2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOn guns, Sanders has an authenticity problem
But heres the thing: When Sanders and his supporters defend his votes, they like to make the point that Sanders has represented Vermont, where an awful lot of pickup trucks sport NRA stickers, and where an awful lot of gun dealers make a decent living and dont want to get sued out of business.
I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, Sanders explained during the Democratic debate in Las Vegas in October. In an interview on CNNs State of the Union last year, he said: The people of my state understand, I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles. In our state, guns are used for hunting.
In other words, Sanders was representing the interests of his constituents. And you know what that makes Bernie Sanders?
A politician, thats what.
And this is the problem the gun issue creates for Sanders. Because a politician is precisely what he purports not to be. His entire rationale as a candidate is that he alone chooses principle over polls, that he votes his convictions and cant be corrupted by powerful interests or his own ambition.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/on-guns-sanders-has-an-1337642634199094.html
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'd be OK with that if gunners could live with one gun left at home, but they can't.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Either way, that's their business not yours.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)They work for the Right, not the right.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)It won't work. Sorry.
jfern
(5,204 posts)He got swiftboated so hard that somehow going to the MLK I have a dream speech became a fucking liability.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Here's where you lost me, and this is perhaps where there is a disconnect between the Bernie supporters and the Hillary supporters -- why is that a bad thing? Vermont has the lowest gun murder rate in the country (source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls)
What if different states have different needs with respect to gun laws? Should their representatives vote based on those differences when Federal legislators attempt to make national changes when (in some people's view) state-by-state decisions are more appropriate?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts).. where he lost me.
The statement by sanders proffers a false dichotomy
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)his firearms dealers are open to civil liability for following the law.
Bernie does not oppose what I would consider common sense gun legislation (of course, what Bernie supporter wouldn't say that)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)So your point is moot.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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. 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. Not because they are bitter.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/
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
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... to vote against the Brady Bill.
That make no sense...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's a pretty extreme position but you're entitled to your opinion.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... I'm giving him the same purity test with guns he's giving HRC on Wall Street and he fails hands down.
The industry immunity thing is crazy... why?!!?
Sanders is to close to [Fill in Blank]
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He already explained his vote against the Brady Bill:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
And his record is consistent:
....However, the Nation and the other reports like it dont shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They dont explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if theres a consistency to Sanders positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernies position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.
Yet there is an explanation. Its consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And its in Bernies own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. Housein 1990where 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 sportsmens groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle baneven 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 Sportsmens Clubs.
I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidatesas the Sanders campaign press secretaryand 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 huntinghe previously was mayor of Vermonts biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nations characterization, isnt open-minded.
As you can see, Berniewho moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960shas an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. Hes not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jockbeing 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. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich he reiterated to the moderator.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/
Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernieto test his mettle after Smiths 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 Sportsmans 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. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich 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 dont know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasnt. 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
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
He even voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:
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 dont think the state itself, whether its 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-/
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)And if your point is that he is a politician, we know that. We don't expect perfection, either.
Bottom line - there is nothing you could charge Bernie with that would make Hillary a politician I would even considering supporting.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... than any supporters words.
5 times against the Brady Bill!?
Really!?!?
He can represent his contituents and bring common sense gun laws to America also... it's not one or the other.
eridani
(51,907 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)as well as background checks, closing loopholes, increased mental health services, and not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns.
what are om and clinton advocating that he is not? i can't think of a single area where the three are in disagreement as to how to proceed.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)he wanted mentally ill people or terrorist watch list persons to be able get guns BEFORE???
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... and doesn't live up to the purity test in regards to the gun industry that he holds HRC up to in regards to Wall Street.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and will he happy to remind people of vermonts extremely low death rate from gun violennce. when are we going to see some transparency from hillary about the incestuous relationships she has with big banks and corporate america?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)How the NRA helped Sanders get in congress
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
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.
These "gun rights groups" are supported by the gun industry... period
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Surely they wouldn't give him a D-rating after paying him off?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... cause "paying him off" isn't the only indicator of a beneficial association.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... and support.
I don't see where the Wapo article is false..
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts).. terms!?
tia
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Now "contributions" means endorsements!
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
Wow that Bernie he even sucks at being a paid shill for the nra!
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Damn Bernie, doesn't he even know when he's being bought by "contributions"?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Tennis Magnet
(38 posts)Professional treatments too, looks like.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... cause Sanders was NOT prepared to answer this question.
His answer damn near says screw urban America... there's no room for common sense gun legislation cause "rural".
Sanders stance on guns undermines his message about wall street and HRCs closeness to it...
At this point it's well known Sanders can't throw stones in the "ties" to industry category.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He already explained his vote against the Brady Bill:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
And his record is consistent:
....However, the Nation and the other reports like it dont shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They dont explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if theres a consistency to Sanders positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernies position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.
Yet there is an explanation. Its consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And its in Bernies own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. Housein 1990where 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 sportsmens groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle baneven 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 Sportsmens Clubs.
I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidatesas the Sanders campaign press secretaryand 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 huntinghe previously was mayor of Vermonts biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nations characterization, isnt open-minded.
As you can see, Berniewho moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960shas an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. Hes not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jockbeing 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. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich he reiterated to the moderator.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/
Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernieto test his mettle after Smiths 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 Sportsmans 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. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich 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 dont know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasnt. 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
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
He even voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:
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 dont think the state itself, whether its 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-/
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... Sanders fails the purity test he's holding others to in regards to ties to industry and votes.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts).. Again, the "prove the obvious" is disenginuous at best
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Surely it's easy to find if it's that "obvious".
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I've read the article and it doesn't say what you claim.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... try but we gotcha.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)40. His well known votes?! They're contribution to him winning during the beginning of his career!?!?
.. Again, the "prove the obvious" is disenginuous at best
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=982482
Now you're going to pretend you didn't post that?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... that's not a contribution to his winning in 1990?!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... facts is facts.
We can give it whatever words you'd like
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... the gun industry via the NRA and Sanders?!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Tennis Magnet
(38 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Here's the summary of the law from Wikipedia:
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
What part of the bill is problematic?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... and Sanders voted for it in practice.
Sanders knew this or should've known this...
There was no reason for those truly on the left to vote for this bill
Autumn
(45,064 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)Because I'm not sure you do.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)She's been flip-flopping around with guns
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I am glad he is seeing problem with gun violence, 80 people a day on average in the US, changes needs to be made.
spin
(17,493 posts)represent their state.
If your state has a large number of gun owners they elect you expecting that you will defend their rights to own firearms.
If your state is gun unfriendly the voters expect you to push for strong gun control.
If you get elected and decide to ignore the wishes of those who voted for you, you most likely will not be reelected and someone who promises to better represent the voters who elect him will take over your seat.
RandySF
(58,786 posts)Sabders failed to lead. When Dems laid down their seats in Congress in the 90's to pass common sense legislation, Bernie ran for the hills.
spin
(17,493 posts)the legislation and perhaps he actually agreed with them.
For example the idea that a gun owners should be able to be sue Smith & Wesson when someone misuses one of their firearms to injure or kill another person. If that were to become law why couldn't Ford Motor Co be sued when a drunk driver in one of their cars kills another person? Legislation allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for an individual's actions would set a bad precedent assuming it was not overthrown by the court system.
I don't consider making gun manufacturers liable for the illegal actions of a gun owner using one of their firearms to be common sense legislation. Gun manufacturers can be sued if they produce a defective product that endangers people just as car manufacturers can be. That is common sense legislation.
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... I thought it was a very bad answer
TheFarseer
(9,322 posts)And go door to door confiscating everyone's guns or what are we talking about? And Hillary supporters say Bernie 's policies are unworkable. We can't even get expanded background checks and 93% of Americans support that.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... and the Brady bill just for starters.
Sanders votes against the common sense stuff is well documented
Response to RandySF (Original post)
postatomic This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)nation.
concreteblue
(626 posts)EOM
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Oh, noes!
mentalslavery
(463 posts)so nice to see...2008 all over again
ecstatic
(32,689 posts)Every state has its share of rural areas. NY, IL, etc. Does he mean democratic leaning states?
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... she's better prepared than ALL of the other candidates, in ALL areas, global and domestic.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)He goes on to say...
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
Ugh... No, I don't care for this "cultural divide" argument at all.
Good guys with guns vs Bad guys with guns. This is nothing more than NRA-speak.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)on matters of Gun Control/Safety were at the bequest of His VT constituents? I find that a Great quality and these days quite Rare that politicians Actually Do represent Their constituents. VT has the Best record in the country.
Give this a rest, already.
randys1
(16,286 posts)a very high degree of trust in Bernie.
What I dont like, and it is a relatively new development, is his reaching out to Trump's folks.
I dont like being beholden to or associated with rabidly racist and bigoted assholes.
Maybe Bernie, of all people, could educate them and mature them into being adults and to behave like adults, if anybody could it is Bernie, but I dont like associating with people who LOVE to see Black people beaten for speaking out, and I dont like associating with people who LOVE to hear HATRED of ALL Muslims and ALL Latino's.
Dont like it at all.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Is educating them-along with the rest of us. You can't listen to Bernie and Not be educated...which cuts him from the establishment herd-out of the gate.
He is appealing to Many in the Republican Party...they're just as pissed off about the same stuff we are. I believe this points more to the fact he will represent Americans..not just Dems/Progs etc.
I realize this is unusual..but I have yet to see a good argument as to why we should maintain political division where people can agree.
But, that's just how I view this.