Hillary vs Bernie

[Admiral Yi]

Compromise means you had a position, they had a position, you met in the middle even though it wasn't perfect.  Voting in another round of Wall Street "experts" to walk in the revolving door of financial regulation isn't compromise, it's surrender.

What would "real" financial regulation look like?

[CountDeMoney]

If it doesn't involve the deployment and detonation of unconventional explosive devices with the appropriate yield to incur large numbers of casualties, then it's not really "real" financial regulation.

[DGuller]

There's also, as DG sort of said, a bit about voting for the candidate who you think would be better for America and its citizens as a whole. Trump (and the current Republican crop) aren't really those people.

That's not an argument against voting for a 3rd party candidate, though, if you actually believe said candidate would be better for America than either Trump or Clinton would be.

It is an argument against voting for a third party candidate, if you take actual real world consequences of voting into account.  Voting for a third party candidate is not as bad as voting for Trump, but it is half as bad, because you're not canceling out someone else's vote for Trump.  It's so obvious that I have no idea why I need to spell it out.

And all this "said candidate would be better for America" is answering a wrong question to begin with.  In the voting booth, you should not ask yourself who the best candidate for America would be.  You should be asking yourself which vote would be best for America.  In 2000, it didn't matter whether Nader or Gore would be better for America.  It sure as hell mattered which vote was better for America.

[LaCroix]

It is an argument against voting for a third party candidate, if you take actual real world consequences of voting into account.

to be fair, mono is absolutely correct that it doesn't matter whether mihali votes. there are no real world consequences, because a single person's vote has negligible impact in national and most state politics. but, I know you're arguing against the general principle 

[Monoriu]

It is an argument against voting for a third party candidate, if you take actual real world consequences of voting into account.

to be fair, mono is absolutely correct that it doesn't matter whether mihali votes. there are no real world consequences, because a single person's vote has negligible impact in national and most state politics. but, I know you're arguing against the general principle 

[Siege]

As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.

Ass.

This is also why I'm so upset that we're continuing to have the Bern drift along. He's already pushed Hillary to the left, now time to bow out as the next few months will only continue strife and lead to more Bern supporters adopting Mihali's juvenile* stance.

*and really it is as not voting/protesting voting in the two party system we have only serves to help the Republicans who are certainly much farther away policy-wise than Hillary is to Bernie.

  So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it?  What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle. 

Of course we can never have perfect candidates; but at a certain point the things that make the candidates "evil" are pretty specific and pretty obvious, e.g. campaign contributions from the finance sector, not vague or petty distastes like "not sure we see eye-to-eye on the environment..." or "wears suits a size too big."

EDIT:  Nevermind, wasn't a fair reading of your words.

Why are you so liberal?
Your liberal policies are destroying this country.

[Malthus]

Inside Mihali's mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

[derspiess]

Why are you so liberal?
Your liberal policies are destroying this country.

Shhh

[The Minsky Moment]

Compromise means you had a position, they had a position, you met in the middle even though it wasn't perfect.  Voting in another round of Wall Street "experts" to walk in the revolving door of financial regulation isn't compromise, it's surrender.

What would "real" financial regulation look like?

blah blah blah Glass-steagall blah blah blah transactions tax blah blah blah

[Norgy]

Real financial regulation would to me look like hedgefund managers hanging from lamp posts. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Except that hedge fund managers, however objectionable their mores may seem to you, are not really the public policy problem.

[Norgy]

Except that hedge fund managers, however objectionable their mores may seem to you, are not really the public policy problem.

It was a joke.
"Financial regulation" is like a buzzword thrown out there from populists everywhere.

[Tamas]

In Hungary the government regulates all profit-making sectors into the hands of oligarchs who support them. Progress!

[Norgy]

In Hungary the government regulates all profit-making sectors into the hands of oligarchs who support them. Progress!

In Norway, the state has shareholder majority in Telenor and Statoil, both companies operating in places that encourage bribery and corruption like Brazil and the former Soviet -stans.

[Martinus]

Real financial regulation would to me look like hedgefund managers hanging from lamp posts. 

I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.