saved us from an economic calamity in '09. Guillotining the bankers just won't do the trick.

...the alternative was "to let the banking sector collapse." Sanders was not against the bank bailout, he was against the terms and structure of it. Here's what he said at the time:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2008/10/01/wall-street-bailout

be prosecuted whether or not they had broken the law. Recall all the folks right here at DU who criticized Kamala Harris for not prosecuting Steve Mnuchin even though the chance of conviction was nonexistent.

If you check the link, you can see where he describes the amendment he tried to get passed to address what he saw as the bill's shortcomings. He was not arguing there should be no bailout; he was arguing about how it should be paid for.

nagging me about what Sanders did or didn't say?

...saying that Biden's vote was right and the Sanders was wrong to oppose it (falsely implying Sanders wanted no bailout and wanted the banking sector to collapse instead). Sorry if I read more into your post than you'd intended.

Who authorized illegal 'robo signing'? Who mis-represented their loans? Who actually tried to seize houses that were paid for? Mnuchin's group actually repossessed an old women's house over a 27 cent underpayment.

of all those regular bank customers had the banks gone bankrupt. Or what would have happened to the auto industry. Oh wait, Michigan already told BS what they think about him.

the same bag of crap has not caused his arm to fall off after forty years.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2009/07/31/bailed-out-banks-paid-326b-in-bonuses-says-andrew-cuomo/

The millions who really took it on the chin and never got their feet back under them were sent packing by an Obama Administration that didn’t bring any Justice to bare on the Greedy fucks who caused the meltdown.

....their retirement funds.

see: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2008/10/01/wall-street-bailout

Short version: The terms of the bailout were too lenient on the banks. The banks got all the benefit, the taxpayer got all the risk.

...which is the better vote on balance. Sometimes he voted for something that included a lot of stuff he railed against and unsuccessfully tried to get changed, like the 1994 crime bill or the Affordable Care Act. Other times he voted against something even though it included something he really wanted... like in this case, he had already voted for an auto bailout which this bill also included and he really wanted, but on balance, he thought this bill had more downside than upside. This is what EVERY member of congress does.

There was no way a bailout bill of some sort was not going to happen. If this one had failed, they would have gone back to the drawing board to try to craft something that would pass. That's what Sanders would have been hoping for. But it did pass, so that was the end of it.

He's the harbinger of 1950's socialist revolution policies... a total relic who has been left behind... out of date and antique ways of thinking do not benefit us in 2020.

He introduced an amendment to address that, but it did not pass.

In fact there were many things he was "originally for" or "supported in principle" but ended up voting against... aren't there. His track record and legislative accomplishments aren't really something that his fans and followers should be bragging about... I guess that's why they don't. Instead it's just excuse after excuse, explanation and justification, ho-hum.

...including one of my favorites, Russ Feingold.

But as I basically said elsewhere in the thread, of course "there's always an excuse" as you put it, because bills are complicated:

It's always about keeping someone else from having something that they want too. Acting as if they had all the time in the world to lazily meander down the river stopping to pick flowers along the way... trying to create the "perfect" solution. Making excuse after excuse that "if this one fails, and if the next one fails, and the one after that, we'll just keep trying". Unspoken: until I get MY WAY because I'm never going to compromise.

That old "my way or the highway" and "no compromise" philosophy... the thing that he and his most vocal supporters are most proud of is the thing about him that I consider to be his worst quality. The irrational hatred of "incremental progress" (which, by the way, is STILL progress) only to quash it in favor of doing nothing at all is a monument to the preservation of the status quo. Go figure.

Those philosophies are a sign of personal weakness and political cruelty. It serves no good purpose. It benefits nobody other than to give the politician something to gloat about. I've had enough of it. I have enough of Bernie. And from the looks of the primaries and the polling trends... it's pretty damn clear that America has had enough of Bernie too.

Of course he does... I gave you two examples right in that post!

He had big criticisms of the 1994 crime bill and tried to get amendments passed (e.g. he wanted to get the death penalty out of it), but ultimately he voted for it, in order to get the violence against women act.

He had big criticisms of Obamacare and thought it should at least have included a public option, but in the end, he voted for it.

So when you say "Unspoken: until I get MY WAY because I'm never going to compromise" -- the reason it's unspoken is because it's not the truth. Your post is well written, but fiction.

As I said, each complicated bill is a balance to be weighed. Sometimes the scales fall toward "vote for it despite the stuff you hate," sometimes the scales fall toward "vote against it despite the stuff you like." This is what the job entails. If he weren't willing to compromise the way others do, you'd find plenty of votes where every Dem voted one way, and he voted the other. But that's not what happens.

Always an excuse. I find his votes the benefit Russia the most offensive and maddening.

Horseshit. It's "unspoken" because that's not the way that politicians speak... but it's clearly understood. GMAFB!

His fans and cheerleaders often boast that the "votes with the Democrats 99.9% of the time" (I'm sure you've heard it.) But the truth of the matter is that it's only 80% if one rounds-up.

The few times he "gets it right" is hardly a defense of the critical times he selfishly and stubbornly gets it wrong.

..."the few times he got it right." And you think he got it wrong on the wall street bailout. So okay, what are others you think he got wrong besides that one, where he was not joined by plenty of Dems? (And even that one, there were other Dems who joined him on that vote as well.) I assume you're not going to say he got the IWR wrong. I'm going to guess there will be gun votes you didn't like. Anything else?

My posts have specific examples, while counter posts like yours seem to speak in generalities that, as far as I've seen, cannot be backed up with fact. Or at least they haven't been backed up yet.

Brady bill. (And I'm sure there's a "reasonable excuse" for that as well, eh?)

Then you're not paying attention. However, as you can see from the voting so far and the trends of the polling in states yet to come (especially the battleground states and big-prize states) it's easy to see that the American people HAVE been paying attention and they don't like Bernie or his record either.

It doesn't matter what "other Dems" have done. We're vetting Bernie. I'm sick of the whatabouts.




Joe/Kamala or Biden/Harris 2020!!
Jump on the Biden Bandwagon & abandon the revolution!!

I know that's his achilles heel in his voting record.

But I have been paying attention, that's how I've known about the examples I've discussed. I'm just not aware of any great litany of good bills he's declined to support because they weren't perfect, which is your accusation.

America doesn't want him and they're making it very clear.

At least according to this:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h393

Are you talking about something else?

re:

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is primarily whether his vote on the wall street bailout was a good vote or a bad vote (to which I provided his rationale, to correct the mispereception here that he was against bailing them out); and secondarily, whether he is actually reasonably willing to vote for an imperfect compromise bill rather than always holding out for perfection (to which I gave the ACA and crime bill votes as evidence in the affirmative).

I'm perfectly happy supporting Biden, but I think the Bernie bashing on this board is ridiculous.

Nobody is bashing Bernie.

Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2020, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

and also sometimes with stuff that's missing crucial context or just plain irrelevant.

I'm not saying that EVERY criticism of Sanders is a bash, or is unfounded. I'm not complaining about valid ones. Sanders, Biden, Harris, Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar are all people who I feel would make good presidents, and are also all imperfect. But when it comes to their imperfections, I'd rather discuss truthful and relevant ones, and discuss them honestly.

Again, although you keep bringing up other things (even while saying you're sick of the whatabouts!), like smearing the Democratic party or people not liking Bernie, etc., this thread is about the Wall Street bailout votes, and secondarily, whether Sanders is capable of voting for imperfect compromises or if he is too pig-headed for that. I think the criticisms of Sanders on these particular fronts are unfounded (for reasons I have explained multiple times), and are therefore examples of bashing, something there is much of on this board.

p.s. -- I still don't know what your HIPAA reference was about, what did I miss?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h393

and that's why I couldn't figure out what you were talking about, since that showed his vote was the same as everyone else's.

Oh, you do? Do you really now?

If you do not know what HIPAA is, then there's nothing I can do to assist. But, I believe you do know what it is... and I believe you do know how the votes went. "Experience tells me" that smart people sometimes pretend to not understand for the sake of trying to get others to spoon-feed the information because the enjoy the interaction and the puppeteer aspect of it all.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. But in the unlikely event that you're genuinely confused... I expect you to do your own research. This is not esoteric stuff here. I have the greatest confidence that you're smart enough to look it up yourself without assistance from me.

I guess you're not as "experienced" as you'd have me believe. So, now you're insinuating that I'm a liar? You're accusing me of making things up? Oh how charming! I haven't personally insulted you, why do you think you have the right to personally attack me?

Done with you. Goodbye!

...you were specifically talking about HIPAA. As I said, I did look it up. And I could not figure out what you were talking about.

Yes... because my brief response of "HIPAA" may have been referring to something other than HIPAA and other than Bernie's vote. GMAFB.

Between the personal insults and accusations about my honesty... and wanting to be entertained by ordering me about with unnecessary demands and instructions... I'm afraid I can't help you any further.

Goodbye.

re:

You didn't mention HIPAA in your post #39 (the post I was replying to) so I didn't immediately realize that that's what you were talking about (as opposed to the other things that were also mentioned in my post #38, which was the post you were replying to).

The post where you mentioned HIPAA was your post #33, which I had replied to earlier.

So as I have now mentioned multiple times, I looked it up, I provided you with the link, and I have still not seen any problem with Bernie's HIPAA vote. He voted for it, like almost everyone else did. It passed 421-2. The only people who voted against it were Dems Pete Stark and John Williams. Are you saying that Sanders should have voted against the bill with those two? Was there some other HIPAA vote? I just don't know what you're talking about.

I may have played with you longer, but I will not spoon-feed anyone who insinuates that I'm a liar or that I'm dishonest.

I only insinuated you did not know what you were talking about, and that's not the same thing, because no malicious intent is implied. And even that was edited out of my post before you ever responded to it.

To anyone else reading this thread......I've googled but haven't found it. What was Sanders' problematic HIPAA vote that NJ is talking about?

Now you're splitting hairs and making a very weak argument. Here's the thing: If not insinuating that I am dishonest or a liar... then the insinuation was to call me dumb/stupid. It's either one or the other. There can be no other interpretation. Those are the choices, and no matter which one is picked... it's still a personal insult.

Yet I still saw it. Yes, I've seen that done before... it gets the message across without having to worry about the obvious repercussions or consequences. How clever! In fact, I've noticed a LOT of editing going on after the fact. Interesting tactic... replying by editing. How fun!

and so also before I could possibly have known whether or not you had seen it.

And I disagree that the only interpretations could have been liar/dishonest vs. dumb/stupid. One can say you don't know what you're talking about without it being an accusation of dishonesty OR stupidity. It means what it means and that's all that it means.

Anyway, you said you were done, and now, so am I. This is not productive in any sense.

Doesn't matter. I saw what I saw and you edited while I was typing. The insult and smear against me was still there. If I saw it then I'm sure others did as well. That should be a lesson to you.

I haven't called YOU dishonest. I haven't called you stupid. What makes you believe that you're entitled to call me those things? I don't deserve that from you. Editing out the insult is not the same as an apology... especially if you know that the other person has already read it. Editing is just an admission of guilt and having made a mistake. It doesn't make things right.

You still owe me an apology for the insult. I guess there's a lot of truth in the adage that walking away is easier than doing the right thing. Okay, goodbye.

Here's the original post NJ is taking me to task over (which had been subsequently edited):

I'm putting it here because NJ seems to feel I'm trying to pull something by having edited away a perceived personal insult (she said, "it gets the message across without having to worry about the obvious repercussions or consequences. How clever!" "Editing is just an admission of guilt" etc. ). So now people will see it, and I hope people will see I was not being duplicitous. My edit was made, not to remove an insult that I didn't want to be held accountable for, but because I realized she was probably referring specifically to something mentioned earlier in the thread (even though it was not mentioned in the post I was actually replying to), which prompted me to then put up a different reply instead.

I'm curious to know what people here think about this. Of course, I can't change how NJ feels about it, but I don't want to do a lame "I'm sorry if you were offended" non-apology apology either... if I genuinely wronged someone, I'll offer a genuine apology. So I'm curious to see if I'm truly missing something here. Was this really an egregious personal affront? Do I appear to be calling anyone a liar, or stupid? I don't see a personal insult in saying that I think an assertion is likely to be bullsh*t when no support is provided for it, this does not seem to me to be beyond the pale for acceptable DU discourse. Am I really off-base here?

... the fact remains that you publicly and openly insinuated that I was dishonest or a liar or dumb. Rather than apologize, there's always a justification, always an excuse, always another hair to split. This behavior is much the same as what we see when it comes to Bernie's poor decisions too. No matter what, there's an excuse, or reason, or justification, or whatabout.

I think I'm beginning to see the problem here. Ugh.

I've raise three children of my own... I've seen this type of behavior before. Denials and justifications and excuse-making and trying to play turn-about and what about. Failure to accept personal responsibility. So confident that the entire world is wrong. This is nothing new to me.

Oh good lord! Time to call in reinforcements? That's amusing and sad at the same time.

Yes... accusing me of pulling something out of my ass (or words to that effect) does indeed mean that you think I'm a liar, or stupid. (And I'm neither.) It's an insult, it's a put-down. I've not insulted you, I've not attacked you. But you have done that to me... and made excuses for it... and tried to justify it... and now trying to get others to take-sides it on your behalf.

You may think I'm stupid. You may think I'm a liar. But one thing you'll come to learn is that I'm no fool.

...is NOT the same as calling someone stupid or a liar. You're really so offended by this that you feel I need to apologize merely for saying that I suspect unsupported assertions are likely to be BS? This is the level of political correctness we need here? I can give you the "I'm sorry if you were offended" thing, but I still don't think I said anything wrong.

And you say you haven't insulted/attacked me? You accused me of editing a post specifically to be surreptitiously malicious! That's why in defense I was prompted to re-post the original message/explanation. But whatever...

Did you or did you not edit for your own benefit? Case closed. I think it's a positive sign that you had second-thoughts about accusing me of "talking out of my ass" and decided to edit it. But, you cant simply pretend as though simply "editing" means you never wrote the things you did, or that it's completely erased it from reality... or that it erases it from my memory.

That's pretty much what I would have expected anyway. If that's the best you can do, then don't bother. it would only diminish my opinion of you if you did. (Or reinforce the one I already have.) As the old saying goes, at this late hour, it's probably best to say nothing.

The fact that you're asking reveals much. (And that type of deflection or reassigning blame is not at all flattering, let me assure you of that.)

You seem to misunderstand the reason I edited the post.

Remember, the entirety of the post of yours I was responding to was: "You've got a computer, look it up yourself." (Which comes off as kind of obnoxious in its own right, if you ask me... which also provides more context for my initial response.)

My first quick impression of that post (in context of what had come before) was that you were disagreeing with my main points (about Sanders' positions on the bailout and willingness to accept a "good enough" bill that is not perfect), but refusing to provide backup to justify that disagreement, and I typed a response to that. Then it hit me, oh, you were probably talking about the HIPAA thing. In that context, my response was different, so I changed it accordingly. THAT is why the post was edited. You happened to see it in the brief interim.

No... the shopworn "tactic" of sealioning (arf-arf... look it up yourself) is what actually comes off as being "kind of obnoxious in its own right". My response of "look it up yourself" was an imperative to let you know that I'm no fool who plays the sea-lioning game... especially when the info being demanded is easily available to anyone who knows how to google.

Yet, in the "misunderstood" context you thought it was perfectly fine to insinuate that I was dishonest or stupid? Is that about right? Did I miss anything? Originally it was okay, but otherwise the best you can do is "edit" it. Absolutely amazing.

I guess there's always an excuse. Always another reason. Always one more justification for being personally insulting to me and accusing me of being a liar or of being dumb. See? Here's the thing: even when you realize you were wrong, or that you misunderstood, or that you were confused... you STILL think it was justified to say that to me.

Okay, whatever. Fine. I'll be the bigger person and take you at your word that (maybe) you didn't mean it... even though you did say it. I just think it's a real shame that a grown man (or woman as the case may be, who knows) refuses to accept or to take personal responsibility for their own insulting words and smear.

Perhaps you're complete prince (or princess) who is simply charming in real life, but I've seen no evidence of that here. Whatever... have a nice life.

Goodbye.

re:

I told you, I *did* google it. I posted the relevant link I found. It did not support the assertion you appeared to be making (hard to be sure, since your entire assertion was "HIPAA" with no further explanation). I asked for you or anyone else here to let me know what I missed, since Sanders did support HIPAA in that vote. Crickets so far.

re:
For the fourth or fifth time, saying that someone who asserts something without evidence might be pulling it out of their ass is not the same as saying they are dishonest or stupid. After four or five times, have I really not been clear about this, or are you trolling me? But for example, sometimes people just pass along something they heard (or think they heard) without ever confirming it for themselves. They believe something because it "feels" right ("truthiness" as Colbert calls it), but they have no actual knowledge to support the belief. To me, that's an example of someone pulling something out of their ass. But such a person is not necessarily dishonest or stupid.

I think most people probably pull something out of their ass at least a little, every now and then. Not because they're liars or dishonest, but because our off-the-cuff knowledge base tends to be something of a "close approximation" of reality, and we fill in the gaps as we go best we can, with varying degrees of success. But that's probably a mental processing and philosophical conversation for another place and time.

Anyway, I never even actually said that you were pulling it out of your ass, but rather that, if you were unwilling/unable to backup an assertion, that's what I would be inclined to think. And I still don't think that is so insulting that one must demand an apology. But I understand people can read things typed online with a different feeling than what was intended. Maybe you didn't mean "You've got a computer, look it up yourself" as the kind of borderline "F.U." I thought it came across as.

at heart, is an unabashed Socialist who holds deep contemp for capitalist systems. Some of that contempt is justified, there have been are are excesses in the worldwide brand of capitalism. But people like Senator Sanders take the issue to a level that is both impractical and if imported, gravely damaging to all of society.

We cannot let perfect be the enemy of good enough in such circumstances.

Bullshit purity standards can really hurt people. In general, how as many people as you can, as best you can.

And they were correct to do it. It saved our economy. Even if it did not bail out all the homeowners. There were various state and federal programs that helped many homeowners stay in their homes, particularly here in California.

When Biden becomes POTUS he oughta open up a big can of Teddy Roosevelt whoop-ass on some of these financial firms and do a little trustbusting to reduce future risk and stop them from holding us all hostage every 10 or 12 years.

Doubt he would do it but would be fun to watch. In lieu of that maybe put a small fee on all stocks and bonds and options transactions and stick that into some kinda "Save Wall Street" fund for when the greedy dumb SOBs fuck up again which they will surely do. Then when they need a bailout it'll come outta a pool that they themselves paid into and not outta normal people's pockets, many of whom own zero annuities of their own and don't personally profit during bull markets.