Be a single issue candidate who cant answer Questions about that issue brehs

[LurkMoar]

just like a i thought. nonsense to make news. what the man said about that first question they asked him was true. he was saying i dont know if the feds have that power now to lock down on the big banks because he's insinuating obama didnt put people in positions that would add teeth to the dodd-frank bill. he's explained this before. the way washington plays games is this. they will write up a bill for the people. and say "we're going tol hold industry X accountable." but behind closed doors they are putting people in place to make sure industry X only gets wrist slaps when it does something totally wrong to the people.

So after 20 years he does not have a plan for his biggest issue?




Honestly i don't even think nikkas was stanning Obama this hard you guys are living in the matrix or some shyt

 

[StatUS]

Guy at the NYDaily Editorial Meeting says Bernie did well. Van Jones says this is just the fight for NY between the establishment and the people.

 

[MrSinnister]

Another TYT aside. Ana says the dumbest shot on the planet and acts like a typical lib to devalue the right point. Okay, someone is using Feyonce to make money off of Beyonce's name. Beyonce rightfully sues. Ana, weirdly and superlibbing, says that Beyonce is too rich to care of some as shoes are making money off her. Cenk wins the argument, so Ana says that if anyone wants to use her name, she'd let them go ahead and do it for free.

This is one of the reasons I hate fake ass feminism, as they're not really intellectually honest fukk @Darth Humanist perpetually simp ass for projecting weak ass Aussie sensitivities to what American dudes see every day. Fix your own fukking country, which is conservative too, and stop obsessing and pretending you know about ours. Posing truisms aren't groundbreaking. Fix Australia or be able to debate shyt like a man, if that's what you are. The drive by neg shyt is fakkit shyt, especially when you dap 95%, but never rep, someone's shyt.

Humanist's bullshyt also hipped me to the ego phenomenon that happens here too. When I appreciate a certain poster, I show them. Black dudes have a very hard time giving others credit. I'm not here to be the HNIC, but to push us forward, and I feel that is through progressive principles. Some pepper need to have their ego stroked. You can tell, because they don't give back.

And when I really respect a poster, I'm going to debate them, like a fukking man, when they say something I disagree with. Not suddenly call them fakkits, or cacs, like a lot of the fakkits here. We're not going to agree 100% on anything, and I find a lot of you dikk riders on Coli need that. I'm sure as fukk not going to neg you for some little shot when I agree on all your other shyt. The insanity of this place is retarded.

 

[No1]

@wire28 @Broletariat we 5 starring garbage threads now? Are you guys trolling or being serious? I understand 5 starring threads like the classic about those 80 year old prostitutes, but this thread is a joke.

Let's look at the people attempting to clown Sanders.

Konczal:
Bernie Sanders gave some fairly normal answers on financial reform to the New York Daily News editorial board. Someone sent it to me, and as I read it I thought “yes, these are answers I’d expect for how Sanders approaches financial reform.”Eavis:
Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for.And we should not, for that matter, be surprised that they consider Sanders' comments fairly sensible.

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 After all, Sanders, too, has focused on this field of policy for much of his national career, and he's advised by professionals who research this stuff for a living.

So how did so many critics in the media, in direct opposition to this scholarly consensus, conclude that Sanders' ideas about breaking up the bank were so radically off base? Some brief quotes and CVs from the pundits Konczal mentions:

• Caitlin Cruz wrote that Sanders "struggled to detail how he would break-up the big banks". She is a journalist who started writing cultural pieces in 2010, moved on to local reporting, and has since generalized into covering "politics, policy, and national news".
• Chris Cillizza called Bernie's comments "pretty close to a disaster" and accused him of "dodging as he sought to scramble back to his talking points." He has an English degree and writes generally about national politics.
• David Graham said that Sander's answers "raises some questions about his policy chops." Graham has a B.A. (B.A.s?) and studied history, Arabic, and Islamic studies.
• Tina Nguyen says that Sanders "displayed a lack of familiarity with economic principles" and "isn't sure how to break up big banks". She has a B.A. in government and covers "politics, current events (domestic and global), the media, fools and trolls".

One could go on. Some of the more serious journalists have been relatively even-handed: for example,MarketWatch fiscal policy reporter Robert Schroeder, who Eavis cites, avoids editorializing and merely reports what relatively credible critics have said. But for the most part, the media is crawling with generalists and dilettantes who have no significant background in the field. And they are loudly declaring - at odds with the assessment of actual scholars and credible professionals - that a major national figure advocating an agenda backed by millions of Americans doesn't know what he's talking about.

Much has been written on the media's cult of the expert, which usually amounts - as Adam Johnson puts it in this excellent piece - to "a lazy appeal to authority that shortcuts actually showing one's homework - how one got from premise to conclusion". But objections to the rhetoric of expertise should not be understood as objections to expertise itself.

In fact, as we see here, a major - major - problem in modern journalism is a widespread lack of expertise. It's not just that journalists are editorializing; they're editorializing on topics where they have no background or claim to knowledge whatsoever. Pundits who know little more than their readers, and often demonstrably less, are given massive corporate platforms to do this; their misinformation is relentlessly marketed and disseminated with massive promotional budgets, quite often under the imprimatur of prestige publication brands.

This is not entirely the fault of the names in the bylines; journalists have bills to pay like the rest of us, they have often ruthless content quotas and deadlines to meet, and they often don't even have the luxury of taking their time and getting it right. The problem is structural, and ultimately comes down to the ways that capitalism 1) places unreasonable production demands on workers and 2) systematically incentivizes biased reporting. Regardless, the Sanders banking debate is a paradigm example of how this plays out in practice, and how it warps our discourse and our politics. The relatively tiny fraction of writers with even minimal credibility, who spend most of their time researching and toiling in obscurity, are inevitably drowned out by this enormous machine of elite infotainment.​

​

Bernie still gonna lose though

 

[StatUS]

Good debate on the Banks going on MSNBC right now

 

[tmonster]

He does not know about one of the biggest talking points of his campaign? this makes you more confident in him?

you are generalizing
so allow me to do the same and say, "YES"!

If Hillary had said this she would be a strait shooter too huh?

Yes and you can but top money I would not have even thought of making a thread about it
they ain't got shyt on Bernie, so this will have to do, they already tried copying him and his, "talking points" as you put it
Go back and listen all his past speeches in the senate this is a thoughtful man, I have never heard Hilary utter a single original or interesting thought, her entire life is talking points

This is rivaling Kobe stanning levels on the coli

you should know name calling will only get you so far with me chief

 

[tmonster]

This is a really bad look for Bernie, he's starting to look really shaky.

 

[tmonster]

Shouldn't Bernie be able to answer the tough questions?

....................................

 

[88m3]

@tmonster I wouldn't go to the concert of a rapper who forgets his lines, why would I vote for a presidential candidate who forgets or doesn't know his own policies?

 

[MrSinnister]

Watch Bernie be in the right side of every major issue of the past 30 years can still call his supporters stans brehs.

 

[tmonster]

Much like Bernard stans reasoning for why hes gonna win

why y'all think we need a reasoning
nor that we care whether he wins or not
WE ARE IN THIS shyt MANE!!!! till Bernie says it's over it don't matter what y'all think is gonna happen

 

[tmonster]

Watch Bernie be in the right side of celery issue of the past 30 years can still call his supporters stans brehs.

Oh God
what Am I gonna do?
I am a stan for breaking up big banks
for increasing the minimum wage
for making the rich pay their share
For free healthcare
free education

oh woe is me
How can I live with myself
whatever shall I do?

 

[tmonster]

@tmonster I wouldn't go to the concert of a rapper who forgets his lines, why would I vote for a presidential candidate who forgets or doesn't know his own policies?

I don't go to rap concerts, I can't relate to your issues

.....sorry

 

[tmonster]

So after 20 years he does not have a plan for his biggest issue?




Honestly i don't even think nikkas was stanning Obama this hard you guys are living in the matrix or some shyt

You have us in knots with your unassailable logic and coolness



































just kidding
you don't

 

[MrSinnister]

Oh God
what Am I gonna do?
I am a stan for breaking up big banks
for increasing the minimum wage
for making the rich pay their share
For free healthcare
free education

oh woe is me
How can I live with myself
whatever shall I do?

It's crazy as fukk to not see how these issues haven't disproportionately affected Black empowerment and wealth. Motherfukkers here HAVE to be living at home to not see this, and Stan for Hillary anyway.

It's not even a definite that the Panama papers will shake up anything around hwre, when it is turning Europe nutshyt. It's been the biggest scandal of the last 10 years (wikileak on the war being the other) and if you think people here will get their just deserts, you're crazy.

Now how does a system that corrupt help put Black people when we weren't helped in any other corrupt era. We think that because Obama legitimized us , that were going to get into the big game together. Here's Obama, played by Carl Anthony Payne II:



Skip to 1:16 to see what Obama has done with faced with neoliberal needs to prune the tree of potential prosperity for Black people.