Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:44 PM Jan 2016

Bernie Sanders Chasing White Votes with Gun Control Stubbornness

Bernie Sanders‘ confounding refusal to admit his vote to give gun manufacturers immunity from liability claims makes a lot more sense when you look at the latest poll results from the two earliest and whitest states on the primary calendar.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken the occasion of President Obama’s most recent push for gun reform to continue pounding Bernie Sanders over lapses in his voting record on gun control, particularly his vote to grant immunity to gun manufacturers. Clinton made a special phone-in to Chris Matthews on Friday, and spent a good chunk of Sunday morning having a go at Bernie:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-sanders-chasing-white-votes-with-gun-control-stubbornness/

Sanders is as much of a politician as any of the other DC denizens. He knows that given the demographics in IA, and even in NH, his stance on guns will benefit him.

124 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernie Sanders Chasing White Votes with Gun Control Stubbornness (Original Post) Beacool Jan 2016 OP
Yep....Bernie already made clear he wants Trump voters Cali_Democrat Jan 2016 #1
Trump supporters are a scary bunch. Beacool Jan 2016 #2
Because he thinks we can win the election with them Cali_Democrat Jan 2016 #10
I doubt that the nutty bunch who support Trump will support Sanders. Beacool Jan 2016 #20
Sanders seems to think so, all that work isn't worth the few thousand crazy Trumpers votes uponit7771 Jan 2016 #25
The thing is the income inequality thing JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #31
I don't dislike Sanders, but I think that his plans are more wishful thinking than reality. Beacool Jan 2016 #44
Very wishful thinking--and there is going riversedge Jan 2016 #83
In all fairness, all that any Dem will do is ATTEMPT to select a SC justice. randys1 Jan 2016 #82
Hillary will take any position that you want. Loudestlib Jan 2016 #85
Is that what Hillary was doing when she ran this ad attacking Obama for being too anti-gun? Bjorn Against Jan 2016 #3
She flip flopped on guns before and she will again. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #7
I just get sicker and sicker. pangaia Jan 2016 #93
Harking back to 2008? Beacool Jan 2016 #11
2008 was more recent than any of Sanders' votes on the Brady bill Bjorn Against Jan 2016 #14
Zing! NorthCarolina Jan 2016 #17
Irrelevant the time we've been told ad nausea Sanders is different and he's not 180 degrees from uponit7771 Jan 2016 #27
Do you have any links to attack ads that Sanders has sent out on the gun control Bjorn Against Jan 2016 #34
Strawman and red herring, no one said anything about "attack ads" and NO... reality is Sanders uponit7771 Jan 2016 #37
If you are going to attack Sanders on guns then Hillary's position is fair game as well Bjorn Against Jan 2016 #51
Yes there is, Hilllary doesn't have Sanders voting history. I understand SBS supporters ... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #95
And you can't discount Hillary's history of sending out anti-gun control attack ads. Bjorn Against Jan 2016 #99
Link and quote or is this something else that people have "interperet" to be true about HRC uponit7771 Jan 2016 #118
I already posted an image of the attack ad she sent out once in this thread... Bjorn Against Jan 2016 #119
Done playing, that was an attack on Obama's stances on guns and not on anti gun control adds... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #120
I did not say it was an attack on anti-gun control ads Bjorn Against Jan 2016 #121
I meant to say Anti Gun control... not anti gun control adds. Either way, Obama took stance(S) on... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #122
ad nausea? lol m-lekktor Jan 2016 #111
It's okay for Hillary to change her position... thesquanderer Jan 2016 #90
+1 uponit7771 Jan 2016 #96
Yet Hillary is perfectly fine sending guns to terrorist WDIM Jan 2016 #4
fricken AAAAAAA!!! nt restorefreedom Jan 2016 #28
If Sanders ever becomes president then he can make the tough decisions. Beacool Jan 2016 #47
Its not complex. Sending weapons to murderers. WDIM Jan 2016 #56
Depends on what benefits the US. Beacool Jan 2016 #58
No its not WDIM Jan 2016 #67
"Her" arms deals? Beacool Jan 2016 #70
The State department brings their recommendations to the president. WDIM Jan 2016 #76
so is the logic pretzel you've crafted demwing Jan 2016 #88
...^ that 840high Jan 2016 #105
Sanders needs to expand his base in order to get the nomination Gothmog Jan 2016 #5
I'm thinking they're going to ignore the SEC states now... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #29
Is that why the Sanders campaign recently opened an office in North Carolina? winter is coming Jan 2016 #39
A friend is running the Sanders operations in Texas Gothmog Jan 2016 #117
His pro-gun control stance voting for background checks and assault weapons bans? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #6
No, they won't be voting for Democrats. Beacool Jan 2016 #12
So? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #13
Thank you for small favors, his Brooklyn accent is grating enough. Beacool Jan 2016 #16
Her accent evolves as often as her positions do. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #19
Heck, I have lived and worked in NY and find it grating. Beacool Jan 2016 #21
That's a positive thing, no one wants an ever static regressive person as president... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #32
I don't want a chameleon who changes positions depending on who she's pandering to at the time. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #33
... or... who "HE'S" pandering to?!? You know .... rural uponit7771 Jan 2016 #40
Bernie doesn't pander. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #43
This is false uponit7771 Jan 2016 #45
Because you say so? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #50
cause.... reality or... "rural" uponit7771 Jan 2016 #97
What does that even mean? If you're referring to rural vs urban gun use Obama said the same thing. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #98
Now, that's funny. Beacool Jan 2016 #54
That is definitely a matter of opinion. Beacool Jan 2016 #53
It's a matter of record. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #55
It's a matter of record for those who opposed Hillary. Beacool Jan 2016 #59
You think Obama supporters were the only ones who noticed? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #61
Olbermann is the jerk who said that Hillary should be taken into a room and only "he" Beacool Jan 2016 #65
He wasn't the only one calling the Clintons out and you know it. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #68
Olbermann was full of "it" in that commentary. More than often oasis Jan 2016 #75
I was never a big fan of the man. Beacool Jan 2016 #77
I believe he is responsible for the rise of Rachel Maddow. If so, oasis Jan 2016 #80
"for those who opposed Hillary" in other words demwing Jan 2016 #89
Bull crap!!! Beacool Jan 2016 #106
Clinton got roughly 17.5 million votes in the 2008 primary demwing Jan 2016 #109
This message was self-deleted by its author demwing Jan 2016 #108
LMAO, you are hilarious. Bernie was on the R B Garr Jan 2016 #110
Is that so? Here I thought 840high Jan 2016 #107
Hillary also thinks the issue belongs in the states, as she said when compaigning against Obama Doctor_J Jan 2016 #26
Yep, that's what she said in the video I posted. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #30
Gee I wonder what Bernie's position on cluster bombs would be! nt thereismore Jan 2016 #8
pro-jec-tion tularetom Jan 2016 #9
I see, Sanders' supporters can attack Hillary, but don't like it when their candidate is singled out Beacool Jan 2016 #15
Looking at a mirror? jeff47 Jan 2016 #18
No, my point is that Sanders is not above playing politics. Beacool Jan 2016 #22
And? jeff47 Jan 2016 #24
No. It's about the man. Empowerer Jan 2016 #38
With your exhaustive links proving your point, how can I argue?! jeff47 Jan 2016 #41
Seriously? Beacool Jan 2016 #62
Thank you! Empowerer Jan 2016 #36
I have no problem with Sanders' positions on gun control tularetom Jan 2016 #60
Maybe he should flip-flop on every issue like Hillary has. Some voters seem attracted by that. Doctor_J Jan 2016 #23
Those votes are his path to victory KingFlorez Jan 2016 #35
He is just very reasonable on this issue and you are right, his record will help him win. nt thereismore Jan 2016 #48
The gun issue is just not that important to many ram2008 Jan 2016 #42
+1. I think you'll find support for things like better background checks, waiting periods, winter is coming Jan 2016 #46
Exactly ram2008 Jan 2016 #49
Oh My God! Nuance Alert! We can't have an honest discussion of a complex issue! Armstead Jan 2016 #52
It is my opinion that he refuses to admit a mistake becaue he intended to provide Corporate Welfare Agnosticsherbet Jan 2016 #57
He wanted to give corporate welfare to gun manufacturers? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #63
No, even Inigo Monyoya would recognize Corporate Welfare when he sees it. Agnosticsherbet Jan 2016 #64
Actually if you were paying attention you would know why he voted for the PLCAA. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #66
Ah, but even Sanders must recognize that the result of the bill was Corporate Welfare Agnosticsherbet Jan 2016 #69
It wasn't a mistake. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #72
The result was to protect the profits of Corporations and it wasn't a mistake? Agnosticsherbet Jan 2016 #74
His reasons for voting for the PLCAA weren't a mistake. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #79
This message was self-deleted by its author Jake Stern Jan 2016 #71
I'm black and a member of the NRA, I guess I do not count. JRLeft Jan 2016 #73
It depends, are you in IA or NH? Beacool Jan 2016 #78
Neither, I'm in California. JRLeft Jan 2016 #91
Then you don't count. Beacool Jan 2016 #104
Bad judgment. nt LexVegas Jan 2016 #81
Riddle Me This - Why Is A Firearms Manufacturer Responsible For Unsafe Product Operation cantbeserious Jan 2016 #84
Hillarians desperately chase ANY vote by sliming Sanders as gun-humping racist. nt 99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #86
OK, guys. Are any of those of you talking about immunity for gun manufacturers actually JDPriestly Jan 2016 #87
Meh OffWithTheirHeads Jan 2016 #92
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" ybbor Jan 2016 #94
As a white, male, RKBA Democrat, I only wish that were true. aikoaiko Jan 2016 #100
Ooop! Le Taz Hot Jan 2016 #101
Camp girouette is spectacular today! Warren Stupidity Jan 2016 #102
Yep. On the bright side ucrdem Jan 2016 #103
Nonsense. I think his vote for PLCAA was a mistake, Vattel Jan 2016 #112
Nope, but that's what your candidate did 8 years ago. jfern Jan 2016 #113
KICK.. thank you, Beacool Cha Jan 2016 #114
Hi!!! Beacool Jan 2016 #116
Aloha~ Cha Jan 2016 #124
Do only white people use guns? TheFarS1de Jan 2016 #115
Why would he be "Chasing White Votes" if you all say that's his only support? cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #123
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
1. Yep....Bernie already made clear he wants Trump voters
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:48 PM
Jan 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/27/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-middle-class-voters/

Bernie has a singular focus on income inequality. He doesn't much care for other issues.

That's been clear for quite some time.
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
10. Because he thinks we can win the election with them
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:58 PM
Jan 2016

Even Bernie's supporters right here on DU talk about how Bernie has "crossover appeal."

They aren't sugar coating anything.

It's all about income inequality to these folks.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
20. I doubt that the nutty bunch who support Trump will support Sanders.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:09 PM
Jan 2016

They would probably vote for the Republican nominee or stay home. Then again, that's what some of Sanders' supporters have stated they would do if Hillary is the nominee.

JustAnotherGen

(31,783 posts)
31. The thing is the income inequality thing
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:22 PM
Jan 2016

Goes nowhere until 2022/2024.

I just hope people understand that regardless if it is Trump or Sanders they are going to be severely hobbled by a status quo Republican House of Representatives for at least 4 years. At the end of the day - abortion, guns, and god are more important to a lot of voters in the districts of people like Trey Gowdy (SC 4th) than prosperity for all.

Hope for change but expect it to be a long term many years journey.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
44. I don't dislike Sanders, but I think that his plans are more wishful thinking than reality.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:30 PM
Jan 2016

Last edited Mon Jan 11, 2016, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

The House is safe for Republicans for the foreseeable future, worse yet, there are too many Tea Party Representatives who will block anything that he proposes. The Senate would be a more fertile ground, but will probably remain Republican in this election. How exactly is he going to enact his trillion dollar economic plan? Is he going to wave a wand and poof, Wall St. and the Republicans will heed to his wishes?

riversedge

(70,093 posts)
83. Very wishful thinking--and there is going
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:23 PM
Jan 2016

to be big downfall and disappointment in the US if by some miracle Bernie should get the nomination. IMHO

randys1

(16,286 posts)
82. In all fairness, all that any Dem will do is ATTEMPT to select a SC justice.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:18 PM
Jan 2016

Even that will be badly hobbled.

This is why all the focus on one candidate vs another is so counterproductive.

The other party wants to destroy the lives Black Michiganders with lead water, and is doing so...The other party wants to make it near impossible for Black people to vote, and is doing so all over the country...The other party wants to force Gay people either back into the closet or out into the street to be beaten...The other party wants to officially turn ALL government land over to the Koch Bros and Walton Family.

I could go on.

African Americans have reasons white people dont for why they would support or not support someone, and that voting block is gonna do what it is gonna do, the white people who allege to be liberals should be focused on anybody, in any race, with a D after their name, NOT for reasons of loyalty, but for survival.

Loudestlib

(980 posts)
85. Hillary will take any position that you want.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:50 PM
Jan 2016

She had the same position as Sanders when it helped her attack Obama. She doesn't evolve so much as she revolves.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
3. Is that what Hillary was doing when she ran this ad attacking Obama for being too anti-gun?
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:52 PM
Jan 2016


Bernie has never ran an ad campaign attacking anyone for being too anti-gun, Hillary on the other hand did attack Obama in order to win the votes of the gun crowd.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
7. She flip flopped on guns before and she will again.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:56 PM
Jan 2016


Clinton's Hunting History

WAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary Clinton's focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.

"I've hunted. My father taught me how to hunt. I went duck hunting in Arkansas. I remember standing in that cold water, so cold, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. The sun's up, the ducks are flying and they are playing a trick on me. They said, 'we're not going to shoot, you shoot.' They wanted to embarrass me. The pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck and they were surprised as I was," Clinton said drawing laughter from the crowd.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-hunting-history/


Clinton touts her experience with guns

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.

“You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/




Let states & cities determine local gun laws

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 you’re 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 they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t 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

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
11. Harking back to 2008?
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:58 PM
Jan 2016

I'm talking about the here and now and the attitude by many of his supporters that Sanders is above politics and not "tainted" like the rest of DC's politicians. It's utter B.S. He plays the same games as everyone else when it suits him.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
14. 2008 was more recent than any of Sanders' votes on the Brady bill
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:03 PM
Jan 2016

If the votes that Bernie made in the 1990's are relevant to the discussion today then I would sure think that Hillary's position as recently as 2008 would be relevant as well.

By the way Bernie supports gun control including increased background checks and an assault weapons ban.

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)
27. Irrelevant the time we've been told ad nausea Sanders is different and he's not 180 degrees from
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:20 PM
Jan 2016

... the people he's been chiding for the last 10 years

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
34. Do you have any links to attack ads that Sanders has sent out on the gun control
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:25 PM
Jan 2016

Sanders is different than Hillary, he has never sent out attack ads that went after Obama for being too anti-gun, Hillary did do that.

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)
37. Strawman and red herring, no one said anything about "attack ads" and NO... reality is Sanders
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:27 PM
Jan 2016

... is not that much different on a lot of issues and can not throw a stone no matter what pedistal he's placed on.

On many issues Sanders stances have been disappointing at best

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
51. If you are going to attack Sanders on guns then Hillary's position is fair game as well
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:35 PM
Jan 2016

The reality is there is very little difference between Hillary and Bernie on the gun issue. Hillary's supporters like to pretend that she is stronger on the gun issue, but her record shows that she was pro-gun the last time she ran for office.

If Hillary supporters want to debate the gun issue they need to be honest and admit that Hillary took pro-gun stances as well.

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)
95. Yes there is, Hilllary doesn't have Sanders voting history. I understand SBS supporters ...
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 06:56 PM
Jan 2016

... want to now discount history when it comes to Sanders but what's good for the goose no?

tia

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
119. I already posted an image of the attack ad she sent out once in this thread...
Tue Jan 12, 2016, 03:20 PM
Jan 2016

If you need to see it a second time here it is...

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)
120. Done playing, that was an attack on Obama's stances on guns and not on anti gun control adds...
Tue Jan 12, 2016, 03:26 PM
Jan 2016

... and Obama wasn't anti gun control so highlighting them doesn't make any sense.

whatever, at this point I'm expecting sophistry from SBS supporters when it comes to Hillary... I'll never trust claims like this

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
121. I did not say it was an attack on anti-gun control ads
Tue Jan 12, 2016, 03:37 PM
Jan 2016

I said Hillary has a history of sending out anti-gun control attack ads, in other words she sent out an attack ad that looks very similar to something the NRA would send out. In fact if that ad did not have "Paid for by Hillary Clinton" printed on it I would probably assume it was funded by the NRA because it perfectly reflects their position on Obama.

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)
122. I meant to say Anti Gun control... not anti gun control adds. Either way, Obama took stance(S) on...
Tue Jan 12, 2016, 04:19 PM
Jan 2016

... gun control and she called him out on it in her had.

It wasn't an attack on anti gun control stances or legislation.

thesquanderer

(11,972 posts)
90. It's okay for Hillary to change her position...
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 06:12 PM
Jan 2016

...because people expect Hillary to do whatever is politically expedient at the time.

Bernie does not enjoy the luxury of being able to switch positions at the drop of a hat, because unlike Hillary, he is supposed to be acting out of principle.

That said, I think every politician, even Bernie, is allowed to have the occasional vote s/he might be willing to revisit, as Sanders has said about the immunity provision. Nobody gets everything perfect every time. And the anti-Sanders people have the same 2 or 3 things they keep harping on, because after decades in public service, that's all there is. He doesn't provide the plethora of regrettable positions and statements that Hillary does.

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
4. Yet Hillary is perfectly fine sending guns to terrorist
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:53 PM
Jan 2016

and tyrannical dictators. Even worse then just guns lets send those babarian tyrannical dictators bomb and jets and weapons of mass destruction.

The weapons of mass death manufactures have Hillary's full support.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
47. If Sanders ever becomes president then he can make the tough decisions.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:33 PM
Jan 2016

Usually, the issues are complex and not black or white, more like shifting shades of grey.

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
67. No its not
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:56 PM
Jan 2016

If a country does not have democracy and freedom then we should have nothing to do with them. If they are brutal backwards barbarians tyrant dictator murderers then we definately should not send them weapons of mass murder.

It is Hypocrisy to claim you want gun control to make the US safer but then send weapons and guns to murderers.

Hillary doesnt care about gun control or our safety or the safety of anybody on this planet. If she did she could never justify her arms deals with tyrants.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
70. "Her" arms deals?
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:01 PM
Jan 2016

You must have forgotten that the SOS enacts the president's policies. Again, there are many factors at play when deciding who to support overseas. Sometimes it boils down to the lesser of one or more evils. For example, why has the US supported the Saudis for so many years? Because, despite being one of the more repressive regimes in the M.E., they are our allies. Is it ideal? Hell no, but Sanders would face the same conundrum as every other president prior to him.

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
76. The State department brings their recommendations to the president.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:11 PM
Jan 2016

She sold more guns in her time as SoS to brutal tyrants than the Bush Regime.

$165 Billion dollars worth of weapons of mass death to 20 countries who donated to the Clinton Foundation.

She is directly responsible for these arms sales and the murders that have happened as a result.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
88. so is the logic pretzel you've crafted
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 06:05 PM
Jan 2016

Sending weapons to terrorists is just like the Strawman Loophole, where legitimate gun buyers turn around and sell to criminals.

But please continue, I could use a good laugh

Gothmog

(144,945 posts)
5. Sanders needs to expand his base in order to get the nomination
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:53 PM
Jan 2016

The fact that President Obama disagrees strongly with Sanders on this issue will not help Sanders in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states. While Sanders may do well in states with 90+% white populations, these states are not sufficient to get Sanders the nomination. For example the four states with 90+% white voting populations where Sanders is polling well in (Utah, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa) have only one-half of the delegates as Texas

Sanders' move here may help in Iowa and New Hampshire but will not help Sanders in South Carolina and the SEC states

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
39. Is that why the Sanders campaign recently opened an office in North Carolina?
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:28 PM
Jan 2016

So they can give the SEC states the Big Ig up close and personal?

Gothmog

(144,945 posts)
117. A friend is running the Sanders operations in Texas
Tue Jan 12, 2016, 03:07 PM
Jan 2016

I know the young lady who is running the Sanders operations in Texas. It will be interesting to see what happens on Super Tuesday

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
6. His pro-gun control stance voting for background checks and assault weapons bans?
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:54 PM
Jan 2016
Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm



Bernie Sanders’ critics misfire: The Vermont senator’s gun record is better than it looks

....However, the Nation and the other reports like it don’t shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They don’t explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if there’s a consistency to Sanders’ positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernie’s position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.

Yet there is an explanation. It’s consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And it’s in Bernie’s own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. House—in 1990—where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.

In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmen’s groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle ban—even bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.

I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidates—as the Sanders’ campaign press secretary—and recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in hunting—he previously was mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nation’s characterization, isn’t “open-minded.”

As you can see, Bernie—who moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960s—has an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. He’s not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jock—being captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/


Alternet: Bernie's Gun Control Critics Are Wrong—His Stance Has Been Consistent for Decades

Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernie—to test his mettle after Smith’s about-face.

“Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation?” he asked. “Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?”

“Yes,” he replied. “Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsman’s Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

“I said that before the election,” he continued. “The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We don’t know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.

“I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades


Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

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


Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:

In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill.

A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."

Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/


If he's a pro-NRA/pro-gun politician why did the NRA give him a lifetime D- rating?

The gun nuts won't be voting for Democrats.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
13. So?
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:03 PM
Jan 2016

Hillary pandered to the gun nuts like crazy in 2008, I don't see Bernie bragging about shooting things with a fake southern accent.

They both support common sense gun control, why pretend Bernie is a "white" gun nut's dream?



Beacool

(30,247 posts)
16. Thank you for small favors, his Brooklyn accent is grating enough.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:06 PM
Jan 2016

You do recall Hillary living in AR for close to 20 years, right? As someone who has lived in various states and countries, one does tend to pick up the accent of the place where one lives for an extended amount of time.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
19. Her accent evolves as often as her positions do.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:09 PM
Jan 2016

And since my dad is a native New Yorker I don't find my family members' accents "grating" at all.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
21. Heck, I have lived and worked in NY and find it grating.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:11 PM
Jan 2016

Ditto for the stereotype of the "Joisey" accent. Too nasal....

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)
32. That's a positive thing, no one wants an ever static regressive person as president...
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:22 PM
Jan 2016

... we all need to get better as people.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
33. I don't want a chameleon who changes positions depending on who she's pandering to at the time.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:24 PM
Jan 2016

Do you think we forgot Hillary's racist 2008 campaign?

I'll take the genuine progressive who doesn't pander or "fake it" to get votes.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
43. Bernie doesn't pander.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:29 PM
Jan 2016

Vermonters don't like that kind of politician, just ask his past Republican opponents.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
98. What does that even mean? If you're referring to rural vs urban gun use Obama said the same thing.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 07:03 PM
Jan 2016
Gun-Control Advocates Should Listen More, Obama Says

"I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations and I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."

His comments come in the wake of the shootings last month in Newtown, Conn. The killing of 20 children in the town has spurred gun-control advocates to seek restriction on the ownership of certain firearms such as military-style assault rifles.

"Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.

"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/27/170393072/gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more-obama-says


Who doesn't recognize the difference?

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
53. That is definitely a matter of opinion.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:36 PM
Jan 2016

To me her campaign was not racist. Although, that card was brandied ad nauseam.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
65. Olbermann is the jerk who said that Hillary should be taken into a room and only "he"
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:50 PM
Jan 2016

should come out. I don't give a flying fig about him and the rest of the MSNBC crowd. I stopped watching that network in 2008.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
77. I was never a big fan of the man.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:11 PM
Jan 2016

His daily rantings became grating, even before he attacked Hillary.

oasis

(49,338 posts)
80. I believe he is responsible for the rise of Rachel Maddow. If so,
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:17 PM
Jan 2016

I'll give him credit for that.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
106. Bull crap!!!
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 10:26 PM
Jan 2016

Obama was ahead by only 124 pledged delegates. Neither he nor Hillary had the nomination. The super delegates were the deciding factor.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
109. Clinton got roughly 17.5 million votes in the 2008 primary
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 11:18 PM
Jan 2016

That's about 31% of everyone who bothered to vote in either major party primary.

That's nowhere near a majority of the country.

In the 2008 GE, Obama took 53% of the vote, but only 56.8% turned out (56.9*.53=30.1%). Obama took only 30.1% of the potential vote.

That's nowhere near a majority of the country.

Do you think Clinton would have garnered more support than Obama?

Response to demwing (Reply #89)

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
110. LMAO, you are hilarious. Bernie was on the
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 11:33 PM
Jan 2016

This Week show just Sunday saying he would revise his votes on the "complicated" gun legislation he voted for. Evolving all the way....

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
26. Hillary also thinks the issue belongs in the states, as she said when compaigning against Obama
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:19 PM
Jan 2016

My main question is how does anyone believe anything says?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
30. Yep, that's what she said in the video I posted.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:22 PM
Jan 2016

If she wins the nomination she'll pander to the gun nuts again.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
9. pro-jec-tion
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:56 PM
Jan 2016

"Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude."

If I were Clinton I would STFU about anybody else's "lapses in (their) record on gun control".

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
15. I see, Sanders' supporters can attack Hillary, but don't like it when their candidate is singled out
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:04 PM
Jan 2016

Sanders' positions on gun control are to the Right of Obama and Hillary. Why pretend otherwise?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
18. Looking at a mirror?
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:08 PM
Jan 2016

Or do you want to keep pretending that 2008 was SOOOO long ago (post 11), while attacking Sanders for votes in the 1990s? (And ignoring all votes since then)

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
22. No, my point is that Sanders is not above playing politics.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:15 PM
Jan 2016

The tiresome elevation of this man as the new savior of the nation is just that, tiresome. He's as much of a DC politician as the rest of them and will do whatever it takes to get people to vote for him. In every election someone pretends to be above the fray, when it's evident that it's just a game plan.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
24. And?
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:18 PM
Jan 2016

Over and over again, Clinton supporters keep thinking Sanders support is about the man.

To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the policies, stupid".

Empowerer

(3,900 posts)
38. No. It's about the man.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:27 PM
Jan 2016

Even when his policies are off-kilter, many Sanders supporters insist that it's all well and good because "Bernie" is beyond reproach.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
62. Seriously?
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:46 PM
Jan 2016

Sanders has been portrayed as almost a saint on this and other LW sites, while Hillary has been attacked with every bit of as much vile as seen in any RW site worth its salt. To me Sanders is no less of a politician than Hillary. He's not above the fray and not above playing to his audience.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
60. I have no problem with Sanders' positions on gun control
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:42 PM
Jan 2016

Except I don't agree with your statement that his positions are "to the right" of Obama and Hillary.

IMO, it is very far "to the right" to place unreasonable restrictions on a constitutionally assured right. Sanders' positions, to me, are very definitely, to the "left" of Obama and Hillary, although Hillary's 2008 position that gun control issues should be left to the states, was far left of her current position.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
23. Maybe he should flip-flop on every issue like Hillary has. Some voters seem attracted by that.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:17 PM
Jan 2016

I want him to switch to Christianity too - he won't!

I hate having a candidate with principles. Damn frustrating.

ram2008

(1,238 posts)
42. The gun issue is just not that important to many
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:28 PM
Jan 2016

Most people are in the middle, Hillary attacking Bernie on guns seems to be a poor political calculation. Most Americans fall right where he is on the gun issue, which will help him in a general election.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
46. +1. I think you'll find support for things like better background checks, waiting periods,
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:33 PM
Jan 2016

magazine size limits, serial numbers on ammo, or smart guns long before you'll get people to agree on manufacturer liability. And that's just within the Democratic Party.

ram2008

(1,238 posts)
49. Exactly
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:35 PM
Jan 2016

The manufacturer liability doesn't really make sense. Would you fine Toyota if someone was drunk driving and ran over a kid? I don't think so. Probably another reason why her numbers are dropping with moderates and independents.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
52. Oh My God! Nuance Alert! We can't have an honest discussion of a complex issue!
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:35 PM
Jan 2016

A politician expressed an honest opinion on a complex issue, instead of a safe soundbite.

Call out the dogs.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
57. It is my opinion that he refuses to admit a mistake becaue he intended to provide Corporate Welfare
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:40 PM
Jan 2016

for gun manufacturers.

There were other bills at the time that did the same service for other industries and corporations, and he voted no.

Therefore, Corporate Welfare for Gun Manufacturers was not a mistake, it was his intent.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
64. No, even Inigo Monyoya would recognize Corporate Welfare when he sees it.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:50 PM
Jan 2016

Which is what the bill to immunize gun manufacturers was about.

Though I will admit, he voted against all other bills to immunize other corporate industries.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
66. Actually if you were paying attention you would know why he voted for the PLCAA.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:54 PM
Jan 2016

And it had nothing to do with "corporate welfare".

"Bernie the corporatist", that's the second time I've seen that talking point today.

And it's just as hilarious this time.


Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
69. Ah, but even Sanders must recognize that the result of the bill was Corporate Welfare
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:00 PM
Jan 2016

Since he refuses to admit he made a mistake, then he is fully responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Since he did not apply that same belief to other bills being moved by Republicans at the same time, I don't buy his excuse. His absolute lack of consistency in the issue of immunity to law suits shows that something else was happening.

He voted for a bill whose purpose was to protect the profits of Corporations who manufacture guns from citizens seek redress through the courts.

Whether you like that or not, he voted for Corporate Welfare.

Let my know when Sanders can admit he made a mistake.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
72. It wasn't a mistake.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:04 PM
Jan 2016

I agree that manufactures shouldn't be held liable when legally manufactured products are used to commit criminal acts.

You can call Bernie a supporter of "corporate welfare" as many times as you like but that meme won't hunt.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
79. His reasons for voting for the PLCAA weren't a mistake.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:14 PM
Jan 2016

He was representing his constituents, that's why we voted for him.

Again and again and again.

You know those Vermonters - we're big on corporate welfare and the corporatists who vote for it.


Response to Beacool (Original post)

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
87. OK, guys. Are any of those of you talking about immunity for gun manufacturers actually
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 06:00 PM
Jan 2016

products liability lawyers? Do you have any experience with products liability law?

What in the world are you talking about?

Generally, in our system, a party is liable for damages only if they are at fault, that is only if the plaintiff can prove they did something wrong or negligent.

Gun manufacturers produce a product that can under certain circumstances have good uses.

Think about products that harm people and have no good use. Tobacco is one. Now it does not harm every user, but it harms a certain percentage of users.

Motorcycles? Maybe. I'm not so sure on that one.

Epoxy glue? Can be dangerous but has a lot of good uses and isn't dangerous if used correctly.

Same with guns. Can be dangerous but have good uses and aren't dangerous if used correctly.

I oppose strict liability for gun manufacturers. I don't think it is appropriate at all. I am not a gun lover, but it is the gun user and not the gun manufacturer that is at fault most of the time. Of course, if a gun is improperly manufactured and that fault in the manufacture causes damages, that is a different matter.

My proposal is that we require gun buyers to purchase insurance for their guns, and that we require gun owners to buy new insurance coverage each year. That would discourage people from buying a lot of guns. The insurance coverage could compensate victims of gun injuries and their families. It would keep guns out of the hands (to the extent that is at all possible) of many people who should not have guns. Insurance companies could do the background checks and since they would have money on the line would probably apply a stricter test than the government would.

But no to strict liability for gun manufacturers.

If you want to impose strict liability on product manufacturers, impose it on the manufacturers of products that have not good purpose -- like tobacco.

ybbor

(1,554 posts)
94. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 06:48 PM
Jan 2016

I think they're at stage three now, can't wait for stage four.

Go Bernie Go!

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
103. Yep. On the bright side
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:45 PM
Jan 2016

how many 2nd amendment protectors are going to show up to an Iowa caucus ?

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
112. Nonsense. I think his vote for PLCAA was a mistake,
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 11:40 PM
Jan 2016

but I have seen no sign that his recent suggestion that the PLCAA was neither all good nor all bad is based on political calculations. You are just making that up.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie Sanders Chasing Wh...