hi Jack,
It is. The way I see it, you don't disagree with my point, but you're hypersensitive about any criticism of Sanders, even coming from someone who mostly likes him.
i'm not really hypersensitive about Mr. Sanders. i think a poster in this thread or another nonsensically stated that Bernie has yellow corn teeth, lol.
i didn't reply to that one, because it seemed goofy.
i reply (and read) your posts because i feel they generally have a sense of substance to them, even when i disagree. to my own way of seeing things, Clinton's stance on financial reform mirrors Bernie's, though at this point her positions seem a bit more fleshed out (with an assist from Frank, who i'm sure you're aware is advising her).
No, it suggests that I believe that he doesn't know what he's talking about on that subject.
And everyone has blind spots. A president is expected to speak intelligently on an impossible variety of subjects, and they all fail at times. Sanders' comments on finance generally suggest that it's not something he bothered to try to understand. Sorry, but that's how I see it. And, again, while ideologically, he's closer to me than Clinton is, I do have more respect for her general policy knowledge. She's much less likely to bluster about a subject she's not up on.
as you've said before, Hillary has "a towering intellect" (or something to that effect). she's marvelously debate prepped.
i disagree that Sanders "doesn't know what he's talking about", in regards to financial reform - i also believe that, when provided with the same data that Mrs. Clinton has - he has better judgement.
Thank you. A bank can be both relatively small and too big to fail. Breaking up big banks won't protect the stability of the system and won't confer any other benefits. And it's not a practical, legal solution. In this case, he's letting anger override reason.
no problem. we don't see things differently here.
Yeah, so if you actually read that (rather than just the headlines), you see that Clinton has a more nuanced, intelligent approach. A risk fee and higher fines for improper activity vs. "breaking up the big banks" (they agree on taxing some types of activity). Plus, look at Sanders' comments about interest rates on college loans compared to auto or home loans (apparently showing no understanding of collateral). Or look at the pandering, ignorant claim that "the business model of Wall Street is fraud."
i'll read up a bit more on the points you've raised, Jack. my point was only that Mrs. Clinton has spoken a great deal of breaking up the big banks (if i'm not mistaken, the Fed already has a mechanism in place to do so).
regarding the bolded, i think that's a bit of a over generalization by Sanders - but there was quite a bit of fraud in lower Manhattan in the lead up to 2009.
- IGIT
