Bernie Sanders Comes Out Against CISA 211
erier2003 writes: Sen. Bernie Sanders' opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act in its current form aligns him with privacy advocates and makes him the only presidential candidate to stake out that position, just as cybersecurity issues loom large over the 2016 election, from email server security to the foreign-policy implications of data breaches. The Senate is preparing to vote on CISA, a bill to address gaps in America's cyberdefenses by letting corporations share threat data with the government. But privacy advocates and security experts oppose the bill because customers' personal information could make it into the shared data.
"the only presidential candidate" (Score:5, Informative)
You mean besides John McAfee. Who is also certifiably insane, but at least manages to be interesting while being so.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
and also Rand Paul? https://randpaul.com/f/stop-cisa?sr=807fbnp1
Re: (Score:1)
Once you're that rich, you can no longer be insane. Just eccentric.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure he couldn't have afforded the drugs, or lifestyle, that led to the insanity before...
Re: (Score:2)
Hello,
Mr. McAfee behaved oddly before the success of McAfee Associates.
Regards,
Aryeh Goretsky
impressed again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Another sensible and patriotic policy position by Bernie Sanders.
Re:impressed again. (Score:5, Interesting)
Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think most people on slashdot support Bernie, so I'm probably going to get modded down, but I think he's just another one of those "hey, let's be more like Europe" politicians. And honestly, I think that would be a disaster. Income inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as it's easy to get the bare essentials, which in the US it is.
The thing is, our "struggle to the top" culture is the reason why all of the world's best tech firms are here, and why all of the world's best new scientific (especia
Re:impressed again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And in spite of all of that writing you just did, you failed to make a salient point.
Re: (Score:3)
It's that kind of ignorance that gives American a bad name, fortunately over the other side of the pond here we're not so ignorant to generalise that all Americans are ignorant idiots.
'All' of the world's best tech firms are not, in America, in fact the largest one in the world by revenue is in South Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually when I made that statement, I was just echoing something that a few European governments have lamented. More details here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]
If you disagree, then go take it up to your own leadership who is now resorting to legal tactics to try to push out American competitors to local European firms for no reason other than they just can't manage to produce a good enough product to effectively compete on the global economy.
Re: (Score:2)
I can speak for the UK, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden in saying we're all fantastically innovative nations and have huge technology markets, the fragmentation may not lead to companies the size of Apple but to dismiss them entirely is naive at best.
You seem to also forget that your Apple behemoths have d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so long as it's easy to get the bare essentials, which in the US it is.
No. It is not. It is for you. It is (currently) for me. I know many who can not easily get the bare essentials. Living a sheltered life is a wonderful thing but you need to find a way to see outside of your little bubble before making such pronouncements.
Life is grim for quite a number of people in America.
Re: (Score:2)
And you can't spell.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Bernie as President doesn't have the power to do most of that.
So what do you intend to elect him for then?
The right wing side of this country really wants to paint everything as if it was all black or white. It's not all or nothing.
Define right wing please.
Re:impressed again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.
You probably think that's weird because you don't know what a Democratic Socialist is. When Republicans or Hillary supporters talks about socialism, they're really talking about a different form of socialism - where everything is under control of the government - but then confuse you into thinking that's the type of socialist Bernie is. Democratic socialism is about making things fair (people making millions per year don't pay lower tax rate than their janitor) and economically secure (making sure you have access to medical care, enough to eat, housing, access to education etc without having to work 80 hours per week and not being able to save any money for retirement).
Coming out against CISA shows this. CISA is about more government control. If Bernie was the type of socialist that Republicans and Hillary want you to think he is, he would be strongly in favor of CISA. Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA. Isn't that pretty much the epitome of irony?
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed....
It's also funny how people get so upset about a social program for college education, but are perfectly OK with a social k-12 program. Also social security is probably the one program that the government did right, and it's not out of money like republicans want you to think. When Bernie Sanders is talking about making billionaires pay there fair share, he's not saying that we should charge them a higher rate, he's saying that we should charge them the same rate as everyone else, but not have a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA.
This is untrue. Hillary's campaign has not yet released any position on CISA [dailykos.com]. I suspect you'll find a lot of the Republican "Freedom Caucus" against it too, but I don't have the stomach to check.
She's actually in a bit of a weird position on any pending legislation. As both the "presumptive nominee" (for now) and a Clinton, her coming out against a bill is the one thing that can guarantee its passage in the Republican House. If its mostly a political football bill anyway (eg: The Keystone Pipeline), more'
Re: (Score:2)
with social ownership of the means of production.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
When Republicans or Hillary supporters talks about socialism, they're really talking about a different form of socialism - where everything is under control of the government
Either Sanders is incorrectly using the term, or he really does want a lot of the means of production controlled socially. I suspect he believes in the later. I would support more ownership of things by the people/government, especially when they are common resources. Like, I'd much rather have my city own the internet service, just like water/sewer. Infrastructure should be 'owned by the people' in some way, shape, or form.
If he really does bel
Re:impressed again. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have accumulated what you would call wealth. Not only do I pay every nickel I am obligated to pay in taxes but I spend far more than I can write off, I can not decrease my tax burden any further, just in donations to worthy causes. I consider those donations my obligation. I consider those donations to be a part of the social contract. I did not get to where I am on my own. I give back because I can. I appreciate being able to do it with donations because then I select where my 'tax burden' really lies.
However, to go further down the rabbit hole, again - you seem to think those who have accumulated some wealth mind being taxed? I will happily increase my tax burden and not let it impact my spending or my investments provided the money goes to sound investments and is reasonably spent. People wonder why capital gains taxes are so low, the reason is to encourage those people who can to invest because their money helps the world go 'round. Thus they are penalized less when they put the money to work for the greater economic benefit.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this but, no... I don't mind or begrudge my taxes. I only get taxed on what I spend anyways. I don't even get taxed much on that and I am able to reduce my tax burden to really low percentages just by doing my aforementioned civic duty in the form of donating to worthy charitable causes. There are a lot of other ways I can, and do, reduce my tax burden. If you raise my tax burden to 90% then I'd really only be paying that 90% after a pretty damned huge amount of expenditures - expenses I don't normally actually incur.
I'd probably not reach that threshold on a regular basis - I simply don't actually take my money out of my portfolio and roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck. (I don't have *that* much anyhow.) So long as it stays invested then I don't pay really a nickel on it and that's not going to change. I'll continue spending as much as I spend now (maybe a little less if I actually cared about taxes but, really, no - that's not even going to be a concern if I want something) and actually pay somewhere around the same percentage that my neighbor's pay.
Here's the bottom of that rabbit hole... I don't mind. I do mind that they're currently spent unwisely. I'd actually be happier paying for programs like Sanders offers to try to implement. (You don't think Congress is going to let him have half the stuff he wants, do you? He'd be president, not king.) If I minded taxes then, you know, I'd just "bounce up on out of this bitch." (I think that's the appropriate colloquialism.) There are other countries who will make me a citizen just for investing a few dollars. I already have citizenship in Canada by grace of birth and ethnicity - I'm more than 1/4 Native American, Micmac if you're curious, and I'm sure they'd absolutely love to have me. I already own property there.
No, we need to be taxed higher than we are. This shouldn't trickle down to the middle class. It sure as hell shouldn't affect the impoverished. We need to be taxed more, maybe allowed to write off more by donating but that's another subject entirely, and the money needs to be spent wisely. Investing money in bombing brown people is not a good investment. Investing money on a war on chemicals is not a good thing. Investing money on warehousing people for victimless crimes is not a good thing. Investing money on wasteful bureaucracies is not a good thing. I could go on.
I don't get to make the rules so I'll happily listen to the social consensus. But, really, we have so much money (as a whole) that there's no excuse for us having the issues we have. It's simply unacceptable.
Hmm... I'm particularly ranty tonight. Sorry - no offense meant. I'm going to post it anyhow. Meh... Maybe someone will read it. I'm not hugely wealthy by some folks standards - not even really that rich. I'm certainly in the 1% and probably closer to the .2% if I recall the statistics posted at one point. I spend more on a bunch of silly cars and computers than I
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing the authoritarian line with the economic line. Fun facts, anarchists have traditionally been leftists and libertarianism started out as a leftist philosophy. Generally rightist, at least the successful ones, are authoritarian, sometimes they want small government so the government doesn't interfere with their authoritarianism, think of the mafia or the Mexican drug cartels, both right wing business types who want less government interference in their businesses.
Take a look at the political
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's just plain ignorant. You have confused socialism with totalitarianism which is another common mistake people make and socialism isn't a dirty word. We already accept public police, schools, roads, all sorts of things.
A concise example of Democratic Socialism is the UK Labour Party. It means that state ownership is "on the table", as in their NHS healthcare system (which has recently been partially privatized), and the democracy is a core value including democracy in the workplace - unions. Democratic Socialism is widely considered center-left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've established a fair reputation here and I've been pretty consistent for the duration of my stay. It should be well known that I'm a pretty staunch Libertarian though the moniker is, really, Classic Libertarian. I'm neither a follower of Rand nor a believer in anarcho-capitalism nor a conservative - by any stretch of the imagination. I've explained this, time and time again actually. I'll spare you the details unless you promise to read them and do so with an open mind but, rest assured, that the vast ma
Re: (Score:2)
You won't listen. I could type for days but you won't read it and you'll just try to argue.
This part of your post comes across only as arrogant.
Re: (Score:2)
--
JimFive
The country is too big (Score:1)
With 50 states, there could be variations about all these civil rights / privacy / security issues and people could just live wherever they feel comfortable instead of putting everything into two irrelevantly similar baskets (political parties) and swinging from one to the other every 8 years.
Re: (Score:1)
With 50 states, there could be variations about all these civil rights / privacy / security issues and people could just live wherever they feel comfortable instead of putting everything into two irrelevantly similar baskets (political parties) and swinging from one to the other every 8 years.
Civil Rights shouldn't be negotiable.
Also, poor people have a disproportionately hard time moving across town, so across the country is just not an option.
Re: (Score:2)
They are important, but not violate the constitution, or hypocrisy important.
Re: (Score:2)
They are important, but not violate the constitution, or hypocrisy important.
Why not? The Federal government violates the constitution every day.
Re: (Score:2)
People run over other people with cars every day. So why not do it yourself?
Could it be because it's a really bad idea, same as the proposition you are putting forth with your question?
Truly a conundrum for the ages. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at how candidates are responding to this Rand Paul has been pushing several amendments addressing the privacy concerns of CISA.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously, Rand Paul advocates for our privacy and has done so for longer than half of Bernie Sanders' life(since he's like a million years old thats a long time).
https://randpaul.com/f/stop-cisa?sr=807fbnp1
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Even a blind squirrel encounters a nut on occasion. Rand Paul is against CISA because he wants to eliminate the entire federal government. NOAA, NWS, NASA, all would be gone so that UmbrellaCorp executives can get rich selling all of us the weather forecast (along with an umbrella). No national park service, no DOT to manage the interstate highways, no FAA to ensure that planes don't fall out of the sky and onto your house. Rand wants it all gone, replaced by the strong invisible hand of capitalism. Thanks
like the commission that Hilary appointed? (Score:2, Informative)
> How about the fact that he's one of the Benghazi conspiracy nutters?
The commission that -Hilary Clinton- appointed to investigate Benghazi found that "senior leadership of the state department " was reckless, in the face of clear warnings, to the point that it "suggests the appearance of intentional neglect". That's Clinton's very own commission who came to that conclusion.
Rand Paul (along with anyone who has been paying attention) agrees.
effect isn't cause (Score:2)
What he said is that Clinton's bungle had the -effect- of hurting her campaign. She didn't fuck it up -in order- to damage her campaign. And the Obama State Department has said very clearly many times that she fucked up. It was a political gaffe to "take credit" for exposing her incompetence or disinterest in doing her job.
Re: (Score:2)
Well obviously Clinton backs CISA (Score:5, Funny)
Since Clinton opted to share everything up to top secret emails with the Russians, Chinese, or simply anyone skilled and a little curious she obviously doesn't see why it would matter to anyone if they were sharing data with a government.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying she wasn't reckless, and not saying that the next fool that follows in her footsteps will get away as cleanly as she appears to have, but...
The value of secrets diminishes with time, and it appears that any secrets she may have leaked through carelessness weren't leaked quickly enough to be highly valuable to anybody who eventually obtained them.
The other value of secrecy is wrapping up everything you can justify in TOP SECRET clearance, so if anybody does crack a TOP SECRET file, odds are what t
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite sure how the name of an active CIA field agent is ever a secret whose value "diminishes with time" with respect to the guy who is going to be murdered if the information leaks.
Re: (Score:2)
The value of secrets diminishes with time, and it appears that any secrets she may have leaked through carelessness weren't leaked quickly enough to be highly valuable to anybody who eventually obtained them.
Bullshit! Obviously there would be a few things that lose value over time but other things not so much. Weapon technology comes immediately to mind. Me thinks you are attempting to be a subtle apologist.
I wouldn't call it an apology so much as a: "Got away with it at the time, mostly by luck, probably best to not repeat the mistake in the future." Like any president (W or O), I wouldn't blame the individual nearly as much as I would blame the staff/system that surrounds them. If Hillary had staff specifically instructing her on proper security procedures, reminding her when she was violating them, and she was telling them to F-off because she is in charge, then, yeah, she should twist in the wind for tha
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant (Score:4, Informative)
I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, there is diversity and disagreement within the different candidates' campaign promises.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
Great thing that Bernie Sanders has had a consistent voting record his entire political career then as well as his net worth is about $390,000.
His presidential campaign is being funded by the people not special interests and Wall Street hates that.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, cynicism does resonate with some part of me. But when is the last time the US elected a president who was not an obvious establishment sellout from long before election time? The last one I could possibly see as a possibility was JFK in 1960 - and he was debatable. One can have disagreement with various of Mr. Sanders' stands, but seeing him as a sellout is not credible.
Just because the electorate has chosen an endless series of sellouts, who were transparently obvious as sellouts at election time, is not a rational argument that all candidates would sell out if elected.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd agree with JFK being debatable. I'd say Jimmy Carter wasn't a sellout. Few would call his presidency successful, but few would call him a sellout.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Like raise 90% of the population's taxes?
Like sign an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants?
Like give arms to Iran?
Like send death squads to Central and South America?
Like crap his diaper in the oval office?
Yeah, I'd say that Reagan did a lot of things that a lot of people didn't like. I would have to respectfully disagree about the "good of the country" part, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Truman. Maybe -- and ONLY maybe -- Ike.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say Reagan wasn't a sellout.
And you would be wrong.
almost all of which were for the longterm good of the country...
OK not that's some funny #@% right there.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say Reagan wasn't a sellout.
Depends on your version of "a sellout". He started political life as an FDR supporter, then changed his tune when G.E. started paying him to tour the country shilling for them [amazon.com] in the 50's. So some might argue that he actually sold out long before he was ever elected.
Re: (Score:1)
Was that the doctrine that allowed government to heap massive financial liability on radio stations by forcing them to broadcast "the other political side's" trite, boring, and tired class warfare rhetoric?
Not counting NPR, of course.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
We're talking about a senator who has a vote on it. It's not a campaign promise, it's a senatorial decision.
Re: (Score:2)
the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding
Chief among these ways: passing laws to make things that a minority finds distasteful illegal... That's the problem with government, they try to govern.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)
I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office.
That's actually VERY true. Candidates from BOTH parties will SAY anything to be elected and what they say has largely been "focus grouped" to death. They study the exact phrases being used on the stump, weasel word their way though the mine field of diverse opinions, letting you believe what you *want* to hear without actually having said it.
HOWEVER.... There are two fairly reliable indicators of what candidates will do when they take office. First is their associations. Who where they associated with during their lives, what kind of people do they hang out with and feel most comfortable with, who are their long standing friends? Second, what have they done in the past? What did they vote for, what did they not, what types of things have they done with their lives in the past?
But your primary way to tell your candidate isn't really "on board" with what's being said is when they use weasel wording on an issue. The candidate will use similar words and phrases ALL THE TIME when they are trying to thread the needle on some hot topic. If you hear this, if you hear these pat sayings and phrases which are highly parsed and usually meaningless when you pay attention to what's actually said, be warned, they are trying to snow you...
Re: (Score:1)
I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.
While I would love to see a great distinction between to two parties, your black and white attitude bears little resemblance to reality. Do you really believe the War mongler John McCain would have passed a historic nuclear arms deal with Iran? Or any Republican for that matter pass a historic health care plan to ensure that even the poorest Americans have some form of health insurance.
You're attitude is toxic, and part of the reason we have some of the lowest voter turnout in the free world. If people got
Not needed, security companies do it without immun (Score:3)
CISA attempts to increase the amount of shared knowledge about ongoing threats by creating a federal government bureaucracy which is supposed to facilitate communication. It grants immunity from law suits to any information shared through the new system.
This isn't necessary in order to achieve the goal. A federal program like this would be used almost exclusively by large companies, mom-and-pop shops aren't going to do 800 pages of paperwork to become a participating entity. Currently, the large companies who care about security -already- engage the services of security companies like Alert Logic or Fire Eye, who are -already- monitoring for security threats across their many client networks, and already raising the alarm when there are widespread indications of a threat in the current threat landscape. They do this without any special legal protection, and compete to see who can do it best. because they aren't immune from privacy lawsuits, they have to actually follow privacy laws (or try to, mistakes happen).
I seriously doubt that a government agency, with no motivation to do excellent work (but plenty of politically based mandates), would do better than the companies full of experts doing it already.
Also, the most important thing for companies in this space is their reputation - that their brand name is trusted. They have ample motivation to do everything in their power to be sure they don't -cause- a breach and to secure their own systems. Many of us know how secure government systems tend to be - almost as if they didn't care. Perhaps that is because hardly ever does any government program lose funding or any govt employee get fired for shoddy security. A breach of Fire Eye's network, or Alert Logic's, would have immediate and significant consequences for the company and the people responsible.
the white rural majority may like sanders (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that if sanders gets the Dem nomination, he will find many followers in the rural and suburban white majority that is usually not democrat
This is actually the What's the Matter with Kansas [wikipedia.org] argument. Basically that Democrats sold their (largely white) working-class base down the river to "move to the center" during the Clinton "Third Way" years, so now all those folks have left to vote on is social issues (where they tend to be conservative).
I'm not sure I buy Frank's argument entirely. For one thing he anchors it on the politics in Kansas, which is a really unique state politically. But it is a school of thought, and he could be onto somethi
Rand Paul also opposes CISA (Score:5, Informative)
https://randpaul.com/f/stop-ci... [randpaul.com]
"Therefore: I agree that the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, is non-negotiable and I urge you to Stand With Rand and oppose CISA."
Re: (Score:1)
I wish this hippy generation which has inflicted us for 25 years would just go away.
Sorry, no can do. Bernie's job is to keep that money inside the democratic party. They can't let any alternatives get a foothold.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why do you demonRATS waste your time with this loon? I wish this hippy generation which has inflicted us for 25 years would just go away.
Oh let them have their fun. Like the Republican race, their "A" team hasn't taking the court yet. Right now both teams are warming up on their side of the court throwing field goals and free throws still in their warm up clothes, the officials are still working their way to the time keeper's table and the box seats are only half full. There is 59 min still on the clock. Hillary isn't even out of the locker room yet and this Sander's guy is out making layups as fast as he can and dreaming about the points
Re:All Well and Good... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh noes! Not progressive taxation! Never mind that back in the prosperous '50s "good ol' days" taxes here were even more progressive than they are now...
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind that back in the prosperous '50s "good ol' days" taxes here were even more progressive than they are now...
I prefer progressive taxation, but this is a myth.
Back in the 50s, there were so many loop-holes in the tax laws, that almost no one paid the full rate. To pay it, you basically had to get your entire income as salary (which is why some athletes were among those in the highest tax bracket). I'll bet you can think of ways to avoid that kind of tax, structuring your income to not be salary (or hourly).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, the Glided Age, when all the money went to Robber Barons, who owned the whole town, and brutally crushed any competition, often violently.
Good times.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, except for the military and borders part all the rest of that could be done by state or local governments.
Re:Just what we need.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just curious as to which candidate best fits your ideological stance...
You do realize that in order for "no more bailouts" to be effective in not dragging our economy down if they are required, large companies (banks) need to be broken up into smaller more competitive (i.e. less powerful) entities. Banks like power, and don't want to be broken up into smaller more competitive chunks.
..and don't even get me started on reigning in the NSA. That's probably a bigger feat than breaking up the banks!
How do you propose these be accomplished?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they'll pass the taxes on to customers in the form of fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
At which point, they'll throw lots of money at the critters in congress who are writing the tax laws so that they include a few nice, shiny & new loopholes to get their net income below whatever threshold you, or anyone else, proposes.
This is why corporations should be taxed on gross income, just like individuals. I don't get to deduct all my customary living expenses before paying tax on the balance of my income - if corporations are people (spit) why should they get to do so?
Re: (Score:2)
This is important, because this is how we can reign in corporate "free speech". The Constitution, so sayeth SCOTUS, might give corporations the rights of people, but nothing in the Constitution gives certain types of people a favorable tax status over others.
Now, we have a long tradition of granting favorable tax status to certain groups, but that tax status often comes with restrictions attached. For example, to be a non-profit corporation, a corporation person is often required to publish quite a lot mo
Re:Just what we need.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".
A lot of shit happens that 'should' have been done differently but because the politicians are owned, entities like VW and the people running it who broke the law will go relatively unpunished due to a 'get out of jail free' clause in the 'clean air act'.
Re: (Score:2)
The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".
Actually the bailed out banks should have probably been nationalized (the US owning all/most of the shares), and then once things were settled you could break them up a lot more easily (since the public owns them). Few contracts / loopholes.
But that's Socialist. Every time I hear someone claim that Obama is a socialist, I think of how he handled the banks.
Re: (Score:2)
And who is spending the most on the candidates this election cycle?
(Hint: it ends with "anks" and doesn't start with Tom.)
Re: (Score:1)
The economy is dragged down by the bailouts, bailouts are always the wrong thing to do if you are looking for a sound economy in the long run and not for a repeat of the same problem down the road only bigger and worse.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you propose these be accomplished?
Create the FBIC (Federal Bailout Insurance Corporation). Banks and other organizations that are too big to fail (and any organization that wants the insurance) - and any institution having the special privilege of being a primary dealer with the Federal Reserve - have to buy Federal Bailout Insurance. Anyone who buys it can't have any transactions held in secret from the FBIC, so that they can analyze the risk and set the insurance rate. Once too big to fail means "must buy bailout insurance," they'll brea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Dems actually have a hell of a candidate in Webb, but he can't get support within his own party because he neither has a vagina nor does he spout socialist nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
That much is certain..
Best he can hope for is that Hillary get's charged with a crime due to this E-mail thing and has to drop out leaving only Biden and him. However, being she's not been charged yet, it's very doubtful she ever will.... Bernie has a snowballs chance in Death Valley a in mid summer heat wave... Shame though, as a republican it sure would be fun to watch him as the democratic contender...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I don't know if you remember about this time in 2007, but Republicans said the exact same thing about Obama. How "Americans would never vote for a guy with the middle name "Hussein"" and "America wasn't ready for a black president". The entire campaign season, through April of 2008, was "Hillary is the presumptive nominee". Remember how F
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Bernie would be huge fun for the republican field (even Trump).
Oh and I don't discount the history of Hillary and Obama... Sanders' situation is different.... 1. He's an avowed leftist socialist with a long political history (despite his attempts to claim otherwise). There is LOADS of video and audio material to use so he'd be easy to paint with that brush and where this appeals to the left of the Democratic party, it's a turn off to the center. (Obama was little known, except to people from IL so he
Re:Sorry, Bernie... (Score:4, Insightful)
So did Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Re: (Score:2)
So did Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Not nearly as many. Despite what gets said about racism in this country, the truth is there are far fewer actual racists than there used to be, especially among white Anglo Saxon population, even in the south. There is no way to really know exactly what the numbers would be had the color of the candidates been different, but I can assure you more voted for Obama because "he looks like me" than voted for Romney or McCain for the same reason.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you don't know, but you can "assure me..."?
Friend, your battle flag is showing.
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in a poor part of a southern state as minority poor white trash though my family was not indigenous. I was from northern roots where color didn't mean anything, yet we ended up there where it did. The high school I went to was over 90% of one race, and it wasn't white. I don't consider myself an expert in race relations, but I survived and escaped from the very hell hole where the racial divide is very apparent and deep rooted on both sides. As an outsider, I observed both sides of this issue, a
Re: (Score:2)
There are more racists in the north than the south ever dreamed of having - and yes, I'm not white. Well, not totally. They're just a little more subtle about it.
Don't take offense but the north reminds me of this "joke" which, while sort of funny, is still all too true...
Q: When does a black man become a nigger?
A: When he leaves the room.
Funny? Maybe a little, I guess - I'm part black. (I'm Native American, White, and have somewhere under 1/8 black in me. Not a whole lot but my hair shows it.) What it real
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you've never been to any of the "big cities" of the north. Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Philadelphia, Boston just to name a few are *very* diverse places. I have never claimed that racists don't exist, only that they are becoming less and less common, especially in the south where the older white Anglo Saxon racists are dying off faster than they get created. It is literally "out of style and out of step" to be white and hold racist views. The culture is changing.
A wise man once said that
Re: (Score:2)
You know, there is some truth to that, having lived both in very rural and very urban environments in my life.
But I would say that racists exist in both rural and urban areas, they just tend to be different colors, at least in my experience....
Re: (Score:2)
The Clinton campaign machine hasn't even been started yet and Sanders has apparently struggled to match her in the polls. She's not worried, nor should she be. Hillary is out running his campaign's funding 3 to 1 and out spending him by the same margin. Hillary has twice the amount of cash on hand and is taking in 3 times as much. Sanders will make a show, but unless he has a winning streak in February and places first in the majority of the initial primary states, he's going to slowly be bled dry of c
Re: (Score:2)