Bernie Sanders struggled to explain his Wall Street plans in an uncomfortable new interview - Polidicks

[quote]Bernie Sanders had a difficult time explaining his biggest campaign platform in a tough new interview with the Daily News that was published on Monday. The Democratic presidential candidate told the New York tabloid that he didn't know whether the Federal Reserve has the authority to break up the big Wall Street banks he decries along the campaign trail. He also said that he hadn't studied the legal implications of doing so, and couldn't explain how he would have actually gone about prosecuting major Wall Street executives following the 2008 financial crisis. Sanders was repeatedly pressed on his plans to break about the major financial institutions after he told the Daily News editorial board that JPMorgan Chase "and virtually every other major bank in this country" are destroying the fabric of the US.[/quote] Continued in source: [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-wall-street-banks-daily-news-2016-4"]Business Insider[/URL] [URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306"]Transcript of NY Daily News Interview[/URL] BONUS: 9 things Bernie Sanders should’ve known about but didn’t in that Daily News interview (With associated quotes in the article) 1. Breaking up the banks 2. The legal implications of breaking up a financial institution 3. Prosecuting Wall Street executives for the financial collapse of 2008 4. Handling negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians over settlements 5. Looking back at the 2014 conflict between Israelis and Palestinians 6. Israel and war crimes 7. Dealing with the Islamic State 8. Disposition of captured ISIS commanders 9. Riding the subway Source: [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/05/9-things-bernie-sanders-shouldve-known-about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/"]The Washington Post[/URL]

At least he admitted it he didn't know for the most part instead of bullshitting. I'm still a supporter because of his ethics, but it does surprise me a bit that he only has vague ideas about things so important to his platform.

You can bet that for the next 3 weeks NYT, WaPo and Salon are gonna love this.

Great title OP, he never said anything of the like in your title [QUOTE]Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority? Sanders: Well, [B]I don't know if the Fed has it.[/B] But I think the administration can have it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Daily News: You've also pointed out her financial ties, if you will, to Wall Street. So given all of that, is Secretary Clinton trustworthy on this issue? Sanders: Let me get back to your first point, about a rigged economy, which is absolutely what I have said. Thank you. You got my quotes right. A rigged economy is about an economy, for example, where the wealthiest family in this country, the Walton family of Walmart, pays its workers wages that are so low that the middle class has to pay more in taxes to provide food stamps and Medicaid for Walmart employees. A rigged economy is when you have corporations making billions of dollars a year in taxes, billions of dollars a year in profit, and not paying a nickel in taxes. A rigged economy is where you have companies able to shut down as a result of trade agreements that they have written, and move abroad and pay people pennies an hour. That is a rigged economy. [B]A rigged economy is when, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, the top one-tenth of 1% now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. If that's not a rigged economy, I don't know what a rigged economy is.[/B] [/QUOTE] he spoke like he usually does, how was it a disaster?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50076918]Great title OP, he never said anything of the like in your title he spoke like he usually does, how was it a disaster?[/QUOTE] Because today is a voting day and the pundits always go nuts on voting days. [img]https://i.gyazo.com/9db6f1159f3dd35d8e0a2bdfae65021a.png[/img]

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50076918]Great title OP, he never said anything of the like in your title he spoke like he usually does, how was it a disaster?[/QUOTE] this is Media being desperate.

[QUOTE=Aztec;50076923]Because today is a voting day and the pundits always go nuts on voting days. [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/9db6f1159f3dd35d8e0a2bdfae65021a.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] i dont get how people say he was confused, he said the administration could break up the big banks in regards to the apple comment [QUOTE]Bernie Sanders: No, Apple is not destroying the fabric of America. But I do wish they'd be manufacturing some of their devices, here, in the United States rather than in China. And I do wish that they would not be trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.[/QUOTE] he's pretty much with trump on this issue with bringing manufacturing back into the country, this is blown out of proportion

This is the first election I have ever seen this much misinformation and misquoting about presidential candidates. It is fucking shameful.

Holy shit is /r/The_Donald leaking? The thread title uses an identical format to that sub, and is just as misleading.

This is :clickbait: at it's finest.

What's also funny is the title of the source is clickbait. God dammit Ninja.

I fixed your crappy title.

[QUOTE]Daily News: I know you've got to go in a second. When was the last time you rode the subway? Are you gonna a campaign in the subway? Sanders: Actually we rode the subway, Mike, when we were here? About a year ago? But I know how to ride the subways. I’ve been on them once or twice. Daily News: Do you really? Do you really? How do you ride the subway today? Sanders: What do you mean, "How do you ride the subway?" Daily News: How do you get on the subway today? Sanders: You get a token and you get in. Daily News: Wrong. Sanders: You jump over the turnstile. Daily News: We would like our photographer to be there when you jump over the turnstile.[/QUOTE] fantastic interview

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50076976]fantastic interview[/QUOTE] what the fuck

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50076918]Great title OP, he never said anything of the like in your title[/QUOTE] If I paraphrase OP like OP paraphrased the article we get the real shocker "Bernie Sanders should've known about... subway." [t]http://i.imgur.com/zqG1v6Z.png[/t] [editline]5th April 2016[/editline] Oh wait OvB fixed it, nevermind

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50076918]Great title OP, he never said anything of the like in your title he spoke like he usually does, how was it a disaster?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=fruxodaily;50076976]fantastic interview[/QUOTE] I like how you papered over the other 99% of the interview. Like his rambling answer on drones, or how he has no idea if he even legally can do most of the things he says. Not to mention what their impact would be on the larger economy. [QUOTE] Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go? Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank. Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up. Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.[/QUOTE] Translation: I have no idea I haven't considered the practical effect of my policy beyond it's value as campaign redmeat. [QUOTE=Aztec;50076923]Because today is a voting day and the pundits always go nuts on voting days. [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/9db6f1159f3dd35d8e0a2bdfae65021a.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Yup it's a conspiracy alright. The number 2 man in the Democratic race for the nomination in a hotly contested election basically can't defend himself on the core tenements of his own platform. I bet SHILLARY CLITon is behind this.

[QUOTE=Srillo;50077028] Yup it's a conspiracy alright. The number 2 man in the Democratic race for the nomination in a hotly contested election basically can't defend himself on the core tenements of his own platform. I bet SHILLARY CLITon is behind this.[/QUOTE] lol wtf

I'm really seeing nothing wrong here tho? He has an idea, he is still working the plan but it does make sense, where are you getting at? He wants reform, all candidates want some form of reform, they're still working out the nooks and crannies, welcome to elections

[QUOTE]Daily News: Okay, while we were sitting here, I double-checked the facts. It's the miracle of the iPhone. My recollection was correct. It was about 2,300, I believe, killed, and 10,000 wounded. President Obama has taken the authority for drone attacks away from the CIA and given it to the U.S. military. Some say that that has caused difficulties in zeroing in on terrorists, their ISIS leaders. Do you believe that he's got the right policy there? Sanders: I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is that drones are a modern weapon. When used effectively, when taking out ISIS or terrorist leaders, that's pretty impressive. When bombing wedding parties of innocent people and killing dozens of them, that is, needless to say, not effective and enormously counterproductive. So whatever the mechanism, whoever is in control of that policy, it has to be refined so that we are killing the people we want to kill and not innocent collateral damage. Daily News: Okay. American Special Forces recently killed a top ISIS commander, after they'd hoped to capture him. They felt, from what the news reports were, that they had no choice at that. What would you do with a captured ISIS commander? Sanders: Imprison him. Daily News: Where? Sanders: And try to get as much information out of him. If the question leads us to Guantanamo... Daily News: Well, no, separate and apart from Guantanamo, it could be there, it could be anywhere. Where would a President Sanders imprison, interrogate? What would you do? Sanders: Actually I haven't thought about it a whole lot. I suppose, somewhere near the locale where that person was captured. The best location where that individual would be safely secured in a way that we can get information out of him.[/QUOTE] Great answer.

[QUOTE=Srillo;50077028]I like how you papered over the other 99% of the interview. Like his rambling answer on drones, or how he has no idea if he even legally can do most of the things he says. Not to mention what their impact would be on the larger economy. Translation: I have no idea I haven't considered the practical effect of my policy beyond it's value as campaign redmeat. Yup it's a conspiracy alright. The number 2 man in the Democratic race for the nomination in a hotly contested election basically can't defend himself on the core tenements of his own platform. I bet SHILLARY CLITon is behind this.[/QUOTE] On breaking up big banks: he understands the impact that "too big to fail" banks have and thus proposes breaking them up. Why should he be responsible to answer the ambiguous questions the reporter asks him [QUOTE]If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?[/QUOTE] What would the institution be? Where would the investing go? How should sanders know?

[QUOTE=Srillo;50077028]I like how you papered over the other 99% of the interview. Like his rambling answer on drones, or how he has no idea if he even legally can do most of the things he says. Not to mention what their impact would be on the larger economy. Translation: I have no idea I haven't considered the practical effect of my policy beyond it's value as campaign redmeat. Yup it's a conspiracy alright. The number 2 man in the Democratic race for the nomination in a hotly contested election basically can't defend himself on the core tenements of his own platform. I bet SHILLARY CLITon is behind this.[/QUOTE] You do realize that he doesn't need to have an 4 year plan before getting elected.

[QUOTE=Srillo;50077061]Great answer.[/QUOTE] It's actually not that surprising that something that isn't a total focus of his campaign he doesn't have a complete detailed plan for. You also have to remember being president means listening to hundreds of aids and advisors, some of which are better suited to certain scopes of problems.

[QUOTE=Srillo;50077061]Great answer.[/QUOTE] Well no shit, what's his central platform? Bank and tax reform and social equality, not fucking war, terrorism and etc. That's something you ask Trump Is it important? Yeah, but don't up him because he hadn't put too much thought in it and besides he answered the rest of the question right Where are you getting at

[QUOTE=Srillo;50077061]Great answer.[/QUOTE] Seems like a fine answer to me. So he doesn't pretend that he has every answer to every question so he doesn't end up lying to the people... Where is the problem?

Could've probably asked hilary the same questions and she would've provided a more detailed/better answer, [I]yikes[/I]

[QUOTE=phygon;50077081]Seems like a fine answer to me. So he doesn't pretend that he has every answer to every question so he doesn't end up lying to the people... Where is the problem?[/QUOTE] This is obviously how he should have responded. "Well uhh, I think if you look at my record, uhh you'll see I've been quite consistent and.... I'm very proud of the fact that if you examine my record you'll see, consistently, my aggressive policies about Guantanamo bay"

[QUOTE=Laferio;50077083]Could've probably asked hilary the same questions and she would've provided a more detailed/better answer, [I]yikes[/I][/QUOTE] Replace every line from Sanders with "I've always stood with this issue, I've had a long standing with this issue, I've been on the record time and time again on the side of this issue, if you check history, I was with/against this! My rival is x, My GOP rival is x, we have to focus on y"

[QUOTE=Laferio;50077083]Could've probably asked hilary the same questions and she would've provided a more detailed/better answer, [I]yikes[/I][/QUOTE] That could be fair, since she was secretary of state. Doesn't really mean much against Sanders though.

[QUOTE=Srillo;50077028]Yup it's a conspiracy alright. The number 2 man in the Democratic race for the nomination in a hotly contested election basically can't defend himself on the core tenements of his own platform. I bet SHILLARY CLITon is behind this.[/QUOTE] Sounds like someone isn't too happy their choice candidate isn't getting all the favour here, and is jumping on any opportunity to attack their opposition.

IMO, the interesting points of the interview are: - He won't let any companies move anything to another country with cheaper labor or less environmental control. So basically every clothing manufacturer, every electronics manufacturer, etc. would have to bring all their manufacturing back. The quote: "I will stop it by renegotiating all of the trade agreements that we have. And by establishing principles that says that what fair trade is about is you are going to take into consideration the wages being paid to workers in other countries. And the environmental standards that exist." and: "And what fair trade means to say that it is fair. It is roughly equivalent to the wages and environmental standards in the United States." - He sees the corporate moving of manufacturing out of the US as a conspiracy of the upper class to gain power in the US. Quote: "And I think there became a very organized effort, on the part of corporate America, and very powerful forces, to say, "Look, we are in trouble. And we're going to have to fight back." And I think what you have seen in a number of ways, trade being one way" - He has no idea about any actual illegal actions that the bankers had done. He just assumes that they must be guilty of something. Quote: "I suspect that there are [ particular statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments]." - He critiques a lot of Israeli policy, but won't provide any alternative answer, saying, "You're asking me now to make not only decisions for the Israeli government but for the Israeli military, and I don't quite think I'm qualified to make decisions." In my mind, critiquing a political or military action without any alternative in mind is literally useless. The rightness of any political or military action is relative to possible alternatives. So to just say something is bad doesn't really help at all. He also thought 10,000 Palestinians as opposed to 2,300 were killed in the last engagement. It just shows that his outlooks is pretty skewed. - He would want to imprison a captured ISIS commander outside of the US "somewhere near the locale where that person was captured." I'm not quite sure how this is different than something like Guantonamo. - He think that selling a person "10,000 rounds of ammunition" is grounds for suing the manufacturer if that person then goes on a shooting spree. He also uses the totally useless term "assault weapons."