David Hogg calls out Bernie

[Tavarious Jackson]

Link to tweet

[peggysue2]

1. He's only saying what is . . .

inconveniently true. So, let the mashing machine begin

[Tavarious Jackson]

2. Facts are facts.

Gun manufacturers are the ONLY manufacturer of any item immuned from being sued. That's a dag shame.

[Igel]

17. Not quite true.

They can't be sued when their products are used. If a thief uses a ladder to break into my house or somebody stabs my cousin to death with a kitchen knife, a lawsuit against the ladder or knife company or the store that sold it to me would be dismissed as frivolous.

If I say, "I'm going to use this knife for killing my cousin" and the store owner says, "Here you go," he's liable. If I am ordering the knife from the manufacturer and say my intent is to kill people, the manufacturer is liable.

Not suing a company for the misuse of their product in the commission of a crime is standard, unless there's some reason for them to be considered liable.

The gun manufacturers were being the subject of the opposite assumption. That by making a deadly product, they were complicit in all the crimes committed with their product. The product was designed to be defective; it's manufacturer was a litigably criminal act. Even if most of the guns weren't used to commit crimes, well, the manufacturers had to know that they *could* be used in that way. Unlike, say, a knife manufacturer, who must be completely unawares that the meat their knives cut could be part of a living human. Knives, I guess, aren't weapons of war. (Even if some were designed for the Army and issued to soldiers. I could buy such a weapon of war at my local army surplus store about 1 1/2 miles away.)

This assumption was part of a strategy to shut down gun manufacturers. We could mount the same campaign against ladder or knife companies. Some judges and juries would buy the argument, with the right emotional appeal. but on (legal) appeal that would be overturned. But the goal of such lawfare isn't the occasional victory, but the costs inflicted by 20 or 30 plaintiffs all going through discovery, all the media attention, and the other legal costs. It's the same kind of thinking that begot a lot of legal action against providers of abortion and other family-planning services. If you can't get a right annulled and can't win the social argument, drive the providers of services and products you personally disagree with out of business.

So the legislation that protects gun manufacturers pretty much re-instated the usual default assumptions. It still lets the usual kinds of cases proceed, meaning that they are not immune from being sued.

BTW, if such a campaign were waged against, say drug companies for accidental death by opioids (as opposed to the quasi-legal pushing that's obvious evidence of misentrustment), knife companies for knife deaths, or cars for the murders committed by their product, I'd support the same kind of legislation.

[grantcart]

20. I haven't done the research but from what I know about the subject you have misrepresented the core

issue.

The crux of civil litigation would not be based on product liability so your entire analogy with ladders is not relevant.

The crux of the litigation would be on marketing and distribution liability in which somebody is killed by a gun that was distributed and sold with an intention to avoid legal restrictions or is other wise nefarious.

For example if they distribute to a store that is a few yards from a state line and the restrictions in the other state would make owning that gun illegal but the manufacturer distributes guns to 5 gun retailers who sell in excess of 2000% of what normal gun sales would be for that small border town then the gun manufacturer obviously knows and assists in selling guns to out of state residents in a deliberate attempt to go around the laws of the other state.

It is that kind of liability that gun owners should be held responsible for and is not covered by anything you said.

[SidDithers]

24. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[brer cat]

37. Thank you. nt

[pnwmom]

55. Thank you. Your points are correct. n/t

[mcar]

74. Excellent example

Thanks grantcart.

[uponit7771]

75. +1

[NurseJackie]

127. Thank you for calling out the BS.

[lunamagica]

138. Thank you

[Straw Man]

143. Misrepresentation.

For example if they distribute to a store that is a few yards from a state line and the restrictions in the other state would make owning that gun illegal but the manufacturer distributes guns to 5 gun retailers who sell in excess of 2000% of what normal gun sales would be for that small border town then the gun manufacturer obviously knows and assists in selling guns to out of state residents in a deliberate attempt to go around the laws of the other state.

Leaving aside the fact that nothing on the scale of what you describe has been alleged, crimes were committed in the above hypothetical scenario. The out-of-state resident who bought that gun and the dealer who sold it to him/her both broke the law. You cannot legally sell someone a gun that isn't legal to possess in his/her state of residence, even if it is legal in the state of sale.

What you're saying is that civil litigation aimed at the gun industry should take the place of enforcement of existing gun laws. That's hard to see as anything but harassment of an industry that isn't breaking any laws.

[grantcart]

145. You simply don't have the facts on either the movement of guns or the law

This study shows that residents going over the border to purchase and take back guns is common and in some cases (like Chicago where it has been extensively studied) it can account for more than 60% of the crime.

There have been numerous studies that have proved the issue but this is one of the better summaries

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-laws-stop-at-state-lines-but-guns-dont/

A manufacturer who is aware that its distribution system is clearly avoiding law enforcement opens up a liability and can be sued. Nothing I have said indicates that "that civil litigation aimed at the gun industry should take the place of enforcement of existing gun laws".

That is simply bull shit straw man, but would expect that from someone who takes the moniker.

The point is simple: if a gun manufacturer is aware that their distribution of guns was designed to get guns into the hands of people likely to use it in an illegal way, whether directly or indirectly they can be sued and face a jury that will determine civil liability. Cases like this have been brought and won on a similar basis.

The OP that I was responding too was arguing that the gun manufacturers could only be sued for product liability and he was wrong.

The 1998 settlement on cigarettes was heavily weighted on sales and marketing not product.

Cities and states are suing pharmaceutical companies in a similar way on the way that they are marketing opiods

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/lawsuit-pharmaceutical-companies-opioids/529020/

In legal terms the issue of creating a liability through improper distribution is called "negligent entrustment". Cases have been filed against gun manufacturers but they were dismissed because of the PLCAA which gives gun manufacturers immunity that no other manufacturer has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_entrustment

Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor) is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party (the entrustee) with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality. The cause of action most frequently arises where one person allows another to drive their automobile.

. . .

Negligent entrustment is generally found where the entrustee had a reputation or record that showed his propensity to be dangerous through possession of such an instrumentality

So if a gun was used to kill someone and it could be proven that the manufacturer sold that gun to a gun retailer who was known to be circumventing the law then the manufacturer could face civil liabilities except that the gun manufacturers have an immunity that no other manufacturer in the US has. That is the legislation that Senator Sanders, a few Democrats and all of the Republicans voted for under duress from the NRA.

Here is the Brady Campaign template on how to sue for negligent entrustment even with the PCAA

https://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/vice-avoiding-dismissal.pdf

This paper focuses on gun manufacturer and dealer liability relating to gun distribution.2 Gun distribution cases are generally based on two causes of action – negligence and public nuisance.

[Straw Man]

153. Facts?

This study shows that residents going over the border to purchase and take back guns is common and in some cases (like Chicago where it has been extensively studied) it can account for more than 60% of the crime.

Please tell me how a gun manufacturer can avoid this situation. Not supply retailers that are near to high crime areas with strict gun laws? Sounds like a civil liberties issue to me. If retailers are suspected of illegal activities, then the retailers should be targeted for criminal prosecution.

A manufacturer who is aware that its distribution system is clearly avoiding law enforcement opens up a liability and can be sued. Nothing I have said indicates that "that civil litigation aimed at the gun industry should take the place of enforcement of existing gun laws".

Except that you just did exactly that: You are claiming that a gun manufacturer should be able to determine that its distribution system is "clearly avoiding law enforcement," yet if this is "clearly" happening, why is no law-enforcement action being taken?

So if a gun was used to kill someone and it could be proven that the manufacturer sold that gun to a gun retailer who was known to be circumventing the law then the manufacturer could face civil liabilities except that the gun manufacturers have an immunity that no other manufacturer in the US has.

Again, how does the manufacturer know that the retailer is "circumventing the law"? Is the manufacturer expected to conduct investigations?

The "bad apple dealer" myth is attractive to the gun-control movement, but I would suggest to you that the prevalence of certain dealers as the origin of a lot of crime guns has more to do with the scale of their operations than with any illegal activity. This whole effort is an overreach by which municipalities are attempting to extend the effective scope of their gun-control laws through civil lawsuits.

[Eliot Rosewater]

196. Weird how ONLY guns get this SPECIAL protection, yet I see people want to argue with you

anyway.

Thanks for putting the FACTS out there!

[Tavarious Jackson]

198. It's expected.

They don't sound like progressives do they?

[Straw Man]

206. Gun control ...

... is not a progressive concept.

[Tavarious Jackson]

212. Says who? nt0

[Cha]

291. Sensible gun laws are necessary..

I hope there comes a day when we can get them.

[thucythucy]

226. Thank you for this.

Your discussion has been very informative.

[Hekate]

148. Thank you, grantcart

[BlueMTexpat]

151. Thanks, grantcart!

[Lee-Lee]

157. Not really

There are already tons of state and federal laws regarding gun sales.

For example in the hypothetical you gave above that retailer would be breaking federal law, because dealers must sell to a person according to the laws of the state of residence.

If there was evidence they were intentionally violating that then the proper place for that is criminal court, not civil.

If criminal charges can’t stick because they are, in fact, following the law then there isn’t really any merit to a civil case.

[ehrnst]

163. +1000 (nt)

[MrModerate]

149. Products which, through defective design, pose a threat . . .

Can certainly be sanctioned. The lack of commonsense safety controls (biometric trigger locks, for instance) on firearms is appalling -- and should be legally actionable.

[lark]

179. Exactly, it's like building a car with defective brakes and no emergency braking system.

That's what gun makers are doing in effect.

[Sunlei]

246. I hear you. God my stupid iphone has a better usage "lock" then any damn gun.

[RandomAccess]

22. Not quite --

vaccinations, remember??

[SidDithers]

25. For good reason...

and because vaccinations good public health policy.

Can't really say the same thing about firearms.

Sid

[womanofthehills]

60. not necessarily so..... God! It was sleazy Novartis who was making most of our flu vaccines

until they sold their flu vaccine business for millions a few yrs ago.

Supreme Court: No, You Can't Sue Drugmakers Over Vaccine Injury Claims (vote 6 -2 )

Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg, however, argued in their dissent that by shielding drugmakers from lawsuits, what the government is actually doing is removing the pressure to create better and safer vaccines.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/02/23/supreme-court-no-you-cant-sue-drugmakers-over-vaccine-injury-claims/#.WvilWsgh02I

[SidDithers]

80. Yes, necessarily so. But wouldn't expect you to agree...

given your anti-vax opinions.

Sid

[Dr Hobbitstein]

134. And DU's resident antivaxxer rears her head. nt

[ehrnst]

181. You seem to think that making flu vaccine is a bad thing.

[alarimer]

197. That bill was going to pass with or without Sanders' vote

And even without the votes of every single Democrat and Independent.

[OnDoutside]

3. Ouch !

[Mike Nelson]

4. Yikes!

...guns was a relative weak area for Bernie, but it makes sense when you consider his constituency, I guess... he was on CNN today and sounded very much like a 2020 candidate. He should make some noise about gun control, to clean up...

[Tavarious Jackson]

7. He can not clean up. He doesn't regret his vote

He defended his vote in the 2016 election. Gun manufacturers should be the only manufacturer of any item in the world immune from lawsuits. That was his position. As a person of color who is affected by guns I am baffled when he called for opiate manufactures to be sued. To me, it felt as though he made his priorities clear.. The lives of mostly whites affected by opiates matter more than the lives of mostly POC affected by guns.

[EffieBlack]

33. I'm tired of ""Mom and Pop" being used as an excuse for shielding big business

We hear the same crap about the inheritance tax, farm subsidies, low minimum wages, tax cuts and other policies intended to protect or provide windfalls to corporate interests - we always get “small business” thrown up as the cover when, in reality, it’s not small businesses that benefit but huge cioprporate interests,

Bernie’s excuse for this is pure bullshit right out of the Republican playbook.

[erronis]

54. Totally agree. "Mom and Pop" is a dodge, just like everything the repugs say.

The best defense is a good offense.

First, pollute the common use of phrases and then take them on to mean the opposite.

Karl Marx, perhaps Greek and Roman orators knew this.

The repuglicons (Rove, Cheney, Gingrich) are well-trained.

Why are the dems still so idealistic and hoping that everyone will see the light?

[Tavarious Jackson]

57. Rove, Cheney and Gingrich were true pros

Of this type of brainwashing BS. Yep.

[Tavarious Jackson]

56. This! nt

[treestar]

125. Plus laws like that apply to those who employ over a certain number

which is a way to protect the smaller businesses from the effects.

[ehrnst]

178. Yep. "Closely held family business" applies to Hobby Lobby

As per their defense for denying contraceptive coverage to their employees.

[Sunlei]

294. I'd like to know how Hobby Lobby got hold of millions in looted Iraq museum pieces.

[sheshe2]

68. From Mother Jones.

Sanders, who hails from a rural state with lax gun laws, has defended his vote as a way to protect the “small mom-and-pop gun shop” in Vermont from frivolous lawsuits.

But Sanders’ argument obfuscates the true impact of his vote—namely, that the lawsuits he helped derail once represented the most viable effort in decades to stem the flow of guns onto the black market.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/bernie-sanders-vote-gun-immunity-black-market/

[Sunlei]

293. That's a very good article, I like MJs- last of the good, I hope they don't get bought out.

Can see where Sanders comes from about that old bill with his statement in the article.

The article is from 2016- Sanders said this quote from the article the same year during his first D debate.

“If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible?” Sanders asked during the first Democratic debate in October. “Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.”

[NastyRiffraff]

95. Accepting LOCAL NRA support in VT makes some sense

Because of widespread hunting there. Howard Dean had that issue; he enjoyed the support of the local NRA because of habitat issues for hunters, but the national NRA definitely did not support him because of his support for sensible gun control nationwide. But Bernie isn't talking about hunting or habitat; he's talking about national gun issues. He evidently doesn't want ANY gun control nationally, given his consistent pro-NRA votes.

[George II]

5. All progressives should be 100% in favor of gun control of any kind, including....

....holding the gun manufacturers responsible for their products.

No excuse whatsoever for not backing gun control. Period.

[xor]

88. On the left, I find the argument tends to be less black and white

But rather centers around how different people have different views on what gun control means. To some that means an almost complete ban on all firearms, whereas there are also many gun owning democrats who support various forms of gun control but think citizens have the right to own guns.

I always try to clarify what someone means when they say gun control, and also how they believe their idea will reduce specific concerns about guns. Without that clarification, I find people just talk past each other and never fully develop their own ideas or understand the views of the other side.

[aikoaiko]

93. Not all gun control makes sense. Mindlessness support of gun control is not the answer.

[George II]

97. I'm speaking in terms of legislation that has come up in the House and Senate over the years....

....I haven't seen a single bill that warranted a no vote (although I'm sure there are a few)

[mcar]

103. What is mindless support of gun control?

Can you list some examples?

[aikoaiko]

173. When someone says that someone should support "gun control of any kind"

the "any kind" part includes part legislation.

In all fairness, George II has clarified that s/he meant gun control legislation that has been proposed recently.

[Eliot Rosewater]

203. 2ND gives NO right to an individual to own a gun outside of a well regulated militia, as we all know

Most of this problem goes away once we overturn the NRA bought and paid for SC decision known as "Heller"

[mcar]

228. We do know it, Eliot

The NRA hangs it's hat on Heller. Even Scalia said that gun rights are not unlimited.

[X_Digger]

298. The bill of rights GIVES no rights. Period. None. Nada. Zip.

That seems to be a fundamental misapprehension about how rights work.

This was one reason that some of the founders were leery of even passing the bill of rights- they thought future generations might perceive them as exhaustive of all rights.

No, rights predate the bill of rights- 'that governments are instituted among men to protect them'.

e.g. The right of free passage (also called the right to travel)- is not mentioned in the constitution or the BoR, but is a right nonetheless.

The right to medical privacy didn't spring up from whole cloth in 1973- it was a pre-existing right that until that point had not been explicitly protected by either the judiciary or the legislature.

It's a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people may'. Read the preamble to the BoR:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Abuse of whose powers? Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom?

[honest.abe]

162. What about mindless support of guns?

[aikoaiko]

172. Sure, but I haven't seen anyone say we should oppose gun control of any kind.

Even the NRA supports some gun control.

[ehrnst]

166. So who here is advocating "mindlessness support of gun control?"

By all means, attack that strawman....

[aikoaiko]

171. Did you read George II's post?

"All progressives should be 100% in favor of gun control of any kind..."


I'll repeat because you didn't catch it the first time, "...of any kind."

George II has clarified since that the s/he is referring to most of the legislation presented recently.

[ehrnst]

174. So which gun control is "mindlessness?"

Please tell us.

[aikoaiko]

175. I didn't say any gun control was "mindless".

I spoke of mindless support of legislation of "any kind".

But there are some nearly useless gun control laws such as AWBs and import bans of non-sporting rifles.

[ehrnst]

182. You gave "supporting mindless gun control" as the only option to

disagreeing with you.

I read your posts.

[Eliot Rosewater]

204. That wasnt an accident I fear.

[R B Garr]

241. You read it correctly. It doesn't look like an error in wording.

It matches the sentiment that Bernie's image is the priority, certainly not gun control...

[RandySF]

6. Watch the alt.left go after the kid now.

[ismnotwasm]

8. Yup

He already has the right doing it

[RandomAccess]

28. I think that term -- alt.left -- has a very unfortunate effect

on our discourse. I've brought this up before, including to the owners of a site named that, and no one seems to want to hear me, but I know it's problematic. It can't help to be.

It:

* legitimizes the alt.right - BIG TIME
* delegitimizes the left, all of it
* hands a wedge issue and manufactured insult, to the right -- while simultaneously legitimizing them
* is false equivalency by definition: there IS no segment of the left that resembles or is equivalent equates to the the violence-prone, violence-loving, violence-promoting alt right
* and there is no equivalent on the left to the hatred of the alt right

I hope you'll consider these points and their inevitable outcomes and will cease using it.

[RandySF]

31. Alt-left

- Threatens reporters who publish "negative" stories about their candidates.
- Urges people to stay home on Election Day
- Calls Elizabeth Warren a sell-out if she doesn't endorse their preferred candidate.
- Say there is no proof Russia did nothing wrong in 2016.
- Peddle the Uranium-One stories and other conspiracy theories against the Clintons.
- Cheered on Trump when he was called the winner in 2016.
- Sit to dinner with Mike Flynn and Vladimir Putin
- Post anti-immigrant comments on progressive sites

[Kurt V.]

48. wait a dang minute.

i consider myself alt left and I've never endorsed any of those things. zero. the people who do are a minuscule part. as always, I could be wrong

[Ferrets are Cool]

50. IMO, the problem with the term is that

the repugs use it for ANYONE who is a progressive or democrat. They don't differentiate and lump all "lefties" as that term. It is the reason that I wont legitimize it.

[RandomAccess]

72. Thank you

[RandomAccess]

71. I think you have them

confused with Russian trolls and bots -- with the exception of Jill Stein.

Even if there are some genuine people who fit your other categories, their numbers are so small they STILL don't earn an alt.left tag.

IOW, it's still problematic.

[Blue_true]

100. Exactly. nt

[Cha]

141. Whomever already has the one who tweeted this

on Temporary Suspension.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210610602

So what does that say?

[Gothmog]

187. Twitter has a great deal of politics

I am sorry that the person who posted this tweet is having issues on twitter.

It is a great tweet

[Cha]

189. Yes, I hope he gets his account back on soon!

All he did was tweet a vid of David Hogg speaking the truth.

[NurseJackie]

194. Happy Monday!

And that's all I have to say about that. I won't go into details for obvious reasons.

[Cha]

239. It IS a Happy Monday! Who knew..

it could be so HAPPY!

Mahalo, Jackie!

[Sunlei]

248. It says, that account makes great one liners that can be weaponised for political use.

It's an anti-Senator Sanders account, an old one. Similar to how breibart used Hoggs anti- republican/anti NRA statements in march 2018 & April 2018 single 'pro NRA tweet' against the young man.

This is the way Republican party (paid media businesses) work against Ds-they take a statement and twist it to shit.

Here's a link-

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/14/hogg-goes-calling-nra-pathetic-fckers-tweeting-nra-gun-safety-guidelines/

[Cha]

278. They want to censor him.. can't handle the facts.. I'm glad he tweeted what David

Hogg had to say about his record of history.

The patriot needs his account back.

[Sunlei]

292. She will get her account back, it's a temp ban not permanent. really a shame

one liners from patriots are used by extremely crafty media 'players' to totally twist youths chance to make real change in USAs gun laws.

Now they're pushing the youths tweets of NRA gun safety material. His state will never ban military assault gun sales now like a couple other states recently have.

SC even just upheld ,it is constitutional for a state to 'mandate' to ban assault weapon sales.

yet people fight over tweets because media directs the discussion.

[Cha]

300. Awesome.. I can't wait until she gets

her account back

[lark]

180. Alt-Left person, Jill Stein, was just another Russian tool coming from a different angle.

They exist to ensure the rw winning, whether wittingly or stupidly.

[Sunlei]

249. There is no alt-left- Jill Stein was used by Republican party to take a few percent of votes

from Hillary. all it took was a couple hundred votes-couple thousand in many counties and states.

[Eliot Rosewater]

205. And both the young Kennedy and Kamala Harris are on their menu for destruction next.

Same way they helped destroy someone else recently.

[mcar]

230. And Sen Booker, the Castro brothers and anyone else who dares.

[Eliot Rosewater]

233. Of course. I was just chased away from a group of "progressives" on a youtube

chat for being too much of a cheerleader for electing Democrats and for calling out KGB talking points.

Real sad situation we are in.

[mcar]

234. How dare you be a Democrat speaking up for Democrats?

Good gad!

[Eliot Rosewater]

236. The moderator of the chat once chastised me for saying positive things about Hillary

and I quote "I am sick and tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton and the good things she does"

And this was someone who claims to be liberal or progressive. But is in fact just brainwashed and almost as dumb as the folks on the right.

[mcar]

238. ...

[Blue_true]

98. No it does not delegitimize the left or legitimize the alt-right.

It says both tend toward being totalitarian assholes that are intolerant to any view but their own.

[RandomAccess]

109. Man, I see so bleepin' much of that here,

among "the GOOD Democrats" calling for a level of fealty and acceptance of authority that it makes my head spin. Those of you claiming this have NOTHING to stand on to claim your imagined moral superiority. And ya'll are perilously close to rivaling the right in that regard.

It's downright frightening at times to see the unmitigated authoritarianism so rampant here among the left. SMH

[Blue_true]

110. You are wrong. When faced with two choices and I have no choice BUT to choose.

I choose the less bad or the two fucking choices that I have to chose from and hope like hell that others have enough sense to do the same. I don't put a gun to anyone's head and have never seen truly progressive DUERS do that either.

[RandomAccess]

118. If that's your response, then I can only conclude

you don't understand my point. At all.

Oh well. AFAIC, your loss.

[Ferrets are Cool]

113. +1

[treestar]

126. It is not acceptance of authority

As a practical move to elect more Democrats rather than Republicans, put aside one issue or expectation of things that could only be gained with a population far more to the left than we have. That's encouraging that decision. Not saying change your mind as the authority says. Don't change your mind, just don't give up on voting because right now we won't have a Congress that will pass single payer, etc. No one is saying just give in to authority. March lockstep when necessary, to win, not because you are surrendering your actual opinions and will always walk lockstep.

[ehrnst]

164. Yep. (nt)

[ehrnst]

168. Already happening - that twitter account has been suspended. (nt)

[Sunlei]

245. wait until a little closer to midterms for the millions of bots to attack ALL not-Republicans.

God I wish Hillary would run for Congress or Senate seat vs one of these entrenched asshole Republicans. Even run for Governor of some deep red state.

Such a waste of her ability to Lead to just retire.

[ecstatic]

296. Yep. Maybe they'll pull up tweets from when he was 9 years old

or something.

[Fla_Democrat]

9. Hmmm

[Fla_Democrat]

289. I'm running out of popcorn....

[LonePirate]

10. I sure wish I could rec this more than once! Go David!

[NurseJackie]

11. Good! I'm glad SOMEONE is taking the lead on this. It's LONG overdue.

[Gothmog]

44. Agreed

[sheshe2]

70. The wisdom of youth.

He only just reached voting age and he speaks the truth. He hasn't left his teens and has seen the worst of human nature, he saw his fellow students slaughtered at school where they should be safe. He saw the NRA and their supporters attack and ridicule their deaths, politicians that are not attacking remain silent.

Truly wise beyond his years. Bravo, David. Our future is with our children.

[oasis]

12. But...but Bernie's dismal rating by the NRA should give him some cover.

[George II]

16. Unless you're a republican you're most likely to have a dismal rating regardless of your positions.

[oasis]

30. Curses, foiled again!

[Uncle Joe]

51. I count 10 Ten Democratic Senators receiving a grade of A from the NRA

1 of them receiving a B, 6 of them receiving a C with Senator Rockefeller and Bernie getting a D and 35 receiving an F

http://www.margieroswell.com/map_of_nra_grades_for_senators

[George II]

58. That's 54. How old is this list? Rockefeller, for example, left office more than 3 years ago.

[Uncle Joe]

61. I looked for a date but I couldn't find one on the site. This is from googling rankings

and it was up front.

If you don't have a newer version, I will continue to search

Thanks

[George II]

65. I don't but to be honest NRA ratings are irrelevant to me. All I know is the legislation.....

....that he's voted for and voted against over the years.

David Hogg has done his homework.

[sheshe2]

78. "David Hogg has done his homework."

Yes he has. I will listen to the children, the ones on the front lines watching their friends being slaughtered. While the NRA,and it's benefactors get impunity. Gun manufacturers and the politicians that will not even bother to support simple regulations can go to hell.

[Eliot Rosewater]

207. Indeed he has and now he can expect to be attacked from many angles but NOT from

liberals and NOT from actual Democrats.

[ehrnst]

170. See my reply to you above.

All the Senate Democratic caucus have "F" ratings.

Bernie is to the right of the Democratic Establishment on Guns with a D-.

[lapucelle]

101. The data is at least 5-6 years old.

Boxer, Lautenberg, and J Kerry are still listed as senators.

[George II]

111. Sanders' last rating was back in 2012. The way the NRA works is that they rate candidates....

....during each election cycle, then update them when the next election rolls around. My understanding is that should Sanders win in November, they'll assign a new rating for 2018.

Any Senator with a relatively good rating generally is from a right or very right leaning state - it reflects their constituency.

For example, the four Democrats that are toward the high end of the scale (whose ratings are 6-years old because they're all running again this year) are Tester - MT, Manchin - WV, Heitkamp - ND, and Donnelly - IN, all very conservative states.

Those have the worst ratings are from liberal states. Of the 49 Democratic/Independent Senators, only eight have "better" (in the eyes of the NRA) than Sanders.

In order from the top:

A Donnelly
A Manchin
Aq Heitkamp
A- Tester
B+ Casey
B Heinrich
C Warner
D Udall
D- Sanders
F Remaining 40 Democrats/Independent

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/15/52-senators-have-an-a-minus-nra-rating-or-higher-including-four-democrats/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.67a8af55ea2a

(note, this is a pay site)

[lapucelle]

96. FYI, that data is 6 years old. Some on the list are no longer in Congress,

and some currently in office like Booker and Harris are not on the list.

[George II]

112. See my post #111 for an explanation of their ratings.

[ehrnst]

165. You have a rather outdated list.... Here is the most recent

Most members of the Democratic caucus have F grades, as you might expect. But nine of the 49 Democratic and independent senators have grades above F, including four — Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) — who have grades of A-minus or higher.

You're welcome.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/15/52-senators-have-an-a-minus-nra-rating-or-higher-including-four-democrats/

[ehrnst]

167. The entire Senate Dem caucus have "F" ratings

Bernie has a D-.

Since so many here have said that anyone to the right of Bernie is unacceptable, I think it's fair to point out where he is to the right of the Democratic "establishment."

[BootinUp]

13. I like this young man, a lot.

[brush]

29. More and more. Put the senator's feet to the fire.

[Tipperary]

14. Boom.

[SunSeeker]

15. Yup. The PLCAA is an unconscionably pro-gun manufacturer, anti-victim law.

And Bernie voted for it.

[Gothmog]

45. Agreed

[musette_sf]

18. K&R

[wallyworld2]

19. I will still take Senator Sanders any day of the week

If anyone can improve and change, it is Bernie.

I cannot allow one issue to exclude someone like Senator Sanders.

[jrthin]

35. I will take him only on the 8th day of the week. nt

[Civic Justice]

52. not everyone feels the same

I personally have no special affinity for him, and consider him as a vote split-er, even still today. I certainly don't see him as a viable candidate in 2020, definitely not as being representing Democrats.
I think he should likely sit down and review himself... because its a great deal he needs to face up to... It's for sure some in this site won't like it, but... this site is as claimed called Democratic Underground, not Independent Underground.


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210530322

[stevenleser]

63. Take him where? I'll take him for retirement. nt

[tonedevil]

89. Pretty sure he's going to...

continue to be the Junior Senator Senator from Vermont. I expect he will remain registered Independent and caucus with the Democrats. Hope that meets with your approval.

[Tavarious Jackson]

64. I don't think there is any evidence

To suggest Bernie could unite the Senate to do any of his positions. In my opinion, it takes someone with exceptional policy chops. Someone who can legislate not just talk.

[sunRISEnow]

104. I have not seen any Bernie change in the 4 decades he has been in politics.

I think the whole point of Bernie, is there is no change, ever.

Except when his free college was a fail and he took ownership of HRC's college plan.

[GulfCoast66]

121. I am a democrat. I support members of the Democratic Party.

Not outsiders who routinely attackthe party.

But that’s just me. Im funny that way.

[sheshe2]

124. Boom!

[Eliot Rosewater]

208. If the party and sites that support the party dont get right in the head about this

we will see a repeat of a recent thing.

I cant mention it, but count on it.

[lunamagica]

139. Well, for many of us, it is way more than one issue.

[alarimer]

199. Me too.

In fact, I looked up the actual vote on this issue and it seems that 14 Democrats voted for it. 4 Senators did not vote (Feinstein and 3 Rs). Now, I have no idea why they abstained. Perhaps they were absent, or maybe too cowardly to take a position.

Regardless, it was going to pass no matter what. So blasting Sanders is a bit misleading, considering that, when Clinton called out Sanders for his support of this bill (she voted against it herself), he said he was willing to repeal it. I don't know if that will happen or not. I'm sure there is no way this bill will even come up in this Congress.

What I hate most about politics now is that everyone has to be all good or all bad. "You're either with us or against us." Either pure as the driven snow, or a total heel. Politics as professional wrestling.

Politicians are certainly not immune to criticism for their votes, past or present. Hillary voted for the Iraq War, after all. I could forgive that and still vote for her.

It's this black and white Twitter world I cannot stand. Everything, EVERYTHING, is more nuanced than we get in 280 characters.

[wallyworld2]

223. I do not like Hillary at all

I did not vote for her in the primary.

And what ever politicking went on to get her to be the Democratic nominee, it didn't matter one bit in the general election to me.

Not when it came to the alternative.

I voted for Hillary in the general.

Aside from that, I know there would have been a chance she would listen to my views

And more importantly she would have staffed all her administration with qualified people not bent on dismantling the government and destroying NATO.

[Cha]

21. David Hogg's not playing..

he speaks the truth.

[Cha]

34. Hillary's not running for anything now. I'm glad

David Hogg speaks the inconvenient truth.

I love these KIDS!

[OldHippieChick]

43. Please stop.

This OP has nothing to do w/ Hillary. It is unnecessary to go there.

[George II]

46. This discussion is about gun control in this country, why are you dragging the Iraq war into it?

[emulatorloo]

49. Please don't use 'whataboutism' to distract from the issue of gun control

I suggest leaving the “What about Hillary?” rhetorical tactic to the Kellyanne Conways of this world.

[stevenleser]

66. What a surprise, whataboutism was used to deflect from holding Bernie's feet to the fire

I am shocked, shocked I tell you!!!!

[Eliot Rosewater]

209. I missed the post, did the person happen to mention

The Clinton Presidency: A Historic Era of Progress and Prosperity

Longest economic expansion in American history
The President's strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.
More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.
Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore's new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton's comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.
100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.
Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992.
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.
Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America's national forests.
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton's call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.
Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.
Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President has appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.

Return to Eight Years of Peace, Progress and Prosperity Index
>> Timeline of Major Actions >>

President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore
Record of Progress | The Briefing Room
Gateway to Government | Contacting the White House
White House for Kids | White House History
White House Tours | Help | Text Only

Privacy Statement

What about that?

What about this?

mail
Hillary Clinton
•••
BY KIMBERLY AMADEO Updated May 06, 2018
Hillary Clinton's accomplishments have been centered around health care, the military, and families, especially women and children. The first two affect the economy because health care and defense are the two biggest expenses in the federal budget. The combined costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and military spending are $1.757 trillion, or 42 percent of total government spending.

First Lady
Hillary chaired the Task Force on Health Care Reform that drafted the 1993 Health Security Act. Although Congress didn't pass it, it laid the groundwork for the Affordable Care Act. It also cleared the way for the Children's Health Insurance Program. She worked with Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch who sponsored the bill. It received $24 billion, paid for by a 15 cent tax on cigarettes. She added $1 billion for an outreach program to help states publicize the program and sign up recipients. It provides health care to more than eight million children.
In 1994, she championed the Violence Against Women Act. That provides financial and technical assistance to states to help them develop programs that stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. In 1995, she also helped create the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women.
She supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Representative Nancy Johnson, a Republican, sponsored the bill. It facilitates the adoption of foster children. It also allows states and local agencies greater flexibility on how to spend federal funds.
She lobbied Congress for the 1999 Foster Care Independence Act. Senators John Chafee, R-RI, and Tom DeIay, R-TX, sponsored the bill. The Act almost doubled federal spending for programs that help teenagers leave foster care after they turn 18. The programs help them complete their education, find jobs, and become self-sufficient.
U.S. Senator
Urged ratification of the START treaty in 2010. The treaty limits the limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 strategic deployed nuclear warheads. That's down from 2,200. It limits the number of deployed heavy nuclear bombers and missiles to 800. That's down from 1,600. Russia was already within those limits, but the United States was not. The treaty went into effect in 2011, will be fully implemented by 2018, and will remain in force until 2028.
Introduced the Pediatric Research Equity Act with Senator Mike DeWine, R-OH. This law requires drug companies to research how their products affect children. The Act changed drug labeling to disclose safety and dosage for children. That's lowered the danger of over-dosage for children with chronic diseases like epilepsy and asthma.
Worked with fellow NY Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer to get $21 billion in federal aid to help New York rebuild after the 9/11 attacks. She wrote the bill to get health care coverage for 9/11 first responders. That included health research related to the attacks. The rescue operations forced many police and firefighters into early retirement with debilitating chronic injuries and illnesses. Her successor, Senator Kirsten Hillibrand, got the bill passed.
Worked with Republicans to achieve full military health benefits to National Guard members and reservists. Expanded Family Medical Leave Act to families with wounded veterans.
Secretary of State
Took the lead on drafting and negotiating the Trans-Pacific partnership trade agreement. Once ratified, it would increase U.S. exports by $123.5 billion annually by 2025. Industries that benefit the most include electrical, autos, plastics and agriculture. (Source: "How Hillary Clinton Created a U.S. Business Promotion Machine," Bloomberg, January 10, 2013.)
Successfully concluded bilateral trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama in 2011. The Korea agreement removed almost 80 percent of tariffs, and increased exports by $10 billion. The Colombia agreement expanded U.S. exports by $1.1 billion.
Negotiated ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012.
Called for the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. Sided with CIA Director Leon Panetta who first told her it was possible. Overcame opposition from Vice-President Biden and Defense Secretary Bill Gates who were worried about political backlash if the raid failed.
Pushed the United Nations to impose sanctions on Iran in 2010. That created a recession in Iran. The economy shrank 6.6 percent in 2012 and 1.9 percent in 2013. That's because they cut Iran's oil exports in half. Clinton was personally involved in these diplomatic efforts and pushed them publicly. The sanctions made Iran agree to stop building nuclear weapons in 2015.
Instrumental in negotiating the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Accord. The developed and major developing nations agreed to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial level. They also agreed to pay $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist poor countries affected the most by climate change.
Timeline and Additional Accomplishments
1977: Founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. It did research and educate the public on children's issues. Joined Rose Law Firm. Appointed by President Carter to chair the board of the Legal Services Corporation.

1979 - 1982: First Lady of Arkansas during Governor Clinton's Administration. Became first woman partner of Rose Law Firm.

1982 - 1992: First Lady of Arkansas. Chaired Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, which created new state school standards. Founded Arkansas Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youth. Helped created Arkansas' first neonatal intensive care unit. On the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the Legal Services and Children's Defense Fund. Corporate board member of TCBY and Lafarge. First female board member of Wal-Mart (1986-1992.) Chaired American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession (1987 to 1991.) Arkansas Woman of the Year (1983.) Arkansas Mother of the Year (1984.)

1993 - 2001: First Lady during the Clinton administration. Chair of the Task Force on National Healthcare Reform. She continued to be a leading advocate for expanding health insurance coverage, ensuring children are properly immunized, and raising public awareness of health issues. She was the first First Lady with a postgraduate degree.

2000 - 2008: U.S. Senator from New York. Senate Committees: Armed Services; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Environment and Public Works; Budget; Aging. Member of Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. She also led the charge on the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act.

2009 - 2013: U.S. Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Opened Chinese markets to U.S. companies. (Additional Sources: "11 Accomplishments Hillary Clinton Should Be Touting on the Campaign Trail," FoxNews.com, June 3, 2015. "7 of Hillary's Biggest Accomplishments," HillaryClinton.com. "A List of Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments," AddictingInfo.com, April 13, 2015. "Citing Just One HRC Accomplishment Is Impossible," Huffington Post, May 24, 2016.)

[SidDithers]

27. DU rec...nt

Sid

[jrthin]

32. I love these kids! nt

[sheshe2]

36. K&R

[murielm99]

38. Good for David!

K&R

[NBachers]

39. Another rec for David Hogg!

[LSFL]

40. Let it rip David.

Sanders is not a Democrat. I would say he is not a progressive or even an independent either.

[elmac]

84. Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,

and progressive who admires the Nordic model of socialism. Slamming any progressive is a sure way of helping tRump and putin.

[JI7]

108. He is criticizing Sanders for a position which is not progressive

[NurseJackie]

120. ...

[mcar]

122. Really?

Slamming any progressive is a sure way of helping tRump and putin.

I see Democrats slammed here on a regular basis. Do you make a similar statement each time that happens?

[shanny]

128. I see progressives slammed on a regular basis.

The question I ask is to what is loyalty due, policies or a label?

[mcar]

130. Did you mean to respond to me?

I was asking elmac if she/he had the same response when Democrats get slammed regularly here.

[R B Garr]

200. Since when is voting in favor of the NRA

“Progressive”??

[NurseJackie]

231. Never. Voting with or for the NRA is definitely NOT progressive.

I find it to be disgusting and reprehensible.

[Cha]

290. I see them slamming.

[Demsrule86]

283. Slamming a Democrat perhaps...but Independents are not in great enough numbers to help us

defeat Trump. Not saying this just about Sanders...any independent or third party person.

[Cha]

146. No you're wrong.. David is Telling the truth.. not sweeping

facts under the rug.

[Eliot Rosewater]

210. I know that is what he says. My question is do most of his followers or supporters

know what that actually means and would they WANT that?

I would, but I am a LIBERAL and a very far left liberal.

And I wish something ONE Thing even could be accomplished along this line. I dont get how after all these years , still nothing.



Well , not nothing actually, thanks to PRESIDENT OBAMA we have ACA

[Demsrule86]

284. My kids who were really into Sen. Sanders in 16 don't like him anymore.

I am not sure he will get the youth vote this time.

[lunamagica]

271. How progressive is this?

[Sunlei]

250. Senator Sanders said this year, "Stay in the D party"

quit carrying water for Republican partys' pathetic try to take over more of Congress & Senate.

[Kurt V.]

41. i like this young man.

he has been through something very few of us will ever experience.

[Gothmog]

42. K&R

[smirkymonkey]

53. +1000

[aikoaiko]

59. I stand with Bernie. PLCAA is fine.

It helps protect a civil liberty.

[TheSmarterDog]

83. It helps kill innocent people.

[aikoaiko]

92. Not really.

You have to draw connections between multiple dots to make a connection.

Anti-gun violence advocates could accomplish the same results with legislation.

But anti-gun advocates need PLCAA to go away to sue dealers, distributors, and manufacturers into oblivion with emptional-based arguments.

[TheSmarterDog]

94. Yes, really.

Anything indicating the contrary is NRA propaganda.

[stonecutter357]

62. K&R !

[Me.]

67. Smart & Fearless....Mr. David Hogg

[Cha]

76. David Hogg speaks the truth.. We are supporting him and the KIDS

who are Fighting for their Lives.

This has apparently upset you so much that you have nothing but insults.

[Tavarious Jackson]

77. It is him and his organization "our revolution." that goes after democrats.

You mean we should not fight back?

[mcar]

73. David speaks truth

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. What a bright young man, with an exceptional future ahead of him.

[Exotica]

81. I am a Kamala Harris girl, I do NOT want Bernie to run in 2020, but I am also a stickler for truth

here are the cold hard numbers for gun lobby money


I went and looked at Senators all the way back to 1990

These were the top Democratic Senators in terms of gun lobby money

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=Q13&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&sortorder=A&mem=Y&page=1

Specter, Arlen (D-PA) $47,900
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $46,250
Obama, Barack (D) $44,371
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $33,713
Reid, Harry (D-NV) $30,250
Breaux, John (D-LA) $23,800
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $22,400
Manchin, Joe (D-WV) $20,700
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) $20,500
Hollings, Fritz (D-SC) $17,800
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND) $14,800
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $14,250
Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $11,129
Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $8,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $8,000
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $7,000
Heinrich, Martin (D-NM) $6,500
Warner, Mark (D-VA) $5,500
Heflin, Howell (D-AL) $4,950
Gore, Al (D) $4,250
Bradley, Bill (D) $4,050
Kerry, John (D-MA) $3,250
Edwards, John (D) $2,550
Tester, Jon (D-MT) $2,500
Begich, Mark (D-AK) $2,000
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $2,000
Ford, Wendell H (D-KY) $2,000
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $2,000
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $2,000
Udall, Mark (D-CO) $1,500
Miller, Zell (D-GA) $1,000
Webb, Jim (D-VA) $500
Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) $50


In the House

Peterson, Collin (D-MN) $96,500
Rahall, Nick (D-WV) $81,900
Mollohan, Alan B (D-WV) $79,800
Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $78,600
Skelton, Ike (D-MO) $78,350
Holden, Tim (D-PA) $76,950
Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $73,324
Boucher, Rick (D-VA) $71,600
Dingell, John D (D-MI) $61,500
Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) $58,815
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX) $57,150
Hilliard, Earl F (D-AL) $56,050


furthermore

they (Open Secrets) co-mingle things when a person is a member of congress but also has run for POTUS

here is the link for ALL cycles (cumulative totals in gun lobby money (not all is from the NRA) given directly to a candidate for the last 28 years (since 1990)

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=Q13&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&sortorder=A&mem=Y&page=1

All Senators

Candidate Amount
McCain, John (R-AZ) $618,113
Cruz, Ted (R-TX) $460,367
Rubio, Marco (R-FL) $244,019
Paul, Rand (R-KY) $231,587

snip

Obama, Barack (D) $44,371

snip

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $33,713
Murkowski, Frank H (R-AK) $33,700
Fischer, Deb (R-NE) $33,335
Gorton, Slade (R-WA) $33,300


snip

Helms, Jesse (R-NC) $11,400
Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $11,129


snip


notice those totals, that is all moneys given to Obama, Clinton and Sanders since 1990, no matter what race (Rep, Sen, POTUS)


now here is 2008 POTUS

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=Q13&cycle=2008&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U

Presidential Candidates

1 McCain, John (R) $515,128
2 Thompson, Fred (R) $75,575
3 Romney, Mitt (R) $72,675
4 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $50,450
5 Huckabee, Mike (R) $25,300
6 Paul, Ron (R) $24,813
7 Obama, Barack (D) $22,337
8 Gilmore, Jim (R) $16,950
9 Hunter, Duncan (R) $13,009
10 Tancredo, Tom (R) $7,625
11 Clinton, Hillary (D) $7,000
12 Richardson, Bill (D) $2,750
13 Edwards, John (D) $2,550
14 Nader, Ralph (I) $2,450
15 Brownback, Sam (R) $1,950
16 Barr, Bob (L) $1,000
17 Thompson, Tommy (R) $500
18 Baldwin, Chuck (3) $250


now 2012

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=Q13&recipdetail=P&sortorder=U&mem=N&cycle=2012

7 Obama, Barack (D) $22,034

and finally

2016

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=Q13&recipdetail=P&sortorder=U&mem=N&cycle=2016

Presidential Candidates

1 Trump, Donald (R) $814,236
2 Carson, Ben (R) $119,566
3 Walker, Scott (R) $39,510
4 Fiorina, Carly (R) $32,517
5 Bush, Jeb (R) $31,490
6 Clinton, Hillary (D) $26,713
7 Kasich, John (R) $20,399
8 Huckabee, Mike (R) $11,751
9 Sanders, Bernie (D) $11,129


do the maths

Totals since 1990

Bernie

Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $11,129

all from 2016, but still it is only 11,129 usd total from 28 years (that's like 750th in overall Congress/Potus)


Hillary

total since 1990 all races

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $33,713

2008 she got 7,000

and in 2016 $26,713

adds up


and Obama

total since 1990

Obama, Barack (D) $44,371

7 Obama, Barack (D) $22,337 2008

7 Obama, Barack (D) $22,034 2012

adds up all around


Bernie is well past 700th place in government elected officials when it comes to total gun lobby money (when you add house, POTUS, Senate totals together)

and its disingenuous to try to tar him with 11K when Hillary got around triple that (in less time too) and Obama almost 4 times as much total in even less than Clinton, let alone Bernie

I am not a Sanders fangirl, I supported and voted for Hillary in the primaries, I do NOT (as stated above) want him to run in 2020, but these divisive attacks on Sanders (and thus the 10 to 15 million plus supporters he has who will vote) are ripping the party apart

I want to focus on 2018 NOW, and also, after 2020 and what we can do to rid the world of TRUMP

not beat dead horses and rehash 2016 primaries, or give legit Democratic voters (twice as many Hillary 2008 primary voters voted for McCain as did Bernie primary voters voting for Trump in 2016) reason to say 'fuck it all, I am not voting'

Bernie has close to zero chance of ever being POTUS, shredding things up only hurts us Democratic Party members and the country and actually the world

I hope you can see where I am coming from

[Tavarious Jackson]

85. This is not about gun lobby money

It's about his vote on the Brady bill.

[Exotica]

90. And he was wrong on that, but many have, in the short time I have been here tried to equate

his taking any gun lobby money as a sign he is a pro-gun fanatic. I am simply trying to add context. I hope he is crushed if he runs, BUT I do not want to alienate his huge amount of supporters. We need them badly.

[R B Garr]

247. It actually looks like you are trying to add a diversion, not context.

The diversion is -- Look Over There at Democrats! Enough of that. It's transparent what these diversions are attempting.

Speaking of alienating supporters -- how long will it be only one way?? Seems to me that the majority of people who voted against him should get the red carpet treatment, as well. He needs them worse than the other way around.

[Exotica]

251. I reject your characterisation of my posting, as it is inferring

something which I explicitly stated I am not, ie. a Sanders supporter.

[R B Garr]

252. Right. You just want to make some tangential point about money

from the NRA and implicate Democrats so that Bernie's votes on gun legislation are not an issue.

[Exotica]

253. You must have reading comprehension issues, as I already adressed this in my multiple replies.

But my all means, carry-on with your attempts to imply you have the ability to determine that people's actual words mean the opposite of what they actually and clearly state.

[R B Garr]

254. I was just reading your concerns.

Your concern about Bernie supporters, which is a bit far-fetched at this point. I'm still wondering when the concern will be about the literally millions of people who aren't socialists and when the reciprocal outreach starts. It works both ways, and it's way past time.

[Exotica]

255. You need to address your 'concerns' to them (Sanders people), not me

As for it being 'far-fetched' to give a toss about the 13 plus million votes he got (and thus these people as 2018 and 2020 voters), I say it is a good thing you have no power to dictate Democratic campaign strategy.

[R B Garr]

256. Ah, thanks for being honest. You are concerned about

Sanders. Not so much concerned about the Democrats. Thanks for the info! I sort of read that from your posts, but your clarity is appreciated.

[Exotica]

257. LOL, you are delusional

[R B Garr]

258. I was just reading your "concerns."

They sounded very familiar. Right back atcha! Thanks again for the clarity. Welcome to DU.

[Exotica]

260. Any rational person reading this exchange sees through you

like a freshly cleaned windowpane. I refuse to let you use sophistry-based rhetoric to try and imply I am not 100% pro-Democratic Party. Welcome back to you.

[R B Garr]

261. Yes, I read your exchanges and the concern over making sure

the NRA money was used as a diversion away from Sanders' questionable gun legislation votes. Why on earth would young people questioning Sanders' votes be such a threat to you?? Why would they be a threat to Sanders' "supporters"?? It really makes no sense. You added no context, just a diversion.

[Exotica]

262. I fully explained this above, I am done with this, as you keep

projecting your wishes unto me. Sanders will not win the primaries, but we also do not need to alienate a shit tonne of his supporters (who, I repeat from above), had half as many defections to Trump than Clinton had amongst her voters to MCain in 2008) via non-stop divisive attacks.

If you want to truly change minds, then go try and convince an actual Sanders supporter to stay with our party. That will be (or should be, if done with some tact and skill) far easier than trying to flip a Trump voter.

Even better yet, go and try to get the tens of millions who did not vote at all to vote this time, and vote for our candidates. That is what I am working on.

[R B Garr]

263. I just read what you wrote and how you were diverting from the topic

at hand. I notice you neglect to mention how David Hogg calling out Sanders votes is such a threat to you. How is it "divisive" that a young man who was victimized by a school shooting is questioning a Senator's questionable votes?? How on earth does that have anything to do with Sanders supporters?? It really makes no sense except that you would rather introduce some supposedly negative info about Democrats in a "what about Democrats" way. It's rather obvious -- looks familiar.

I'm glad you have illustrated here that the red carpet treatment is deemed only one way. That position is unsustainable. There are still way more people like me out there, so truly changing minds isn't just one-sided. Trump should be enough of a menace that I doubt people need to be concerned about people who voted for Sanders two years ago, or anyone else for that matter.

[Exotica]

264. I didn't illustrate anything than your own projections.

I posted what I did to give context to what many, in not just this thread, but other threads attempt to portray Sanders in general, (despite a D-minus NRA rating) to be a pro-gun fanatic because he got any money ever from the gun lobby. This is attempted to be done by selectively singling out people some have a grudge with, and use divisive posturing to try and win internet chatboard points.

Bernie most definitely voted wrongly on that bill. I have no quarrel with saying that. I do not want him to even run. Hogg's OWN Senator, Bill Nelson did as well, and was not named, but to point that out is, according to you, diversionary, as it doesn't splice well into the narrative, a narrative that takes legit points and uses them in such fashion and manner as to churn up divisiveness and mistrust internally within our party (as the vast majority of Sanders voter and current supporters are still Democrats).

[R B Garr]

265. Talk about projections! Now you are accusing people of calling Sanders a

"pro-gun fanatic" when that is certainly not what is happening. I recognized your tactics, which you have elaborated here as being concerned primarily about Sanders' image in relation to his gun votes. So your supposed "context" is to throw some tangential NRA money out there hoping that will provide a "what about Democrats" diversion. Reading your responses has just clarified that, so thank you again for fleshing out your positions.

David Hogg isn't stupid in how he evaluated Bernie's stance, and he's not stupid that Bernie ran for President before and is obviously trying to exert influence over national dialogues. It's obvious you are threatened by that and now have to throw David Hogg's Senator into the mix, as if to discredit David Hogg. It is you who are concerned about splicing the narrative -- taking David Hogg's tweet and trying to churn up divisiveness and mistrust of him because he dared to question one Senator's questionable voting record. Why would you be so threatened about "Sanders supporters" if David Hogg is questioning his "progressive" position on gun control because of the way he voted? Sanders' image seems to be the priority. David Hogg is an intelligent young man who should not be demonized for his questions.

[Exotica]

266. your 'concern' is duly noted, and I will never allow you to define me or my posts

I really could not care less about what you want to assume or project.

Now, go play with someone else, I have wasted enough time with you.

[R B Garr]

267. Yeah, your "concern" is duly noted, as well.

Whataboutism is getting old because it only serves to add divisiveness. It's about time the hypocrisy is called out -- the constant "what about Democrats". You've defined your own posts -- I haven't. Thanks again for clarifying! It was very obvious.

[lunamagica]

268. It is not "because he got any money ever from the gun lobby."

[Exotica]

269. Go tell it to a Sanders supporter, not someone like me

simply trying to stop party-wrecking infighting.

[lunamagica]

270. I was just addressing your point that" but other threads attempt to portray Sanders in general,

(despite a D-minus NRA rating) to be a pro-gun fanatic because he got any money ever from the gun lobby".

It is not just because he got any money ever from the gun lobby. There is much more

[Exotica]

273. I have said he was absolutely wrong in his vote, as well all the Dems (75 in total, counting Indies)

who also voted like Bernie did.

For the LAST time (not so much directed at you per se) I do NOT want Bernie to even run in 2020. It will rip our Party apart (erm DOH..........).

Some of the thing things I find he stands for that I agree with are universal, government overseen healthcare (single-payer or some other scheme) and free or ultra low-cost public tertiary education. Many other Democratic Party members support these as well.

I think he is atrocious on his insistence to outreach to Trump Rethugs, and also was HUGELY offended (I am a highly successful PoC) when he gave some rote 'ghetto this, ghetto that' reply when asked about about race in America.

A novel idea...................Go have a go at people who actually (right here on this this very thread and elsewhere) DEFEND his vote (and by extension the others as well).

[R B Garr]

280. Exactly, and that wasn't even the point of David Hogg's comment.

He even said outright that Bernie doesn't get money from the NRA, which was obviously a generic qualifier to his comment because Bernie has gotten money, but the point was that it was inconsequential to the point David was making. He was talking about the wrong positions that Bernie has taken and it was apparently a threatening comment to those who are trying to get Twitter accounts shut down and trotting out Whataboutisms about Democrats.

This whole sidebar is frankly not believable. It looks like just an opportunity to smear Democrats as a preemptive strike all in the name of "unity" -- and all totally simpatico with Sanders supporters as it was ever about them.

[R B Garr]

281. That is such an excellent graphic.

There it is. Wow. Doesn't look so progressive. This is why the vetting is way overdue.

[jalan48]

91. Who would have guessed? Some big names on this list.

[Progressive dog]

105. The gun industry couldn't buy votes from Hillary or Obama

and they didn't need to from Bernie. He was already on their side.

[JI7]

106. Hogg is talking about how he voted. Many on that list still voted FOR gun control

Hogg is referring to Sanders voting to protect gun industry from lawsuits

[Eliot Rosewater]

211. Yet somehow your point is missed by certain folks.

[Uncle Joe]

107. Well said

[JackInGreen]

142. Don't let facts clog the talking points

Hes a good kid with a bright future, and I'm sure it's just what the fleas in his ear have been saying is needed for mainline party elevation, nothing finer for our leadership then getting their proteges to join the circular firing squad.

[Cha]

147. This is Not what David Hogg is

calling him out for.

David already said in the OP that he hasn't taken money.. his quote is this..

"but what he has done is made it way harder for gun manufacturers to be sued".

I commend David for getting the facts out there.. no way should this be swept under the rug.

[Exotica]

150. I already responded to this above.

Cheers

[Cha]

152. Good, then you know what David is saying is Important..

He's FEARLESS.

[Exotica]

154. Yes, and I hope he calls out all who helped shield the gun manufacturers.

[Cha]

155. How many others are out there

acting like they're running for potus?

I'm trusting David Hogg has his reason for calling out who he did.

[Exotica]

156. here is a list of every Democratic Caucus member who voted for it (including Sanders)

In the Senate, only one Dem who voted yes (out of 15 who did) is still in it (Bill Nelson of Florida), and other than him, all are from small, mostly rural states.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219#position

YEAs

Baucus (D-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)


In the House 60 Democratic Caucus members (Sanders included of course) voted for it

names of interest bolded

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll534.xml#Y


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h534


Cramer, Bud AL 5th
Davis, Artur AL 7th
Berry, Robert AR 1st
Ross, Mike AR 4th
Thompson, Mike CA 1st
Cardoza, Dennis CA 18th
Costa, Jim CA 20th
Baca, Joe CA 43rd
Sanchez, Loretta CA 47th
Salazar, John CO 3rd
Boyd, Allen FL 2nd
Bishop, Sanford GA 2nd
Marshall, Jim GA 3rd
Barrow, John GA 12th
Scott, David GA 13th
Bean, Melissa IL 8th
Costello, Jerry IL 12th
Chandler, Ben KY 6th
Melancon, Charles LA 3rd
Michaud, Michael ME 2nd
Stupak, Bart MI 1st
Dingell, John MI 15th
Peterson, Collin MN 7th
Taylor, Gene MS 4th
Skelton, Ike MO 4th
Berkley, Shelley NV 1st
Higgins, Brian NY 27th
Butterfield, G.K. NC 1st
McIntyre, Mike NC 7th
Pomeroy, Earl ND
Strickland, Ted OH 6th
Kaptur, Marcy OH 9th
Ryan, Tim OH 17th
Boren, Dan OK 2nd
DeFazio, Peter OR 4th
Kanjorski, Paul PA 11th
Murtha, John PA 12th
Holden, Tim PA 17th
Spratt, John SC 5th
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie SD
Davis, Lincoln TN 4th
Cooper, Jim TN 5th
Gordon, Bart TN 6th
Tanner, John TN 8th
Ford, Harold TN 9th
Hinojosa, Rubén TX 15th
Reyes, Silvestre TX 16th
Edwards, Chet TX 17th
Ortiz, Solomon TX 27th
Cuellar, Henry TX 28th
Green, Gene TX 29th
Matheson, Jim UT 2nd
Sanders, Bernie VT
Boucher, Rick VA 9th
Larsen, Rick WA 2nd
Baird, Brian WA 3rd
Mollohan, Alan WV 1st
Rahall, Nick WV 3rd
Kind, Ron WI 3rd
Obey, Dave WI 7th

[Cha]

158. I trust the intelligent, passionate young

man who was in the line of Fire.

I'm interested in what he has to say.

[Exotica]

159. I never said I was against Hogg at all, or what he did

I explained my rationale above, and surely he should also call out his present Senator, Nelson, who voted the same way.

[Cha]

160. I didn't say you did.

[Exotica]

161. All good then! Cheers

[questionseverything]

224. thank you for speaking the truth

these divisive attacks on Sanders (and thus the 10 to 15 million plus supporters he has who will vote) are ripping the party apart

[Tavarious Jackson]

82. The patriot who posted this video is being harrassed heavily

Last edited Sun May 13, 2018, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

His account was reported repeatedly for this video and is now Temp suspended. He did nothing wrong. It should be OK to call out a politician for their policies or votes..

https://twitter.com/CrippledJerk

[Cha]

115. Of course he is.. You say he's "Not"

Temp suspended?

[Tavarious Jackson]

119. I mean Now, not.. not. nt

Yes. I tweeted him some love

[Cha]

135. I figured you meant that. :(

I don't tweet yet.. so does "temp" mean until the Admins figure out that he wasn't breaking any rules?

Mahalo for sending him LOVE , Tavarious.

There are a lot of kindred spirits who support David Hogg and the KIDS who send their LOVE, too.

[Tavarious Jackson]

184. Yes, it was mob alert that got him temp suspended.

He'll be back if he is not already.

[Cha]

186. So glad!

[Eliot Rosewater]

213. Suspended for posting a video of David telling the truth? What the fuck?

[elmac]

86. oh my, oh my, Sanders isn't perfect

so lets just forget he's for the working men and women, social security, medicare for all, ect... He's got an D- rating with the NRA, boo noo, cry me a river

[Tavarious Jackson]

129. I think a large number of these kids are single issue voters.

It's important to them.

[lunamagica]

272. It is much more than that

[Gothmog]

275. Thanks for posting

[Sunlei]

87. sued for what? He's a good person & wants to help, do the right thing-but he's a shallow speaker.

sued for what? it's not like gun corporations are hiding lung cancer like ciggie corps did.

[ucrdem]

99. Bernie voted to immunize gun manufacturers from product liability in 2005

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-holding-gun-makers-responsible-20160307-column.html

[Cha]

114. David Hogg is an excellent, passionate speaker

for their Cause.. March for Our Lives.

[Eliot Rosewater]

214. Was David Hoggs called a "shallow" speaker on this forum?

Tell me no or otherwise I might be done here.

[Cha]

227. No worries, Eliot..

Don't worry about someone who would do that.. just keep fighting for Justice and Reality like are you.

[Sunlei]

242. He is an excellent passionate speaker & 2 months- new to political arena & corporate 'law'

David Miles Hogg is an American student who survived the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on February 14, 2018, and afterward became a gun control advocate and an activist against gun violence in the United States.

[Cha]

276. We're Fortunate to have him. I'm just sorry

it had to be this way.

[mcar]

232. A "shallow speaker?"

What do you mean by this?

[Cha]

277. It's sounds insulting..

[Sunlei]

244. This is how state Senators progress "gun control" legally in the courts!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Devil Child]

116. Sen. Sanders is correct on this matter

I’ll continue supporting Sen. Sanders any day of the week despite any concern David Hoggs has on his voting records.

[JI7]

117. So why not shield other industries also ?

[tammywammy]

131. Other industries didn't have the coordinate lawsuits against them like gun manufacturers

I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I agree with this legislation. There was coordinated lawsuits against the gun manufacturers in order to try and bankrupt them. If the same thing was happening against car manufacturers due to drunk driving I would expect the same legislation to pass protecting then.

[PoliticAverse]

202. Has anyone ever sued a car dealer for selling to someone with a previous drunk-driving conviction

that later got into a drunk driving accident?

[Eliot Rosewater]

215. Is the primary purpose a car is built to kill human beings?

[uponit7771]

133. No he's not, (link)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10610739

[Cha]

136. Mahalo for the link, uponit!

[LAS14]

123. How do I un-block the intro to General Discussion? I want to see if gun...

... discussions are prohibited. I think this is a really interesting discussion and don't want to prohibit it, but I'm curious.

[R B Garr]

132. K&R

Anyone maligning corporations should also be against the stranglehold the NRA has on our country or it's just hypocrisy.

Thanks to David Hogg for bringing this up.

[lunamagica]

137. I knew it was just a matter of time...Sanders tried to use their movement for his purposes

but this kids wont be fooled.

I admire David Hogg more with each passing day.

[workinclasszero]

140. David Hogg is fearless

and a born leader.

He's not afraid of anyone.

[Cha]

144. David Hogg is FEARLESS! He sees a

truth and a fact and he says it.. not caring about any blowback.

He's Fighting for KIDS' and Adults' LIVES.

[workinclasszero]

193. The kid is awesome in my book Cha

[Gothmog]

219. I truly admire this young man

[Cha]

229. David and all the #YPWW are all

precious peeps. They're out there fighting for all of us!

[ehrnst]

169. And that twitter account is now suspended.

Last edited Mon May 14, 2018, 08:42 AM - Edit history (1)

I just can't imagine who would have swarmed that account to silence it.

[Cha]

176. Do you do twiiter? Just because a

bunch of people don't like something.. that's enough reason for it to be temporarily suspended?

Can't people who like it.. turn it around? Will the Admins re-instate him once they find out he's not breaking any rules?

He posted about what David Hogg said.

[NurseJackie]

183. It's stalking, and harassment, and a clear abuse of the rules! Their admins suck...

It's stalking, and harassment, and a clear abuse of the rules! Their admins suck... and I'd think that with an organization as big as Twitter is, they would have come up with an effective way to deal with stalkers and harassment, instead of mob-rule and anarchy.

[Tavarious Jackson]

185. Right. There are a lot of opinions on twitter

and I don't alert just because it doesn't fit my narrative. The MAGA people for instance. I don't alert them, I block them.

[Cha]

190. I swear I have to get on there

one of these days!

You'd think Twiiter would have a better system than getting an account suspended just because a mob of people didn't like it.

I could see if it were heinous or grotesque.. but that was David Hogg telling the truth.

[Tavarious Jackson]

191. Bravernak is on there.

She is a lot of fun. Love her.

[Cha]

192. Yeah, I do too.. love brave!

Speaking of twitter accounts getting temp suspended.

[Gothmog]

220. I love Bravenak's tweets also

[ehrnst]

221. There were other tweets from that account that would

cause pants-soiling among a certain group.

I'm thinking that's why he was swarmed.

[LonePirate]

177. Yes, you can imagine who reported the account. It is very easy in fact. Let me help you.

It was not the people on the left who agree with the content of that tweet and video.

It was not the people on the right because the video was a criticism of a prominent figure on the left.

It was not the people in the center who do not feel strongly one way or another about the issue.

Once you eliminate all of those people, only one group remains and see some of their allies posting in this thread.

[Eliot Rosewater]

216. So one has to assume supporters of a certain politician got that account censored.

Interesting.

[alarimer]

195. Sanders also said he is in favor now of repealing it.

Enough of this divisive bullshit.

Please note that several Democrats also voted for this bill:

Reid
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Baucus (D-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Pryor (D-AZ)


And Independents
Jeffords
Sannders

4 not voting, including Feinstein. The bill passed 65-31. Assuming the 3 R non-votes would have voted yes, there was no way this bill was not going to pass, even if all Dems voted against it.

So it is pretty fucking disingenuous at best to call out any one of those Senators. I get it, you hate Sanders for whatever reason. But I for one am pretty fucking sick of the smears.

[Uncle Joe]

201. +1

[Tavarious Jackson]

217. And none of those people should be our 2020 nominee nt

[Gothmog]

218. Nelson of Florida is one of the few still active in politics

[NurseJackie]

235. Agreed... a vote like that should DISQUALIFY anyone from calling themselves "progressive"...

... and disqualify them from being the DEMOCRATIC Party's nominee in 2020.

[Power 2 the People]

222. Agree 100%

Last edited Mon May 14, 2018, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)

So much Bernie bashing on this board. I've never seen anything like it. He is one of the few senators who has been unwavering in his promotion of true FDR Democratic ideals. He is an Independent because the Democratic party moved too far to the right and he wasn't on-board with the DLC and Third Way Dems. We are a big tent party.Let's stop destroying each other

[Tavarious Jackson]

237. DLC and Third way dems? Feels like a smear.

This is not Bernie bashing. It's about gun control.

[Cha]

240. It's David Hogg talking about the reality of

BS' Vote. Not progressive.

You don't have any clue what you're talking about.. The Democratic Party has an excellent Platform..

[alarimer]

274. It's toxic and I don't spend much time here because of it.

It's just another internet trash heap.

[ecstatic]

299. Shouldn't be surprising. trump is in the White House and people are furious

about it. There has been ZERO reprieve from this nightmare since dump took office. Every day, more drama!

And the general consensus is that Bernie's unfounded accusations about being treated unfairly, combined with him taking forever to concede, cost us the election (along with Comey, Russia, voter suppression, hacked machines, etc...).

If or when trump is removed, I think you'll see a lot of the anger subside, but there's no way for it to subside as long as trump is in the White House.

[ecstatic]

297. If true, kudos... assuming we ever get the house/senate back and that the Brady Bill

will somehow be up for grabs again. Of course, thousands have died since his original vote... but.... better late than never?

[Gothmog]

225. Gun Control Advocates are not going to forget or forgive

Link to tweet

[Sunlei]

243. how to sue Corporations. prove 'fraud', or breaking a law or lies.

Link to tweet

remember ciggie corps? they lied about lung cancer, Honda airbags?

we're ALL (well most Ds are I hope) for Gun Control.

I personally want insurance required for ALL gun owners.
Where insurance corp requires gun safe/gun locks, training classes- extra insurance if gun is carried, extra insurance after first couple personal guns.
No gun ownership for under 18s without an adult guardian supervising the youth & adding childs name to insurance policy.

Heavy Federal taxes after first 500 rounds of bullets bought a year, per Insured gun.

They can do it for cars and trucks (registration, insurance & yearly inspection)- do it for guns.

And turning over to Mexico court system-American citizens over any guns Mexico traces to American straw sellers.

[NCTraveler]

259. I'm going to go with the more consistent voice with respect to gun control.

David Hogg.

That said this is a unnecessary mistake on his part. Not necessary at all and will lose him some support. A certain group puts the individual above the issues.

[Cha]

279. I don't think it's a "mistake" to speak the truth..

why should David Hogg be afraid of those who can't handle it.

He is Fearless.

Link to tweet

Created by a group of musicians and artists who are joining the fight to #StopGunViolence

Link to tweet

[NCTraveler]

282. It has zero to do with fear.

There is a way to build coalitions. Unnecessarily going at someone when a good portion of that persons base is for gun control is an easily avoidable mistake.

Hogg is about building a coalition of like minded people. He just went after a deity to many like minded people, unnecessarily.

A simple “he seems to have evolved on the issue now that he is looking for votes on a national scale” would have been a bit better. “Sanders was what he was on this issue. Today he has evolved to a better and more progressive position.”

[Cha]

285. David already said.. he didn't take nra money.

David Hogg is Fearless.. he has been building coalitions with those who can handle the truth.

I'm sick of those who can't.

[NCTraveler]

286. I just don't see fear as having anything to do with it.

I would hope Hogg wouldn’t take NRA money.

It’s tough for me to make comparisons between the actions of Hogg and a career politician.

[Cha]

287. That isn't what I said.. David said BS didn't take

nra money.

[NCTraveler]

288. When I read something incorrectly....

I go all in.

[ecstatic]

295. Smart boy/ young man

He does his homework. I'm really impressed by him.