2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"How the National Rifle Association helped get Bernie Sanders elected"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.htmlVote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. Its important....
That campaign also marked the beginning of Sanderss complicated relationship with the issue of gun rights the one area where Sanderss Democratic presidential rivals have been able to attack him from the left.
Peter Smith, Sanders opponent, targeted by the NRA:
But to the freshman congressman, all that didnt seem to matter as much now.
Ill never forget, [the next day] brushing my teeth, looking in the mirror in my bathroom and realizing, as clear as day, Im going to have to look at this face for the rest of my life in the mirror, and I want to be proud of the person I see, Smith said. I went back and looked up the gun bills.
Smith found a bill to ban the sale of some assault weapons. He signed on as co-sponsor. . .
As a candidate in 1990, Sanders won over gun rights groups by promising to oppose one bill they hated a measure that would establish a waiting period for handgun sales. In Congress, he kept that promise. The dynamic served as an early demonstration that, despite his pure-leftist persona, Sanders was at his core a pragmatic politician, calculating that he couldnt win in rural Vermont without doing something for gun owners.
Instead of talking about guns, then, Sanders talked about honesty.
Unlike some people, I wont change my views on the subject, he told one pro-gun group.
It worked.
Sanders won 56-40. He had lost eight prior elections for federal office, but in 1990 he won his first seat in DC.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I can't wait to hear you defend Big Gun right after the latest slaughter of the innocents!
But hey, keep running interference for big corporations you socialist man of the people guy
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How's that going to work for Hillary when the Iraq war vote is brought up?
And I wouldn't go complaining about big corporate candidates if I were a Hillary supporter.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)die from firearms in a year than in a decade of Iraq and Afghanistan.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bobclark86
(1,415 posts)People are screaming how the NRA has blood on its hands. So too, then, should they be screaming about the politicians who voted with the NRA.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MindfulOne
(227 posts)The OP thinks that this news (which is a non-story, the NRA hated the opponent so supported Sanders) will somehow hurt our candidate.
Not going to happen, a cargo ship full of fail.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They printed up and distributed "Bye, Bye, Bernie" bumper sticker stickers to their members.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Can't wait to hear Bernies response.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Is Hillary responsible for them?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)not New York City or Chicago or even Alabama. Vermont doesn't seem to have much problem with guns.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)die from firearms in a year than in a decade of Iraq and Afghanistan.
... how many Iraqis and Afghans died in that decade?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)This was a fair article, and it did a good job of summarizing the race in which the NRA reluctantly 'supported' Sanders. It points out the fact that the NRA, in supporting Sanders, was supporting the "lesser of two evils" over the republican opponent. It also says the NRA's efforts were aimed more at getting the other guy out of office than they were at getting Bernie elected. In fact, the NRA had plans to get Bernie out of office during the next election, which of course didn't work out so well for them.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How about:
"a quarter of a century, and in Vermont, it wasn't as bad as it is now....what with the NRA being just gun manufacturer lobbyists, and the whole "us and them.... be afraid!" mentality the GOP has been pushing across the whole country since 9/11"
That's a start.
THIS is all they got? It's not like something everybody with a brain knew was lies and wrong.... like going into Iraq.
ProgressiveJarhead
(172 posts)Still waiting for the republican light candidate to explain Honduras.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)(and thank you for your service) I think we will all keep waiting for an explanation with regard to Honduras.
Mention the Contras and everyone suddenly has amnesia.
Welcome to DU. Not all of us have memory problems around here.
Response to BainsBane (Original post)
Cali_Democrat This message was self-deleted by its author.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Why do I smell a post mass-shooting hit-piece ?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)
It talks about that. It lays out his history of votes on guns, the ones in favor of gun control and the ones against. It explains the circumstances surrounding the election of 1990 and how the NRA came to back Bernie. It's actually a good piece, not a hit piece, despite the title.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You do realize that was nine years before Columbine, don't you? Columbine is what started the trend of young men going on shooting sprees. Not that we hadn't had them before...it just changed the dynamics of who and why it was happening. Australia didn't change their gun laws until 1996 mass shooting.
But you're OK with trying to compare Bernie's gun stance in 1990 with the way people feel about it today?
I personally believe trying to go after Bernie on the gun issue (especially outdated crap like this OP) is like going after Hillary for Benghazi. And I know how you all feel about Benghazi. I wish you would stop trying to bring up old issues that were not even relevant at that time. There was no big drive in the US to stop this constant rash of mass killings that have become like some kind of sick meme in the US.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But if exploiting a tragedy is all they've got then let them go keep posting old articles.
Personally I would rather see Dems go after the Republicans who block gun control at every turn.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Particularly since he has repeated many of the same points in recent months. Besides, he promised to never change his views, something people here insist is a strength.
If he has had a recent change of heart regarding guns, he should explain that to voters and how and why he came to that evolution. I have not heard anything like that from him. Only a few months ago he repeated his defense for votes giving immunity to gun corporations (a 2005 law) and defending the existing state of gun laws. That was very recent, after Charleston. Also that article talks about more recent votes, not just the election of 1990. That happens to be the election that brought him to federal office, but it is not the sum total of Sanders voters or positions on guns.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And here he talks about votes he's made to change gun laws. He has changed a lot since 1990. Evolution over the years is a good and necessary thing, especially as society and people's attitudes change. I'm talking long term evolution, as in Bernie's case. Short term evolution (say, during a primary season, making promises you've not backed up with votes) is not necessarily honest. Bernie is not quite where I am on the gun issues, but he's moving in the right direction. And he does it thoughtfully, not to win votes.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Is one of the things I find most concerning about Sanders' candidacy. I don't know why in this case of this candidate people feel compelled to adopt his views, but they do, and it's worrying. I am not interested in discussing the issue other than to say the pro-gun representation of it is false, and it is exactly the sort of thing I saw Sanders say on television and one of the principal reasons I cannot support him. The law has been used to protect companies that knowingly transfer guns to illegal arms dealers, without repercussion. There would be no need for the kind of law you describe. The purpose of it is to protect the unfettered profits of the corporate gun industry.
Additionally, it is completely inconsistent with a supposed anti-corporate position. You are content with gun corporations have immunity that car makers and other corporations don't. I am not. That kind of favoritism for gun corporations and $800 Billion for Lockheed Martin makes me question his rhetoric about corporations. I can think of no justification for why corporations that profit from killing should be held in higher esteem than the financial sector.
That so many people here have repeated exactly what the gun lobby says about that law, that they have taken other disturbing positions like attacking Black Lives Matters; that the same people who excoriated Obama for the drone program justify Bernie's statement that he would continue using it . . . It is not even acceptable any longer to question US policy toward Israel and Palestine without being called anti-semitic. All of these are pernicious influences, all promoting a more conservative position that what was previously common around here. All of that, compared with the hostility toward anyone who dares to provide information or even ask about Sanders' voting record reveals an influence I find troubling.
I have been involved in gun discussion on this site for years. I didn't just pick it up because of the election, and I know the dog whistles and arguments from both sides. I am strongly gun control. Sanders record on a number of key votes is troubling, but more disturbing is the way that he has influenced progressives to adopt arguments like the one in your linked post. Thank you for reminding me why I must work hard to ensure he doesn't gain office and that a pro-gun control candidate (probably Clinton but O'Malley is very strong on the issue) is elected instead.
We will remain the US of guns until we the people hold our elected representatives accountable, just as the pro-gun crowd does.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Line up with public opinion.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251461783
Bernie was not funded by nor did the bidding of the NRA.
Nice try but you should get some new material BB, Bernie is no gun nut.
WASHINGTON, April 17 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities, Sanders said. There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others, Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories, Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales up to 40 percent of all gun transfers at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between family, friends, and neighbors.
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
If you're so concerned about gun control why not attack the Republicans who obstruct legislation?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)These debates are more about creating/exploiting controversy than they are about letting the candidates share their ideas. I'm sure Bernie and his campaign staff see it coming, and I have no doubt they'll be prepared for it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)After 2008 I hope she hired some good coaches.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)You know, those issues that have tens of thousands of voters engaged in a political
revolution of historic proportions, because Sanders represents them like no one else..
They'll exploit the recent Oregon mass-shooting as a "gotcha" distraction, and hammer
Sanders with every conceivable nuance of "difference" between him and Hillary on gun
control.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He was representing his constituents in Vermont.
You know, doing his fucking job?
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)Good one.
And each of these hypothetical 50 state systems would totally have equal or better access to the records from each of the other states, instead of one centralized system which still has its flaws. That's TOTALLY a better idea! I don't see how that could POSSIBLY be inefficient and full of holes, letting more unstable or felonious potential purchasers get guns....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm waiting...
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)Duh.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Duh.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)Point is, your candidate (I don't have one, thank godtopus) got elected to Congress with the help of the NRA, then voted repeatedly to stifle efforts to limit gun deaths.
BTW, please point to the bills he's proposed that actually became law since getting into the Senate. You know, other than renaming a few post offices and one feel-good pro-vets bill during the last shutdown. Good luck with that one...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bobclark86
(1,415 posts)I asked about bills he introduced as a sponsor AND were passed. Excuse the hyperbole, but my dead dog could co-sponsor a bill.
As far as sponsored and passed, you have THREE. Two were renaming post offices.
Sorry, but I want a REAL leader. I'm not seeing that in Sanders, nor in the other candidates.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And I pointed to 206 that have his name on them.
Not sure where you're going with this, bob.
First you were wrong about his votes and now you're moving the goalposts.
Seems like sour grapes.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)I worry what kind of person thinks "proposed" and "tacked his name on somebody else's law" are the same thing.
Sounds like you can't stand the truth that your candidate has only recently changed his pro-gun position and hasn't actually done anything.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Was Bernie's name on those bills or not?
We already covered this, bob, try to focus. Bernie voted to ban assault weapons in 1994.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)People wonder why I'm anti-Bernie. It's because his followers are...
Eh, never mind. It's not worth it.
(adds to ignore)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?
A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case youre referring to is before the Supreme Court.
Q: But what do you support?
A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?
A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.
Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that theyre going to try to impose, I think doesnt make sense.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
You were saying?
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That vote was in 2013.
What year did Bernie announce he was running for the nomination?
You know when he became a "flip-flopper going left for a primary"?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Nice try.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He doesn't have a gop record on guns but he has some votes that deserves criticism.
Last I checked we are allowed to post Criticism of Sanders here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Want to walk that back or keep trying to change the subject?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)98. He knew he was going to run he was considering running in 2013.
Nice try.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=649364
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Give it up. Putting words into people's mouth is not nice.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?
A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case youre referring to is before the Supreme Court.
Q: But what do you support?
A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?
A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.
Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that theyre going to try to impose, I think doesnt make sense.
2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
Roy Rolling
(6,906 posts)Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. If the NRA supported Sanders that proves at least once in their existence they did the right thing.
Or do you wish to rephrase the question to state what you are really getting at, "when are you going to take the NRA endorsement in 1990 as the insult we are intending it to be?"
I get it. I get the Hillary hardball tactics by some. But using smear tactics on Sanders makes it much harder for me to continue defending Hillary during an unjust Benghazi witch hunt.
So all of you "demanding answers" should at least see that almost everyone understands the subcontext here---to exploit another gun tragedy for a weak political narrative. Which again delays real gun violence research or regulation.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Well said.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Because a poster posts an accurate article you won't defend Hillary against a witch hunt?
Looks like some Sanders supporters can dish it out but can't take it.
DU is a fact free zone. Someone posts an accurate article about a negative aspect of Bernie it is hit job a smear and can't be talked about here didn't you know?
BTW I never expected to hear a Mets fan talk sense.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Gothmog
(144,884 posts)The Astros have come a very very long way. It has been 10 years since the Astros have been in the playoffs
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)nor has he developed into one for pragmatic purposes.
Of course, right-wing trolls will continue to grizzle. Good. If he's made a dozen wrong moves, the people know his balance sheet still weighs very, very heavily in his favour. By an order of magnitude, compared to the rest, the veteran sell-outs to the large corporations.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)hope she has a good answer
oh wait....she doesn't
Autumn
(44,972 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)I would have hoped by now we would have moved past this kind of crap, but I guess if it is to defend Bernie, anything goes?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)that's on me.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I dislike the pantsuit references too, I'm glad Hillary is mocking those who mock her for her wardrobe.
It's the best way for women to treat that kind of double standard.
Autumn
(44,972 posts)and she has more than three pair. Three pairs of pants is a metaphor. I am on record as saying Hillary looks great in her pantsuits. I like Hillary, I don't want her in the White House which is why I support Bernie for president but I like Hillary.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)she looks great in her pantsuits, which she has many of, that's a lot more than three. Find something else to be offended by. When your mind goes to a low place everything you see is low.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)well most of them. The ones that post on DU anyway.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)editing or something. Sorry but I don't want to see it removed by anyone but you.
Autumn
(44,972 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You do realize that most of us didn't just sign up here yesterday right?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)... what is your concern?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Trying to say that you didn't know about it is disingenuous at best.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Stay classy Justin.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Stay honest Warren!
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I maybe many things but i am not a liar.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cheers.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)When you said that Bernie only voted to ban assault weapons in 2013 because he knew he would be running for president.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=649338
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)98. He knew he was going to run he was considering running in 2013.
Nice try.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=649364
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)"When you said that Bernie only voted to ban assault weapons in 2013 because he knew he would be running for president".
I never said that.
I said he knew he was running in 2013.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I asked for an explanation why Bernie voted to ban assault weapons in 2013 and you replied:
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)"That vote was in 2013.
What year did Bernie announce he was running for the nomination? "
I was answering your question.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)That vote was in 2013.
What year did Bernie announce he was running for the nomination?
I answered your question.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why did you compliment him on his failure and then double down by repeating his answer?:
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cheers!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Some people like to make up shit and then deny the smell is coming from them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Here you go:
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)you're a hoot!!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)Hillary still has my vote if she wins these crazy primaries.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)deadlinetony
(48 posts)June 25th discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026905302
July 5th discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251426628
July 23rd discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251471591
Easily searchable through Google.
Rinse and repeat.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)If you are attempting to paint Bernie Sanders as a gun nut to DU and the public at large, you are barking up the wrong tree.
I live in a rural area, and I have long guns. I have relatives that hunt white-tail deer, which if they didn't, deer would overrun us and cause car accidents because they run across the road.
Feral hogs are an issue in this neck of the woods, and hell, I'm known for having a raccoon problem. They are small, so I just catch and release them in swampy areas miles away. I don't kill anything if I don't have to.
What are you going to do about an alligator on your property? Orate at it? Maybe deliver a speech about how your policies will lift all boats?
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Because there's nothing in there implicating Bernie of any wrong doing. In fact, the article states several times that the NRA was supporting the "lesser of two evils", which in this case meant Bernie over his republican challenger. It even states that the NRA wanted to kick the other guy out of office more than they wanted to elect Bernie, and that they'd then proceed to get Bernie out of office during the next election.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Posted a positive piece here about Clinton's town hall meeting in my town. Well done!
That is if your objective was to widen the divide, burn bridges, stir shit, and score points on your hate-sanders-supporters secret place.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Amirite?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)posted an article you don't like a few hours later?
Okie dokie.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Why should I post anything at all positive about Clinton here when her supporters here, just about every last one of them, do nothing except post ridiculous smears against Sanders?
If it were legitimate criticisms I'd be fine with that. Clinton is better on gun control than Sanders. Great, make that case. But the op can't do that. Instead she has to fabricate nonsense. Why?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)or
b) they knew it was posted here before and didn't care
Either way they're still exploiting last week's tragedy to smear a pro-gun control candidate.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)not some random shit on the internet. Here. A community of people who post here on a regular basis. Right here we seem to have a group who are just not interested in an even remotely honest discussion. Instead they just post idiotic nonsense for no purpose other than to piss people off here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)You're so far through the bottom of the barrel and into the muck beneath that this is the only appropriate response.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)A F "rating" - I hate even using the NRA term as a standard - is the only rating any Democratic Party candidate for President should be proud of.
You can get a D- rating from the NRA by not sleeping with a gun by your bed.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Please explain in detail how the NRA came up with his grade.
Tia!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)But some do.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Alittleliberal
(528 posts)You're very transparent.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)stonecutter357
(12,693 posts)zazen
(2,978 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)said no Sanders supporter ever.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)SunSeeker
(51,504 posts)silenttigersong
(957 posts)I am sure Bernie Sanders Campaign are throughly prepared for this.I am equally sure that Clinton will be seen as trite during Debate if seen as an attack rather then fair discourse.From the Clinton supporters on this board it indicates attack .My question is how does that kind of stuff play out with the cry of no fair Benghazi now showing Clinton as a victim.IMO hypocrisy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)in a bad light.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Give it your best shot because on Oct 13 the window for that line of attack closes and the blowback for it begins.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ProgressiveJarhead
(172 posts)Neither do Clintonistas. They act like low information republicans when it comes to mentioning anything negative about her.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Someone I know has been on several timeouts because they couldn't handle criticism of their candidate.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But i stand behind all of my hides i got this year.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Go on and get the ladt word if you need to but this is boring me now so enjoy your night.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... the person posted it for everyone to see.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Or are you just here to throw stones?
Bernie Sanders Terrifies The NRA With Consensus Plan To Reduce Mass Shootings
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... and his previous hard stances on them.
That's not throwing a stone, that's looking at his history and some recent (like in the last couple of months) conversions that seem political... seeing hes been in congress for decades and proposed nothing like what he's proposing now.
Hillary on the other hand is saying some signing statements as president gets her past the "talking" stage and onto something that can be done that is tangible and she's in control of.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)should be held responsible if someone buys a hummer and puts on military armor and goes and runs down a bunch of civilians in a parking lot or park or something? It's the Hummer mfg who is responsible with how that "tough as shit, military looking vehicle" was used to kill people?
If we are going to sue gun manufacturers, we need to sue them for something they are responsible for, and that would be continuing to manufacture and sell assault weapons after we have passed a law That bans them in the US.
Also, consider the lawn dart issue. They were deemed too dangerous to sell and banned in the US. A father (Snow) bought a pack of sports equipment that included the lawn darts and his son accidentally killed his sister with one (threw it over the house and she was hit in the head in the front yard).
To Snow, Michelles death proved that the regulation didnt protect kids. It didn't matter that they were sold as an adult game; if Jarts were in a home and children were allowed to play with them or could still get access to them, he thought, accidents would happen. He wanted the ban back in place and began lobbying public officials with phone calls and letters telling his story.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31176/how-one-dad-got-lawn-darts-banned
Because the new restrictions about how they could be sold was not followed, I believe he could have sued the lawn dart company. Not sure why he didn't. But he did at least get the ban reinstated.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It isn't the NRA. Could it be SATAN?!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)FreedomRain
(413 posts)Certainly it had started its slide to evil by 1990, but there was still a lot of good feeling for it. I am for firm gun control, and I was a member of NRA in my early teen years (mid 80s). At the time it was much more about gun safety and education, and less about ramping up sales. (Conceded - maybe just less obvious and less stupid about it)
I am not denying the various points and counterpoints here - just want y'all to keep in mind that the character and membership of the NRA has changed a lot since 1990. In many ways it is not the same organization today.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Response to frylock (Reply #191)
ChisolmTrailDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)Berine's sycophants were whining how "Andrea Mitchell told a whopper about Berine"
I posted this article in the Sanders forum. They were whining about how Andrea Mitchell
Andrea Mitchell just told a whopper about Bernie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=58632
I posted this article hoping some people might be persuaded by facts. I was banned from the page.
DU is a fact free zone sometimes.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)You know, Bains, the interesting this is that this is one of those issues where Bernie falls short of the mark relative to my ideal candidate. There are a couple other issues I'd like to see him "evolve" on as well.
But these are the exceptions. I'm 67 years old and have never ever before so enjoyed seeing a Presidential candidate so closely aligned with my own positions as Bernie. Supporting this man is a joy.
Hillary, on the other hand, is miles from me on a myriad of what I consider the most important issues facing our nation and our planet. So bash away where you feel Bernie comes up short. He's still far and away the best as far as I'm concerned.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But the simple fact is the official platform of the Democratic party is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms (as does the law of the land), your current president and leader of the party agrees, as do many, many individual democrats and elected officials. Trying to blame the prevalence of guns or the issue of gun deaths on a single individual is ridiculous and desperate. Bernie Sanders is no more responsible for any shooting than President Obama, President Clinton or Hillary Clinton.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Times Hillary voted for IWR, Bernie should be pointed out for his gun control voting record. We have lost more American lives to gun violence than was lost in Iraq and still the laws we have now is not enough to stop the gun violence. I am glad Hillary has c ok me out strong on this issue.
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)MindfulOne
(227 posts)Just how many people do you think will drop their support for Sanders and say OMG, He's EVIL!?
Seriously. First, his history and policy position on gun control is WELL within the range of liberal/progressive politics.
(shame on you)
And, it reeks of desperation that you try to smear the very person most likely to save your butt when it comes to having a good paying job or keeping social security, or growing it.
I thought you were wiser than to fall into the trap of supporting the corporate candidate at the cost of your ability to work within the realm of fair debate.
Damn. Please reconsider.
benld74
(9,901 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Gothmog
(144,884 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)using the latest shooting to post an old article is not so great.
concreteblue
(626 posts)The Shillaries are grasping at straws. Since when does representing your constituents in the best way you know how rate a negative? I love the smell of desperation early in the electoral process.........
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)In the words of that esteemed philosopher B. Bunny, it is to laugh.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)It would be admirable if it weren't so misguided. imo.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)no matter how many times Bugs got the best of him.
I'm not sure what that says.
Oh, hell, yes I am.
demmiblue
(36,816 posts)that you have #fuckthebern in the About section in your profile?
Talk about over the top!
Edit: Oh, I see it is in your sig line, too.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's classy.
I guess that's what passes for political discourse at some websites.
demmiblue
(36,816 posts)I put her on ignore a few minutes ago.
I appreciate her steadfastness regarding feminist issues, but I don't have the wherewithal to deal with plain old nastiness.
bvf
(6,604 posts)"You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. Its part of culture. Its part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because its an important part of who they are."
randr
(12,409 posts)What will matter is what he states at the first question re: Hillary's new stand on gun control.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)Really seems like you need one.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)This gun bullshit is idiotic. I've a mind to buy ten more in each state.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Thanks BB for sharing that info which is what DU is all about!
jfern
(5,204 posts)The main difference between the 1988 and 1990 elections was that in 1990, Bernie got almost all of the Democratic vote
The Republican only dropped 1.7 points in the poll, which isn't that unusual for a Republican midterm election.
1988:
Peter Smith (R) 98,937 (41.2%)
Bernie Sanders (I) 90,026 (37.5%)
Paul N. Poirier (D) 45,330 (18.9%)
Jim Hedbor (Libertarian) 3,109 (1.3%)
Peter Diamondstone (LU) 1,455 (0.6%)
Morris Earle (Small is Beautiful Party) 1,070 (0.4%)
1990:
Bernie Sanders (I) 117,522 (56%)
Peter Smith (R) 82,938 (39.5%)
Dolores Sandoval (D) 6,315 (3%)
Peter Diamondstone (LU) 1,965 (0.9%)
The important thing is that the Democratic nominee dropped from 18.9 points to 3 points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bernie_Sanders
one_voice
(20,043 posts)On a Democratic site?
In my opinion, something like that should be off limits for ALL the candidates.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)William769
(55,142 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)point between the redundancy itself and the lack of new material in the improvised sections I think it's time to close this once amusing trifle and retire it for at least a season or two.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)What specifically is in error in the article? Did the NRA not target Peter Smith? Did they not tell their members to go vote for Bernie Sanders? Because there is a clear trail of evidence indicating they did. So you really are going to need to be more specific about "which lie" has been debunked.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)but decided to insist it was a lie simply because you find it inconvenient.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)What particularly he disputed? You don't even recall the facts yet you are certain the Washington Post is lying? Don't you think you should verify some of the points yourself?
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)did this give you bragging rights for the day over at the other place
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)rather than addressing the substance of the piece, keep in mind who you are talking to. Clearly you have no idea.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)btw, loved the fuckthebern hashtag in your sigline, why did you delete it?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)A friend made it for me. I'm glad you like it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)#FeeltheBern
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)If you're referring to Clinton, the FBI closed the case.
The FBI is still investigating the issues surrounding her server - and, while the news of her not properly backing up her emails just broke today, we're not sure where the FBI stands on that issue.
They're still investigating.
George II
(67,782 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)to see someone show how this article is inaccurate here.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)can point to a single point that is incorrect.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Jeeze. I don't think I'll catch on to this absolute deference to authority. Doesn't seem very leftist to me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ye they don't seem to want us here.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I will not look into this much, as I do not care.
Let O'Malley attack PAC's go after Bernie. It will give him things to respond to. He will respond well.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)So the people who claim the NRA supports him are full of it.
Just leave them to their gaslighting and let's focus on the Republicans who oppose gun control.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)thanks for posting.
Sid
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Don't you agree?
moobu2
(4,822 posts)Bernie let them.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)shock and awe, who could forget! Not the millions of people who were being liberated by our invasion and those who voted to allow such an invasion and later saying it was a mistake!
Problem is that 14 years later Iraq is still suffering from the MISTAKE that some our politicians voted for, their lives will never be the same, Whole generations have missed a step. Going to school, having children etc. Can we even comprehend what we have done to millions of people who have been displaced?
Bush said 'why do they hate us' and the Dems are asking the same question? Look what we have done to destabilize the region going back to the 1950's. We better start to take a close look and see the havoc we are causing. And that includes Clinton with her blasé attitude towards invading another country.
'Shock and awe' campaign underway in Iraq
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/03/22/iraq.war/
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a news conference at about 1:40 p.m. EST. He announced that the air war had begun, and he listed some of the coalition objectives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those objectives included defending Americans against Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, ridding the Gulf country of such illegal weapons, liberating the Iraqi people, and ending the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Rumsfeld said that the strike had taken place "on a scale that indicates to Iraqis" that Saddam and his leadership were finished. He added that the allies would work to search for, capture, and drive out terrorists who had found safe harbor in Iraq, as well as to deliver humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people..."
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Orrex
(63,169 posts)Interesting on many levels.