Clinton Daily News Integiew

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.

Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.

Can you post that exchange? I must've missed it.

Every time Sanders refers to the Treasury or the administration (via Treasury) the interviewers respond with "the Fed" clearly muddled on the difference between the two, this happens twice and Sanders goes back to correcting the interviewer and going back to talking about administration regulators. The second time the interviewers then just change the subject. It was really messy on the NYDN's part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Um, Bill Clinton's recent explosion at BLM protesters wasn't exactly a great example of the Presidential way of dealing with things.

Bill Clinton isn't a candidate. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are the candidates.

LMAO! Cognitive dissonance. The argument above was "frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president" and when it's pointed out that a former President couldn't deal effectively with an exchange either, you come up with this nonsense. Sorry, you fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.

Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.

You claim the interviewer wasn't interested in being corrected and simply skipped to the next topic. That's clearly not true. The interviewer gave Sanders several attempts to explain the mechanism, even though Sanders kept veering back to his basic stump speech. Sanders never explained, and he repeatedly contradicted his own answers. Here's the relevant part ...

Daily News: Now, switching to the financial sector, to Wall Street. Speaking broadly, you said that within the first 100 days of your administration you'd be drawing up...your Treasury Department would be drawing up a too-big-to-fail list. Would you expect that that's essentially the list that already exists under Dodd-Frank? Under the Financial Stability Oversight Council?

Sanders: Yeah. I mean these are the largest financial institutions in the world….

Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to. You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let's talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there. [Bernie shifts into his basic stump speech about how he thinks banks are too big and need to be broken up, but never gets to explaining how he'd do it]

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have...JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of...

Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. [Sanders returns to his stump speech about economic benefits breaking up banks]

Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely. You're asking a question, which is a fair question. But let me just take your question and take it to another issue. ... [Bernie changes the subject to energy policy and climate change] ... So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.

Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

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.

[Anonymous]

So again, let's assume the interviewer was wrong and even biased. If Bernie Sanders couldn't calmly and confidently set him straight, and make his own position clear - not just on this, but on the many issues he seemed uncertain about - how do you think he'll deal with foreign leaders or Congress?

Bernie had all possible latitude to correct the interviewer and take the time he needed to make his points. It seems abundantly clear that he just can't do any better than this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.

Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.

That excerpt of the exchange in question was posted in the Sanders NYDN thread and was already discussed ad nauseam there. The interviewer was clearly confused and Sanders keeps correcting the interviewer with Treasury whenever the Fed is mentioned.

This is a great explanation of what went wrong with that article. It is worth watching.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/ny-daily-news-hit-piece-bernie-exposed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Um, Bill Clinton's recent explosion at BLM protesters wasn't exactly a great example of the Presidential way of dealing with things.

Bill Clinton isn't a candidate. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are the candidates.

LMAO! Cognitive dissonance. The argument above was "frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president" and when it's pointed out that a former President couldn't deal effectively with an exchange either, you come up with this nonsense. Sorry, you fail.

Bill left the presidency in January 2 001. Bernie wants to assume the presidency in January 2 017. Let's stick to the here and now, shall we?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even Krugman says in a column two days ago that yes, not only may there still be a need to break up some of the banks, that might not go far enough. Even the current Dodd-Frank "living will" requirement of banks in the event of a potential financial collapse might not be enough to prevent the need for taxpayer bailouts and other measures - and recall that 11 big banks had their "living will" plans rejected by FDIC.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/opinion/snoopy-the-destroyer.html

Seems to me that this is all terribly ironic given just a few days ago people on DCUM in their haste to try and find fault with Sanders were claiming "no economists agree with Sanders and Krugman says it's wrong to want to break up the banks" - which is obviously false given Krugman's own latest column. Seems Sanders is actually far closer to the mark than Clinton is.

You're such a freakin' biased liar! -- I just read Krugman's column, and it doesn't say anything like what you're claiming. Show me where the column advocates for breaking up banks. Here's what Krugman actually says ...

Oh, and yes, the episode also showed that making the breakup of big banks the be-all and end-all of reform misses the point. What we need is regulation that limits the risks from nonbank institutions — and the 2010 financial reform tries to do just that. The way it does this is by allowing regulators to designate some firms “systemically important,” meaning that, like A.I.G., their failure or the prospect thereof could threaten financial stability. Once an institution is so designated, it is subject to extra oversight and regulation.

... which is pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming here. I lose respect for Bernie when his fans lie like this. Please stop.

It's not the be-all-and-end-all but it's a necessary tool where appropriate. Might want to read up on what Simon Johnson and others have to say. https://baselinescenario.com/

Yeah, yeah, it's one possible option. But Krugman never says it's necessary. You need to admit you misrepresented what Krugman said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.

Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.

Can you post that exchange? I must've missed it.

Every time Sanders refers to the Treasury or the administration (via Treasury) the interviewers respond with "the Fed" clearly muddled on the difference between the two, this happens twice and Sanders goes back to correcting the interviewer and going back to talking about administration regulators. The second time the interviewers then just change the subject. It was really messy on the NYDN's part.

You keep acting as though this was the only part of the interview that Bernie was we gone. It clearly wasn't.

There's a common theme among some of you, that Bernie is always a victim. Does he have to take ownership of anything? Is he not responsible even for an interview?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.

Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.

Can you post that exchange? I must've missed it.

Every time Sanders refers to the Treasury or the administration (via Treasury) the interviewers respond with "the Fed" clearly muddled on the difference between the two, this happens twice and Sanders goes back to correcting the interviewer and going back to talking about administration regulators. The second time the interviewers then just change the subject. It was really messy on the NYDN's part.

You keep acting as though this was the only part of the interview that Bernie was we gone. It clearly wasn't.

There's a common theme among some of you, that Bernie is always a victim. Does he have to take ownership of anything? Is he not responsible even for an interview?

I feel this way too and it's not a good look. I would have much more respect for a candidate who admits a mistake and moves on. There's always an explanation for Bernie's mistakes and questionable votes. Always. I don't think I have ever heard him admit to making a mistake.

And there's something to be said about supporters who do not question their candidate on such mistakes. You are not helping him be a good leader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.

Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.

Can you post that exchange? I must've missed it.

Every time Sanders refers to the Treasury or the administration (via Treasury) the interviewers respond with "the Fed" clearly muddled on the difference between the two, this happens twice and Sanders goes back to correcting the interviewer and going back to talking about administration regulators. The second time the interviewers then just change the subject. It was really messy on the NYDN's part.

You keep acting as though this was the only part of the interview that Bernie was we gone. It clearly wasn't.

There's a common theme among some of you, that Bernie is always a victim. Does he have to take ownership of anything? Is he not responsible even for an interview?

I feel this way too and it's not a good look. I would have much more respect for a candidate who admits a mistake and moves on. There's always an explanation for Bernie's mistakes and questionable votes. Always. I don't think I have ever heard him admit to making a mistake.

And there's something to be said about supporters who do not question their candidate on such mistakes. You are not helping him be a good leader.

This is exactly the way I feel about Hillary. Every negative thing that is said is because she is a woman or people are unfair to her. The entire world jus misunderstands Hillary. Poor Hillary. It is so much ridiculous whining. So much apologizing. It is getting absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Um, Bill Clinton's recent explosion at BLM protesters wasn't exactly a great example of the Presidential way of dealing with things.

Bill Clinton isn't a candidate. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are the candidates.

LMAO! Cognitive dissonance. The argument above was "frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president" and when it's pointed out that a former President couldn't deal effectively with an exchange either, you come up with this nonsense. Sorry, you fail.

Nope. The fail is all yours. Bill Clinton of today is very different than he was as president. He's deteriorated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is exactly the way I feel about Hillary. Every negative thing that is said is because she is a woman or people are unfair to her. The entire world jus misunderstands Hillary. Poor Hillary. It is so much ridiculous whining. So much apologizing. It is getting absurd.

Are you kidding?!? Look at almost any thread here that's critical of Clinton. Her supporters often openly admit her past mistakes. Hell, even Hillary herself has admitted a number of past mistakes during this campaign season. She'll be the first to say she's made some bad calls over the course of her career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.

Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.

Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.

Can you post that exchange? I must've missed it.

Every time Sanders refers to the Treasury or the administration (via Treasury) the interviewers respond with "the Fed" clearly muddled on the difference between the two, this happens twice and Sanders goes back to correcting the interviewer and going back to talking about administration regulators. The second time the interviewers then just change the subject. It was really messy on the NYDN's part.

You keep acting as though this was the only part of the interview that Bernie was we gone. It clearly wasn't.

There's a common theme among some of you, that Bernie is always a victim. Does he have to take ownership of anything? Is he not responsible even for an interview?

I feel this way too and it's not a good look. I would have much more respect for a candidate who admits a mistake and moves on. There's always an explanation for Bernie's mistakes and questionable votes. Always. I don't think I have ever heard him admit to making a mistake.

And there's something to be said about supporters who do not question their candidate on such mistakes. You are not helping him be a good leader.

This is exactly the way I feel about Hillary. Every negative thing that is said is because she is a woman or people are unfair to her. The entire world jus misunderstands Hillary. Poor Hillary. It is so much ridiculous whining. So much apologizing. It is getting absurd.

Nope, I personally don't think she's doing a good job with BLM, and she needs to address that.

See? I can admit that and still support her. Supporting her doesn't mean that I say "yes, dear leader" to whatever she does or says. It means I generally like what she stands for and I will call her out when she fucks up.

[Anonymous]

Why was MY Daily News asking about the Fed? Bernie and Hillary are running for President of the Federal Government, not the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve isn't an executive branch agency under the President, they are separate entities, with separate governance structures, policies and rules. Doesn't seem like that's understood here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is exactly the way I feel about Hillary. Every negative thing that is said is because she is a woman or people are unfair to her. The entire world jus misunderstands Hillary. Poor Hillary. It is so much ridiculous whining. So much apologizing. It is getting absurd.

Are you kidding?!? Look at almost any thread here that's critical of Clinton. Her supporters often openly admit her past mistakes. Hell, even Hillary herself has admitted a number of past mistakes during this campaign season. She'll be the first to say she's made some bad calls over the course of her career.

Her supporters constantly come up with apologist explanations and accusations that everyone in the world is sexist. I just shake my head in disbelief. Her supporters are making her look silly and not presidential at all. Of course she has to admit she has made some bad calls. What else can she do? She has made some terrible errors in judgment which have been proven wrong over the years. She has no choice but to call it a "mistake" when she suddenly flip flops. In 2008 she was pretending to be almost pro-gun. Now she has turned completely around. She does this all the time. Sanders' errors and slight changes in policy do not even come close.