OT: Bronx Bernie Sanders rally Rosario Dawson, Residente on 3/31

[BKAY]

Lol at people actually trying to argue that tax havens are ok and trade agreements haven't hurt American citizens. Like what snow globe do some people live in?

Or people who act like social welfare programs=socialism. If you feel that way, please don't call the FDNY when your house is burning. Don't call the NYPD when you've just been robbed. Don't collect social security or Medicare. Don't send your kids to public school. Don't collect disability or workers comp if you ever are injured on the job or take paid family leave. I'll stop there but I think you get the point.






Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[HarthorneWingo]

Bernie closing in on Hillary in NY.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1512404

I would guess this is more of a case of Emerson being way off originally (and might still be off). Every poll dating back to March 2015 (over a year) showed Hillary between 51-55% in New York except for that one Emerson poll that had her up in the 70's. That was simply never realistic. I mean, seriously, the previous Emerson poll had her winning 85% of the Latino vote. EIGHTY-FIVE lol. They clearly either had a horrific sample in the original poll, or just shouldn't be taken seriously in general. I suspect things will continue to close until it gets to 53-47 or 55-45; somewhere in that range. The polls haven't shown Hillary losing any support in New York yet, which is the key for her. Even this Emerson poll, which I take with a large grain of salt, still shows her at 56%. If Bernie can't actually win over Hillary supporters, he's in serious trouble in New York.

Bernie's going to win NY. You'll see.

[Capn'O]

And I think a candidate like him will end up becoming president sooner than later.

There was a tweet that came across my feed not too long ago that I let go and wish I hadn't. It's message was along the lines of "If you love Bernie but can't name your local, state, and national representatives then you may not be ready for political revolution."

It has been somewhat disheartening to me that the "revolution" has put all of its eggs in one basket. Especially with a candidate as malleable as Clinton likely to take the nomination. Surround her with progressives and she would be more inclined to lean that way. Then you've given experience to a round of politicians, some of which may rise up the chain. But these motherfckers all wanna play checkers.

Generally, there's so little coverage of any other races aside from the presidential one. And Congress holds so much power. See McConnell, Mitch.

[Capn'O]

:lol: At people voting for someone just because they hate them less than the other candidate. With about 320 million people in the US you'd think they'd be able to scrounge up 2 better (potential) candidates for president? Have we had 2 potentially less qualified and less liked (potential) presidential candidates than Trump and Clinton? I mean most of his own party hates Trump don't they? What is this world coming to? First the Knicks, now the presidential candidacy?

I'm praying that this combo leads to more people voting independent. I'm not enamored with Johnson or Stein, but I think they're both plenty viable compared to Trump and Clinton. Having more options would change elections imo.

I'll have my eyes on fivethirtyeight.com on election night. They've called the primaries pretty well but call general elections EXTREMELY well. Then I know if my vote can run independent.

[machu46]

And I think a candidate like him will end up becoming president sooner than later.

There was a tweet that came across my feed not too long ago that I let go and wish I hadn't. It's message was along the lines of "If you love Bernie but can't name your local, state, and national representatives then you may not be ready for political revolution."

It has been somewhat disheartening to me that the "revolution" has put all of its eggs in one basket. Especially with a candidate as malleable as Clinton likely to take the nomination. Surround her with progressives and she would be more inclined to lean that way. Then you've given experience to a round of politicians, some of which may rise up the chain. But these motherfckers all wanna play checkers.

Generally, there's so little coverage of any other races aside from the presidential one. And Congress holds so much power. See McConnell, Mitch.

100% agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kristov]

Lol, I can assure you that my supporting her has nothing at all to do with Wall Street. I'd tend to support Bernie's platform of trying to reform campaign finance. I hate that you can essentially buy politicians and elections.

And to be clear, I like Bernie. I just prefer Hillary. I'm not a diehard supporter of either, and certainly not someone that loves one and hates the either. I'd say I'm more lukewarm on both.

Edit: Also, just because I currently work as a financial analyst doesn't mean that I want to be a financial analyst. It's just my current job, and my job certainly does not drive my political interests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was wondering if you could answer a couple concerns I have about Bernie's financial transaction tax to fund free college tuition. It appears he has already introduced a bill to the senate that has been sitting in committee for almost a year that would establish an FTT to fund free tuition so I would assume the details would be the same as the one he's campaigning on.

Bernie's bill contains a provision that establishes an offsetting tax credit for individual taxpayers whose income levels are up to $50,000 for individuals and $75,000 for those filing joint returns. Taxpayers at these income levels would therefore not have to pay the FTT on their financial market trading. However, trading by institutional investors, such as mutual funds or pension funds, whose members include people below the $50,000 or $75,000 income levels, will not be eligible for this tax credit.

Since these institutional investors will be getting hit with the tax would it be safe to assume that the increased costs would be passed onto the investors? Is there anything that would prevent them from passing on the cost of this tax? If correct than this tax would indirectly apply to anyone with a retirement fund with an institutional investors including poor people.

[Rasho Brezec]

Kinda OT, but these guys are easier to listen to than any one of the mainstream candidates. Well, except that creepy guy who rehearsed everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr9Vr5p-8Fs

[j4remi]

Kinda OT, but these guys are easier to listen to than any one of the mainstream candidates. Well, except that creepy guy who rehearsed everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr9Vr5p-8Fs

Last primary season, Gary Johnson ran for the Republican nomination and was part of the first primary debate. He polled as the winner and polled with the most memorable line of that debate. The Republicans shifted the rules so that he wouldn't qualify in the next debate, so he dropped out and ran on the Libertarian ticket. I don't agree with him on everything, but I voted for him last time because I was disappointed with Obama and thought Romney's platforms were weak. The Libertarian party and the Green party stand to gain some ground if Trump/Clinton is the decision being offered and I think Johnson can really win over a lot of voters.

[Rasho Brezec]

Kinda OT, but these guys are easier to listen to than any one of the mainstream candidates. Well, except that creepy guy who rehearsed everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr9Vr5p-8Fs

Last primary season, Gary Johnson ran for the Republican nomination and was part of the first primary debate. He polled as the winner and polled with the most memorable line of that debate. The Republicans shifted the rules so that he wouldn't qualify in the next debate, so he dropped out and ran on the Libertarian ticket. I don't agree with him on everything, but I voted for him last time because I was disappointed with Obama and thought Romney's platforms were weak. The Libertarian party and the Green party stand to gain some ground if Trump/Clinton is the decision being offered and I think Johnson can really win over a lot of voters.

He and McAfee were really refreshing to hear. I don't necessarily agree with them, but it's nice to see candidates who are self-aware and don't talk about each other's dicks or wives.

[machu46]

Lol, I can assure you that my supporting her has nothing at all to do with Wall Street. I'd tend to support Bernie's platform of trying to reform campaign finance. I hate that you can essentially buy politicians and elections.

And to be clear, I like Bernie. I just prefer Hillary. I'm not a diehard supporter of either, and certainly not someone that loves one and hates the either. I'd say I'm more lukewarm on both.

Edit: Also, just because I currently work as a financial analyst doesn't mean that I want to be a financial analyst. It's just my current job, and my job certainly does not drive my political interests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was wondering if you could answer a couple concerns I have about Bernie's financial transaction tax to fund free college tuition. It appears he has already introduced a bill to the senate that has been sitting in committee for almost a year that would establish an FTT to fund free tuition so I would assume the details would be the same as the one he's campaigning on.

Bernie's bill contains a provision that establishes an offsetting tax credit for individual taxpayers whose income levels are up to $50,000 for individuals and $75,000 for those filing joint returns. Taxpayers at these income levels would therefore not have to pay the FTT on their financial market trading. However, trading by institutional investors, such as mutual funds or pension funds, whose members include people below the $50,000 or $75,000 income levels, will not be eligible for this tax credit.

Since these institutional investors will be getting hit with the tax would it be safe to assume that the increased costs would be passed onto the investors? Is there anything that would prevent them from passing on the cost of this tax? If correct than this tax would indirectly apply to anyone with a retirement fund with an institutional investors including poor people.

Full disclosure, most of the financial analysis that I do is analyzing my own company's financials, putting together the budget, etc.

The company I work for creates a lot of the mutual funds that institutional investors/SMAs would be investing in, but the inner workings of who pays what, tax loopholes, etc. are things that I'm not involved in. There's also been a crackdown recently on mutual fund companies for not correctly splitting out their costs with the investor's costs. Companies have sort of blended the two together in the past, and it resulted in charging investor's fees on things they really shouldn't be paying for.

As far as I can tell though, there's probably a decent chance that your concerns about some of the costs being passed onto investors is legitimate. On top of that, I'm pretty sure the taxes that he wants to charge the investors only makes up 2/3 of the money that will be used to pay for the free college program. The rest is supposed to come from each individual state, so we'd probably have to pay some money (on a per citizen basis, I would guess it isn't very much) there too.

On the topic of mutual funds, in general, the fees involved there are already pretty high. Savvy investors are starting to invest more in ETFs because they have most of the benefits of a mutual fund without the relatively high costs, and mutual fund companies are working on a new type of product to try to compete more with them. I can't recall the name of the product right now, but it hasn't yet been approved. One company in particular is leading the charge on it and the rest of us are just basically sitting back to see if they can actually get it approved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HarthorneWingo]

When Bernie wins the Wyoming caucus today will that make it 7 out of the last 8 or 8 out of the last 9 he's won? I'm losing track. Bahahahaha

[machu46]

When Bernie wins the Wyoming caucus today will that make it 7 out of the last 8 or 8 out of the last 9 he's won? I'm losing track. Bahahahaha

Technically 7 of 8. Or 7 of 15 depending on how you look at it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HarthorneWingo]

When Bernie wins the Wyoming caucus today will that make it 7 out of the last 8 or 8 out of the last 9 he's won? I'm losing track. Bahahahaha

Technically 7 of 8. Or 7 of 15 depending on how you look at it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It'll be 8 in a row after he wins Wyoming and it could be 9 in a row once they address all the election fraud in Arizona. NY will make it 10 in a row.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html

[machu46]

When Bernie wins the Wyoming caucus today will that make it 7 out of the last 8 or 8 out of the last 9 he's won? I'm losing track. Bahahahaha

Technically 7 of 8. Or 7 of 15 depending on how you look at it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It'll be 8 in a row after he wins Wyoming and it could be 9 in a row once they address all the election fraud in Arizona. NY will make it 10 in a row.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html

8 in a row based on the alphabetical order they're listed there, but Arizona was the same day as those other states, so it's disingenuous to say he's won all these states in a row. And whatever happened in Arizona...the votes that might be added in will not be anywhere near enough to undo the deficit there. Nevada could turn into a win, but Arizona will for sure remain with Hillary.

Edit: Wow. They actually split the delegates in Wyoming?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CJackson]

he wins and they split the delegates. wonderful. screw it. winning big states is where its at now

[ReturnofMVP3]

I'm not impressed with how super delegates in the states he won are still supporting hillary. In Washington all the super deligates that aren't undecided are saying they're going with Hillary. Bernie whipped her in Washington. These elected officials not listening to the people who elected them is not cool.

[CJackson]

I'm not impressed with how super delegates in the states he won are still supporting hillary. In Washington all the super deligates that aren't undecided are saying they're going with Hillary. Bernie whipped her in Washington. These elected officials not listening to the people who elected them is not cool.

that kind of movement is a domino affect. most that would move over to bernie need to see someone else do it. so they all sit back and wait to see if there is a big change in the race that says bernie is the dem parties best chance at winning. for now most of them still think it is her. if that changes they can flip. there is time. and the fbi is still lurking

[ReturnofMVP3]

I'm not impressed with how super delegates in the states he won are still supporting hillary. In Washington all the super deligates that aren't undecided are saying they're going with Hillary. Bernie whipped her in Washington. These elected officials not listening to the people who elected them is not cool.

that kind of movement is a domino affect. most that would move over to bernie need to see someone else do it. so they all sit back and wait to see if there is a big change in the race that says bernie is the dem parties best chance at winning. for now most of them still think it is her. if that changes they can flip. there is time. and the fbi is still lurking

Smart man, I hope that's true. I don't want Hillary as the next president.

[CJackson]

I'm not impressed with how super delegates in the states he won are still supporting hillary. In Washington all the super deligates that aren't undecided are saying they're going with Hillary. Bernie whipped her in Washington. These elected officials not listening to the people who elected them is not cool.

that kind of movement is a domino affect. most that would move over to bernie need to see someone else do it. so they all sit back and wait to see if there is a big change in the race that says bernie is the dem parties best chance at winning. for now most of them still think it is her. if that changes they can flip. there is time. and the fbi is still lurking

Smart man, I hope that's true. I don't want Hillary as the next president.

it is in one way totally rigged by the dem party leadership but on the other hand they cant force the delegates to stay in line. it really comes down to groupthink. the party will choose its own survival over loyalty to any nominee and if bernie becomes the clear choice in a convention toss up because in three months everybody is saying he will stomp the repubs but hilary could lose in the gen election then all the fat cats who backed her cant keep the delegates from flipping.

it is all perception. thats why if bernie wins pa and ties or wins ny he has a pretty decent chance of shutting her out the rest of the way and it is not going to go without notice if she doesnt win anything for months heading into the convention whatever the count is. but 1 of 2 two things need to happen and that is bernie needs to tie or win ny and pa or the fbi takes hilary out with indictments

[ToastinKP]

Bernie closing in on Hillary in NY.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1512404

I would guess this is more of a case of Emerson being way off originally (and might still be off). Every poll dating back to March 2015 (over a year) showed Hillary between 51-55% in New York except for that one Emerson poll that had her up in the 70's. That was simply never realistic. I mean, seriously, the previous Emerson poll had her winning 85% of the Latino vote. EIGHTY-FIVE lol. They clearly either had a horrific sample in the original poll, or just shouldn't be taken seriously in general. I suspect things will continue to close until it gets to 53-47 or 55-45; somewhere in that range. The polls haven't shown Hillary losing any support in New York yet, which is the key for her. Even this Emerson poll, which I take with a large grain of salt, still shows her at 56%. If Bernie can't actually win over Hillary supporters, he's in serious trouble in New York.

Bernie's going to win NY. You'll see.

With the closed primary it is going to be hard. Even so his rallies are still having a very high turn out in NY and I hope the media is just trying to drown out support for Bernie.

With Bill attacking Black Matters protesters and Blasio's and Hillary's little stunt the other day I hope people see what kind of users these people truly are.

[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CWy_H2gOTQ[/YouTube]


[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rzt0p97ngg[/YouTube]