HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Autumn » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next »

Autumn

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 38,875

Journal Archives

Candidate Bernie Sanders on Gun control.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
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.

Which host of the Bernie forum laughed along at the c*nt tongue twister ?

Someone posted this yesterday and it stuck .

Part of leading is inspiring a vision of how things could be better and then trying like hell to make it so.


That's Bernie. He has a vision and that's why people are so excited about him.


I can't remember who posted it but all I can say is

I thought it was rather good Manny

A little soft but good. You know I'm always right

No it's all confusing

MaggieD says she was banned in 2005, someone, and it wasn't sid that called her a sock puppet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5498982

MaggieD's profile says she wasn't banned has been a member since 2001.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=106348.

I was trying to ask a MIRT member but got called for jury and lost it so said fuck it.

What we know about the TPP that has been revealed so far

Summary of Dangers of the TPP


From what we've seen the TPP will:
1. make it easier to offshore more jobs now performed in the United States.
2. generate downward pressure on wages.
3. empower another 25,000 foreign corporations to use Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) tribunals to gut our net neutrality, environmental, health, labor and safety laws and regulations.
4. give big pharma new monopoly patent rights.
5. provide for rolling back financial regulations put in place after the crash of 2008.
6. provide for banning buy local and buy domestic policies.
7. undermine climate change and energy policies by constraining the permissible policies governments can use to implement them.
8. potentially prevent the Treasury from replacing the practice of issuing Treasury debt to fund deficit spending with alternative funding methods.
9. potentially prevent the Fed from using negative interest rate policies if it chooses to do so.
10. potentially force the US to bail out insolvent banks through ISDS settlements.
11. constitute ISDS tribunals as criminogenic environments with corporate advocates who play the roles of both judges and corporate attorneys at different times and who have substantial incentives to both drag out and sustain corporate suits against governments at all levels.
12. turn over the legislative power of the Federal government to the investor state dispute settlement courts and the corporations buying their loyalty.
13. paralyze action by future Congresses that might reduce corporate “expectations of profits,”.
14. create a permanent political fight over repealing the horror of the TPP while the US economy declines year after year.
15. create an unconstrained and unconstitutional trade agreement fusing judicial and legislative authority whose overnight judicial undoing would create international instability.
16. demand that the American public ought to ensure them against the business risks they take abroad.
17. insist on classification of the TPP drafts, hiding them from the public and making it an impossible burden for Congresspeople to evaluate them, and then on keeping the proposed or actual agreement secret so that the American people can’t even know what the law is that may result in international levies of many billions of dollars upon them, for four years after the TPP is either passed or defeated.
18. create the possibility that one ISDS case, decided by a biased three-judge panel dominated by attorneys who primarily work for corporate clients could deliver a financial crisis to an American State or local government.
19. provide multinationals protections against risk that would not be accorded to domestic corporations.
20. define “investment” so broadly that it applies to any asset that is either owned or controlled and therefore to any new regulation that may be passed by any democratic government placing chains on all of them and defeating the requirement of the consent of the governed.
21. prohibit “Buy American” laws and regulations.
22. fail to provide a clear legal provision allowing regulating investments for public purpose through laws and regulations that would not be subject to the interpretations of ISDS tribunals dominated by representatives of corporations making decisions in accord with the principle that national level rule making must not interfere with the “expectations of profits” held by multinational private corporations, or to any other tribunals not subject to the consent of the governed.

From: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/04/indicting-the-trans-pacific-partnership-even-one-of-these-counts-is-sufficient-to-vote-to-kill-it.html

Many of our elected Democrats are fighting against it until it can be examined and changed. Our President, a few other democrats and the republicans are for it and want it NOW as it is. If just a few of those things come to pass it will be devastating to the American people. Scoundrel? Yeah I'm gonna say anyone wanting that secret monstrosity to become law without everyone knowing what is in it might just try on that shoe, because the shoe fits. There's an old saying, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Many of us don't see the post that 1StrongBlackMan keeps digging up and posting

the same way he does. You see that as a jab and are offended by it. Are you offended at the jabs they post to Manny? Manny is Jewish, his people have had a lot of persecution also. No single group, not blacks not women have a lock on that As humans, all people are sensitive... no matter what group they belong to.

As S.C. Democrats wait on Hillary Clinton, likely foes plant seeds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-sc-democrats-wait-on-hillary-clinton-likely-foes-plant-seeds/2015/04/25/453f5810-eb5f-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html


Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont toying with a primary challenge to Clinton, brought Democrats to their feet with a fiery sermon about the hollowed-out middle class and the rise of an “oligarchic form of society” controlled by billionaires.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at a “Don’t Trade Our Future” march in Washington on April 20. (Win Mcnamee/Getty Images)
The reception Sanders received — several delegates called him “electric” — surprised Rep. James E. Clyburn, the state’s most powerful Democrat, who took it all in from the back of the hall.
“I really did not anticipate that from Bernie,” Clyburn said. “It says something about people’s thirst and hunger for a real message.”

Delegates rose again for Martin O’Malley, the ambitious former Maryland governor, after he spoke with rhetorical flourish about the undying American dream and gave a muscular defense of such liberal ideals such as raising wages, expanding Social Security benefits and cracking down on Wall Street banks.

O’Malley, who lately has amped up his attacks on Clinton, took an apparent swipe at his more cautious and calculating rival in his speech: “Leadership is about forming a public opinion, not about chasing after it. It’s not about the polls. It’s about our principles.”

I'm always stone cold sober William. I had nothing to do with any host resigning

if any host says they resigned because of me, that's a lie. I said nothing about any host using the alert system for partisan reasons. As for the OP she resigned over I was the fourth leave on that.

Elizabeth Warren Room Poll

I have seen several posts suggesting that Elizabeth's supporters want her to run as Hillary's VP and that's the "only way that some of Liz's supporters will vote for Hillary." I'm really curious if any of Liz's supporters want that. I don't even see the scenario of Liz running to "pull Hillary to the left" or as why that would even be desirable.

So simple question. Do you think Liz would or should run as VP for Hillary?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next »