Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Coincidence

(98 posts)
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:04 PM Mar 2016

So which is it, TARP or the '94 Crime Bill?

It sounds like it can't be both, so should Bernie Sanders have:

A) pinched his nose and voted for the crime bill because of the included violence vs women provisions and assault weapons ban

B) taken a principled stand against TARP to oppose sending another $350b to Wall Street despite the comparatively tiny $4b auto bailout that was tacked onto it?

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Kall

(615 posts)
1. If he voted against the crime bill,
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:26 PM
Mar 2016

the Clinton campaign would be saying he voted against the violence vs women provisions and assault weapons ban. It's a heads we win, tails you lose thing.

But that's expected of the Clinton campaign, really. They showed their colors when Chelsea and Hillary were going around claiming that Bernie Sanders' plan for single-payer health care would take health care away from "millions and millions and millions" of people, and even Democratic operatives who had endorsed them like Howard Dean said it wasn't an honest attack.

The disappointing thing is watching her shameless cheering section applauding her for launching attacks that, if you put on the right glasses, squint just right, and parse words the right way, can be technically construed as having a grain of substance in the most tortured sense possible. It's like the argument that Bernie's plan for universal Medicare would "dismantle" Medicare. Apparently they're enthusiastic at the prospect of 4 years of arguing over the definition of the word "is". I'm not and it'll be a frosty day in July before I lift a finger to help someone like that.

 

Coincidence

(98 posts)
3. But it's not just single-payer that worries Chelsea, ending mass incarceration worries her as well..
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:46 PM
Mar 2016

I just posted in another topic that I could never in good conscience support or defend Bernie Sanders if he resorted to even a fraction of the dirty deceptions that the Clinton campaign have now fully embraced as their primary strategy.

Sanders would have zero appeal if he were just another conniving politician. His character is his entire appeal, we are supporting honesty and integrity when we support Bernie.

Has anyone figure out yet what exactly is Clinton's appeal? I can even understand why some people find Trump appealing, but with Hillary it is just so baffling...

bigbrother05

(5,995 posts)
2. It's like he votes with his conscience instead of trading favors or keeping an eye on polls
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:41 PM
Mar 2016

Bernie does nuance, what a concept

Mufaddal

(1,021 posts)
4. I don't think he should have voted for the crime bill.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:59 PM
Mar 2016

He made a principled stand against it, and I understand why he voted for it (and that he'd get dinged now for other reasons if he hadn't). That being said, I still believe he made the wrong vote now, just as I believed in the 90s that he made the wrong vote on it as my congressman.

As for TARP, I believe he made the right vote, particularly because there were no guarantees about an auto bailout attached to it at the time.

pat_k

(12,829 posts)
5. For a blackmail demand to work...
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:59 PM
Mar 2016

...either the consequences of giving in need to be far greater than the consequences of refusing, or there has to be no alternative way to get what is being held hostage.

Neither were true in the above cases. Refusing to give into the blackmail was the right thing to do.

Sometimes it makes sense to vote for a bill with "poison pills" in it -- if the consequences of voting against are far graver than the poison pills, and/or if you have a shot at undoing the poison pills after the fact. .

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»So which is it, TARP or t...