allowing someone to run for President of the United States while a criminal investigation is taking place against that person is downright insanity. If innocent by all means let them run next election, but here we not only have an ongoing investigation that could threaten the presidency or the democratic candidacy (imagine if she were indicted in October or in December, what happens then?), but the entire DNC is highly suspect for leaked documents regarding bias in her favor. FFS there's currently a class-action lawsuit in the works against the DNC itself. "Natural selection" will weed out the democratic party at this rate, but it's absurd we need to rely on that instead of the government itself showing concern over potentially having an indicted official run for office. The issue I have with this post is that you still think everyone should believe she is guilty as if its a irrefutable fact but the reality is many, myself included, people simply dont believe she is guilty And I discussed this with GD and I read an entire article about this and her guilt is not clear Her guilt is VERY clear. She ordered the destruction of data that was the property of the United States Government. That much is not in dispute. When the Secretary of State conducts the business of the United States all communications belong to the United States. She circumvented that by using a private server. I will make no judgement on her motivations for doing that. She did it, we can all agree on that. Then when it was discovered and that server was subpoenaed she destroyed the data on it before turning them over. She is guilty of that. Now here is the thing... WHY did she destroy it? What did she want to hide? The FBI might know but the AG & DOJ (both controlled by HER political party) seem to be disinclined to do anything about it. And that's where we are. That she did something wrong is not in dispute. It's the level of culpability and the magnitude of the wrong we are speculating about. And while we are speculating it is interesting to note that the Clinton Foundation, a charity well known to not be on the up and up with the IRS (which is ALSO controlled by her political party) received millions of dollars in donations from people representing foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept during her tenure as SecState. Now this may be just a coincidence (and I may be the next Pope). But it does pose some questions about all those e-mails she didn't want Congress to see doesn't it? Just wanna interject and state that depending on the workings of the laws in play, the data Clinton hosted on her private server could basically be viewed as government "property," thus moving it to another server is akin to theft and destroying it is akin to damaging someone else's property. I can't say for certain that this is how it works in the US legal system, but merely wanted to toss that out there to state that sometimes the inner workings of the law demand far more serious treatments and charges of certain acts, and considering we're talking about highly classified information, I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly how this'll be handled. Also: add the DNC to the list of shady business. Her Secretary of State run was shady, the Clinton Foundation is shady, and the DNC is shady and currently has a class-action lawsuit against it because those recently leaked documents suggest the DNC itself was actively showing bias towards Clinton and trying to get her elected. What's more, Clinton has not held a press conference in over 200 days. This is absolutely unprecedented for someone that's running for president. She has refused EVERY opportunity for the press to ask her questions without some degree of pre-rehearsal. Honestly, I stand by my statement 100%: only someone completely blind to the situation would trust Hillary Clinton. She has not done a single trustworthy act or managed to avoid a conflict for more than six seconds at any given time. It's absolutely outrageous.

Just some sleuthing I did to help answer some of the oddities of the episode last night that I thought I'd share: Why was Pycelle stabbed to death? He would've died in the explosion all the same, so why expend the effort? Turns out that scene was a sort of reference to the book. Something similar happens to Kevan Lannister in the books, and for whatever reason they wanted to mimic that. Still weird, still wonky, but at least we know the method to the madness. Why is Magaery's death so abnormal? She didn't screw up at all, and yet she's dead. Turns out Natalie Dormer requested it lololololol. Check this: So yeah, that's why. Kinda lame, but again at least now we know why the show said "SCREW IT kill her anyways."

My ONLY complaints: 1) Margaery got cheated. Nothing against her dying, but whereas other characters die to personal failures, Margaery died due to wrong place, wrong time. Feels unsatisfying to see a character not screw up whatsoever and yet they're just poof gone. 2) Dear god the pacing got really ugly in some spots, though it's partially understandable why that had to happen because the Sept of Baelor event triggered lots of other scenes. Varys for example, in one episode, traveled from Mereen to Dorne and back to Mereen again. Understandable, just pretty weird at times.

"Hey guys, we basically just confirmed a long lived fan theory that Jon is a Targaryen, which helps further fuel the idea he is Azor Ahai. Think this is an important scene to make the climactic hyped up ending??" "Yeah that's great and all, but Dany is on a boat!!! WOW!!! We totally need her hyped up fanfare to play while she has a smug **** look on her face! That'll be the perfect closure for the season! People aren't sick of that at all!" Also Jaime confirmed still best character GET HYPE FOR KINSLAYER:

GD I see a real inconsistency in this type of statement, help please to understand this Patraeus and Snowden have both been found guilty of certain crimes...this is fact. Hilary has been accused of crimes....why is she associated with them? When the Cosby rape charges were revealed I said he was a disgrace and he was guilty, I said for this type of crime I dont need a jury to pronounce on his guilt ...to me thats just a technicality I was told by several members that in the USA people are not presumed guilty and there must be a legal obligation for them to go to court before we presume guilt So now it seems people give this courtesy to a truly deviant and reprehensible person like Cosby but Hilary we assume she is guilty before she even goes to court .....do you see why I appears hypocritical ? Because only someone completely blind to the situation would truly find themselves devoid of any suspicion that Clinton is guilty. No one is saying arrest her now, no one is saying don't give her a fair trial. What's being said is that why the HELL would anyone vote for someone with such obviously strong claims against them (she's doing a terrible job of denying said claims) and what's more there's concern she will walk away scot-free because of direct ties to the White House itself. Waiting for a fair trial is one thing. Allowing someone to run for President of the United States while a criminal investigation is taking place against that person is downright insanity. If innocent by all means let them run next election, but here we not only have an ongoing investigation that could threaten the presidency or the democratic candidacy (imagine if she were indicted in October or in December, what happens then?), but the entire DNC is highly suspect for leaked documents regarding bias in her favor. FFS there's currently a class-action lawsuit in the works against the DNC itself. "Natural selection" will weed out the democratic party at this rate, but it's absurd we need to rely on that instead of the government itself showing concern over potentially having an indicted official run for office.

I feel like making that song country music isn't doing the message any favors...

I'd disagree. He's unlikeable too, for sure, but for example I see news stories today about how his campaign is basically broke and therefore he doesn't stand a chance. Forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't he ALWAYS broke? Wasn't he ALWAYS considered a not-so-serious threat before he began winning the republican primary? The issue is this: Trump isn't well liked, but he still pulled enough of the republican vote to win. Meanwhile Hillary isn't well liked, and her campaign has openly antagonized the Bernie supporters on MULTIPLE occassion. I'm gonna sound elitist again and say that on average, I do not expect Trump supporters to be the most educated on the election. (harsh words but hell yeah it's how I feel) As such, I don't think it's very easy to upset them because they aren't actually paying attention. As such, the voterbase that Trump does have is basically in the bag. Hillary...? Evidence of a fradulent election continues to stack, and I personally don't know any Bernie supporter that will vote for her; every Bernie supporter I know plans to write his name in anyways or just not vote at all. In short, I expect record-low voter turnout, but while I can visualize Republicans reluctantly casting a vote for Trump (I'm sure there's Republicans out there that dislike him but dislike Hillary far more) or some voters being absolutely impervious to any and all slander (warranted or otherwise), Hillary has actively cut her voting pool in half while sharing the same unpopularity as Trump. The Republicans can expect low voter turnout proportional to what the Democrats will have, but overall it's the democratic side that seems to have more reason for voter turnout to be record-low since it's basically low morale after already factoring in that half are outright refusing support. That's not to say Trump has this in the bag, but I would be very, VERY reluctant to claim Hillary's got it in the bag or that her unlikeable factor doesn't matter at all; it hurts her more than Trump's hurts him, in my humble opinion.

She wasn't very likable to begin so where is she getting all these votes? Well remember that C.K. Louis quote in support of Hillary I linked? I clicked it cause usually I expect comedians to actually be critical thinkers (need to think critically to develop a solid joke, not many people seem to get that) and wanted to hear some good insight. Instead all he did was accidently admit his ignorance that Bernie has technically been in politics longer than Clinton (I only say "technically" for those that wish to assert her time as First Lady counts, in which case the two are more or less the same in experience with politics), and I hate to sound elitist here, but I promise you that summarizes a lot of her supporters: Elections have this weird thing where if you don't vote, people condemn you for it and say you're failing your civic duty. As such, some people make it a rule to vote....but not all of them actually dedicate the time towards educating themselves about the election. So what you get is a bunch of mildly educated voters who will take the "safe bet." Hillary is a recognized name in politics and thus people consider her safe simply on that premise. Also, I distinctly recall looking into some forums supporting Hillary a while back, and know what I saw? You'd be amazed at how many people don't really like her at all, but are hoping a vote for her is somehow a vote for Bill Clinton and that he'll get to pull the strings behind the presidency.

Clinton couldn't be more unlikeable if she tried.

I wish I could remember where I saw it (sorry I lack a source. I mean I live in Germany so it's not like I'm gonna have much opportunity to link stuff to American friends or the like to sway opinions of voters), but I also saw a PR response from the DNC. Basically a reporter contacted them wanting a statement in regards to the documents showing clear DNC bias for HRC, and the response back was something akin to "we are certain this is a targeted defamation attack from the russian government in order to lower voter opinion of the DNC for the coming election. Rest assured we are working on investigating the situation to prevent similar scenarios in the future so that we can divert our focus back towards ensuring another Republican presidency is avoided." PR in that it does what PR does: it's vague enough that someone wanting to hear confirmation that it's fake will read that and consider it proof it's fake, but if you read between the lines they never actually acknowledged it as fake. Sure enough, when the guy pressed them for a yes or no saying that didn't answer his question at all in regards to authenticity of the documents, he got no reply back. If that's not confirmation, I dunno what is.

Karstark is that genius Darwin Award-winning mofo that was in the room when Ramsay stabbed Roose and decided "this guy just betrayed and stabbed the brains of the entire operation, as well as his own father. He seems like a sound, level-headed leader. I should pledge my undying loyalty to him."

eyyyy That seem bit failed study. Because data pointed towards Clinton winning over Sanders. Even I was able to predict Clinton most likely taking nomination based on poll and vote data in early March. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85040-us-elections-2016/page-10?do=findComment&comment=1786341 But of course there is always possible that poll data from all polling sources was fraudulent. And that there was country wide conspiracy in Democratic primaries, with thousands of participants. Did you read the study or am I missing something? The study basically asserts that exit poll margin-of-errors were exceeded at record-breaking rates, and what's more, they were almost ALWAYS to Clinton's benefit (the only outlier where Bernie benefits from polls being wrong is Oklahoma), and there's likewise patterns where states with less documentation or paper trails are the ones to see this happen. The whole study basically surmises that for all of this to happen as a pure coincidence without some sort of fradulent efforts taking place, the odds are as they listed: ridiculously, stupidly unlikely. It's a statistician's view on the matter where if you are to take away any claims or things like - for example - the Nevada caucus where people walk out highly suspicious (if not downright outraged and convinced of full fraud), then even when you focus solely on the numbers we have and the likelihood of margins of error being so consistently exceeded and so consistently done so in ways that favor Clinton, then yeah, it still screams "fraud" from the numbers alone.

This is exactly why I'm very jaded with our protagonists and Jaime continues to be my favorite. At least he does some self-reflection and tries to improve. Everyone else is either derp, a complete jerk, or both. I think at this point I'm really more or less just interested in Bran's Story and King's Landing (aka Jaime, Cersei, Margaery). Those are the ones that they seem like they could go any direction, whereas Dany and Jon just herpaderp about but win anyways becuz plot armor.

I just wanna point out Bruce made a completely unsupported claim Bernie is like the Pope and now here we all are discussing the Pope for some reason.

I don't get the praise for the episode. I just don't see the appeal of battle scenes like that. I thought the past battles (Blackwater, Hardhome, the Wall) were all betterr cause they incorporated more tension and also more dialog between characters. Maybe it's just me, but yeah, I don't get the appeal of watching Jon swing a sword for 15 minutes. Also felt like the pacing was really off, AKA with Hardhome there was a sense of "we need to leave NOW," with the Wall it was the growing number of Wildlings overwhelming them and the worry that characters would die as that happens. With this episode...? It starts out with Jon and Co. just royally screwed, and it got to the point I was thinking "at this point Jesus is gonna need to descend from the heavens and use a Kamehameha to save them." Instead we got some horses running at a bunch of guys with spears and just like that the battle is suddenly over within the course of 2 minutes. Wun wun's death, while HIGHLY expected, just felt dumb, cause I mean wtf it was so avoidable. Get him armor. Get him a club. Get him ANYTHING and he'd be a huge battle asset. Instead they're like "nah this is fine" and let him run around half naked until he succumbs to tiny injuries that he accrued over the entirety of the battle. I feel I would've been more satisfied if he had done something big but died in the process. For example let's say he charges through one of the edges of the shield wall, basically running to his death, but due to his sheer size he's still able to break the line, allowing his comrades to escape. Nah, he's gonna die because Jon and his genius army thought sending a naked guy to attack a bee hive was no problemo. I realize resources are an issue, but to me it seems like the effort needed to get Wun Wun SOMETHING would absolutely be worth the time expended. Speaking of fighting half-naked. Ramsay. This guy has, in the past, fought armored knights half naked. This episode. Jon punches him once and he's like "whelp that's it, guess I better lay here and accept my death lol." This is the very same guy who on two seperate occassions, had a knife hidden on him and used it to get a kill. He pulled a fast one on Osha for example, but Jon...? Nah, no tricks, no cunning plan. Just "lol I'm dying lol." Even his death to his dogs felt awkward to me in the sense there's a dozen different ways his death could've been satisfying, and the writers chose the one where Ramsay and Sansa have to dialog a bit to convince the audience this isn't immersion-breaking. Those kinds of convos themselves already take me out of the scene, personally. Top that all off, it was just predictable. We all expected Ramsay to lose, we all expected Wun Wun to die, we all knew Rickon was a goner, we all expected the Vale to save them, etc etc etc. No curveballs, no surprises, just exactly what was expected. For me the best parts of the episode were actually Sansa and Dany. These two saw character development....however bad it may be. I've long harbored a belief that GoT is gonna have a cycle of an ending, where at the end of it all we'll get a "happy" ending, but we'll notice the characters in power are very similar to the ones we had at S1. I expect Sansa to be Cersei's replacement, because Sansa has only ever experienced cruelty and learned from cruel people her whole life. It'd also be poetic in the sense that of all the people Cersei has dealt with, Sansa is the one person she showed sympathy to and the one girl she DOESN'T suspect of replacing her; it'd be fitting that she's paranoid of Margaery but then no, Sansa is her replacement, and Sansa is only where she is now partially thanks to pity shown to her by Cersei. And Dany...? The obvious answer is "the mad queen," and sure enough we saw her back to her old methods, though this time a tad less receptive to her advisors than usual, with the battle cutting Tyrion off mid-conversation. Here's to hoping we someday see that smug bitchy smirk wiped off her face.

LoL. No. Care to explain why? There's multiple articles that discuss the market implications once steps are taken to reduce carbon emissions and how the oil market is not factoring in cost and risk, Not to mention that insurance deals in some select areas could spike; if you have flood insurance near the sea for example. Both articles from news sites and scholarly papers on the subject, and really the issue with finding sources has more to do with there being a massive sum of articles in regards to climate change and the economy on various matters (how to fix both simultaneously, the market failures of carbon emissions, how the economy distracts from climate change, etc). Here's just one for now, I can link more if you need.

The economy will destroy itself, just like it almost did in 07. The rise of the populist right and left is a reaction to global capitalism being stretched to it's limits and on the verge of collapse. I suppose its possible but I dont see any economic data that suggests this? What are you basing this on This year most major stock markets have been on the verge of a crash. In all likelihood we're going to see a similar crash to the one in '07 because we still have the conditions that caused it. Add to that declining real wages, crippling debt for millennials, the flight of employment to third world countries, and the labor surplus brought by the underemployed/unemployed and you've got the conditions for a global market that can no longer sustain itself. Another suspected crash is related to Climate Change, aka eventually people will realize it's not fake, and at that moment the value of oil stock and industry is gonna fluctuate and crash, the oil industry being huge in the global economy.

Relevant. Last I checked, no known President or leader in the history of forever claimed to be an absolute expert in every field. This is why even dictators have advisors that are specialized in those fields and there to provide sound advice and wisdom. And last I checked, Sanders plan to break up the banks was largely a plan of having the Treasury Department comprise a list of which institutions pose an economic threat should they fail, in which case they would be forced to correct themselves over time, though the manner of correction would be up to discussion and negotiation and not something that the banks themselves would have no say in. That seems completely reasonable, completely realistic and completely rational to me. Of course it's not a simple task to achieve and not something achievable overnight, that's why you do it over time and that's why you engage the banks themselves and demand compliance in devising ways to reduce the impact of a single institution while avoiding harm to the dealings of the institution itself as much as possible and without severely damaging the global economy. To continue to press onward status quo only has one outcome: the rich get richer. That *is* dangerous for the global economy. If the poor cannot afford to purchase or deal with the rich, guess what happens to the value of currency itself. We are all tied together, and a market where cash is not in constant flow from one hand to another is an unhealthy market. A market's cash flow works best when money is evenly distributed because it means all parties involved have about equal purchasing power, pricing of products at a reasonable sum as well as the value of currency itself is easily devised, and people are unquestionably capable of receiving the goods they desire. You are basically arguing that because something may be difficult or complex, it must be impossible OR we just shouldn't bother and "admit defeat." We cannot do that, because what you are proposing is more or less procrastination. You are ignoring the growing problem of economic instability and convincing yourself "it's fine." It's not. The day when you and I cannot afford a loaf of bread is the same day that people stop caring how many stacks of cash Bill Gates has because that currency trade has proven too volatile to be worthwhile. The richest 1% will continue to grow wealthier because there is simply more earning power in having money to spend. This is not an issue exclusive to the lower and middle classes; no, that issue would eventually affect the rich as well. You are hearing a mantra of "no it's impossible, keep going" because for the time being the issue hasn't come back around to bite them in the ass yet. If you would like to name a specific issue with some tangible plan that Bernie has named, I'd be happy to hear it. But to claim "I cannot picture it working, therefore it won't" is not an argument. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306?cid=bitly http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0 Just some links, once again I like Sanders but even in the first link the rhetoric is apparent and of course he does have some very reasonable points like the outsourcing of jobs but he says Daily News: Okay. Well, would you name, say, three American corporate giants that are destroying the national fabric? Sanders: JPMorgan Chase, and virtually every other major bank in this country. Let me be very clear, all right? I believe that we can and should move to what Pope Francis calls a moral economy. He quotes the Pope as someone who he feels is a good example of someone to follow. Now dont get me wrong I really like and respect the new Pope. He is the first Pope who seems utterly unconcerned with materialistic things and he rejects opulence But the new Pope also embraces the poorer and impoverished countries in South America and Africa which is good but he thinks there failed or weak economies is a fault of other countries. End of the day the Pope is just a nice person but he bases his views on emotions and not logic Sanders I see as the same. But to be honest after reading those links I am not clear on what benefits Sanders and his supporters think they will get from this break-up? You are basically taking a point where Bernie praised the Pope's morality and named it as an example to us all, then running with that and arguing "if Bernie supports the Pope, then obviously he must be just as ignorant-albeit-well-intentioned as the Pope." No, that's not how this works. I support the current Pope. Everyone I know supports the current Pope, because holy **** he's actually a great person and not a pedophile or an idiot for once. You are making a very broad and bold claim based upon a rather basic admiration for the Pope. You've done nothing but explain a perceived similarity between the two while failing to explain why you harbor that opinion of him.