Disastrous interview shows exactly why I don't support Bernie Sanders

So Bernie Sanders gave an interview to The New York Daily news about the financial industry and foreign policy. It was a disaster. It became abundantly clear that he has no idea what he's talking about on foreign policy and doesn't even have detailed policy knowledge about big banks, much less any plan about how he's going to supposedly break them up.

Here are some more links related to this:

Bernie Sanders Takes Heat For NYD News Interview

9 Things Bernie Sanders Should Have Known But Didn't In NYD News Interview

How Much Does Bernie Sanders Know About Policy?

One of the most terrible parts of the interview:

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

I've been saying that Bernie Sanders in an unserious candidate with no depth or knowledge or plans beyond his talking points. He knows damn well that he doesn't know how he'd execute his agenda, but he also knows how gullible his supporters are, so he just goes back to his stump speech again and again and again. Then, when somebody actually holds his feet to the fire, he completely implodes. And somehow I'm supposed to believe he's more electable than Hillary Clinton? Bitch please.

Between Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and just the general ridiculousness that is the Republican primary, I cannot wait for this election to be over. All of it is just so unserious.

The Sanders supporters in the comments section of those articles are unbelievable. Some of them are actually trying to blame Hillary for Bernie's poor performance.

They blame Hillary for everything, it's really getting tiresome.

I am reading the Washington Post link and I don't understand the major issue here? He gets asked a ton of specific questions and does his best to answer right there, but flat out admits that it is hard to give a truly definitive answer without the facts being there in front of him? Instead of just dodging the question as is political status quo, he at least ATTEMPTS to give an answer but is honest about his needed all the facts in front of him to be completely sure?

I definitely don't like his response in #6, but then #7 and #8 got in ridiculous territory. Do they not realize that just because a person is in government they do not know every specific damn thing about this Country and it's defense situation? Bernie flat out might not have that knowledge off-hand of where all the secret prisons this country has are. Not only that, but I doubt that any of the candidates have spent a huge amount of time between the CIA and the Army to know which group might suck less with drones.

Question #9 is also especially embarrassing on the interviewer's part. It is an utterly asinine question, and then when Bernie gives a simple answer the interviewer flips their shit. Do you ride the subway? Seriously, WHO CARES? That has NOTHING to do with policy, Jesus Christ. Does the interviewer feel that OTHER candidates ride the subway? Because I have news for you, I bet none of them do. Bernie says he has and gives the flat out depiction of how you get on a subway that I have PERSONALLY done and the interviewer tries and says "YOU'RE WRONG!" and then says "LET US HAVE OUR PHOTOGRAPHER THERE WHEN YOU RIDE THE SUBWAY!". Like, WTF? And The Washington Post decided to focus on that as being one of the 9 most important points in the interview, really?

It is one thing to not be a fan of Bernie policies and to be skeptical of the man, but that article/interview was utter shit honestly.

i don't think sanders really expected to be taken this seriously at the onset of his campaign. my guess is he expected to more fringe the whole time, could get some attention to rally against wall st, and drop out after a few races having at least brought some issues to the table. now that ppl are taking him more seriously he doesn't actually have answers because he never expected to actually need them.

i think trump is in the same boat. never really expected to be taken seriously.

Regardless of what ideology I hold, I can be fair and I am fair. With that said, Clinton is the better candidate of the two, bar none. Sanders, like his supporters, seem to be living in a pipe dream w/o any grasp on reality. Everything is the fault of the rich and everything needs to be free. That is just categorically false. Clinton has an issue with integrity and not with experience and smarts. I don't care for her in the least but I will acknowledge she has the ability over him.

Still beats dodging the question, which Hillary Clinton would have done. The question he was asked, can be quite difficult to answer in detail without, being able to go from sources. And no depth?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/these-are-the-phrases-that-sanders-and-clinton-repeat-most/

If we look at their most repeated phrases, only 4 of Hillary's have any substance and 10 of Sanders have.

That said, this will no doubt hurt his reputation. And be a setback to his campaign.

Sanders is an idiot. Anyone with an IQ>130 will support Trump and no one else.

Let me get this straight. You're using a compilation of most repeated stump speech phrases to measure depth/substance? And if you're going to use that article, you should tell the whole story: Bernie repeats his phrases more often than Hillary does, suggesting that he has more of a limited capacity to deviate from them.

While this is true, after being in the Senate for so many years, he should be more knowledgeable. Trump atleast has the excuse of not being a politician.

Its not so much about variety, as it is about the depth of their most repeated phrases.

The thing is, Sanders, as well as other politicians that isnt marco rubio or Hillary Clinton. Try to use more than empty words. And avoid saying things like "Look at my Record", a thing Hillary has said so extensively to the point its getting tiring.

Not to mention pulling the "I am a woman card"... Hillary is almost as shallow and empty as Marco Rubio was.

Can you image how bad they'd rake Hillary over the coals if she bombed a policy-oriented interview like this? There would be no end to the accusations that she only got as far as she did because she is a Clinton and has a vagina.

Hillary can't say anything without Sanders supporters pouncing at her and yet when Bernie bombs an interview, they can't stop making excuses. It's so irritating. Bernie supporters are easily definitely the second worst group of supporters after Trump's. Being low information and prone to hero worship is an awful combination.

No, Sanders does not try to use more than empty words. He is completely tethered to his stump speech and struggles when he wades outside the safety of it; not to mention that his stump speech is filled with platitudes.

You might think Hillary is shallow and empty, but yet she doesn't struggle to answer policy questions. Even Marco Rubio never struggled to talk about policy in such a dramatic way.

I don't see how anybody can look at this interview and think that Sanders is an acceptable candidate.

What does the "I am a woman card" have to do with anything? She pulls that card because she wants to get women to the polls to vote for her. Never has Hillary substituted "I am a woman" for an answer when asked a policy question.

Are you talking about Hillary voters now?

Hillary has dominating support in the less educated states whereas Bernie Sanders has more support than hillary in the richer, more well educated states.

Have you even looked at the difficulty and complexity of the questions both are asked?

Sanders has been repeatedly asked loaded questions. Much like Donald Trump.

There is a reason Sanders has dominated every single democrat debate so far. Simply because the questions he has been asked, gave him a greater opportunity to shine.

In terms of Accuracy, Hillary clinton has a slight lead of 1% of saying things that are either true or mostly true. But at the same time, Sanders has not had his pants on fire just yet. Likewise, the integrity of Sanders is much higher than that of Clinton.

It's pretty clear I'm talking about Sander supporters, who don't seem to have a clue about how the delegates work, how the government works, how the legal system works, etc. Also, while Hillary won the South, she also won Massachusetts, which is one of the most educated states in the nation.

Funny you mention that. Probably the only reason Hillary is under so much scrutiny in the first place is because she has a vagina. Her mistakes are blown so out of proportion, especially when compared to the many mistakes tons of presidential candidates have made in the past.

As for what the supporters are like, I have no idea. I'm not going to lie, I like a lot of Bernie's policies, I think they'd be great for the current USA... but will he be able to implement any of them? lolno

Just because YOU think Sanders has dominated every single debate doesn't mean he has. Do you have anything outside of your own (biased) opinion that Sanders has dominated the debates?

Why don't you provide some link providing evidence that Sanders is asked more difficult and complex questions?

I completely agree. Hillary even got criticized when she spoke loudly when giving a victory speech. It's unreal.

Not my (admitedly biased) opinoin. But the general consensus as well, here are the results from the 6th debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/bernie-sanders-sweeps-onl_b_9215858.html

Its not just this debate either. The vast majority of polls I have seen on the democrat debates, Sanders had the edge over hillary, Sometimes he dominated, other times he did somewhat better.

As for the other part, its harder since its more anecdotal... but, the fact remains, Sanders had to put up with a lot of stupid complaints and questions (just like how the media has hammered on Trump for stupid reasons).

In case you missed edit: In terms of Accuracy, Hillary clinton has a slight lead of 1% of saying things that are either true or mostly true. But at the same time, Sanders has not had his pants on fire just yet. Likewise, the integrity of Sanders is much higher than that of Clinton.

I for one, would rather vote for someone who did not vote for the Iraq War, supportED the TPP, is in favor of the failed ObamaCare model. And so much more. If she got in office, that would be terrible news for the USA. I would rather have Trump in there.

What Hillary has gotten is nothing compared to what Donald Trump has.

Donald Trump has by and large, had to put up with the most idiotic scrutiny, like,

"Oh my god, you called someone a *****!"

"Donald Trump, called someone's wife ugly!"

And Sanders have had cherrypicked data running against him, with that cherrypicked data then running rampant in the media. What Hillary has gotten is mild compared to what Trump and to a lesser extent, Sanders had to deal with.

So, to prove your claim that Bernie Sanders has dominated ALL the debates, you link to a source about a single debate. And to make it even worse, that source shows that he won ONLINE polls, which are not in any way representative of the electorate. Bernie Sander's sweeps online polls because there are way more of his supporters that are frequent users of the internet. It's for the same reason that Bernie wins the Facebook likes election, but is losing the actual election.

Even if Bernie Sanders does have more integrity, he seems to be largely clueless even on issues even within his alleged wheelhouse. I don't vote for clueless candidates if I can help it.

i'll let that one soak in for a few....

Calling out Trump for calling Heidi Cruz ugly is perfectly legitimate. Calling someone else's wife ugly shows a lack of decency and maturity, two traits the leader of the free world should have. The idea that Trump should not be called out on his behavior makes no sense to me.

So what's this cheerypicked data you're talking about?

While it's true that Senators don't have to be particularly knowledgeable to cast votes, they should know what they're talking about.

Oh you want the rest, here you go :)

First Debate: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-who-do-you-think-won-the-first-democratic-debate

Second Debate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/bernie-sanders-sweeps-onl_b_8567084.html

Third Debate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/bernie-sanders-sweeps-onl_b_8847040.html

Fourht Debate: http://fox5sandiego.com/2016/01/17/poll-who-won-the-4th-democratic-debate/

Fifth Debate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/bernie-sanders-sweeps-onl_b_9164916.html

Unlike Hillary, he doenst have a history of repeatedly backing some of hte biggest mistakes the US has ever made. Hillary may be more experienced, but she has done far more stupid things than Bernie has ever done. Sanders didnt back these obviously bad deals. If Sanders is clueless, what does that make Clinton?

So Sanders is only clueless, but Hillary is clueless and corrupt.

No it isnt legimate criticism. Politicians should be criticized based on their policies. Trump calling Heidi Cruz ugly, while immature, has nothing to do with his policies, or what he proposes to america. And at best falls under ad hominem.

And no, it doesnt show that Trump is immature. If anything it just shows how brilliant Donald J. Trump is.

Cherrypicked data? How about the time when Wall Street Journal, took a study concerning itself with Sanders Policies. Left out some important bits about how it would save america money in the long run, and only looked at the costs.

i agree. i was going for the joke angle :P

Why would I want more online polls? The only thing they confirm is that the internet is crawling with Bernie supporters.

Ignoring data when its inconvenient for you?

And Donald Trump isnt immature. He is brilliant and knows exactly what he is doing. Sure it may seem immature at first, but if you question why he is doing what he is doing, you will know why he says the things he does. And it is working out for him really well.

I see no reason why politicians should only be criticized on their policies. You're basically saying that somebody running for the highest office in the land should not be accountable for their behavior. That is madness. And if it was just Trump calling Cruz's wife ugly, that would be one thing, but he insults everybody. Somebody that cannot discipline themselves has no business being in such a high stakes position.

And asking a question or criticizing Trump for calling Heidi Cruz ugly is not an ad hominem unless it is used to discredit a specific argument.

No, I'm ignoring unscientific polls. Nobody takes online polls seriously because they are not representative of the population.

Actually, it's not working out for Trump very well. His campaign has been imploding lately and his general election numbers get worse by the day.

You may think schoolyard behavior is brilliant, but some of us have higher standards than that.

The thing is, he is insulting everybody because that gets him publicity. And that publicity gets him votes.

Oh and while I am at it, it is an ad hominem attack, but not an ad hominem fallacy.

So because the media likes to cover a circus, that somehow makes Trump's behavior acceptable? Okaaaaay. You do realize that media savvy doesn't make a person qualified to be President, right? Do you think Madonna should be President?

And like I said, it may get Trump a plurality of votes in a Republican primary, but his general election numbers look absolutely disastrous and it's partially because the American people don't want a crass manbaby to be their leader.

Considering the purpose of the respective candidates' campaigns, Senator Sanders by far has the best philosophy for the United States. That is, helping the middle class recover from decades of setbacks due to unethical activities by the wealthiest folks in the United States and therefore the world. Senator Cruz advocates for objectivism that I think is incompatible with the Christianity he identifies with thus he contradicts himself, Governor Kasich has the best ideas in the Republican primaries about caring for people by strengthening understanding of ideologies, and Donald Trump reminds me too much of Mussolini. Secretary Clinton is often in the pockets of those who she says that she will stand against, so to speak, effectively promising to attack her caretakers.

In contrast, Senator Sanders is very similar to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in political philosophy in that the impoverished, who are the socially excluded by leading experts on poverty, should be given hand-ups rather than hand-outs. I do not expect him to have all the answers to every question that he is asked as, if elected, he would have an administration to advise him on any plans that he requires support for in order to accomplish them. However, there is room for improvement in his campaign.

Comparing this situation to Secretary Clinton, his main rival, she often says that she has "a five-point plan" to justify her campaign when asked about how she will solve problems. However, I would rather listen to people more clearly explain why issues should be solved, first. It is presence without as much purpose as Sanders. Saying that it is because we cannot have a republican in the White House is comparably inadequate. Having said that, the New York primary is about two weeks away, so we shall see if any of these candidates improve their campaigns.

@and1salttape, That is incorrect. Senator Sanders graduated from the University of Chicago and has given lectures at Harvard University. He is not unintelligent.

His behaviour is acceptable because it provides favorable results (for him at least), and doesnt lead to potential corruption. He knows how to get marketing done without taking massive bribes.

And no, I dont think the american people want a sellout either. Which is why Hillary has such an abyssmal favorability rating. Once we get to the general election, Trump will focus entirely on Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders if we are lucky), and if you guys get Hillary, Trump will have a field day constantly exposing her questionable behaviour. But I digress.

Sanders like the poster above me said, shows just how educated sanders is. And I think the reason he couldnt answer it is because he didnt have access to his plans at the time of the interview.

She is under so much scrutiny because she is basically dishonest.

It's the ultimate form of democracy of America. The American public truly believes that the president is some sort of Supreme Leader that has the ability to completely reform the political regime. This is because with all of the spending the government does, Americans see the President the same way they view the CEO of a Corporate business.

Unfortunately for them, a business does not operate like a constitutional democracy and they're obviously not familiar with Article II of the Constitution. The executive branch basically acts as a representative of the government, while the rest of congress essentially passes legislation.

Congress essentially represents the lobbyists while despite their banter, are non-partisan puppets. This is why Presidential candidates are essentially celebrities that offer unreasonable promises and why Presidential debates boil down to "who's less morally bankrupt".

In order for Bernie Sanders socialist policies to pass legislation, would require a government in which there is a two-thirds socialist majority congress. Unfortunately for Bernie, 2 thirds of lobbyists aren't socialist. This is where these anti-Establishment candidates fail. They can't even propose a bill before congress without a congressman doing so on their behalf. It's all smoke and mirrors.

That makes it all the more comical. Bernie's economic policies can only lead to bankruptcy. Evidence lies in the failures of his own business endeavors.

Hah That sounds like SJW rhetoric. The fact that she's a woman is a major disadvantage, but Its being a bit disingenuous to imply that it's the only reason. Hillary is a walking scandal. She's the least genuine of any candidate on either party, and the fact that she's not swinging the pair of authoritative balls that most Democrats find appealing doesn't help her.

She only gets more scrutiny than Trump because Trump's character defects are overtly self-expressed and do not require scrutiny. That's what makes Trump a viable candidate (horrible president). He's already so self-destructive in terms of character and people don't care. If you throw mud at him it won't stick because he's a walking scum bag. If Trump wins the nominee, his VP selection could be a major pivot. The Breitbart incident, however, is most likely his undoing. Ben Shapiro is influential among intellectual conservatives.

The reason Bernie Sanders gets less scrutiny is that he admits that he doesn't know shit and is honest about his policies despite their fiscal and constitutional impossibility. He's seen as being honest and his lack of insight is forgiven. He's "checked his privilege". Remember that the left rarely ever boils down to policy debates.

Ted Cruz is a dangerous fella, but he's not a good candidate and would never win a Presidential election despite what Right Wing nut-jobs think. His problem is that he actually believes in the conservative ideology of "Small Government". The RNC doesn't make money off of small government.

Kasich the RNC court jester. The only unity within the GOP is a universal hatred of the man. He doesn't need to be scrutinized because it might only benefit him.

So any old behavior is acceptable if one profits from it? Okaaaaay. Marketing somehow makes someone qualified to be President? You do realize that the US government is not a business right? If shock value and marketing skills are so valuable, like I said, let's elect Madonna President. Not only would she be easier on the eyes than Trump, she'd be more mature too. In any case, this idea that skills pertaining to trashy reality show culture are a virtue strikes me as deeply unserious.

You also say that Trump's behavior gets him results, but you conveniently ignore the fact that his general election numbers are a dumpster fire.

You say the American people don't want a sellout, but according to polls, the sellout is crushing the crass manchild and has way better favorability numbers. One poll shows Hillary with 3 points of him in Mississipi. That is nuts.

You say that Trump will have this field day, but ignore the fact that there's just as much attack material on Trump.

isnt election over yet ? *yawn

So Bernie Sanders is supposed to be a lawyer too? I thought he was a politician.

No. He's supposed to know what the hell he's talking about.

This might be the worst defense of his interview performance that I've seen and I've seen some pretty bad ones.

Lol, you say that as if our CURRENT economic policies haven't already bankrupted the living **** out of us, and are kicking us while we are down.

Doesn't seem like a big deal bro.

Senator Sanders has been in politics for most of his life. Before then, he worked in a variety of jobs, and none of them to my awareness resulted in failure.

Furthermore, your comment about Sanders' economic policies is again false as his policies as mayor of Burlington, Vermont led to an economic surplus.

Conservatives grumbled when Sanders put his sneaker-clad feet up on the table, but when his new treasurer discovered a $1.9 million surplus hidden in the budget, they grew quiet.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/31/socialist-even-conservative-could-love-burlington-mayor-sanders-was-able-out-republican-republicans/SCmh2TLifXxXRPFKC8NMjO/story.html

Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, I think it is fair to say that those are three out of three incorrect claims from you about him.