US Election 2016, part II

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

I meant the FBI, yes. But i still think it's quite unlikely, but not entirely unprobable.

 

 

I presume he means that any indictment would be politically blocked. Get the federal prosecutor to decline to prosecute? Say that the emails are inadmissable since they were obtained illegally? Claim any incriminating emails were planted by hackers? I'm sure they could come up with something. You'd kind of hope that even a recommendation to indict would kill off a presidential candidates chances, so maybe something prior to recommending an indictment... There are certainly plenty of people who'd happily spike the investigation for political reasons.

 

In any case, not like Wikileaks has actually released anything yet. Except chemtrails, I hear reliably they're up to their necks in that little attempt to mass medicate the world clandestinely. Why else would Assange spend all his time inside, hmm? Unless he was trying to avoid the chemtrails! Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

 

Who knows? Sometimes we all fall into the trap of thinking that all parties involved are acting upon the objectively most optimal, sound or most rational model and make such decisions thereafter....which in fact doesn't happen so often.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I meant the FBI, yes. But i still think it's quite unlikely, but not entirely unprobable.

 

 

I presume he means that any indictment would be politically blocked. Get the federal prosecutor to decline to prosecute? Say that the emails are inadmissable since they were obtained illegally? Claim any incriminating emails were planted by hackers? I'm sure they could come up with something. You'd kind of hope that even a recommendation to indict would kill off a presidential candidates chances, so maybe something prior to recommending an indictment... There are certainly plenty of people who'd happily spike the investigation for political reasons.

 

In any case, not like Wikileaks has actually released anything yet. Except chemtrails, I hear reliably they're up to their necks in that little attempt to mass medicate the world clandestinely. Why else would Assange spend all his time inside, hmm? Unless he was trying to avoid the chemtrails! Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

 

Who knows? Sometimes we all fall into the trap of thinking that all parties involved are acting upon the objectively most optimal, sound or most rational model and make such decisions thereafter....which in fact doesn't happen so often.

 

Guys please dont think Assange and his Wikileaks actually offer credible evidence that governments act on

 

The USA really doesn't base foreign and domestic policy decisions on what Assange thinks or says, in fact waiting for Assange to " drop " the next Wikileaks bombshell is inconsequential to most people except for people on forums who love conspiracy theories

[Guard Dog]

I've said before the only "crime" Hillary might be guilty of is gross stupidity and negligence. Certainly not qualities desirable in a President. But I'll agree with Mes, if the DOJ was handed rock solid evidence of criminal action there is not doubt in my mind they would either 1) Ignore it if possible, 2) Undermine it internally if it can't be ignored or 3) Coordinate with the Clinton team and blame the whole thing on a "scapegoat" like Huma Abedin. Then after she is indicted they'd likely "suicide" her if she is not willing to be a team player and go to prison.

 

All this may sound a little like a stretch but this is the Clintons were talking about here. They are not paragons of honesty so these are possible scenarios.

[Guard Dog]

Rep Randy Forbes of Virginia has lost a Primary challenge because of his support for TPP (now commonly referred to as Obamatrade apparently... hey it's WND, what do you expect). If Paul Ryan loses his Primary challenge you will all hear me laughing no matter where in the world you are!

 

Forgot the link: http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/obamatrade-cost-gop-congressman-his-job/#!

Edited June 18, 2016 by Guard Dog

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Interesting, but I wonder if this will be a lone event. After all Cruz and Kasich did support it and I believe a good number of elected Republicans do as well. With how politics work in the US I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they'd support the same trade deal but call it something else.

 

I'd wager if Sanders' coup of the bottom of the Democratic Party is successful there will be a lot more representatives opposed to it and other trade deals.

[Guard Dog]

Interesting, but I wonder if this will be a lone event. After all Cruz and Kasich did support it and I believe a good number of elected Republicans do as well. With how politics work in the US I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they'd support the same trade deal but call it something else.

 

I'd wager if Sanders' coup of the bottom of the Democratic Party is successful there will be a lot more representatives opposed to it and other trade deals.

The elected Republicans do favor it because it's a lot of money to business interests but it's unemployment to the rank and file GOP voter. There is an old saying about riding a tiger. It's a lesson the GOP has never learned.

[BruceVC]

 

Interesting, but I wonder if this will be a lone event. After all Cruz and Kasich did support it and I believe a good number of elected Republicans do as well. With how politics work in the US I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they'd support the same trade deal but call it something else.

 

I'd wager if Sanders' coup of the bottom of the Democratic Party is successful there will be a lot more representatives opposed to it and other trade deals.

The elected Republicans do favor it because it's a lot of money to business interests but it's unemployment to the rank and file GOP voter. There is an old saying about riding a tiger. It's a lesson the GOP has never learned.

 

Guys what is the issue with this trade deal from your perspectives?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It's a big **** you to the working class and a massive empowerment of the ruling class.

[Guard Dog]

Guys what is the issue with this trade deal from your perspectives?

 

 

 

1) I don'y like the fact the that the complete text of the agreement is not being made public. The Obama Admin is big on secret laws that "We need to pass so we can see what's in them" to quote Nancy Pelosi. Obama wants (and has received) fast track track process. Thant means no congressional debate, no public reading, etc. What is Barack Obama hiding?

 

2) It expands intellectual property rights in ways that would be easily described as ant-competitive. It would make it impossible to create generic drugs based on formulas made by companies in member nations. There are time limits of exclusivity now, thise time limits would be radically expanded. Plus it would allow patents on non material things. For example a medical procedure could be patented. The biggest problem with healthcare in any country is out of control costs. This will make that problem worse.

 

3) The US has lost close to 70k jobs to Mexico and Canada due NAFTA. That is just two countries over 20 years. TPP involves 12 countries (IIRC) several of whom sport labor conditions that bear little difference from slavery.

 

4) Corporations based in member nations will have equal footing with governments of other member nations. In other words a company based in Australia would have standing to sue the United States government over labor practices that apply only to the US.

[kgambit]

 

Guys what is the issue with this trade deal from your perspectives?

 

 

 

 There are time limits of exclusivity now, thise time limits would be radically expanded.

 

 

I don't think that's entirely correct GD but it's close.  The TPP imposes a 12 year exclusivity period for biologics which is exactly the same as the time exclusivity period passed by the FDA in 2014  (Section 351(k)(7)© of the PHS Act).  For NCEs the TPP exclusivity time period is 5 years - again the same as current FDA limits.  So on the face of it, the TPP exclusivity provisions don't have an increased impact on US Drug prices but they certainly would in developing countries.  Exclusivity periods give the manufacturer exclusive rights to market a drug.

 

The provision in the TPP that does affect prices is the clause that allows pharmaceutical companies to “evergreen” their product patents (which typically run for 20 years); in essence companies can establish small changes to a drug’s use to extend its protection from competition indefinitely.      

 

ODEs (orphan Drugs) are afforded 7 year exclusivity period by Hatchman Wax.  ODEs are used in treating specific rare disorders and have much smaller target markets:  http://www.fitzpatrickcella.com/DB6EDC/assets/files/News/Hatch-Waxman%20Act%20Overview%20lpensabene_dgregory.pdf

 

Another problem is that existing time limits (both exclusivity and patent) are responsible for the exorbitantly high drug prices paid in the US because they generally stifle development of generic alternatives.  The TPP provisions would prevent Congress from taking steps to lower those time limits and reduce domestic prices as the US markets would be bound by the provisions of the TPP making any change a treaty violation.   In 2014 alone, prices for biologics rose 45%. 

 

 

FWIW, Obama's administration has proposed shortening the TPP exclusivity period for biologics to 7 years.  That is still ridiculously long considering the average time to develop biologic similiars and NCE (chemical) generics is approximately one year.  

 

http://www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2014/08/04/19945/FDA-Sets-Policy-for-Granting-New-Biologic-Medicines-Extensive-Market-Exclusivity/

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2015/07/30/118290/pharmaceutical-provisions-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-threaten-drug-access-and-affordability/

 

Here's a good read on the issue of patents on medical procedure: 

 

http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2012/09/08/is-the-ustr-trading-away-doctors-rights-to-freely-perform-medical-procedures/

 

FWIW, I agree with you in general about the TPP.    The pharmaceutical provisions alone are reasons to kill it. 

Edited June 18, 2016 by kgambit

[Wrath of Dagon]

Interesting, but I wonder if this will be a lone event. After all Cruz and Kasich did support it and I believe a good number of elected Republicans do as well. With how politics work in the US I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they'd support the same trade deal but call it something else.

 

I'd wager if Sanders' coup of the bottom of the Democratic Party is successful there will be a lot more representatives opposed to it and other trade deals.

Big reason Cruz lost the primary, although of course Cruz-like he was for it before he was against it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Looks like around 6700 Bernie supporters are signing up to run for office

It seems the Democratic Party is about to get its own version of the Tea Party.

 

Big reason Cruz lost the primary, although of course Cruz-like he was for it before he was against it.

I have a hard time making sense of this, is "Cruz-like" supposed to mean someone like Cruz or a quality Cruz has?

[BruceVC]

Looks like around 6700 Bernie supporters are signing up to run for office

It seems the Democratic Party is about to get its own version of the Tea Party.

@ KP

 

I'm glad Sanders got involved in the nomination, he raised issues that resonated with people and this type of intervention can only strengthen the institutions of Democracy (actually I dont really believe that but I was told its the right thing to say  )

 

But I do like him, he means well. But we dont want to destroy the US economy just to appeal to left wing populist rhetoric 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

But we dont want to destroy the US economy just to appeal to left wing populist rhetoric

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.

[redneckdevil]

Okay as an American, I'll go ahead and say I'm confused as **** when looking at the results so far. From the results, it looks like Hillary is winning by a landslide but when u look at the actual votes from civilians, she's neck and neck if a lil below Trump....

I don't think this is gonna bode well when the "votes" that actually count are going against the grain of public view.

[BruceVC]

Okay as an American, I'll go ahead and say I'm confused as **** when looking at the results so far. From the results, it looks like Hillary is winning by a landslide but when u look at the actual votes from civilians, she's neck and neck if a lil below Trump....

I don't think this is gonna bode well when the "votes" that actually count are going against the grain of public view.

Honesty is always the best policy. Can I please tell you what is the relevant outcome ...on the day of the actual election Hilary will beat Trump and mark my words when they break down the demographics you will see that the vast majority of women voted for Hilary and correctly assured her victory 

 

Trump has horribly offended and misunderstood  this voting block and I really want to see his face in the final results ...do you think he will still  be laughing and pandering to that sexist and rude group of supporters who actually think its funny to call any  women " a fat, disgusting pig  "  

[BruceVC]

 

But we dont want to destroy the US economy just to appeal to left wing populist rhetoric

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 

[Longknife]

But I do like him, he means well. But we dont want to destroy the US economy just to appeal to left wing populist rhetoric 

 

 

Are you suggesting that with the status quo, the amassed wealth of the 1% will eventually trickle down to the middle class and the poor and then everything will be great?

[BruceVC]

 

But I do like him, he means well. But we dont want to destroy the US economy just to appeal to left wing populist rhetoric 

 

 

Are you suggesting that with the status quo, the amassed wealth of the 1% will eventually trickle down to the middle class and the poor and then everything will be great?

 

Not at all but why have you convinced yourself this was ever going to happen?

 

 

This whole 1 % attack is just something people love to support as suddenly that type of obscene wealth is unpopular  and he could  theoretically do this with no real impact 

 

My concern with Sanders was the whole " I will break up the global  investment banks " 

 

This you absolutely cannot do, Sanders has no idea how this would even be accomplished but why would he think he could possibly know more about whats good for banking than people like Janet Yellen or the erudite Ben Bernanke from the Federal Reserve. In 2008 the US government  prudently intervened to save the US banking sector and by proxy the world from going into a recession

 

At that point the US could have forced major changes through if the like of Benanke or Timothy Geithner had really believed the 

  " banks were too big " 

 

But both men understood the reality of how global banks are structured and how breaking them up would only negatively impact them 

 

So my issue with Bernie is how he could have inadvertently created  a economic meltdown in the USA

[Longknife]

This you absolutely cannot do, Sanders has no idea how this would even be accomplished but why would he think he could possibly know more about whats good for banking than people like Janet Yellen or the erudite Ben Bernanke from the Federal Reserve.

 

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.

[BruceVC]

 

This you absolutely cannot do, Sanders has no idea how this would even be accomplished but why would he think he could possibly know more about whats good for banking than people like Janet Yellen or the erudite Ben Bernanke from the Federal Reserve.

 

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?

[Longknife]

 

 

This you absolutely cannot do, Sanders has no idea how this would even be accomplished but why would he think he could possibly know more about whats good for banking than people like Janet Yellen or the erudite Ben Bernanke from the Federal Reserve.

 

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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

This you absolutely cannot do, Sanders has no idea how this would even be accomplished but why would he think he could possibly know more about whats good for banking than people like Janet Yellen or the erudite Ben Bernanke from the Federal Reserve.

 

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.

 

Okay I did think the point was clear, Sanders means well but that doesn't mean what he thinks can be implemented

 

But dont misunderstand me I do understand the broader point about inequality 

 

But maybe I am being unfair in the sense we can both acknowledge he wasn't always going to deliver on this one but the other things he could have ..like the 1 % and the free education 

 

You see he cant break the economy by trying to implement those maybe I should see the positive 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

But we dont want to destroy the US economy just to appeal to left wing populist rhetoric

 

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.

[Longknife]

 

 

 

But we dont want to destroy the US economy just to appeal to left wing populist rhetoric

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.