Bernie is as empty as Trump

Surrealistik said:

Again, securities fraud is the obvious response but identifying particular statues is completely different; I don't think expecting him to know the particulars when criminal prosecutions of these bankers is _not_ actually part of his campaign is perfectly reasonable. Hell, the statute of limitations straight up prevents any kind of prosecution; given that this makes it a non-issue, and again, that this was not an aspect or dimension of his campaign, it is utterly silly to breathe down Bernie's neck over this.

Click to expand...

Well maybe Bernie should stop talking about it if he doesnt want to get asked questions about it. Otherwise he looks like a complete moron on a subject that he spends a considerable amount of time talking about

Again, he was making the very basic and obvious point that executive power is a function of legislation, with Dodd Frank being cited as an example of legislation with powers of compulsion over the financial industry; he did _not_ answer that this was specifically a means of breaking up the banks.

Click to expand...

Then it is a complete non-answer, since the question was "how are you going to break up the banks?"

Crovax said:

Well maybe Bernie should stop talking about it if he doesnt want to get asked questions about it. Otherwise he looks like a complete moron on a subject that he spends a considerable amount of time talking about

Click to expand...

Are you of the opinion then that every bit minutiae (like specific statutes as opposed to general charges) underlying every bit of rhetoric should/must be vigourously researched and memorized? If so that's not reasonable.

Then it is a complete non-answer, since the question was "how are you going to break up the banks?"

Click to expand...

A response that effectively amounts to legislative power (which is correct) is not at all a non-answer. It was a stupid question that got exactly the reply it deserved.

Surrealistik said:

It was a hatchet job replete with gotcha questions, most of which are inapplicable to the fundamental tenants of his campaign, or are inconsequential; for starters, like the precise geography of ISIS interrogations, or the MetLife verdict which is actually pretty inapplicable given it's a non-banking institution and spun off the operations which largely brought it to the attention of regulators.

Click to expand...

There's no need to resort to Palinisms about "gotcha questions" when you're essentially conceding the point here: Bernie isn't conversant on many issues. It's absurd to claim a candidate for the presidency shouldn't be able to speak to issues "inapplicable to the fundamental tenants of his campaign" or that it's unfair to ask a 25-year legislator about "minutiae like specific statutes." It should be obvious that Bernie isn't comfortable--or perhaps capable of--going beyond his slogans. That's been true all along, this interview is just the latest and probably most embarrassing example (hence his ill-advised lashing out the following day).

Greenbeard said:

There's no need to resort to Palinisms about "gotcha questions" when you're essentially conceding the point here: Bernie isn't conversant on many issues. It's absurd to claim a candidate for the presidency shouldn't be able to speak to issues "inapplicable to the fundamental tenants of his campaign" or that it's unfair to ask a 25-year legislator about "minutiae like specific statutes." It should be obvious that Bernie isn't comfortable--or perhaps capable of--going beyond his slogans. That's been true all along, this interview is just the latest and probably most embarrassing example (hence his ill-advised lashing out the following day).

Click to expand...

Except gotcha questions are actually a thing and the interview was undeniably replete with them, again, I highly recommend the following videos identifying both what a gotcha question actually is, and how they relate to the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7dVCf6k_MQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB6gq-NO0_0

What should truly be obvious is that virtually any candidate Bernie, Hillary or otherwise probably are not conversant on the specific, microscopic minutiae of certain things, particularly those that aren't applicable to their campaign, candidacy or core objectives. Try ambushing Hillary with pointed, loaded and/or leading questions on things demanding specifics that have nothing to do with her platform, which she has not rehearsed an answer to and I will show you someone who either lies or says much of nothing, or worse, comes off looking as flustered and shellshocked as she did during the Univision debates. Again, it's hilarious that her campaign demanded Bernie temper his tone because she was so obviously and pitifully incapable of handling him on the offensive.

Crovax said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/



TBH I had never really heard Bernie outside of a democratic debate. I disagreed with his politics but I thought he was genuine... I was wrong.

Hes pretty much a one issue candidate and he doesnt even have a clue about that one issue. I would ask how in the world could someone believe in a guy who has all rhetoric and no plans but Trump has answered that question quite thoroughly. Bernie is the democrat version of Trump, no hes no as outrageous but he just as empty. Hes going to break up the banks and throw the CEO's in jail but he doesnt have a ****ing clue how hes going to do it. He might as well promise a wall that mexcio will pay for while he is at it.

Click to expand...

Yeah that NY Daily News article was a lying hit piece that has been debunked by the NY Times.

If that didn't make it clear that the NY Daily News was on a mission then the fact that just after they ran that hit piece on Sanders, they then turned around and did this:


Kind of makes their intent rather clear.

The NY Daily News is just trying to compete with the Washington Post in trying to shill the hardest for Hillary.

poweRob said:

If that didn't make it clear that the NY Daily News was on a mission then the fact that just after they ran that hit piece on Sanders, they then turned around and did this:

New York Daily News endorses Clinton​

Kind of makes their intent rather clear.

Click to expand...

Huh? You understand that the interviews they both did with the editorial board were because they were each seeking the paper's endorsement, right? He gave an embarrassingly bad interview, she gave a very good one. She ended up winning the endorsement. This isn't rocket science.

Crovax said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/



TBH I had never really heard Bernie outside of a democratic debate. I disagreed with his politics but I thought he was genuine... I was wrong.

Hes pretty much a one issue candidate and he doesnt even have a clue about that one issue. I would ask how in the world could someone believe in a guy who has all rhetoric and no plans but Trump has answered that question quite thoroughly. Bernie is the democrat version of Trump, no hes no as outrageous but he just as empty. Hes going to break up the banks and throw the CEO's in jail but he doesnt have a ****ing clue how hes going to do it. He might as well promise a wall that mexcio will pay for while he is at it.

Click to expand...

Are you telling me that Donald Trump would reply to a question on something he knows little about by saying.......

It’s something I have not studied"

"Well, again, you’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer"

"I don’t quite think I’m qualified to make decisions"

"I don’t know the answer to that"

"Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot"

If so, I would beg to differ. I can't see the bravado, narcissistic fascist minded person answering a whole lot of questions with, "I do not know." Hell, the Donald knows EVERYTHING! Just ask him! He'll tell you.

No, I think the Donald, when asked a question he really doesn't have an answer to would go more like this............

Li’l Donald - The New Yorker

Greenbeard said:

Huh? You understand that the interviews they both did with the editorial board were because they were each seeking the paper's endorsement, right? He gave an embarrassingly bad interview, she gave a very good one. She ended up winning the endorsement. This isn't rocket science.

Click to expand...

The questioner was full of crap lying. He asked Bernie how he would break up the banks using the Fed. You don't use the Fed to break up the bank and Bernie let him know that. To which they responded... "how do expect to do all that with the Fed?" They were intentionally throwing in words he didn't say and attributed that to him to make it look like he didn't know what he was talking about.

TYT explain the NY Daily News hit job rather well here:

poweRob said:

The questioner was full of crap lying. He asked Bernie how he would break up the banks using the Fed. You don't use the Fed to break up the bank and Bernie let him know that. To which they responded... "how do expect to do all that with the Fed?" They were intentionally throwing in words he didn't say and attributed that to him to make it look like he didn't know what he was talking about.

Click to expand...

So if they'd only asked him the questions the right way, then he would've been able to provide a cogent response about his own plans. That's a relief!

Captain America said:

Are you telling me that Donald Trump would reply to a question on something he knows little about by saying.......

It’s something I have not studied"

"Well, again, you’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer"

"I don’t quite think I’m qualified to make decisions"

"I don’t know the answer to that"

"Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot"

If so, I would beg to differ. I can't see the bravado, narcissistic fascist minded person answering a whole lot of questions with, "I do not know." Hell, the Donald knows EVERYTHING! Just ask him! He'll tell you.

No, I think the Donald, when asked a question he really doesn't have an answer to would go more like this............

Li’l Donald - The New Yorker

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are getting at just because Sanders is being honest that he doesn't even have the most basic grasp of his core campaign issues doesn't make him anymore qualified than Trump to be president.

Captain America said:

If so, I would beg to differ. I can't see the bravado, narcissistic fascist minded person answering a whole lot of questions with, "I do not know." Hell, the Donald knows EVERYTHING! Just ask him! He'll tell you.

Click to expand...

Crovax said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at just because Sanders is being honest that he doesn't even have the most basic grasp of his core campaign issues doesn't make him anymore qualified than Trump to be president.

Click to expand...

I assume the Bernie-Trump comparison refers to the fact that both are playing hard to their respective bases without the substance to back it up.

But yeah, stylistically that was more of a Ben Carson-esque interview.

Greenbeard said:

So if they'd only asked him the questions the right way, then he would've been able to provide a cogent response about his own plans. That's a relief!

Click to expand...

I guess you are only going to see precisely what it is you want to see and close your eyes whenever convenient. Have a nice day!

Crovax said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at just because Sanders is being honest that he doesn't even have the most basic grasp of his core campaign issues doesn't make him anymore qualified than Trump to be president.

Click to expand...

Again, most of the questions posited actually had nothing, or at best little to do with his campaign. The most relevant one, the question relating to how Sanders would break up the Big Banks was well handled despite the interviewer's obvious attempt at tripping him up (again, as president the power to break up the big banks comes from federal legislation per his response; no **** right? So why did the interviewer ask such a painfully stupid question in an equally painfully obtuse way?).

Greenbeard said:

I assume the Bernie-Trump comparison refers to the fact that both are playing hard to their respective bases without the substance to back it up.

But yeah, stylistically that was more of a Ben Carson-esque interview.

Click to expand...

I take it neither you nor Crovax have watched those videos I linked; presumably because they do not fit the disingenuous narrative you wish to superimpose on the interview.

Meanwhile, outside of the opinion of the usual wagon circling pundits (many of which asserted incredibly that Hillary somehow won or came to a draw at the Univision debate), Hillary gets crushed in the CNN NY debates...

Surrealistik said:

I take it neither you nor Crovax have watched those videos I linked; presumably because they do not fit the disingenuous narrative you wish to superimpose on the interview.

Click to expand...

I can read the transcript of the interview for myself, I don't need Cenk Uygur to spin it for me. I'm sure you folks have done an effective job of regurgitating his excuses for Bernie in this and other threads, mercifully sparing us from having to sit through TYT.

Greenbeard said:

I can read the transcript of the interview for myself, I don't need Cenk Uygur to spin it for me. I'm sure you folks have done an effective job of regurgitating his excuses for Bernie in this and other threads, mercifully sparing us from having to sit through TYT.

Click to expand...

In otherwords, you prefer clinging to your and the Hillary campaign's disingenuous spin and would rather not experience another cogent, comprehensive explanation of why it's wrong.

Further, there's no regurgitation; his views and mine are a convergent evolution describing what should be immediately obvious about the interview and its underlying intent. Any person not encumbered by their own antagonism towards Bernie would arrive at essentially the same conclusions.