Trump this!

[dragance]

Pa smetaju, ali ovo je dobar pokazatelj kako superdelegati nemaju veze sa realnoscu i stanjem u njihovim drzavama (odakle dolaze).

[Weenie Pooh]

Nije dobar pokazatelj ako praktično ni ne pomeneš da si uračunao superdelegate. Hoćeš ljudima da stvoriš lažnu sliku da ne vredi ni izlaziti na glasanje jer će ih prosto pokrasti. Kao, zašto je bilo ko iz Vajominga izašao na glasanje kad je HRC "pobedila" sa manje glasova? To je svesno i besramno zaglupljavanje ljudi, navlačenje na svoju vodenicu, i budženje nezadovoljstva u javnosti generalno koje bi teoretski pomoglo Trumpu kad pokušaju da ga uhvate u krivini na contested convention.

 

Pogrešno je prećutno trpati superdelegate u isti koš sa delegatima da bi se stvorila slika da je HRC već pobedila, a još pogrešnije je raditi to isto da bi se bacalo kamenje na sistem.

[dragance]

Ne slazem se. To je deo pritiska na establisment DNC, koji skoro pa otvoreno forsira jednog kandidata na ustrb drugog. Cilj je da se narodu pokaze da sistem zaista jeste podlezan muljanjima, a Sanders nije jedini koji pokazuje rezultate ne razdvajajuci super delegate od pledged delegata. To su radili i pobornici HRC sa ukupnim brojkama kako bi naterali Sandersa da se skloni sa puta, sto im naravno ne bi nikada poslo za rukom.

 

Edit: [da pojasnim] Pod pritiskom DNC bi se poceo ponasati umerenije, a odredjeni super delegati lobirani da preispitaju svoj glas, jer "narod tako trazi". Bice i ovde open convention izgleda.

Edited April 11, 2016 by dragance

[Weenie Pooh]

Daj, Joe Scarborough vrši pritisak na DNC da bi sprečio muljanje u korist Clinton? Kao veliki borac protiv muljanja?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAMlokpkKy8

[dragance]

Ne. Mislim na Bernijev staff.

[Weenie Pooh]

Bernijev staff se žali na to što nisu dobili delegate 8-6 (umesto ovih 7-7), neka je petljancija oko procenata, ali nisam čuo da su kao Scarborough na gornjem linku trpali superdelegate u računicu, trubili da je system rigged, i da zato ne treba ni izlaziti na primaries.

[3opge]

#DemocracySpring: Hundreds of Protesters Reportedly Arrested During Sit-In at US Capitol

The protesters arrived in Washington, D.C., after a 10-day march from Philadelphia’s Liberty Bell. They are demanding that Congress pass four bills related to money in politics and election reforms.

[3opge]

    Bernie and the Big Banks

SATURDAY, APRIL 9, 2016

The recent kerfluffle about Bernie Sanders purportedly not knowing how to bust up the big banks says far more about the threat Sanders poses to the Democratic establishment and its Wall Street wing than it does about the candidate himself.

Of course Sanders knows how to bust up the big banks. He’s already introduced legislation to do just that. And even without new legislation a president has the power under the Dodd-Frank reform act to initiate such a breakup.

But Sanders threatens the Democratic establishment and Wall Street, not least because he’s intent on doing exactly what he says he’ll do: breaking up the biggest banks.

The biggest are far larger today than they were in 2008 when they were deemed “too big to fail.” Then, the five largest held around 30 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Today they have 44 percent.

According to a recent analysis by Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the assets of just four giant banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo – amount to 97 percent of our the nation’s entire gross domestic product in 2012.

Which means they’re now way too big to fail. The danger to the economy isn’t just their indebtedness. It’s their dominance over the entire financial and economic system.

Bernie Sanders isn’t the only one urging the big banks be broken up. Neel Kashkari, the new president of the Federal Reserve bank of Minneapolis – a Republican who used to be at Goldman Sachs – is also pushing to break them up, as has the former head of the Dallas Federal Reserve, among others.

Recall that just eight years ago the biggest banks were up to their ears in fraudulent practices – lending money to mortgage originators to make risky home loans laced with false claims, buying back those loans and repackaging them for investors without revealing their risks, and then participating in a wave of fraudulent foreclosures.  

Dodd-Frank addressed these sorts of abuses in broad strokes but left the most important decisions to regulatory agencies.

Since then, platoons of Wall Street lobbyists, lawyers and litigators have been watering down and delaying those regulations.

For example, Dodd-Frank instructed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to reduce certain risks, but the Street has sabotaged the process.

In its first major rule under Dodd-Frank, the CFTC considered 1,500 comments, largely generated by and from the Street. After several years the commission issued a proposed rule, including some of the loopholes and exceptions the Street sought.

Wall Street still wasn’t satisfied. So the CFTC agreed to delay enforcement of the rule, allowing the Street more time to voice its objections. Even this wasn’t enough for the big banks, whose lawyers then filed a lawsuit in the federal courts, arguing that the commission’s cost-benefit analysis wasn’t adequate.

As of now, only 249 of the 390 regulations required by Dodd-Frank have been finalized. And those final versions are shot through with loopholes big enough for Wall Street’s top brass to drive their Ferrari’s through.

The biggest banks still haven’t even come up with acceptable “living wills,” required under Dodd-Frank to show how they’d maintain important functions while going through bankruptcy.

Meanwhile they continue to gamble with depositor’s money. Many of their operations are global, making it even harder for U.S. regulators to rein them in – as evidenced by JPMorgan Chase’s $6.2 billion loss in its “London Whale” operation in 2012.

The bottom line: Regulation won’t end the Street’s abuses. The Street has too much firepower. And because it continues to be a major source of campaign funding, no set of regulations will be tough enough.  

So the biggest banks must be busted up.

When I debated former Rep. Barney Frank about this on television recently, he kept asking, rhetorically, what limit I’d put on their size.

A good rule of thumb might be to cap the assets of any bank at about 2 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product – or roughly $330 billion. (To put this in perspective, by the end of 2015, Goldman Sachs’s assets exceeded $860 billion.)

That cap wouldn’t harm America’s financial competitiveness and it wouldn’t cause bank employees to lose their jobs (at worst, they’ll just become employees of a smaller bank).

But it would ensure the safety of the American economy. Extra bonus: It would also reduce the power of Wall Street over our democracy.  

 

[freakns]

 

#DemocracySpring: Hundreds of Protesters Reportedly Arrested During Sit-In at US Capitol

The protesters arrived in Washington, D.C., after a 10-day march from Philadelphia’s Liberty Bell. They are demanding that Congress pass four bills related to money in politics and election reforms.

 

uhapsili i Cenka :D

[Eraserhead]

...

 

 

Reich peni kao po obicaju. Problem je stvaran, ali je pitanje koji je lek.

 

If Bernie Sanders Wants To Break Up The Big Banks Why Not Do It The Simple Way That Works?

 

 

...Our basic problem is that the big banks are simply too big. There’s no way we can let them go bust: they’re big enough that if they do then they’ll take all of the financial system down with them. Thus they will always be bailed out however much they get wrong. That’s what’s known as moral hazard. And it’s also true that because everyone knows all of this then they can borrow money more cheaply than smaller banks that we might allow to go bust. That is, once having gained a certain size they’re then subsidised, by that implicit assurance, into getting ever bigger just as we don’t want them to.

 

This is a real problem, it’s not just the millennials shouting about The Man on Wall Street. However, targets, regulations, these just aren’t the way to do it. Those banks are intensely capitalist organisations and the way to deal with capitalists is to hit them in the wallet. We should thus tax them into changing their behaviour...

 

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Eraserhead

[3opge]

Reich peni kao po obicaju. Problem je stvaran, ali je pitanje koji je lek.

 

If Bernie Sanders Wants To Break Up The Big Banks Why Not Do It The Simple Way That Works?

 

 

Reich peni a Krugman sasvim opusteno laze na braniku zlobabe.

[Weenie Pooh]

uhapsili i Cenka :D

 

Njega zamalo još u LA da uhapse, kad na aerodromu krenuo da se dere zbog čekanja od 4 sata :D Na kraju je avion najzad stigao, on sav srećan vloguje "pobeda braćo i sestre!" kad ono međutim - samo njega i još jednog bundžiju odbili da puste avion.

 

Ja bih spontano eksplodirao da su me naterali da čekam četiri sata a onda opušteno odjebali.

[freakns]

Njega zamalo još u LA da uhapse, kad na aerodromu krenuo da se dere zbog čekanja od 4 sata :D Na kraju je avion najzad stigao, on sav srećan vloguje "pobeda braćo i sestre!" kad ono međutim - samo njega i još jednog bundžiju odbili da puste avion.

 

Ja bih spontano eksplodirao da su me naterali da čekam četiri sata a onda opušteno odjebali.

ja bih otisao do Ane Kasparian da me utesi :D (ili treba i tu da stanem u red? :( )

 

svaka cast coveku na strpljenju, ja bih ubio nekoga u toj situaciji. ali najjace je sto ne vracaju pare nazad... to mi nekako i dalje zvuci pooprilicno neverovatno. nemoguce da mogu to da rade jbt...

[Weenie Pooh]

Što nemoguće, procene da si security risk iz nenavedenih razloga i zdravo. Pilot se ne oseća prijatno dok ste vi među putnicima, izvolite odjebati iz vozila, sami ste krivi.

 

Meni je samo sporno da se usuđuju to da rade posle četiri sata čekanja, to onda postaje vrhunski bezobrazluk.

[Ivo Petović]

Čenk je car. Deluje mi neverovatno da je nekad bio republikanac.