Bernie Sanders Voted for the Most Reprehensible Pro-Gun Legislation in Recent Memory

[sheshe2]

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at the National Action Network national convention on April 8, 2015, in New York City.

When Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted FiveThirtyEight. But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.

Sanders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owners—and manufacturers. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some modest gun control measures.)

None of these views are particularly shocking for a Vermont representative: Sanders’ deep-blue state has both high gun ownership and incredibly lax gun laws, and it’s perfectly logical for the senator to support his constituents’ firearms enthusiasm. And a close friend of Sanders once said that the senator “thinks there’s an elitism in the anti-gun movement.”

But Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)

Read More http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

Feel the Bern!

[leftofcool]

1. I really hate hearing this. I know a Senator must cater to their constituents but.......

I hate the NRA with a passion.

[beam me up scottie]

5. The NRA gives Bernie an F rating:

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

[Thinkingabout]

41. The NRA put $18,000 into defeating Peter Smith, Bernie's opponent.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. But he did vote for gun control

in Iraq. And bomb control, etc.

[Fumesucker]

10. Hillary was hoodwinked by Dubya's cunning wiles, faced with a smooth talker like that who wouldn't?

No fair holding Hillary's naivete against her, it's really quite one of her more endearing properties.

We just need to all come together in Warm Purple place.

[L0oniX]

34. Yer bad!

[KingCharlemagne]

238. Either she's modern history's biggest dupe -- right up there with George Romney in the

'brainwashed' Department -- or she's something far, far worse.

In either case, her Iraq War vote should completely disqualify her for serious POTUS consideration.

[Zorra]

261. lol! Nah, she was DLC. They pushed for war. Lots of quick, easy money for war profiteers, banksters,

and other wealthy private interests.

All the smart, perceptive, kind and honest folks who believe that the interests of human beings and the environment are far more important than corporate profits were against the war.

By The Progressive on October 31, 2002

The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States.

There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip---
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.
snip---
If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.progressive.org/node/1424

^^^this^^^

No more wars for profit. Bernie 2016.

[treestar]

252. Very lame

Different issue and we all know it.

We are not that dumb.

[wildbilln864]

368. hmmm?

[NewSystemNeeded]

3. I wonder which vote resulted in the largest body count. Bernie's gun vote or:

To the disappointment of some antiwar liberals in her Democratic base, Clinton, the former first lady, voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution in October 2002.

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

[KingCharlemagne]

241. That should headline every Sanders spot heading into Iowa and New Hampshire. If the

American people are going to vote for a dupe for President, they should at least be aware that they are voting for her.

[beam me up scottie]

4. You know this is a dupe because you posted in the original thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6835206

Why are you reposting this?

[NightWatcher]

36. They get paid per post?

I hear he has crazy hair too...

[beam me up scottie]

62. And he's white!

Yachts!

Red scare!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

88. Lousy optics!

[beam me up scottie]

96. Optics!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

132. I hear he doesn't care about immigrants, either.

You know, the man whose father was a Jewish immigrant from Poland, who lost most of his family during the Holocaust.

The next however many months are going to be a real delight, eh? The Hill Squad's claws are out.

[beam me up scottie]

135. And they completely ignored his record.

Did you see the ones defending the reporter who accused him of dual citizenship because she saw it on a racist fb page?

You're right, they're just getting started.

Better buckle up.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

150. "The Bernie supporters tell me he attended a rally 50 years ago for MLK."

Sounds like classic smartypants bullshit, just shared elsewhere in this thread. Yeah, I'd say they realize Sanders is a threat.

Oh, right, Diane Rehm. But she saved the day... she put the dual-citizenship matter to rest. Hurrah!

[beam me up scottie]

154. I'm surprised smartypants hasn't questioned his loyalty yet.

Then again she doesn't seem very intelligent, probably too stupid to know how to use his Jewish heritage against him.

Maybe she'll just post some pics of dead Palestinians and Jesus on the cross and say "How could you, Bernie?"

[WorseBeforeBetter]

161. Give 'er time.

Ol' Nancy LeTourneau covered Bernie and "POC" in her little hit piece; I'm sure her attacks on Bernie's faith will be just as revolting.

Her shit blog gets zero traction, so she feels the need to bring it here. Lucky us.

[beam me up scottie]

166. Using poc as human shields so she can slander a Dem candidate.

Of course a lot of that started in 2008.

Nice to see some are continuing the tradition.

[cui bono]

204. Oh, I heard the equivalent on here not long ago after I posted about Sanders having marched

in the 60's for civil rights. Iirc, the response was "that was friggin' decades ago" or something like that.

As if he marched once and then said, meh, not going to worry about PoC any more.

He's been fighting for equality for ALL for DECADES.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

205. You know it, I know it, and they know it.

It's a line of attack worthy of Sarah Palin. Be proud, she.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

139. Bernie can't afford better optics, he's only a thousandaire.

What a bad money manager he is, he should be swimming in gold after all those years of politics if he is worth anything.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

172. Well, it's certainly not going to custom-tailored suits and $600 haircuts!

Hmm, maybe that's the angle smartypants will take -- money management and Bernie being Jewish.

[Oilwellian]

258. And has scary white hair, oh my! n/t

[Cha]

226. "They get paid per post?" That's what you say when you have nothing to offer but ignorance.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

306. If DU ever folds, I hope the site owners give us ample notice...

so all the socks can out themselves. Wouldn't that be great fun, she? I mean, cha?

[cui bono]

178. Well, you know... her other OP about Bernie went over so well...

It was hard to pick which smiley to use when referencing that vile OP that misfired so badly it was laughable as well as pukable.

[beam me up scottie]

182. She was so proud of that op too.

Now I bet she wishes we would forget all about it...

[cui bono]

186. To wish that...

...

EDITED because I know the Hillary Group has plotted and shared tactics on how to manipulate DU so that they can be on juries.

And to take out 'Hillary *** **** since it is getting people in a tizzy, probably the same people who constantly use 'ODS' and 'hater'.

I honestly try not to do that sort of thing usually, but the constant complaints about Bernie supporters while actively plotting, yes plotting, against other DUers as if there is a war going on is just too hypocritical. Especially when they go so far as to have an OP that suggests tattling on DUers by sending posts by Sanders supporters that they deem mean to his campaign - yes, there really is an OP that suggests that and it was rec'd and applauded and the very person who started that OP was running around calling Sanders supporters childish (!) - and also editing posts well after multiple replies have been made to make it look like the other person was wrong, OPs about who to put on their jury blacklists, posts about how to manipulate DU so as to get on a jury... well, hell, that is some hypocrisy and it should be noted. And some of them actually have the nerve to say it was Sanders supporters that drove them to support Hillary. That's some great support there, really living with conviction! :lughing:

Sanders supporters are not nearly so immature nor are they forum war mongers.

[beam me up scottie]

187. And now she's blaming Bernie for the dead children at Sandy Hook.

Revolting.

[cui bono]

202. Despicable.

EDITED

[beam me up scottie]

203. I agree.

edited

[SixString]

270. ...

On Mon Jun 15, 2015, 10:14 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Despicable.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6837954

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Edited, wink wink"?

Seriously? This guy has made multiple posts through out the thread with "Edited" afterward, making really nasty comments about the OP and then manipulating the software by "Editing" out the nasty part, but not deleting the post so he can make the nasty comment on the sly... hence the wink wink. Look throughout the thread. He does this repeatedly and not only makes attacks against the OP but slams DU's Hillary Clinton group in the process. Alerting the admins on this as well.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 15, 2015, 10:25 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Enjoy not being able to alert for 24.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Isn't that what the edit function is for? To remove stuff you regret or think better of later?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "manipulating the software"? Um, it's a feature that they put there for a purpose. If the admin didn't want people to be able to use that feature, why put it in there. I probably wouldn't have hid for the unedited version either, FWIW.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'll give the person the benefit of the doubt for now.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: See what the admins have to say.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: *sigh*
I hate the primaries.
I am not voting to hide this post, as I find both sides to be equally at fault.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[GGJohn]

273. And now the alerter is on a 24 hour time out from making any more alerts.

[cui bono]

280. +1

[brer cat]

257. Can you share that thread please?

I serve on a lot of juries and no one has ever invited me into these plots. I am not really picking on you; I hear this a lot on DU and cannot figure out how that is done. Since you know in this instance I hope you are willing to point out the thread so I can learn how this is done.

[cui bono]

275. Just look through the HC group. You'll find an OP about jury block lists for sure.

I couldn't find the individual post I saw the other day about how to manipulate being on a jury though. It's in there somewhere as well unless it's been self-deleted by now.

EDITED

[brer cat]

292. Jury block lists have nothing to do

with trying to manipulate serving on a jury or plotting to give someone a hide.

I guess I will have to keep wondering about all these plots I hear about that somehow cannot be substantiated.

[cui bono]

296. Yeah, you do that.

I honestly wish I could find the post I read about how to not block your chances to get on a jury. But it might have been self-deleted. I certainly wouldn't want that out in public.

You want to think I'm lying, have at it.

[brer cat]

297. I didn't say I thought you were lying.

As I said previously, I have seen this come up many times, but there is never anything to substantiate the claim.

[okasha]

339. Plotting?

ZOMGs!


Funniest post in ages.

And just so you know, we're all decendants of Rodrigo Borgia and wear poison rings.

[cui bono]

345. Attempts at ridicule don't make you correct.

[beam me up scottie]

346. There's a thread in there now calling Sanders supporters a "mob" and "dangerous and unbalanced".

7 people rec'd it.

[cui bono]

348. omg... see? Hypocrisy at it's best.

And projection. They've used quite a few RW tactics now. Projection, infiltration, attacking one's strengths, swiftboating, slander...

It's all there for people to see yet they continue to deny it. It's insane! BB has yet to come forth with any quotes from me saying anything close to what she accuses me of.

I really should stop feeding them though. It's so stupid. It's just difficult for me to see all the bs and not call it out.

EDITED

[beam me up scottie]

350. No, I agree, they should be called out for that kind of behaviour.

I can't afford any more irony meters.

Oops, edited

[William769]

351. Care to quote and link to what you just said?

I bet you can't do it.

BTW a jury said the same thing.

[beam me up scottie]

352. I'm just glad I don't see that sort of thing in the Bernie Sanders group.

What y'all want to do in yours is on you.

And iirc, you guys have several hidden ops for just that sort of thing.

[William769]

353. Oh so now you are admitting what you just said was disingenuous.

Glad that's all cleared up.



P.S. The honorable thing to do with false statements is to retract them. Are you a honorable person?

[beam me up scottie]

354. Nope. The honourable thing to do is not post shitty threads like that to begin with.

In my opinion.

Maybe the op wasn't clear enough who they were talking about.

Or maybe they were afraid to specify, given the previous hidden threads and all.



Just letting you know how it looks to outsiders.

[William769]

355. Well I guess you just gave everybody your answer.

Good to know about your postings.

[beam me up scottie]

356. Yes, I was defninitely talking about my threads.

I post so many of them.

And they're extremely offensive.

Just ask anyone.

[okasha]

358. There's no reference at all to Sanders or his supporters in that OP.

You must be so disappointed that the alert failed.

[beam me up scottie]

359. I didn't alert on anything in there, okasha.

Apparently someone else found the thread offensive.

I can't imagine why.

[William769]

360. & 7 jurors didn't. Yes that right, all 7.

That says a lot about the alert. Which also means someone can't alert for the next 24 hours.

[beam me up scottie]

362. Like I said, I'm just glad I don't have to read stuff like that in the Sanders group.

All of their threads are positive, no one is complaining about how they're treated on DU.

Great atmosphere in there.

You should check it out.

[William769]

363. Oh really now?

Why was this self deleted? http://www.democraticunderground.com/128013316 Read post #6. There's a lot of self deleted OP in the group you speak of.

[beam me up scottie]

365. Maybe because classy people realize when they're being offensive and self delete?

And also because others decided they don't want that kind of stuff in their safe haven and spoke up?:

That's not what we are about in this group.

One could learn a lot from people like that.

Like I said, it's an awesome group.

[William769]

366. self deleted after they were told it was sent to a jury.

That speaks volumes!

[beam me up scottie]

367. Also because the host said that they didn't want threads like that in the group.

How a host behaves in their safe haven speaks volumes about their character, don't you agree William769?

Some rise above and set a good example while others...

I've heard that some actually post links to other groups in GD to show everyone how awful their opponents are.

Of course it just makes them look like hypocrites but what can ya do?

[William769]

369. Only one small problem with your theory, no Hosts posted in the thread.

So now we are right back to post #353. Got your number. Thanks for playing, sorry but not even a consolation prize for you.

See ya!

[beam me up scottie]

370. What are you talking about? A host posted #3.

Your desperation is showing.



You were saying?

[okasha]

371. No one said you did.

[okasha]

349. No, but truth does.

[840high]

303. I won't forget.

[NaturalHigh]

232. A desperate cry for attention?

[beam me up scottie]

233. Could be.

First his decades of work for civil rights weren't "good enough" for poc, now it's "he's a gun nut!!1!" (for the 5th time) and "Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote".

Some folks are so worried and/or desperate they'll say anything.

[arcane1]

283. I think we know why n/t

[cali]

6. Breaking; desperate clinton supporters desperately post the same article

over and over. News at 11:00.

[sheshe2]

12. Bernie supporters would never ever ever do that!!!

[beam me up scottie]

24. Didn't you post this disgusting hit piece?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026737025

After that op you really have no room to criticize anyone else, sheshe.

You lowered the bar all the way down to FreeRepublic's level.

[L0oniX]

27. ^^^this^^^ Nailed it!

[beam me up scottie]

66. I will forever associate sheshe with that thread.

Not as clever as she thinks.

[GGJohn]

71. Yep, that thread was a real eye opener, and not in a good way. eom.

[marym625]

80. and she said it again

Here and never responded about the fact Hillary didn't mention it either

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026832355#post4


At least we know we won't see a repeat post when it comes to Hillary. One I know that Sanders supporters would be just as upset about as we were about the original.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Not as clever as she thought, nice catch guys!

And most of the other Hillary supporters are staying away from this hit piece too.

Some folks have no shame.

[marym625]

94. Not sure why I am here

Thought it might have different information. But it's exactly the same as the other hit piece

I have learned who is genuine and who isn't. People who intentionally try to cause problems for people by spreading lies to others, especially while pretending to be a friend, are not worthy of my time. Hell, they're not worthy of most people's time.

[beam me up scottie]

103. I had just read her posts in the other thread when I noticed this dupe.

I like a lot of Hillary's supporters, they are focused on the issues.

Too bad the op couldn't be more like them.

[marym625]

118. completely agree.

[sheshe2]

109. wow

All your posts about PoC in AA. I thought you supported them. I am sad you do not.

Hillary is already on record for her support of PoC. Ya, and they support her. She did not need to mention that there, trust me. She will be talking about it.

The Bernie supporters tell me he attended a rally 50 years ago for MLK.

[marym625]

130. Sorry sheshe

You aren't going to bait me. And sorry you were not able to convince every one that I am a fake. Though your efforts did not go unnoticed or unknown.

Funny that a candidate that was the first federal official to condemn the actions of the police I. Ferguson, long before Hillary said anything, that has a great voting record and personal record for fighting for civil and equal rights, deserves your wrath. But a candidate that has insulted people of color, who made some disparaging remarks in her 2008 bid about Senator Obama, who is not supported by the LGBT community and is a known Johnny come lately, doesn't.

You are being more than hypocritical. You are being dishonest.

[sheshe2]

133. They see you!

[marym625]

136. What?

[sheshe2]

138. Figure it out.

They see you.

[marym625]

143. I really hope that you can get rid of all your anger

And find a way to do it that is not in an effort to hurt others.

Good luck

[sheshe2]

148. Lol.

Hey marym. I am not angry, just looking at the hypocrisy and laughing my ass off.

They see you.

[Lancero]

196. They see you

[WorseBeforeBetter]

201. "We surround them."

Good ol' Glenn Beck... that's what it reminds me of.

We surround them!
We see you!

WHUT?

[KingCharlemagne]

245. "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue." - La Rochefoucauld - nt

[beam me up scottie]

179. Some people "see" you too, sheshe:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"I am sad you do not."
This poster is accusing marym625 of not supporting poc even though she just admitted that she frequently posts in support of them in AA. This is hurtful and flat out wrong.

JURY RESULTS:

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 14, 2015, 11:20 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: People, you are already wearing me right the h*ck out with this crap. No she, you don't get to tell someone whether or not they support civil rights based on a freaking candidate choice. I was hopeful people would act like grownups this time around.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: sheshe2 WTF???
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seriously?


Your behaviour towards marym625 is despicable.

[cui bono]

184. sheshe you shouldn't even ever talk about Bernie ever after that vile OP of yours.

Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2015, 11:05 AM - Edit history (2)

You feigned innocence there and yet still never edited it, showing that you clearly intended your transparent attempt at the racist association of that pic to Sanders.

There there are other threads where you ignore facts presented to you, oh so innocently asking questions that have had answers posted all over DU in the days before.

EDITED because I know the Hillary Group has plotted and shared tactics on how to manipulate DU so that they can be on juries.

And to take out 'Hillary *** **** since it is getting people in a tizzy, probably the same people who constantly use 'ODS' and 'hater'.

I honestly try not to do that sort of thing usually, but the constant complaints about Bernie supporters while actively plotting, yes plotting, against other DUers as if there is a war going on is just too hypocritical. Especially when they go so far as to have an OP that suggests tattling on DUers by sending posts by Sanders supporters that they deem mean to his campaign - yes, there really is an OP that suggests that and it was rec'd and applauded and the very person who started that OP was running around calling Sanders supporters childish (!) - and also editing posts well after multiple replies have been made to make it look like the other person was wrong, OPs about who to put on their jury blacklists, posts about how to manipulate DU so as to get on a jury... well, hell, that is some hypocrisy and it should be noted. And some of them actually have the nerve to say it was Sanders supporters that drove them to support Hillary. That's some great support there, really living with conviction! :lughing:

Sanders supporters are not nearly so immature nor are they forum war mongers.

[beam me up scottie]

185. She actually said the children of Sandy Hook died because of Bernie:

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6837505

Then she claimed she never said that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6837828

[BainsBane]

316. The point was not "plotting"

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

It was simply an observation about the vast difference between the principled and positive tone Sanders has sought to establish for his campaign and how so much of what goes on here is negative. Now you choose to ignore the leadership of the man you support for president in favor of your own goals. That is of course your right, but in the process you do damage to his campaign. It is unfortunate you don't care about that.

As for fixing juries, how do you suppose a minority of a few people can fix juries? Clearly juries are heavily skewed in favor of Sanders so there is absolutely no point of alerting on any bad behavior by a Sanders supporter. 90 percent of the site supports Sanders. Most of the Clinton supporters have been eliminated due to alerts, alerts judged by juries you bizarrely claim are manipulated by Clinton supporters. I don't know how you can claim to KNOW something that never happened and all evidence, in terms of the results of juries, shows is not happening. Given that I am one of about 10-15 Clinton supporters on this site, I think I would have been cued into this conspiracy. If it exists, they are obviously leaving people out and having absolutely no effect.

Even Sanders supporters are leaving this site every day because the environment is so incredibly toxic. Some people who supported Sanders long before the rest of you got on the bandwagon have decided to support Clinton because what they see here terrifies them. None of that concerns you. Ultimately this comes down to a profound disrespect for differing opinions and the democratic process more generally. The fact that there are few people on this site whose votes you don't control clearly inflames you to the point where you write posts like the one above or the one where you DEMANDED that I vote for Sanders, as though you had any right to control my vote.

I would suggest that rather than targeting Americans who see politics differently and choose to exercise their own democratic rights independent of your control, you focus on creating a positive message that might actually attract people to support your candidate rather than drive them away. People like to take part in movements where they feel they can accomplish something worthwhile, make a contribution to make society a better place. The discourse around the primary campaign here provides none of that, very much the opposite. You have to ask yourself why you are so determined to turn your back on the leadership of the candidate you support in favor of targeting an internal enemy--the lowly Democratic voter. Clearly something in you sees that as more important than working to get Sanders elected. What you don't realize is that the person most harmed by that, in addition to yourself, is Sanders.

[davidpdx]

317. I'm not a big fan of the jury rigging theory

As for fixing juries? How do you suppose a minority of a few people can fix juries? Clearly juries and heavily skewed in favor of Sanders so there is absolutely no point of alerting on any bad behavior by a Sanders supporter. 90 percent of the site supports Sanders. Most of the Clinton supporters have been eliminated due to alerts, alerts judged by juries you bizarrely claim are manipulated by Clinton supporters. I don't know how you can claim to KNOW something that never happened and all evidence, in terms of the results of juries, shows is not happening. Given that I am one of about 10-15 Clinton supporters on this site, I think I would have been cued into this conspiracy. If it exists, they are obviously leaving people out and having absolutely no effect.

Even Sanders supporters are leaving this site every day because the environment is so incredibly toxic. Some people who supported Sanders long before the rest of you got on the bandwagon have decided to support Clinton because what they see here terrifies them. None of that concerns you. Ultimately this comes down to a profound disrespect for differing opinions and the democratic process more generally. The fact that there are few people on this site whose votes you don't control clearly inflames you to the point where you write posts like the one above, or the one where you DEMANDED that I vote for Sanders, as though you had any right to control my vote.

Above I have highlighted two passages of your long rant. You mention that many of the Clinton supporters have been "eliminated" due to alerts. There are only two particular people I have noticed missing as of lately. Both of those two were the ones running around demanding loyalty oaths (I'm not going to say names, but it should be very easy to figure out which ones I'm talking about). They were fucking obnoxious as hell. Anyone losing their shit that much needs to be put on a vacation no matter who they support.

I'd sure like to know who these people are that supported Sanders and then let a bunch of people on the internet "scare" them into supporting Hillary Clinton. Come on that is just ludicrous claim.

How about Hillary Clinton supporters running around crying that Sanders and the people who support him don't support African Americans or defend our president? It's a bunch of fakery tactics that are being used as manipulation and backhanded bashing. How about condoning that shit?

Christ almighty you want to complain about the crap that is going on here at DU then whine that Sanders supporters have been the ones to drive people away. Please take off your blinders and remove your earplugs because you really need to wake up and take a look around.

[beam me up scottie]

319. ^^^ THIS ^^^

BB claims DU "misogynists" drove her straight into Hillary's arms, even though she came out in support of her months ago. She actually said a vote for Clinton is a vote against "white male rule".

She ruined what was left of her credibility with that stunt, imo. And now she's claiming there are only 10-15 Clinton supporters left on DU?

How about Hillary Clinton supporters running around crying that Sanders and the people who support him don't support African Americans or defend our president? It's a bunch of fakery tactics that are being used as manipulation and backhanded bashing. How about condoning that shit?

No kidding. That behaviour is so obvious a juror even called out the op for doing it in this thread:

No she, you don't get to tell someone whether or not they support civil rights based on a freaking candidate choice.

What they lack in self awareness they make up for in hypocrisy.

[BainsBane]

325. There may indeed be bad behavior on both sides

but the numbers are so skewed in favor of Sanders supporters that their presence is much louder. I can indeed name names, but I won't. Believe what you like. Clearly it doesn't matter what I think anyway.

If you should decide you care what some people of color think about these discussions, you need not take my word for it. You could read the African American group. I know that despite the fact I suggest that often, few do so. That speaks for itself.

The only loyalty oath is in TOS, where people agree to support Democrats in the general elections. Some have made no secret of the fact they will not be doing that. I cannot respect people who put their egos before the well being of the many millions of Americans whose lives will be directly hurt by a GOP presidency. But given the amount of unbridled hatred that is cultivated toward Clinton, some of it fed by the GOP and Koch propaganda machine, I don't know how people could turn around the vote in the general election for someone they have convinced themselves is so evil. It is at least a very real possibility that Clinton will win the nomination, yet they continue anyway because that antipathy means more to them than the outcome of the general election or the people of the nation. You tell me what is there to respect about that?

[beam me up scottie]

341. "If you should decide you care what some people of color think about these discussions"

See bullshit like that is what crosses the line, BB.

The poster you're replying to called you out for just that kind of behaviour. Prism did the same in your other thread and was hailed as a hero for doing so.

How the hell do you know what david does or doesn't read? And what gives you the right to accuse other DUers of not caring about poc?


I know for a fact you don't speak for DU women, so why should I believe you speak for DU's AA community?

And I also know that I'm not the only one who's sick of the manipulation and misrepresentations.

[leftofcool]

322. Excellent post. This is spot on!

[cui bono]

336. Links?

[cui bono]

331. I'm not the one targeting, I'm merely calling out bs when I see it.

You rec'd that OP that was absolutely asking people to email the Sanders campaign with posts that were deemed mean by Hillary supporters. My reply was the one pointing out the hypocrisy. You should read it, it's in my journal.

The Bernie group self-deleted the negative stuff, they were asked to do so by several Bernie supporters, myself included. I even pm'd a host asking for an OP to be locked.

As to the juries, that is a perfect explanation of why Hillary supporters would attempt to do so. I so wish I could find that post again, but it's probably been deleted.

Again you accuse me of wanting to control others' votes. Where did I ever say that? Please provide a link. You never did last time I asked you. I really want to see it.

And finally, I really don't think I need to be lectured by someone who was being deceitful by pretending to be a Bernie supporter while questioning his policies and defending Hillary and reccing OPs that were plotting against his supporters and then exploited the very real issue of misogyny to try to score political points on a message board.

What I post is not lies. You don't want to be called on what you do then don't do it. Heed your own advice, you're the one who needs it. You and your group.

[okasha]

340. Still pissed off about being blocked from the HillaryGroup

for violating the SOP, aren't you?

[cui bono]

343. Nope, not at all. I just call out bs when I see it.

Especially when the people perpetrating it are trying to make it seem as if the 'other side' (as they see things) are the ones being so 'mean'.

Tell me, what did you think of that thread that I posted in? Do you agree with that tactic? Do you think it's mature and sweet and wonderful?

And maybe you can substantiate BB's accusations. She keeps hurling them at me but can't ever point out where I stated anything she accuses me of.

I could give a rat's ass about the Hillary Group other than to show how hypocritical and dishonest some of the members are on here. And I wouldn't give a rat's ass about that either except that they are slandering both Bernie and his supporters and exploiting real social issues to score political points on a message board.

[beam me up scottie]

347. Bernie's supporters are "dangerous and unbalanced" according to one thread.

And they have the gall to accuse us of going overboard.

[okasha]

357. You're funny.

[leftofcool]

321. I don't understand one thing you wrote here, but okie dokie.

[cui bono]

344. I'm not surprised you don't understand.

[AgingAmerican]

188. He attended a rally fifty years ago, so you heard?

Wow, you really are desperate, aren't you?

[cui bono]

206. If the only reason you know that Bernie has been fighting for PoC for DECADES

is because, as you said, "The Bernie supporters tell me he attended a rally 50 years ago for MLK." then you really should start learning a little bit about him before you continue to attempt to slander him in such despicable and vile ways as this OP, as you have in posts where you blame him for the Sandy Hook killings and as in that infamous OP where you tried to associate him with the racist hunter's pic.

If you have only heard on DU that Sanders attended a rally 50 years ago for MLK then you don't know shit about him and should stop making shit up.

Seriously, go learn something. You are just making an ass out of yourself everytime you post about him.

I know you were trying to be clever by pretending that all he did was attend a rally 50 years ago, but you're not clever and all that shows is that you are either ignorant or dishonest. You know damn well he has been fighting for PoC and women and LGBT for DECADES now. So why are you insinuating he only attended a rally 50 years ago? Why?

[Scootaloo]

308. What a loathsome, exploitative post you made here

"You disagree with me so you hate black people!"

[Scootaloo]

101. Past FreeRepublic

That post was some discussionist-level shit

[beam me up scottie]

104. To their credit other Hillary supporters were all over her for that.

She obviously learned nothing from the experience.

[GGJohn]

110. Hell, further down thread,

she's blaming Bernie's vote for the slaughter of the Sandy Hook children.
Fucking disgusting.

[beam me up scottie]

115. Classy as always.

First the race baiting smartypants hit piece and now using the deaths of slaughtered children to slander Sanders.

While ignoring the ones slaughtered in Iraq because of their candidate's support.

[GGJohn]

119. Blatant hypocrisy on display. eom.

[cui bono]

191. You forgot the infamous OP attempting to link Sanders with a racist pic.

[beam me up scottie]

193. That was the one I meant, associating him with racist cops and slavery.

Oops, got my race baiting sources mixed up there...

[cui bono]

194. It's easy to do, there's so much of it being posted on here.

Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2015, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Be careful of posting links to posts, the Hillary Group has posted tactics on how to manipulate DU and get on juries.

EDITED

to take out 'Hillary *** **** since it is getting people in a tizzy, probably the same people who constantly use 'ODS' and 'hater'.

I honestly try not to do that sort of thing usually, but the constant complaints about Bernie supporters while actively plotting, yes plotting, against other DUers as if there is a war going on is just too hypocritical. Especially when they go so far as to have an OP that suggests tattling on DUers by sending posts by Sanders supporters that they deem mean to his campaign - yes, there really is an OP that suggests that and it was rec'd and applauded and the very person who started that OP was running around calling Sanders supporters childish (!) - and also editing posts well after multiple replies have been made to make it look like the other person was wrong, OPs about who to put on their jury blacklists, posts about how to manipulate DU so as to get on a jury... well, hell, that is some hypocrisy and it should be noted. And some of them actually have the nerve to say it was Sanders supporters that drove them to support Hillary. That's some great support there, really living with conviction! :lughing:

Sanders supporters are not nearly so immature nor are they forum war mongers.

[beam me up scottie]

199. They already alerted on one of my posts linking to that thread.

They failed.

Jury saw right through it and had a few choice words for them.

[Scootaloo]

111. She's one of a few posters who I sincerely believe to be automated

[WorseBeforeBetter]

134. Learn? She revels in it.

Here's another beaut:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632517

[beam me up scottie]

147. Wow. Mocking people in need.

Doesn't get much uglier than that.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

168. Yep, yet another truly ugly OP. (n/t)

[Pooka Fey]

236. That OP was so vile, lowering the bar to FREEP is being kind

what I found most telling in that thread were all the hot denials that the OP intended to convince people that Bernie is a closet racist.

Truly CIA level mind-fucking.

[beam me up scottie]

237. I was alerted on for referring to it as "associating him with racism".

And I was being kind.

Maybe they think it's wrong to outsource the swift boating of Bernie?

[Pooka Fey]

239. "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength."

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”

---- George Orwell, "1984"

Let's see if someone hits the Alert Button on me, shall we?

Seriously, this shit goes beyond my power of imagination. Thank goodness for literature, I feel a bit more prepared for our Brave New World.

[beam me up scottie]

240. Nicely done.

[KingCharlemagne]

242. That is some serious fucking slime and reflects so well on the person who

posted it.



Joseph McCarthy has met his match. I never thought I would see its like here, of all places. Really beyond the pale.

[beam me up scottie]

244. And she's complaining about hit pieces on Hillary downthread.

Nothing like that good ole timey religion: Hypocrisy

[Jester Messiah]

301. Daaaaaang.

I'll go get the aloe and bandages, 'cuz that was nasty burn.

[SusanCalvin]

328. What??

I tend not to remember handles, but another one just went on my short list.

[beam me up scottie]

342. Yep, that was one of the worst hit pieces I've ever seen.

And following it up with blaming Bernie for Sandy hook just proves it was deliberate.

When it comes to swift boating our candidates, DUers are more vicious than Republicans - because they should know better.

[cali]

25. i can't speak for others, but i post about Clinton in relation to issue i

care deeply about and where I think she's awful. And i just don't think she's ethical. I don't post oout of pettines. I think she's bad news overall and bad for democrats. I wish i didn't.

[840high]

304. This is disgusting.

[treestar]

254. You may be very effective

at turning people off from considering Bernie.

Deal with the issue much?

[GGJohn]

7. Maybe you can explain why firearms manufacturers

should be held liable for the 3rd party criminal/negligent misuse of their product?
Wouldn't that be like holding Ford responsible for a drunk driver injuring/killing someone in one of their vehicles?

[leftofcool]

13. We have held tobacco companies responsible for lung cancer

We have held Ford responsible for their old Pinto blowing up. Why shouldn't the gun manufacturers be held responsible for the death of children?

[sheshe2]

26. Boom!

I am so loving you!

Nailed it.

[GGJohn]

54. Your Boom! turned out to be a dud. eom.

[GGJohn]

28. Tobacco companies lied about the dangers of their product,

and Ford was sued due to a faulty design.
Why should the firearms manufacturers be held liable for the criminal/negligent misuse of their legal product?

[beam me up scottie]

33. Like Ford, gun manufacturers are held liable for defective products.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Seems certain posters 'forgot' about the Remington 700

https://www.google.com/search?q=remington+700+court+cases&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

(tl;dr version- Remington manufacured a boatload of defective rifles, and was/is
in a lot of legal trouble because of it)

[beam me up scottie]

58. This was all explained in the first thread, they're being deliberately obtuse.

If you look at their recs you'll see why they want to smear Bernie.

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. It works a treat on those unfamiliar with consumer law and/or guns...

...so there's that

[NewSystemNeeded]

38. Have we held the banking/finance industry responsible for 2008?

At least Bernie won't be appointing Wayne LaPierre to head the ATF, because that's the equivalent of what Obama has done at every federal agency responsible for that industry.

And it's what Clinton will continue to do.

[Scootaloo]

48. These are very different situations

Tobacco companies were held responsible becuase for decades, they overtly lied and misrepresented their products. They bribed, bought, and pushed fake science to present their product as actually healthy. when a manufacturer lies about their product and harm to the consumer results, the manufacturer is liable.

Phillip-Morris is not liable if someone uses your scalp to snuff their cigarette

Ford was responsible because their product was malfunctioning and poorly-designed. A car is not supposed to be a bomb. it's supposed to be a car. if it blows up, something has gone horribly wrong. If the flaw is due to the model and manufacture, then it is the manufacturer's fault.

Ford is not liable if you drive into a crowd of pedestrians

if a drain cleaner rusts out your pipes, that's a liability. If even with adequate ventilation, it fills your house with heavy noxious fumes, that's a liability.

If you take a swig of the stuff, that is not a liability.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. You've ruined a perfectly good appeal to emotion with some inconvenient truth

Well done...

[merrily]

77. Great points, but logic has nothing to do with this re-post.

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

83. People drink drain cleaners?

They're caustic!

[Scootaloo]

98. And htye are clearly labeled so, with warnings to not ingest them

So if you do it anyway, is it your fault, or dran-o's?

[Paka]

128. They were sued for hiding the science behind the dangers.

Tabacco companies obstructed the science and promoted their products in a misleading manner. Big difference there.

[cui bono]

189. The Pinto was a defective model. They are not held responsible for all deaths caused

by Ford vehicles.

That is not the same thing at all.

And tobacco companies lied about their product and they also manufactured it in such a way as to make it more addictive.

Again, not the same thing.

[GoneOffShore]

264. And in relation to other cars made at the same time the Pinto fell in the upper third.

The one that caused all the hoorah was rear ended at 50mph and the gas tank blew.

Read "The Engineers Lament" by Malcolm Gladwell in the May 4 edition of the New Yorker - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-lament

Here's a quote:

Here are the deaths per million vehicles for 1975 and 1976 for the best-selling compact cars of that era, compiled by Gary T. Schwartz in his landmark law-review article “The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case”:

Gremlin----------------274--------315
Vega-------------------288--------310
Datsun 1200/210-----392--------418
Datsun 510------------294--------340
Pinto-------------------298--------322
Corolla-----------------333--------293
VW Beetle-------------378--------370

Suppose we focus just on the subset of accidents involving a fire. That’s a rare event—it happens once in every hundred crashes. In 1975-76, 1.9 per cent of all cars on the road were Pintos, and Pintos were involved in 1.9 per cent of all fatal fires. Let’s try again. About fifteen per cent of fatal fires resulted from rear collisions. If we look just at that subset of the subset, Schwartz shows, we finally see a pattern. Pintos were involved in 4.1 per cent of all rear-collision fire fatalities—which is to say that they may have been as safe as or safer than other cars in most respects but less safe in this one.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

282. No, we didn't

We held tobacco companies liable for knowingly lying about the effects and addictive nature of smoking.

We held Ford responsible for selling a vehicle that they knew was defective.

Not at all the same as holding a gun manufacturer responsible for the actions of those that break law while using a legal product.

[onehandle]

20. Gungeoneer fail, as usual.

The purpose of a Ford is to transport a person from point A to point B.

The purpose of a gun is to transport a person from point A to their grave.

[GGJohn]

30. And that pertains to the PLCAA in what way? eom.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Because GUNS, that's why. Inquire further and you'll be insulted again:

[merrily]

120. What's the purpose of a trumped up war?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

160. What's wrong with using a gun for self defense?

[Fla Dem]

271. No because a car's sole purpose isn't to harm or kill, while that is the only purpose of a gun.

Gun manufactures make guns that will harm and kill living beings. If they didn't do that then gun manufactures would be out of business.

[GGJohn]

274. What fucking difference does that make?

The analogy is valid, why should a company be held responsible for a 3rd party criminal/negligent misuse of it's legal product?

[leftofcool]

21. He's not running as the President of Vermont

If he is the nominee, he will have to answer to the parents of the children of Sandy Hook.

[pipoman]

40. He didn't have anything to do with Sandy Hook and he doesnt

Have to answer to the families...we never legislate based on anecdotes, we sympathize .

[Autumn]

81. Then Hillary should answer to the families of our military men and women who died in Iraq

by your logic if she is the nominee.

[cui bono]

207. And all the Iraqis too!

And everyone else affected by the current clusterfuck that the IWR created over there.

[KingCharlemagne]

246. Re-read Nick's assessment of Tom and Daisy Buchanan and then you'll

see why Hillary will never answer:

They were careless people, Tom and Daisy - they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.

The Great Gatsby

[TM99]

105. Disgusting!

So when is Hillary Clinton going to apologize to the men and women maimed in Iraq? When is she going to apologize to the families that lost husbands, wives, sons and daughters?

Fucking disgusting!

[beam me up scottie]

107. Blaming Bernie for Sandy Hook?

I thought you were better than that, leftofcool.


Not cool at all.

[leftofcool]

223. Not everything is about Bernie. It is about children!

"When Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted FiveThirtyEight. But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children. "

[beam me up scottie]

224. What children? What does the PLCAA have to do with Sandy Hook?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

162. Amazing.

If Bernie is guilty by abstraction then perhaps gun controllers are equally guilty because their deceptions and noxious airs make them politically doomed to failure.

[aikoaiko]

256. Wow are you really linking Bernie Sanders to Sandy Hook?

That's effing disgusting.

[X_Digger]

305. Bullshit.

What vote of Senator Sanders made Sandy Hook possible?

Cough it up or retract that statement as your mouth writing a check that your backside can't cash.

[cali]

31. vermonter here. vermont is so far from being libertarian.

[beam me up scottie]

64. I grew up on one of the Champlain Islands.

Also lived right on the Canadian border.

Any family that far north?

[beam me up scottie]

90. Cool! I dated a guy from Richmond.

No matter where I go I will always be a Green Mountain girl.

[cali]

99. Northeast Kingdom in.the Hardwick Greensboro area

[Thinkingabout]

9. Voting on the side of the gun manufacturers and dealers is not voting for his constituents, it would

Prevent gun owners from holding the manufacturers responsible for defective products. Of course we know the NRA promotes gun sales.

[GGJohn]

14. Explain how the PLCAA prevents someone from suing the manufacturers

because of a defective product?

[beam me up scottie]

17. Why are you making shit up? The PLCAA exempts lawsuits for defective products.

[pipoman]

22. It does no such thing...

It keeps people from suing manufacturers for products with no defects, which have operated as they were intended....defective is still actionable...

[aikoaiko]

78. This is not true.

Read this and apologize later.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/

There are six exceptions to the blanket civil immunity provided by the PLCAA:
(1) an action brought against someone convicted of “knowingly transfer[ing] a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence” by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;
(2) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;3
(4) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.4

[Thinkingabout]

149. I can admit I am wrong but Bernie's vote was wrong.

[beam me up scottie]

11. What kind of moron calls Sanders a "gun nut"?

He was given an 'F' rating by the NRA.

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

The author compares the PLCAA (a bill to prevent lawsuits for "misuse" of a product) to not being able to sue auto manufacturers for defects on cars:

If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal.

The PLCAA is not about preventing lawsuits for faulty products, it is designed to: "prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others."

He continues to make false comparisons:

If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach. If I get stabbed by a teenager with a switchblade, I might be able to sue the pawn shop owner who illegally sold a knife to a minor.

The legislation Sanders voted for specifically exempts "lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime" and allows lawsuits for design and manufacturing defects:

civil suits would be allowed against a maker or dealer who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in the selling or marketing of a weapon. Design and manufacturing defect lawsuits are also permitted when weapons are "used as intended.

He is deliberately lying about the bill and misrepresenting Sanders' record on gun control.

Looks like the real gun "nut" is Mark Joseph Stern.



Another failed swift boat attack.

[Wilms]

15. The guns were legally manufacturered and did not malfunction.

Nice piece for the feel good crowd.

Now, have a look at what Clinton promoted and tell me how she cares about children and women.

The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the U.S.-backed post-coup government “rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries,” opening the door for further “violence and anarchy.”

The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras’ police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence, Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.

Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department’s response to the violence and military and police impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In “Hard Choices,” Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html

[L0oniX]

16. Nice desperation OP. Over 50% of DU members own a gun according to the last DU poll on the subject.

[Mojorabbit]

23. +1000 nt

[Autumn]

18. It only makes me like him more

I support Bernies support of the PLCAA. I do not support Obamas support of the TPP though.

[petronius]

19. He was correct to support the PLCAA: manufacturers (of any product) should not he held

liable when their (otherwise non-defective) products are used criminally or negligently by a third party. Liability should only apply to the misconduct, egregious error, or demonstrable negligence of the responsible party.

When it becomes clear that manufacturers (or any entity) are the targets of groundless liability lawsuits intended harass, discomfit, and cause un-necessary expense, then laws providing protection from those suits and requiring the initiators of those suits to pay costs are appropriate...

[leftofcool]

29. I guess the tobacco companies should have had Bernie in their corner.

[GGJohn]

35. Tobacco flat lied about the effects and dangers of their products. eom.

[Indepatriot]

44. I guess the Military Industrial Complex already has Hillary in theirs...

[Autumn]

49. Oh Feel the Bern! on that.

[beam me up scottie]

52. BOOM!

[think4yourself]

124. Mahalo!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

153. LOL

[beevul]

284. Ouch

That's gonna leave a mark

[PeteSelman]

32. Gun control is a loser issue.

It's over. Just as marriage equality is a loser for Republicans, so too is gun control for Democrats.

This is the worst issue for Hillsry people to try to bash the vastly superior Sanders on.

[Logical]

39. You are 100% correct, It is a lost cause it this point! Nt

[pipoman]

51. Yep, I really don't think splitting the party

Into gun controllers and non controllers is going to end well for Hillary...

The metro areas are next...like Baltimore...it won't take long without police before the population demands easier access and less carry restrictions....

[Quixote1818]

221. Agree 100% and Howerd Dean understood this perfectly. With a name like Quixote you would think I

would be willing to put my efforts into any issue but quite frankly gun control is a lost cause and it costs voters we might otherwise have a shot at.

[tammywammy]

43. I agree with his vote on PLCAA.

[merrily]

45. The NRA rates Bernie Sanders F. Besides,

I thought we were not supposed to expect a Democratic candidate to agree with us on every issue?

Pony?

Unicorn?

One issue voter?

All those lies that have been posted here for years?

[aikoaiko]

46. This again? It was a fine vote.

[ucrdem]

53. K'n'R

[sheshe2]

97. Lol~

Love you!

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

56. You are misinformed.

[sheshe2]

59. Lol~

[GGJohn]

61. LOL all you want,

you're still mis-informed about the PLCAA.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

67. Nice flattering pic of Bernie you posted.

I don't think you want to play that silly game.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

156. Oh, she wants to play, trust me.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

159. Thanks. Rough intro.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

173. You'll do fine.

This OP will be even more fun once she's calvary arrives. Or maybe they're tiring of the antics and will stay out...

[sheshe2]

175. It was the picture in the article.

Talk to them and I sure as hell am not playing a game about guns.

[Scootaloo]

219. Go on sheshe2, give us some substance

Maybe accuse sanders of being responsible for slavery in Virginia.

Again.

Maybe insist that he's behind the Chicago PC "hunting" photo.

Again.

[Nye Bevan]

57. Tough to win in Vermont if you vote for the Brady Bill. Sometimes pragmatism is needed (nt)

[sheshe2]

86. So, let me see if I understand you.

Bernie voted so he could win and not what he believed???? Really? That is shameful.

Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote.
1993
Brady Bill signed into law During a White House ceremony attended by James S. Brady, President Bill Clinton signs the Brady handgun-control bill into law. The law requires a prospective handgun buyer to wait five business days while the authorities check on his or her background, during which time the sale is approved or prohibited based on an established set of criteria.

In 1981, James Brady, who served as press secretary for President Ronald Reagan, was shot in the head by John Hinckley, Jr., during an attempt on President Reagan’s life outside a hotel in Washington, D.C. Reagan himself was shot in his left lung but recovered and returned to the White House within two weeks. Brady, the most seriously injured in the attack, was momentarily pronounced dead at the hospital but survived and began an impressive recovery from his debilitating brain injury.

During the 1980s, Brady became a leading proponent of gun-control legislation and in 1987 succeeded in getting a bill introduced into Congress. The Brady Bill, as it became known, was staunchly opposed by many congressmen, who, in reference to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, questioned the constitutionality of regulating the ownership of arms. In 1993, with the support of President Bill Clinton, an advocate of gun control, the Brady Bill became law.

Read More http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/brady-bill-signed-into-law

Bernie was on the wrong side of history here.

[GGJohn]

102. What utterly shameless bullshit.

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this blatant lie.

[sheshe2]

123. The poster said.

Nye Bevan (20,233 posts)
57. Tough to win in Vermont if you vote for the Brady Bill. Sometimes pragmatism is needed (nt)

I responded.

[GGJohn]

126. You responded with an utterly blatant lie about Bernie.

Fucking disgusting.

[sheshe2]

152. Please respond.

What lie did I tell?

[GGJohn]

155. You claimed that Bernie's vote was responsible for the dead children of Sandy Hook,

that's a disgusting lie.

[sheshe2]

176. Actually, no read it again.

You are the one not telling the truth.

You claimed that Bernie's vote was responsible for the dead children of Sandy Hook,that's a disgusting lie.

When Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted FiveThirtyEight. But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.

IT IS ABOUT THE LAWSUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT THEIR DEATHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!READ IT BEFORE YOU RESPOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I NEVER SAID HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THERE DEATHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[beam me up scottie]

183. Nope, lied again. You actually said: "Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote."

sheshe2 (24,746 posts)
86. So, let me see if I understand you.

Bernie voted so he could win and not what he believed???? Really? That is shameful.

Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6837505

Now you're claiming you never said that:

NEVER SAID HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THERE DEATHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you obviously did:

Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote.

[Marr]

249. That one does this all the time.

It's bizarre.

[beam me up scottie]

320. Totally. Reminds me of Glenn Beck.

[cui bono]

215. Yes, you lied then and now you are lying again about your other lie.

You are really losing it sheshe. You need to take a break for your own sanity.

[beam me up scottie]

222. No kidding.

It's like she thinks we can't see her post.

[Art_from_Ark]

230. I would like to suggest some reading material for her break

[GGJohn]

330. YOU SAID THIS,

Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote.

Those were YOUR words, and now you're denying you said that?
We have a word for that.

[cui bono]

214. Perhaps you don't understand what representative govt is.

[sheshe2]

218. What lie?

[beam me up scottie]

220. This one: "SANDY HOOK CHILDREN DIED BECAUSE OF HIS VOTE"

sheshe2 (24,746 posts)
86. So, let me see if I understand you.

Bernie voted so he could win and not what he believed???? Really? That is shameful.

Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6837505

[NaturalHigh]

243. "Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote."

Really? Even though your magical anti-gun law was passed?

I smell something...well, odd.

[ladyVet]

315. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but the guy who killed those children didn't buy a gun.

He got one from his mother's legally purchased collection. So that law wouldn't have stopped him anyway.

[GGJohn]

364. You are correct, he murdered his mother, stole 3 of her legally purchased firearms

then went on a murdering rampage, and not one of CT's law would've stopped him.

[NuclearDem]

63. Oh well, gun nuts have their candidate.

Willing to bet if we were talking about pharmaceutical companies and unscrupulous doctors rather than gun manufacturers and unscrupulous deals the same people would be up in arms about it.

Everyone who defends this stupid law, thanks for buying into the right-wing, anti-consumer nonsense that is tort reform!

[GGJohn]

65. Ok, so explain why it's proper

to sue a company for the 3rd party criminal/negligent misuse of their product.

[NuclearDem]

69. Gun manufacturers have a responsibility to make sure their products stay out of criminal hands.

This includes not continuing to stock dealers who routinely skirt background checks and funnel weapons to people who shouldn't be getting their hands on them.

Which is what these fucking lawsuits pre-PLCAA were about, not the frivolous nonsense the anti-consumer tort reform crowd lies about.

[GGJohn]

74. Firearms manufacturers are by federal law, forbidden to sell directly to the public,

and if it can be proven that a manufacturer bypassed any federal law and someone was injured or killed due to that action, then they can be sued, but they cannot be sued just because someone uses their product in an illegal or negligent manner.

[NuclearDem]

82. You seem to be confused.

The lawsuits were about gun manufacturers routinely stocking unscrupulous gun dealers even with reports of those dealers violating basic gun laws. They should have known better, but didn't bother to stop, because the money was too good for them.

Nowhere did I claim what you say I did.

[GGJohn]

89. Those lawsuits were about the gun control org., particularly the Brady org.,

trying to do an end run around the 2A by filing frivolous SLAPP lawsuits hoping to bankrupt the firearms industry, they recruited some big city anti gun mayors in their endeavor to attain their goals, Congress saw through their hijinks and passed the PLCAA in 2005 to counter it, IOW, it backfired on the gun control org. badly.
You can still sue a firearms company if their product is defective or they violate federal law, what you can't do, rightly so, is sue them for the 3rd party misuse of their product.

Oh, and BTW, the PLCAA has been upheld as constitutional by the SC on at least 3 occasions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. It's the ATF's job to supervise the dealers, not the manufacturers'

[NuclearDem]

95. Fortunately, you guys have thoroughly kneecapped them, too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. That was a self-inflicted injury. Got "Gunwalking"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

[NuclearDem]

113. So the answer to a regulatory agency fucking up....

...is to defund and strangle it.



Silly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

181. That's the second strawman you've attempted to use against me.

You're gonna need some Zyrtec or Allegra if you persist in you construction projects

[GGJohn]

106. Had nothing to do with us, it was a self induced kneecapping through the program,

gunwalking.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

84. Should this apply to baseball bat manufacturers as well?

Knife manufacturers, cast iron fry pan manufacturers?

[NuclearDem]

92. Let me know when you can play baseball with a S&W.

Or boil water with a Bushmaster.

Firearms are first and foremost, weapons. Knives, baseball bats, and cooking pots are not. In fact, if you used a firearm for any other reason than as a weapon, you'd actually be misusing it.

Sorry, but failure on all counts.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

108. The failure is calling Sanders a gun nut, that's absurd.

But this does show that the bottom of the barrel is the objective.

[NuclearDem]

112. I didn't call Sanders a gun nut. I don't believe Sanders is a gun nut.

I do believe due to certain votes he's made that gun nuts will vote for him over Clinton.

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. Dead is dead. Should cutlery and cookware manufacturers be held as responsible?

"Firearms are first and foremost, weapons. Knives, baseball bats, and cooking pots are not."

Are those stabbed, beaten, and bashed to death less dead?

Or is that you don't dislike knives, baseball bats, and cooking pots?

[NuclearDem]

140. Baseball bats, pots, and knives aren't uniquely designed as weapons.

A baseball bat manufacturer or a cutlery manufacturer can actually argue that using a baseball bat or a knife to kill somebody is a misuse of their product.

Gun manufacturers, on the other hand, have to realize that when a gun ends up in somebody's hand, it is much more likely than not going to be used to accelerate a projectile into somebody's body or into any sort of object. Using a gun for any other reason would actually be misuse.

A violent felon buying a cast iron pot is probably buying that pot to cook with. A violent felon getting their hands on a pistol is likely getting their hands on that pistol to intimidate, injure, or kill someone.

[friendly_iconoclast]

158. Posession of cookware and sporting goods isn't Constitutionally protected

Attempts to limit stuff mentioned in the Bill of Rights ususally get the gimlet
eye:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosjean_v._American_Press_Co.

SLAPP lawsuits don't become acceptable simply because they're
for a purportedly 'good' purpose

[NuclearDem]

167. Speech invoking imminent lawless action isn't protected by the Constitution.

Libel isn't protected by the Constitution.

Felons with a violent history aren't allowed to possess firearms.

All of these are perfectly acceptable compromises between the Bill of Rights and the needs of society.

But hey, if you want to plant your flag on "let violent criminals have guns", be my guest.

[friendly_iconoclast]

170. Um, no- it's you trying to plant the "let violent criminals have guns" flag on *me*

Gun manufacturers no more 'let' violent criminals have guns than
Ford and Honda 'let' drunk drivers have cars.

We got it. You don't like guns and/or Bernie Sanders. Fine with me- but
to paraphrase Steely Dan's song "Night by Night":

When (you) tried to hang that sign on me
I said Take it down....

[friendly_iconoclast]

171. And all those things are punished *after the fact*

NOT by infringing the rights of the majority ahead of time.

We don't engage in prior restrictions on speech because someone might
say something libelous or inciting lawless action.

Gee, you wonder why I don't think that's such a great idea

[NuclearDem]

174. Uh, speech inciting imminent lawless action is illegal before the person even opens their mouth.

Libel is unprotected before someone even writes anything.

Felons are prohibited from owning firearms well before they ever actually own one.

Laws prohibiting speech invoking imminent lawless action--such as inciting a riot--are perfectly constitutional under Brandenburg. Might help for you to read up on your constitutional history.

You're punished for breaking the law after you break the law...because you were caught breaking the law. I don't know what the hell you're describing.

I like firearms just fine and I like Sanders just fine. In fact, this is probably the single issue I don't agree with him on. What I don't like are irresponsible and extremist gun nuts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

177. We don't try to restrain what people say beforehand, or tape their mouths shut.

I don't automatically assume that my fellow citizens are just waiting for the first available opportunity
to libel someone or whip up a riot, and act accordingly.

[NuclearDem]

235. Uh, we put laws against inciting riots and libel on the books.

And then inform people that these things are against the law. In that case, yes, we do try to restrain what people say beforehand. The reason you're probably not considering writing a libelous article about somebody right now is because of the consequences of getting sued into oblivion.

Again, this is a very inaccurate, however creative, interpretation of constitutional history and law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

288. wrong, check it out

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint

In First Amendment law, a prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place. There are two common forms of prior restraints. The first is a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking, and the second is a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. Both types of prior restraint are strongly disfavored, and, with some exceptions, generally unconstitutional.

The "before it can take place" part means that, for instance, a judge may issue an injunction and, without trial or other due process, find you in contempt and jail you.

A criminal law is one that, while you are free to break it, comes with consequences that are applied after due process and conviction.

[beevul]

291. "All of these are perfectly acceptable compromises between the Bill of Rights ..."

All of these are perfectly acceptable compromises between the Bill of Rights and the needs of society.

So is the PLCAA.

Do you ever remember hearing or saying "No right is absolute"?

Seems like that applies to the right to sue, too.

Or are the people who say such things wrong unless saying it about gun related topics?

[beevul]

285. So what?

Baseball bats, pots, and knives aren't uniquely designed as weapons.

You keep chanting that, as if it is relevant to this discussion (or any other).

It isn't.

A baseball bat manufacturer or a cutlery manufacturer can actually argue that using a baseball bat or a knife to kill somebody is a misuse of their product.

A gun manufacturer can actually argue that using a firearm unlawfully, is MISUSE.

If you feel that unlawful use of firearms, does not constitute "misuse", please, make your case.

[jeff47]

209. Insecticide is a poison, first and foremost designed to kill.

Should insecticide manufacturers be liable if someone uses it for murder?

Also:

In fact, if you used a firearm for any other reason than as a weapon, you'd actually be misusing it.

You might want to look up the varieties of target shooting before making that dumbass claim.

[NuclearDem]

234. Yes, you're right, I forgot how when used for target practice

guns launch a magical love salve that coats the clay pigeon with rainbows.

How could I have been so silly? Guns are obviously not used as a destructive force during skeet shooting. The destroyed pigeons are just put there by the Brady folks.

[jeff47]

265. If "destructive" is your new criteria, you're gonna have to add a lot more activities.

Demolition derby, water balloon fights, bonfires, and so on.

Btw, you forgot to talk about the insecticide parallel.

I want gun control laws. We aren't going to get them via dumb arguments. Leave the stupid up to the gungoneers.

[NuclearDem]

266. Are trucks uniquely designed to crush other vehicles?

Or, rather, are they designed for moving people and goods? Do we have an epidemic of murder by water balloon?

I didn't include the insecticide parallel because insecticides aren't designed for the purpose of killing humans. Warnings about toxicity abound. Using insecticide to kill a human is deliberate misuse.

Firearms are designed to kill and destroy; that is their proper use. In fact, they were uniquely designed to kill human beings, just in case you still think the insecticide parallel matters.

[jeff47]

267. Some are. Monster trucks, for example.

I didn't include the insecticide parallel because insecticides aren't designed for the purpose of killing humans.

The vast majority of insecticides are designed to be toxic to all animals. Including humans.

In fact, they were uniquely designed to kill human beings, just in case you still think the insecticide parallel matters

So the gun jams if you point it at a deer?

[NuclearDem]

276. "So the gun jams if you point it at a deer?"

So the Chinese and Turks were just developing a next generation deer hunting weapon, and just incidentally developed one of the most effective human killing devices in history?

The vast majority of insecticides are designed to be toxic to all animals. Including humans.

Does Bayer market their insecticides as home defense solutions? Are there not warnings about human ingestion of insecticides, and deliberate instructions to avoid ingestion?

Some are. Monster trucks, for example.

And BB/pellet guns exist. Outliers in everything.

[jeff47]

279. You're the one claiming they can only be used to kill humans.

Does Bayer market their insecticides as home defense solutions?

Yes.

Though to be accurate, they are marketed as a home defense against various pests.

Are there not warnings about human ingestion of insecticides, and deliberate instructions to avoid ingestion?

There's also a lot of warnings in the instruction manuals for guns. Does that indemnify guns?

And BB/pellet guns exist. Outliers in everything.

Except you were just saying the only purpose in firearms is to kill humans.

I'd suggest instead of attacking guns as "only for killing people", we instead approach the angle through liability and storage regulation.

You can have a gun, but if it has to be stored disassembled, or in a safe, or with some sort of lock. If your toddler shoots someone because your gun wasn't locked up, you go to prison. If you ever get out, you lose your right to own a gun.

Similarly, the owner of a gun should have full criminal and civil liability for the use of that gun. Your kid took your disassembled gun, put it back together and murdered someone with it? Congratulations, you're an accomplice. Or if you fired at your home-made gun range and didn't quite stop all the bullets? The people in the house you accidentally shot up get to sue you even if the state won't bother prosecuting over the minor damage to the house.

The hardest change is going to be to get "duty to retreat" back. Too many people think they're Dirty Harry.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. I take it all these Remington 700 lawsuits didn't happen in your world?

https://www.google.com/search?q=remington+700+court+cases&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Remington made a large number of defective firearms and is getting sued left, right, and
center- with no cover whatsover from the PLCAA

Which is as it should be. 'Defective' means just that.

Anyone who claims the PLCAA shields gunmakers for being sued for making defective guns
is either ill-informed or mendacious.

[NuclearDem]

85. People are in fact reading the same post I wrote, right?

Otherwise, I have no idea why people seem to be reading things in my post that aren't there.

I know the PLCAA doesn't protect against lawsuits due to defective products. Maybe you reread the post before you go off on another irrelevant point?

[onehandle]

129. And they are here to divide us.

They crawled out of the gungeon to 'support' Bernie, to weaken whoever becomes the Democratic nominee to put a Republican in the White House.

This isn't about Hillary vs Bernie. This is about gun fetishist's lust.

[SunSeeker]

197. Exactly. nt

[GGJohn]

268. You fell for that?

See post #251.

[SunSeeker]

281. Wrong. It's gun nuts who talk about gubmint conspiracies.

Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2015, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I said "Exactly." Because I am agreeing with the consistently astute onehandle's observation that, "This is about gun fetishist's lust."

Bernie would have never made those reprehensible votes if he did not have to bow to the reality of his constituency's gun lust. And because he made those votes, he is now understandably being raked over the coals for them by progressives that otherwise strongly support his economic positions. But for the gun fetishist's lust for MORE GUNZ!!1!1!, progressives would not be divided on this issue.

Insane gun lust is the only thing that explains otherwise progressive people's opposition to common sense gun control measures like universal background checks, assault weapons bans and magazine limits.

[GGJohn]

295. I'll give you this,

your rants are entertaining.

[friendly_iconoclast]

298. And tasty, as well:

[GGJohn]

300. LOL, perfect description. eom.

[GGJohn]

251. Wow, you figured it out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

262. Got any evidence for this "vast, right-wing conspiracy"?

ISTR some well-known politician using those words. I'm sure their name will come to me sooner
or later...

[friendly_iconoclast]

299. Hel-lo, we're waiting here...

[Recursion]

68. The Amtrak bill was a good one and I'm glad he supported it.

I'm disappointed in his PLCAA vote because I think strategic lawsuits against deliberate decisions in design and marketing are a good idea.

Voting against the Brady act is also disappointing, though he did support the '94 assault weapons ban (ironically, I oppose the AWB for technical reasosn).

That said, a rural Vermont legislator is going to be hard-pressed to honestly represent his constituents while still supporting the sorts of gun control initiatives the national party is tied to.

[Marr]

70. It's not so much that some post deceitful hit pieces like this, it's that the same posters

then whine about people asking very legitimate questions of other candidates, and call it 'bashing'.

[beam me up scottie]

72. Homo Sapiens Hypocritus.

[treestar]

255. What is deceitful about his voting record?

[leftofcool]

323. I see you got no answers.

[Katashi_itto]

73. Same crew posting the same shit. Then complain when it gets handed back to them.

Hillary's internal polls must be tanking.

[TM99]

121. Of course it is the same crew.

In the last few days, they have resurrected several already discussed and debunked issues.

They only have a few so they have to repeatedly pound them hard.

The first is the 'rapey' satire piece form the early 1970's. Debunked, because it was actually a poorly written fictionalized attempt to strongly support gender equality and the breaking down of social stereotypes around sexuality and sexual expression.

The second is this 'gun lover' issue. Debunked, because he has a history of moderate and reasoned gun control and has received no money from any gun corporation or the NRA, who also gave him an F rating.

The thirds is the social justice warrior bullshit (he is not talking enough about POC, immigration, etc.) Debunked, because he has, is, and will be doing more through out the campaign.

And this is really all they have got.

[Katashi_itto]

125. Agree!

[RufusTFirefly]

93. Yeah! And what about the optics?!! n/t

[Paka]

114. And remind me again why dealers and manufacturers should be sued.

The product did not malfunction. It was manufactured for the very purpose it was used. You sue a manufacturer when the product is faulty not when the person using it is faulty. His vote in that instance was solidly on target.

[Takket]

117. While I find this disappointing....

The fact is Bernie's proposed social and economic reforms would go a long way to curbing much gun violence.

[Kalidurga]

131. You don't say.

[Omaha Steve]

137. Not every DUer is super pro gun control

Just saying.

[Cha]

225. Sen Sanders is not just running in the Dem Primary on DU, either. These are facts that the OP is

posting. And, "super pro gun control" isn't what Hillary and President Obama are about.. they're about sensible gun laws. As am I.

[Omaha Steve]

277. Thank you

[hrmjustin]

141. Thanks for posting this. i strongly support gun control

I like Sanders but i disagree with him on this one.

[TM99]

142. But Sanders DOES support gun control.

He has a record of it already posted in this thread.

[hrmjustin]

144. Yet he has voted against it.

What is it Sanders supporters say about Hillary, look at her record. Well we can see Sanders record on this issue.

[TM99]

157. Yes, look at his record.

[sheshe2]

163. Boom!

Hugs justin.

[jeff47]

211. It's mixed.

He's voted for some gun control legislation, and against some gun control legislation.

For example, he voted against Brady, but voted for restrictions on magazine sizes.

[beam me up scottie]

151. Why?

What is it about the PLCAA that you disagree with?

[beevul]

286. You will never get an honest answer to that question.

Not a single one.

[ScreamingMeemie]

145. Enough people. Just really enough.

Support your candidate, but cut this crap out. Both sides are making me want to vomit at this point.

Trashing yet another of these threads, so I won't be able to respond. Nor would I want to.

[Emily Grierson]

146. They like their guns in Vermont.

Sanders is not a very serious candidate though, and polls prove it.

His economic message is about the only interesting thing about Bernie Sanders. It will give him his 15 minutes of fame, but that's about it.

[hrmjustin]

164. Interesting how many poster who posted in this thread have no problem dishing out criticism of

Hillary but when a very legit criticism is brought up against Sanders some appear not to take it too well.

Sheshe despite whatever nonsense is said about you and others who question Sanders on this issue you were right to post it. It shows some can dish it out but can't take it.

Responses to this thread are one of the reasons DU has become less fun and more like a chore.

Good for you She for standing up to people and presenting legit critisms of the most popular on DU.

DU has lost something in these last few months. i feel myself in the last few days pulling away.

Might be best to take a day or from DU.

All my love to you She!

[beam me up scottie]

169. "legit criticism"? The op called Sanders a "gun nut" and lied about the PLCAA legislation.

If that kind of Rovian tactic is your idea of legitimate criticism you're definitely in the wrong place.

"Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record."

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

[beevul]

289. "Legit criticism."

Whats legit about criticizing Sanders for PLCAA vote, when that criticism is based on flat out falsehoods about the PLCAA?


Particularly when the untruths reach THIS threshold:


"Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote"

[rhett o rick]

165. Are we getting this low so soon? Well if that's all you got, go for it.

Senator Sanders has integrity and HRC lied about WMD.

[sheshe2]

192. Hey Rhett.

Trust me, it is already low here. I log on to DU and see 20 to 30 hit pieces on Hillary every day. No links, just ugly hit pieces and a member calling her the C word.

Talk about low. Ha! There are many that want that poster back here, they want him forgiven and say he never meant what he said. He said that and it was so very demeaning to women. Ya know, I liked SKP. He was a Bogger. He answered computer questions for me. He helped me. Then he went out of control with his hatred of Hillary, ya he did to Obama too a few times.

I know, easy for you as a guy to forgive it. Not for us. Not for a woman.

[beam me up scottie]

195. You're complaining about hit pieces on Hillary in one you posted about Sanders?

What a hypocrite.

I know, easy for you as a guy to forgive it. Not for us. Not for a woman.

You seem to forget that a lot of women want skp back too.

You don't speak for all women on DU, she.

[sheshe2]

208. Last

Communication ever.

I was not talking to you. I was talking to Rhett.

Rhett and I agree on little, yet he at least shows me some respect when we talk. I do the same with him.

You however, oh....never mind.

Bye.

[jeff47]

210. Hit pieces like, "Why did none of these deeply held core beliefs show up in 2008"

Yeah, that's horrible.

So you decided to double down on your "not good enough" post.

I used to respect you. I was wrong.

[sheshe2]

212. Hey Jeff.

I was not here in 2008.

So you decided to double down on your "not good enough" post.

Guess what? It is not good enough for me as a women. Sorry that you do not understand or respect that. You are welcome to your opinion. I am welcome to mine as well. His kick off did nothing for me or those I love dearly. That would be, my sisters. All my LGBT friends, my Af Am friends, PoC. Where do we stand. Where do we stand???

Tell me Jeff. Where do we stand.

[jeff47]

213. Were you comatose in 2008?

Freak medical incident leaving you unable to remember Clinton's 2008 campaign?

Guess what? It is not good enough for me as a women.

And what did Clinton actually do to help you as a woman? She's done jack shit on reproductive health. She's done almost nothing on equal pay - jumping on the Ledbetter bandwagon wasn't exactly a stand.

All my LGBT friends

Who Clinton thought should not marry until many years after Sanders did. Clinton also supported DOMA and DADT, and Sanders opposed them.

my Af Am friends, PoC

Sanders was one of the first national figures to speak about Ferguson. Clinton released a statement weeks later. What bills did Clinton propose to help your friends and cut down on police violence?

Then there's the little matter of Clinton's race-baiting in 2008.

Anyway, on all of these issues Clinton has done what she always does. Talks. But does not deliver.

But you'll happily lie for her talk.

[mvd]

180. As pointed out, he is still rated F by the NRA

Do I agree with a couple of those votes? No, but I do not expect a candidate to agree with me 100%. I am not for banning guns because the culture here would make it fruitless and maybe backfire. Sanders still agrees with me on 98-99% of things.

[Ghost in the Machine]

190. "This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and

importers." As it should be!

Should Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, BMW, Jaguar, Volvo, etc., etc., be held liable for every person killed in an automobile accident?? How about just the ones who decide to use their vehicle as a weapon to deliberately run someone over, or crash through their house??

Don't even try the "but guns are made for one purpose only... TO KILL!!!" line on me either. I know people who own guns that have never shot at anything but skeet, paper targets or cans/bottles. PEOPLE decide to use them to kill other people with, just like they decide to use vehicles, ball bats, hammers, knives, fire, poison and even their bare hands. Should the manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of all of those products be held liable?? If not, why not?? Can you sue GOD for making hands??

I don't have an issue with this, and I consider myself about as far to the left as you can get! I'm a gun owner myself, and I supported Dennis Kucinich, even though he was "anti handgun". I am definitely NOT a "one issue voter".

Peace,

Ghost

On edit: Sorry, sheshe2... I usually don't look at the author of an OP, just read the headline and click if I want to read it. I changed the word "bullshit" to "line", as I respect you and we agree on many things. I will just have to politely disagree with you on this issue.

Peace...

[ucrdem]

198. oh drat.

wrong place . . .

[ucrdem]

200. Let's see, the Iraq AUMF passed on Oct 2, 2002. At 3 OPs per day on average

pledging to defeat/reject/not support/generally hate on HRC for her vote ever since, I estimate roughly 13,961 OPs on the subject have appeared in GD. But who's counting eh?

[Autumn]

259. Only posters who are Loco keep count so there's the answer to your 'who's counting eh?

[romanic]

216. Don't mind me.

[IMG][/IMG]'

Just enjoying the shitshow here.

[CTBlueboy]

217. hmm

Since Sandy Hook was brought up !

How many Iraqi children died ? as the results of Hawks voted to invade and destabilizing the region ? or do brown children don't count. Who is going to be accountable for their deaths ??
and I know the rebuttal will be but.. but... all democrats voted for the war , my simple response none of those dems became President

[Cha]

227. Tsk, she! Isn't GD suppose to be all positive Sen Sanders and negative Hillary all the time!?

Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2015, 07:40 AM - Edit history (1)

You can't post facts about his gun voting record or you'll be accused of all kinds of things.. definitely kill the messenger time.

Thanks for your OP, she.. it's interesting that there is an issue where Sanders is to the right of Hillary.. I never would have guessed it. but, then I don't live in Vermont.

[sheshe2]

290. Hey Cha~

[Scuba]

228. Your underwear is showing.

[beam me up scottie]

229. This is the 5th time this 5 week old "Gun Nut" hit piece has been posted on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251406593

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026629372

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026633818

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026835206


And they still haven't managed to make 'Bernie Sanders - Gun Nut' stick.

[JonLP24]

253. Reminds me of when Howard Dean ran in 2004

Kerry went on the offensive with Dean's stance against AWB (I don't care one way or the other about the bill but the logic of it was very bad, those against it were right on logic & facts) which led to Dean wanting to be the candidate confederate flag pickup truck remarks which he deserved criticism of (don't mean from the opportunistic politicians) but understood what he was trying to say but that was quite the gaffe. In another context it looks like he was saying he wanted to be candidate for the racist, pro-slavery days crowd.

[beam me up scottie]

294. Yes, that's exactly what they're doing.

It's deliberate and even more vicious and vile than when Republicans do it to Dem candidates.

[Cha]

302. No, "your underwear is showing".

[NaturalHigh]

231. Good for Bernie!

What you call reprehensible, I call Freedom!

[DanTex]

247. This topic seems to drive the Hillary-bashers completely insane.

It's almost creepy how they collectively lose their heads over this.

[uponit7771]

334. Because Hill Bashers mostly claimed their candidate could throw stones...

.... that was the jist and substance of a good number of their post

[JonLP24]

248. Arms trafficking should be included in gun control ratings

Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to (Arm) Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS (the word Arm was Help but I was simply pointing out what she meant)

<snip>

She went on to say that “it’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war. Some reports say, maybe it wasn’t the exact UN school that was bombed, but it was the annex to the school next door where they were firing the rockets. And I do think oftentimes that the anguish you are privy to because of the coverage, and the women and the children and all the rest of that, makes it very difficult to sort through to get to the truth.”

<snip>

JG: That’s the president’s argument, that we wouldn’t be in a different place.

HRC: Well, I did believe, which is why I advocated this, that if we were to carefully vet, train, and equip early on a core group of the developing Free Syrian Army, we would, number one, have some better insight into what was going on on the ground. Two, we would have been helped in standing up a credible political opposition, which would prove to be very difficult, because there was this constant struggle between what was largely an exile group outside of Syria trying to claim to be the political opposition, and the people on the ground, primarily those doing the fighting and dying, who rejected that, and we were never able to bridge that, despite a lot of efforts that Robert and others made.

So I did think that eventually, and I said this at the time, in a conflict like this, the hard men with the guns are going to be the more likely actors in any political transition than those on the outside just talking. And therefore we needed to figure out how we could support them on the ground, better equip them, and we didn’t have to go all the way, and I totally understand the cautions that we had to contend with, but we’ll never know. And I don’t think we can claim to know.

<snip>

JG: Do you think we’d be where we are with ISIS right now if the U.S. had done more three years ago to build up a moderate Syrian opposition?

HRC: Well, I don’t know the answer to that. I know that the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.

They were often armed in an indiscriminate way by other forces and we had no skin in the game that really enabled us to prevent this indiscriminate arming.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

The answer to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands is to sell guns yourself to find out whose selling guns into the wrong stops or stop them from doing so. I think she has found the answer to our gun problem.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

250. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement from your OP.

the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base

And firmly to the left of Clinton on every other issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base.

[aikoaiko]

272. Actually, Bernie is to the left on HRC on gun control, too.

[beam me up scottie]

293. Remember when Obama called her 'Annie Oakley' for pandering to gun owners?

"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. I have gone hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting."

At least Bernie isn't waxing nostalgic about goin shootin with daddy and going hunting even though he's not a hunter.

The people who want to paint Sanders as a gun nut and Hillary as the anti-gun candidate have awfully short memories.

[ileus]

260. This is the story that turned me from a Hillary supporter.

[AgingAmerican]

263. Well, I see this OP went over like a lead balloon

Like all of your clumsy hit pieces do lately.

[whatthehey]

269. As anyone who wishes to accurately represent Vermont should have

Which, after all, is his current job.

[William769]

278. Kick and highly recommended! nt

[Report1212]

307. He has an F from the NRA

One vote many years ago might be a fair issue, but so is this context

[Scootaloo]

309. So how'd this OP work out for you, Sheshe2?

[Bonobo]

310. She's vying for the lowest view/rec ratio.

But I don't think she can beat her last mega shit-flinging post that implied a relationship between Bernie and sadistic racist police.

[Scootaloo]

311. Oh, just wait for her to rev up the ol' antisemitism engines.

[Bonobo]

312. That requires a certain finesse. nt

[R B Garr]

337. This coming from someone who started a thread about Hillary's laugh.

You funny.

[sheshe2]

313. Actually, it worked out great, Scoot. Thanks.

The facts are out there. More Ops and comments are popping up about Bernie's gun support. 309 responses here helped. Thanks for getting the word out. I thank you so would Gabby Giffords. You remember correct? She was a congresswoman that was shot in the head.

I commented little due to excessive alerting.

Thanks so much for stopping by~

[Scootaloo]

314. If your goal is to make yourself look ridiculous, I agree, this thread worked out well for you

[beam me up scottie]

318. Now she's speaking against Sanders for Gabby Giffords.

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 07:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Let's see, first sheshe claimed she had to speak the truth about evil Bernie Sanders for the sake of women and poc.

Now it's for the dead children from Sandy Hook ("Sandy Hook Children died because of his vote&quot and Gabby Giffords ("a congresswoman that was shot in the head&quot .

Since she is actually blaming Sanders for what happened to them, I think your use of the word 'ridiculous' is much too kind, Scoot. Make no mistake, this is the opportunistic, ghoulish swift boating of a Democratic presidential candidate.

Her accusations are so vile and disgusting they make me want to vomit.

And what's worse, she's actually proud of her behaviour.

[Sissyk]

338. FYI

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Tue Jun 16, 2015, 02:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

If your goal is to make yourself look ridiculous, I agree, this thread worked out well for you
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6844196

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Enough of the nasty, nit-picking digs and personal attacks. Truly makes DU suck more these days.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 16, 2015, 03:09 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree that it's childish... but not worth of censorship
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is not a personal attack. If it makes DU suck for you, take a break.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP attacked Bernie about his stance on gun control, but it was not the truth and the result was to make herself look ridiculous. Nothing wrong with pointing this out. The last thing a democratic website needs is lies about candidates.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[uponit7771]

335. +1, none of these candidates can throw a stone no matter how much we'd like them....

... to be perfect there's no such thing when it comes to dealing with humans

[uponit7771]

333. Helped me establish the fact that NONE of the dem candidates can throw stones...

... no matter what we think of them and that they're all still damn good.

They're now vowing for best person to progress America right now

[Orsino]

327. No, he didn't.

I question your motives and framing.

Why do you believe gun manufacturers or resellers ought to be held liable for gun-related crimes?

[hobbit709]

329. And HRC voted for the most reprehensible war in recent memory.

[lovemydog]

332. The economy is the most important issue to me.

Thus far I feel Bernie is the strongest on the economy of all the democratic candidates.

I look forward to hearing them all speak more about it.

I also feel that until we as democrats elect a democratic majority house and senate we have to look no further than the mirror to view how to best improve our country.

Get out the vote.

[cherokeeprogressive]

361. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6737025