Reply With Quote
Yeah so we agree. It's a silly controversy.
They're suing regardless. I think it has more to do with how he said it.
He undermine the significant of the tragedy by scoffing the question with a simple, emotionless answer.
Yeah so we agree. It's a silly controversy.
FWIW, I agree with Bernie 100%.
It's a slippery slope with the special case of guns. I understand where Bernie comes from but I thought the reason he is getting asked about this is because there can be no liability found against manufacturers in civil cases. I think it should be allowable to determine that in court, not strictly ban it.
I can't say I agree. That said, it's really too bad there wasn't a manufacturer's defect.
I'm as anti-gun as can be. But as long as all types are legal, the issue of suing a manufacturer that breaks no laws is complicated to say the least. This controversy is yet another phony attempt to discredit him among ACTUAL liberals. "Sanders is responsible for Sandy Hook!" GMAFB
Sanders "soft on guns" stance was about his only centrist/right wing viewpoint. Surprised Hillary hasn't attacked him on it much more, tbh.
From Robert Reich on Facebook?
"One of you just sent me these numbers for the Democratic primary at this point in time -- which I've checked out and appear accurate.
Total pledged delegates - 4051
Pledged delegates needed to win - 2026
Pledged delegates yet to be decided - 1662
Pledged delegate for Sanders - 1088
Pledged delegates for Clinton - 1302
To win sanders needs - 938
To win Clinton needs - 724
What sanders needs to win (938) divided by what's left (1662), 938 ÷ 1662 = 56.438. We'll round that up to 56.5%
So it's not 60 or 70, it's 56.5% of the remaining pledged delegates Sanders need to win."
Bernie's rally in PA
If Bernie has more popular votes and pledged delegates will the super delegates switch to Bernie? Didn't that happen with Obama?
Obama is a Democrat, Sanders isn't.
LOL, get that weak out of here.
Are you re ed, Democrat superdelegates are going to flock to socialist Sanders like they did a Democrat Obama?
To be fair Republicans were calling Obama a socialist the while time
The Republican definition of socialist is anyone to the left of Cruz.To be fair Republicans were calling Obama a socialist the while time
That's not why they flocked to him. Candidates usually flock to who they think will win so they will be in their good graces and can associate themselves with a winner. Hillary has been the inevitable candidate with money, a name brand, and so many political connections/relationships. That's the real reason she is dominating with the super-delegates, not because Bernie has been an independent.
yes, that's has happened. The superdelegates pledged to the candidate who loses the primaries will "normally" switch to the primaries winner.
That's why giving Hillary all the superdelegates now as a final condition is misleading (that's why the Dem establishment counts the supers ALREADY for Hillary, to discourage the Bernie voters)
If Bernie wins more delegates, he'll pick up the supers, too.
But I'm sure some female supers will not switch but stick with Hillary because they think Hillary as a woman is en led, it's a woman's turn, and for women to "avoid that special place in ".
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-07-2016 at 06:11 PM.
yes, that's supposedly the convention, but the some of sexist element of supers will stick with Hillary even if she loses the primaries because she's woman (ignoring her screw-the-99% neoliberalism and neoconnism.
wouldn't surprise me, coming from that party
“The Clinton campaign has refrained from going nuclear on Sanders, aides say, in large part to keep at least some goodwill alive in hopes of unifying the party at the end of the primary fight,” according to CNN. “No more, a top adviser [said]. The fight is on. Extending an olive branch to Sanders’ supporters ‘will come later.'”
However, the Clinton campaign and media outlets like CNN promote a false narrative that the campaign has not been in attack mode. Since September, she has used a network of surrogates and rapid response super PACs to push anti-Sanders talking points into the media.
Shadowproof has do ented a pattern of dishonest attacks and rumors, particularly since January. The attacks include:
Sanders supports Minutemen vigilantes and similar anti-immigrant hate groups,
Sanders opposed bailing out auto workers,
Sanders supports the NRA,
Sanders wants to dismantle the Affordable Health Care Act,
Sanders supported the indefinite detention of immigrants, and
Sanders sees President Barack Obama as “weak” and will not support Obama’s legacy.
Voters have yet to see the full scope of what the Clinton campaign will sling at Sanders, but today’s interviews indicate she will return to her effort to paint Sanders as a gun-lover.
She will focus on the fact that he is an independent senator, and, therefore, he is not a Democrat who will help the Democratic Party win in down-ballot elections in November.
She also will attack him on regulating “too big to fail” banks and re-up her artful smear that Sanders has no respect for President Obama.
Clinton Falsely Claims Sanders Doesn’t Recognize Financial Reform Legislation Was Passed
“A Relatively New Democrat:” Clinton Attacks Sanders’ Political Iden y
The once-inevitable Democratic nominee (as her campaign claimed) recognizes there is a battle to be won. Commentator Van Jones, appearing on “Democracy Now!” said New York is a “war to settle the score.” Jones said, “You’re going to see a vetting of Bernie Sanders like you’ve never seen.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/07/disqualify-and-defeat-clinton-campaign-attacks-intensify-halt-sanders-win-streak
Sanders Takes 30-Point Bite out of Clinton Lead in NY
New poll shows Clinton with 18-point lead over Sanders, compared to 48-point lead in mid-March
http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...linton-lead-ny
... and that's with BigMedia ignoring if not trashing Bernie.
BigMo is with Bernie
She increased it. She had a 10 point and a 12 point lead as of last week.
Any polls done a month ago is irrelevant.
Sanders Over the Edge
Paul KrugmanAPRIL 8, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html
Reich's FB takedown of Krugman:
Ordinarily I wouldn’t pick on a particular columnist but I respect Paul Krugman. Also, his perch at the New York Times gives him broad influence – especially just two and a half weeks before the important New York State primary. But his piece today (which I’ve attached) is shot through with errors.
1. The biggest Wall Street banks did indeed precipitate the crisis on Wall Street in 2008 because of their gambling in newfangled financial instruments and fancy derivatives even they didn't understand.
2. Their size did make a difference because they were so interconnected with other financial en ies both in the U.S. and around the world that they were "too big to fail." Today's biggest Wall Street banks are much bigger than they were in 2008.
3. Size also has a bearing on their political influence. The reason the Glass-Steagall Act was scotched by Bill Clinton's administration, and the Clinton administration wouldn't agree with the CFTC to regulate derivatives, had a lot to do with the influence of Wall Street over the Clinton administration and over Congress.
The political power of the biggest players on the Street is even larger today – as evidenced by their capacity to whittle back significant parts of Dodd-Frank in the regulatory process.
4. Breaking up the biggest banks isn’t a radical idea. In fact, many experts – including the current president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (who’s a Republican and a former executive of Goldman Sachs), and the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas -- have called for exactly this.
5. Bernie's other ideas -- for a single-payer plan, and for free tuition at public ins utions of higher education – are sensible, and also backed by many experts.
It’s well-established that a single-payer plan would be far less costly and deliver far better care than our own system, which is based on private for-profit insurers.
As to free tuition in public universities, we were well on the way to this goal in the 1950s and 1960s. It was and is a logical extension of free K-12 education.
6. Finally, the current brouhaha over who's "qualified to be president" was arguably started by Hillary Clinton. Personally, I think neither she nor Bernie should be calling the other unqualified, but to blame Bernie for this exchange is simply incorrect.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1193897777289483?comment_id=550814701758212¬if_ t=like¬if_id=1460146383808096
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
