Disaster Bernie Sanders suggests he wouldn’t abolish ICE - "BERNIE NOOOO!!!"

Source.

“You need to have protection of our borders and you need people to do that,” the Vermont senator said at the Minnesota State Fair.

---

ST. PAUL, Minn. ― Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.), while campaigning at the Minnesota State Fair on Saturday, suggested he would not abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate said he would get rid of ICE raids but declined to say that he would scrap the agency altogether during a live-taping of an interview with MPR News, which hundreds of fairgoers had gathered to watch.

Asked if he agreed with a woman in the crowd who shouted “abolish ICE” during the audience Q&A portion of the interview, Sanders told MPR News host Tom Crann that he would abolish “the current disastrous immigration system.”

“ICE is one small part of that system,” Sanders said. “We have to develop a system. But I will say this: We will abolish the ICE raids, which are terrorizing communities all over this country.”

Crann continued to press the Vermont senator, asking if he sees “a valid purpose for an agency in the federal government like ICE.”

“The first question you asked, do I believe in open borders? No, I do not,” Sanders responded. “So you need to have protection of our borders and you need people to do that.”

Hayley Miller on Twitter

“On whether he supports abolishing ICE: Sanders calls for “abolishing the current disastrous system and ICE raids.” Pressed to answer directly, he notes that he’s not for open borders. “We would need to have protection of our borders and you need people to do that.””

twitter.com

The question of whether to abolish ICE has become somewhat of a litmus test among 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Sanders’ comments Saturday mark his strongest statement against shutting down the agency to date.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam are the only two 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls who have called for ICE to be abolished.
Sanders has previously called for the restructuring of the immigration enforcement agency and voted against establishing ICE and the Department of Homeland Security when they were proposed over 15 years ago.

“ICE has become a deportation and detention machine,” Sanders said in July 2018. “And I would fundamentally restructure the agency, as well as all the agencies that currently enforce our immigration laws, to create a humane and rational immigration system with independent oversight.”

Watch Sanders’s full interview with MPR News below. His comments about ICE begin around the 30-minute mark.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8OvowCJU-U0

>NOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SAY WE NEED ICE AFTER I RETWEETED JENNIFER LAWRENCE'S TWEETS ABOUT ICE BEING FASCISTS RUN BY DRUMPFT!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MW 590]

Ah, so like Iran?

More like Merry Old England. I got the idea of banning usury when I learned that it was made illegal in England in 1275. I’m not being anti Semitic because I am not blaming all Jews, but many of them violated England’s usury law and therefore got exiled from England until Oliver Cromwell invited them back. England functioned fine for centuries without usury.

 

[Y2K Baby]

Merry Old England

That wasn't very Islamic.

 

[Equivocal_Iki]

Under a usury free economy, there would still be loans, there just wouldn’t be interest rates. For such a system to work, the banks would have to be nationalized. This would be a form of Keynesian economics.

So how are businessmen supposed to start something without being rich already or going public immediately? Just have enough political connections to get an interest-free loan from the bank?

"This would be a form of Keynesian economics."
Did the great depression not go on long enough for you?

 

[MW 590]

So how are businessmen supposed to start something without being rich already or going public immediately? Just have enough political connections to get an interest-free loan from the bank?

"This would be a form of Keynesian economics."
Did the great depression not go on long enough for you?

The businessmen would tell the government-controlled bank to give them interest-free loans and the bank would be required to do so.

 

[Sped Xing]

The businessmen would tell the government-controlled bank to give them interest-free loans and the bank would be required to do so.

So basically, we'd cut out the middleman of corruption and just openly tax everyone else and give it to the rich?

 

[MW 590]

So basically, we'd cut out the middleman of corruption and just openly tax everyone else and give it to the rich?

The rich will pay higher taxes than the middle class and poor and the interest free national bank will benefit not just the rich, but small businesses, homeowners, and college students.

 

[Sped Xing]

The rich will pay higher taxes than the middle class and poor and the interest free national bank will benefit not just the rich, but small businesses, homeowners, and college students.

What motivation to lend to the little guy when you take profit away?

 

[MW 590]

What motivation to lend to the little guy when you take profit away?

As I said, the government controlled bank will be required by law to lend to those who ask for loans.

 

[Equivocal_Iki]

The businessmen would tell the government-controlled bank to give them interest-free loans and the bank would be required to do so.

How would you limit this so you're not just giving free money to everyone with a silly idea? Late fees on monthly payments? You're going to have to deny someone a loan at some point, and since it's nationalized it's going to be based on who has political connections.

 

[Sped Xing]

How would you limit this so you're not just giving free money to everyone with a silly idea? Late fees on monthly payments? You're going to have to deny someone a loan at some point, and since it's nationalized it's going to be based on who has political connections.

It's simple. We ask the wealthy businessmen who should get free money. No way that could have other than the desired effect.

 

[MW 590]

How would you limit this so you're not just giving free money to everyone with a silly idea? Late fees on monthly payments? You're going to have to deny someone a loan at some point, and since it's nationalized it's going to be based on who has political connections.

Like banks already do, people who have a bad credit score due to not paying loans on time will be denied other loans.

 

[neverendingmidi]

As I said, the government controlled bank will be required by law to lend to those who ask for loans.

This is more tarded than Sharia style loans that calculate the interest into the initial loan, therefore claiming that they don't "charge interest" to dodge the usury ban.

Like banks already do, people who have a bad credit score due to not paying loans on time will be denied other loans.

So you'll happily loan 300K to anybody who walks in the door with no credit, but then judge them after they run off without paying a cent. I see no way this will end badly.

 

[Equivocal_Iki]

Like banks already do, people who have a bad credit score due to not paying loans on time will be denied other loans.

Then why does it need to be nationalized? Banks can already do this unless you threaten them with anti-discrimination lawsuits and socialize the losses by having public institutions buy up the bad loans.

 

[MW 590]

This is more tarded than Sharia style loans that calculate the interest into the initial loan, therefore claiming that they don't "charge interest" to dodge the usury ban.


So you'll happily loan 300K to anybody who walks in the door with no credit, but then judge them after they run off without paying a cent. I see no way this will end badly.

Of course, like banks already do, the national bank will evaluate if they are capable of paying back loans in a given period of time before giving them loans.

Then why does it need to be nationalized? Banks can already do this unless you threaten them with anti-discrimination lawsuits and socialize the losses by having public institutions buy up the bad loans.

It needs to be nationalized because an interest-free bank wouldn’t make profit.

 

[Sped Xing]

Then why does it need to be nationalized?

Because capitalism man bad

 

[Equivocal_Iki]

Of course, like banks already do, the national bank will evaluate if they are capable of paying back loans in a given period of time before giving them loans.

It needs to be nationalized because an interest-free bank wouldn’t make profit.

A private bank has to evaluate if they're able to pay it back because otherwise they make a loss and eventually go under. A public bank where losses can be subsidized doesn't really have this incentive. Especially if you're intending to give out more loans like the initiatives done to get more people into housing, which will cause a financial crisis once all the people you loan out to can't pay back the loan. All nationalizing the banks would do is cause malinvestment and ruin the economy.

 

[MW 590]

A private bank has to evaluate if they're able to pay it back because otherwise they make a loss and eventually go under. A public bank where losses can be subsidized doesn't really have this incentive. Especially if you're intending to give out more loans like the initiatives done to get more people into housing, which will cause a financial crisis once all the people you loan out to can't pay back the loan. All nationalizing the banks would do is cause malinvestment and ruin the economy.

A private bank has to evaluate if they're able to pay it back because otherwise they make a loss and eventually go under. A public bank where losses can be subsidized doesn't really have this incentive. Especially if you're intending to give out more loans like the initiatives done to get more people into housing, which will cause a financial crisis once all the people you loan out to can't pay back the loan. All nationalizing the banks would do is cause malinvestment and ruin the economy.

The incentive the bankers will have to evaluate if people can pay back their loans is keeping their job. There will be reviews of job performance that will ensure that the bank gives loans that people can pay back.

The Soviet Union was not impacted as much by the Great Depression as other countries because it had a national bank.

 

[neverendingmidi]

The incentive the bankers will have to evaluate if people can pay back their loans is keeping their job. There will be reviews of job performance that will ensure that the bank gives loans that people can pay back.

The Soviet Union was not impacted as much by the Great Depression as other countries because it had a national bank.

When have you seen any bureaucrat fired for incompetence? Or if they are "fired", hired right back at the same level of pay for a different job? And a nationalized bank. WILLL. BE. NOTHING. BUT. BUREAUCRATS.

And if you're arguing that the USSR's shuffling of papers to hide shit is what we should aspire to, well hi there tankie!

 

[Equivocal_Iki]

The incentive the bankers will have to evaluate if people can pay back their loans is keeping their job. There will be reviews of job performance that will ensure that the bank gives loans that people can pay back.

As I said, the government controlled bank will be required by law to lend to those who ask for loans.

"Just following orders"
Even if their first loan was a big one they can't pay back, thus disqualifying them for another loan, that'll still be a loss. You couldn't fire the person who gave them the loan because they had to go against their judgement and give out loans in the first place by law. It'd be a managerial problem, not an employee problem.

 

[Sped Xing]

"I will replace a system kept in balance by rational self interest with a system maintained solely through fiat. For efficiency."