Only one 2016 candidate is talking about race AND gun violence after the Charleston massacre

[BainsBane]

From Salon, of all publications, which has not been exactly favorable to Secretary Clinton.

In the aftermath of a vicious attack on African-American worshippers by a white gunman in a South Carolina church yesterday, Hillary Clinton said it was time for America to be “honest” and “face hard truths about race, violence, guns and division.”

“How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?” she asked, speaking before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Las Vegas today, according to the National Journal.

The Democratic presidential candidate prayed for the victims before reminding the gathered elected officials of the role public policy plays in American gun violence. “In the days ahead, we will again ask what led to this terrible tragedy and where we as a nation need to go. In order to make sense of it, we have to be honest. We have to face hard truths about race, violence, guns and division,” she said.

. . .
So far, Clinton is the only 2016 candidate to explicitly call for the reevaluation of guns in America following this mass shooting, although candidates on both sides have explicitly called out the role of racism.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/18/only_one_2016_candidate_is_talking_about_race_and_gun_violence_after_the_charleston_massacre/

[leftofcool]

1. This is why she is a leader!

[swilton]

24. Low hanging fruit

Unfortunately, the incidence of violence in the US are all too common and their shelf-life in the US headlines is very limited.

[Hekate]

58. Why hasn't anybody else plucked it, if it's so low hanging?

[Cha]

95. No, everyone should be talking about it.. and only one Presidential candidate is.

[MoonRiver]

2. Thank you Secretary Clinton!

We need to hear from the other candidates what their positions are on gun control. I'm sure it will come up in the debates.

[ismnotwasm]

3. Excellent

Great post

[BainsBane]

6. Thanks, Ism!

[sufrommich]

4. K&R . nt

[William769]

5. Kick and highly recommended!

[Fearless]

7. Does anyone really not know Bernie's stance on gun violence?

Or whether or not Hillary would actually stand up to the NRA?

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. It's known, but some prefer not to mention it...

[William769]

9. Of course we do!

See his vote on the Brady bill or all the other pandering he has done on bills for the NRA.

He's your candidate. You would think you know where he stands and votes on bills.

Oh I forgot this has nothing to do with economics. So who cares right?

[frylock]

13. Sanders voted yea for universal background checks

YEA on limitation on magazine capacity
YEA on AWB

[William769]

17. And the others?

Including the Brady bill. I know it's a subject many would wish that would disappear but...

Keep trying though.

[frylock]

22. Nobody is shying away from Sanders' vote on the Brady Bill..

many of us have expressed dismay over his vote. It's just not a deal breaker for me, sorry. I support his yes vote on PLCAA.

[BainsBane]

66. The worst

for me is granting immunity to gun corporations. I don't see how that squares with his views about the power of corporations over our economy and political process.

But yeah, I don't like the Brady vote issue. As my posting record ever since I joined DU makes clear, my two biggest issues are women's rights and gun control. Clinton is better on both.

[GGJohn]

103. And there you go again misrepresenting the PLCAA and Bernie's vote on it.

You've been told over and over again what the PLCAA does and doesn't do, yet you persist in telling mistruths about it.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

32. He's completely reversed his stance on the Brady bill.

Please let's live in the relative present.

[William769]

43. Hillary has too on a ceretain Bill that Bernies side keeps hanging around her neck,

There's your relative present,

[frylock]

51. Bernie has reversed his opinion, and has recently voted yea for universal background checks..

can you tell me when Clinton reversed her vote on IWR?

[William769]

60. She showed regret it's impossible to change that vote

But you already knew that and still trying to hang it around her neck. Well Bernies pandering to the NRA is his cross to bear and will not soon be forgotten (although he will).

Have a good day.

[frylock]

61. so it's not really the same at all then, is it?

Moreover, Sanders has NEVER pandered to the NRA. His F rating is testimony to that fact. But you already knew that.

[William769]

62. Senator Sanders is a hard core Libertarian when it comes to the Gun Lobby

As are many of his supporters. That you can't get away from and him raising money because of what happened in Charleston is way beyond the pale and truly despicable given where he stands on Guns going back all the way to 1993.

He can't run in New England alone to be President of the United States. That's why he is pretty much last place in all the national polls. He's even behind Vice President Biden who hasn't even announced.

I'm a betting man and I'd bet Senator Sanders doesn't even make it to Super Tuesday.

Those are the cold hard facts. Now I'm out of here.

See ya later.

[frylock]

65. The fuck are you trying to imply in that first paragraph?

Sanders doesn't take money from the gun lobby ffs. Try and back up your bullshit assertion. Do it. And tell me, WHO has Clinton ever beat out in an election, aside from tomato cans? Feel free to throw your money away.

[BainsBane]

69. She beat her opponents in New York state

How do human beings, even politicians, equate with tomato cans for you?

The NRA spent money to defeat Sanders opponent in VT. That should tell you something.

[frylock]

72. Who were her opponents in NY state?

[BainsBane]

75. You can google it just as well as I can

A NYer could tell you better. The guy who encroached on her during the debate made the media circuit. I don't recall his name. She also defeated other Democrats in the primary. When has a Senate election ever been uncontested? I don't see why you insist on posting that kind of nonsense.

[frylock]

79. But WHO were they? Were they nationally known figures like Clinton?

No.

[BainsBane]

84. When did Sanders beat Clinton?

He hasn't. He doesn't even approach her in any poll but one, for his neighboring state, and even then he's 10 points back. That is his best showing. He has won a Senate race in a tiny state. His legislative accomplishments are getting two post offices named.

What are you even doing? Are you bothering to think at all before your post stuff? There is absolutely no logic or consistency to your arguments.

Clinton beat in NEW YORK STATE, Lazio in 2000. In 2006, she beat Jeanine Pirro, who is nationally known because she is on TV with some frequency.

Clinton also beat out a whole slew of contenders in the 2008 presidential primary, everyone except the current president. Sanders is currently behind even Joe Biden in polling, someone who hasn't even entered the race and from all accounts won't.

[frylock]

99. Jeanine Pirro?

She's a real political powerhouse compared to Clinton. And Lazio had nowhere near the star power of Hillary Clinton.

[frylock]

74. It tells me that Sanders did not receive money from the NRA..

as was unequivocally stated in the post I replied to.

[BainsBane]

81. They run ads for and against candidates

That's how they operate. He was their candidate. You don't care. Clearly his career is more important to you than gun control. You're waxing and waning in this thread like the tide. One standard for Sanders and another for Clinton. Would it be too much to say, I support Sanders in spite of his votes on gun control, and I'm going to pressure him to change his position? But no, people have decided it just doesn't matter. Rather than electing someone to represent them, they are representing a politician.

[frylock]

98. How did Sanders have any control over those ads being run?

What position am I to challenge him to change on? Universal background checks? He voted YES for them. I've already stated that I support his vote on PCLAA.

[BainsBane]

109. PCLAA?

Is that the one giving immunity to gun companies?

[BainsBane]

68. She has also expressed regret

on the Iraq war. So there we are.

[frylock]

70. that and a nickel gets you a steaming hot cup of jack shit

[BainsBane]

73. which also applies to his votes against gun control and for gun corporations

having immunity. You're the one who raised regrets. The fact is that Clinton is better on gun control.
And it's not exactly like Sanders is a dove.

[frylock]

78. She should be applauded for her stance on gun control..

but let's get one thing perfectly straight here: Sanders is not a shill for the gun industry or the NRA. Full stop. If you want to argue in favor of your candidate's views on gun control, compare and contrast against Sanders' record, then that is fine. When you start portraying Sanders as a stooge for gun manufacturers, you're going to get called to the carpet for that fucking nonsense.

[sheshe2]

80. Boom!

[BainsBane]

77. "the relative present"

Seriously? While people insist Clinton's vote on the Iraq War was worse than every other Democrat who voted for it, including John Kerry, whom I'm assuming the great majority of you voted for in 2004. It's worse than Joe Biden's, whom people don't portray with nearly the vitriol that they do Clinton. And you say stay in the present?

[BainsBane]

10. You can compare their votes on gun issues while in the Senate

Hillary's is better. The worst of Sanders' votes was to give immunity for civil liability to gun corporations.
That seems to me to be completely at odds with a stance against big money and corporate America. The gun lobby is the single most powerful group in DC. The corporations make money through weapons that kill as opposed to usury. I don't see how that is better.

[JonLP24]

21. Has down the defense industry lobby is far more power

they are pouring more money into her campaign than they are for any candidate. They manufacture stuff far more power than rifles like $1.5 million dollar bombs from Lockheed Martin.

[BainsBane]

34. Bullshit

Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2015, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

The single most powerful lobby in DC is the gun lobby, bar none. They have completely subverted the Democratic process so that measured supported by 90% of the public can't pass. They have limited free speech rights of medical professionals and halted federal funding for research on gun violence. They have even sought to impose gag rules in certain states. And now they can count on the so-called left to carry their water because some have decided that one candidate's political career means more than the 32,000 Americans killed every year.


What evidence do you have that the defense industry is pouring money into Clinton's campaign?
Why do I imagine this is just more of the shit completely invented out of thin air. Show me the federal forms. Link.

[shedevil69taz]

40. I'd argue that there are a few more industries quite a bit more powerful

Big pharma comes immediately to mind, oil companies, auto industry, media...in an age where money equals power all these industries have much more of it to throw around than the "gun lobby"

[BainsBane]

71. I don't think so

Can you think of another industry that has succeeded in defeating legislation supported by 90 percent of the population?

[JonLP24]

46. I'm going to try to get this in quickly

I had a longer reply but my internet connection yellow triangles if post my reply is open too long so I quickly point to a couple of things -- don't know currently as my prior searches brought up a 2007 link from Huffington Post but they certainly are donating to the Clinton foundation along with the House of Saud, Qatar, Kuwait, and recently the King of Morocco who has also lobbied the Obama administration (Al-Monitor).

I don't give a rats ass about politician's careers. This isn't a game to me and I don't value American lives over non-American lives but the NRA is a powerful piece of shit lobby but the MIC is far more powerful. Retired generals that are financially connected were on national tv lobbying for war & downplaying the truth. They were credited as "Military experts" during the run-up to the Iraq war. (NY Times - won a Pulitzer should be easy to find)

I don't make shit up including what she said "Failure to help (arm) Syia Rebels" Hillary CLinton The Atlantic

[BainsBane]

50. You said defense contractors

Now you change the argument to donations from foreign nationals to the Clinton foundation. The foundation is a charitable organization, and foreign nationals are not US defense contractors.

You are simply wrong about the MIC being a more powerful lobby. The empire mentality is embedded in all aspects of government, so much so that a powerful lobby of the like of the NRA isn't necessary. The US ethos, it's sense of Manifest Destiny and being a "City on a Hill" provides the ideological basis for empire. The MIC supplies the weapons that make it possible, but we aren't an empire simply to produce profit for them. It is far deeper than that.

When the MIC inserts provisions into the ACA law prohibiting speech about war, when they pass laws prohibiting medical professionals from asking questions about military service or war, when they seek to use state legislatures to suppress speech critical of war, then you can argue they are coming close to the gun lobby. That, however, only happens about guns in the US, about the war at home that in fact has taken more US lives since 1968 alone than ALL wars in US history combined, including the Civil War.

Clearly you have zero evidence about donations from defense contractors to Clinton's campaign and it was in fact made up out of think air. If you don't care about politicians' careers, why make shit up about donations you have no evidence of?

I will look for the Atlantic article.

[okasha]

83. Hillary's campaign

and the Clinton Foundation are entirely separate organizations. Trying to conflate them is contrary to fact.

[uponit7771]

15. Why did Sanders vote no on the immunity for gun manufactures?... that's what I want to know

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

18. I learned why. I guess some don't want to learn why.

It is not at all how you imply.

[beevul]

25. Because He doesn't think manufacturers should be sued for misuse of their products.

Were you thinking it was for some other reason?

[DanTex]

47. It was the NRA's top legislative priority at the time.

Victims of shootings were suing gun companies, and it was looking like the gun companies were going to lose, so the NRA put pressure on congress to throw all the lawsuits out of court. The NRA claimed that the gun industry might go bankrupt if the suits were allowed to continue. Which probably wasn't true, although they could certainly have been forced to alter their business practices to make it more difficult for dangerous guns to get in the wrong hands.

[SoapBox]

11. Hmmm...this group is the one that Bernie is scheduled to talk to today.

Are all the candidates there?

[BainsBane]

12. Which group?

Clinton was in South Carolina the day of the shooting. She had met with the reverend a few hours before he was killed.

[SoapBox]

14. The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

“How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?” she asked, speaking before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Las Vegas today, according to the National Journal.

He is in Las Vegas today and was scheduled to meet with this group.

Added:

http://www.naleo.org/

You can see ALL the people that are in Las Vegas to talk to this group...lots of people.

[BainsBane]

23. I don't know the candidates schedules

I couldn't say.

[SoapBox]

67. Just say'n...she's not a solo speaker at this event...others

both Dem and PukeBagger are there, it's a 3 day conference, so there will be others talking about this incident.

It sounds as though she was the only speaker and that she was saying something Earth shattering...she was not on both items.

[Iliyah]

93. Damn, stay strong HRC!

[cali]

16. I thought O'Malley did.

[Kalidurga]

27. Yes O'Malley did he said he is PISSSED.

He mentioned all three. Bernie's statement iirc mentioned racism and violence, but didn't directly address the issue of guns. I prefer myself to leave guns out of it, because without the social forces that allow hate to fester, this would not happen with or without the gun issue.

[hifiguy]

30. +!

Saw it yesterday. Selective perceptions are all some people have.

[KittyWampus]

52. Thank You. Yes, O'Malley did. He's got credibility on that. I love BainesB but….

the thread title is incorrect.

[Jim Lane]

119. The thread title is indeed incorrect. Here are links.

O'Malley responding to Charleston by pointing out the problem with guns is discussed in this DU thread, which has links to his comments.

As for addressing race, this story in Mediaite reports:

Asked to what extent the shooting “gets at the core of some racial history that we still have,” O’Malley said that while the facts are “still evolving,” it would “appear that the racial motivation was certainly a big part of it.”

Mediaite says that he "stumbled" in his response because of his answer to the follow-up question about how we address the problem. He said:

“We do it by — we do it by — by, uh — acknowledging the racial legacy that we share as Americans. And I don’t know exactly how we — how we – how we address this, Walter. I mean, look, we — as Americans, all share a very painful racial legacy. And we need to acknowledge it and we need to take actions to heal it. But, I don’t think anybody figured out the magic solution to that —"

At that point, Mika Brzezinski cut him off.

I for one don't see that as stumbling. If Hillary Clinton is the only one of the 2016 candidates who has figured out the magic solution, I wish she'd share it with us. In the meantime, I think O'Malley was being completely honest and straightforward, about guns and about race.

[WDIM]

86. Like most media outlets salon believes o'malley doesn't exist

[JonLP24]

19. Gun control means too different things inside and outside our borders

She said having a "skin in the game" was her option to combat all the arms going to ISIS to find out who is selling them the guns by selling guns yourself.

[BainsBane]

28. ISIS wasn't in existence when she was SOS

When was this quote you refer to?

There is no gun control in the US. If ISIS wanted weapons, they could send someone to a gun show in the US and come out fully equipped. Too many have decided that gun control doesn't matter since their chosen candidate votes against key measures. Apparently the idea that politicians represent us has been turned around so that they think their duty is to represent him.

Now I get you want to make this about foreign policy, but it's not. It's about the war at home that kills far more Americans than any war abroad. Many don't seem to care because it doesn't happen in their communities. I can tell you it happens in mine. A woman was shot yesterday taking her baby for a walk in a carriage. She was caught by a stray bullet or a drive by. That is a real war too. Yet it doesn't seem to matter at all to far too many. You yourself have decided to ignore the issue in favor of something else. Why is that? Are the 32,000 Americans killed every year not important?

[JonLP24]

49. Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS

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/

I'm talking about gun control which there is far less of outside the borders. The US is the largest international arms trafficker in the world. Does that not matter? You want to talk about what people don't care about because it doesn't happen in their communities.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

20. Is the time limit over?

I have seen some people here say it is too soon to politicize this horrible event.

I guess the time limit has passed?
What is it, btw?

[demmiblue]

31. It is sickening, isn't it?

For some, there is no time limit.

[leftofcool]

35. You realize that the article is from Salon right?

Everything the article said is true. What is Bernie saying about it gun control? Oh wait, he voted against the Brady Bill.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

38. Are we now able to talk about The Other Gun Control?

The gun control that the Department of Defense needs very badly.

Is it okay for someone to be very against violence and guns domestically, or say so, but okay with it if it is done to people in other countries? Like selling guns to unstable countries and using the DoD's guns and bombs and such?

[leftofcool]

45. Senators and the SOS don't decide to whom guns and military equipment are sold

That would be in the Pentagon's budget authorized by the President and passed by the House.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

48. I don't mean only selling, I mean using.

So Senator Clintons vote to use guns on Iraq, how does that figure into your reasoning on the decision to go to war?

And I'm pretty sure the SoS has great powers in foreign matters. Unless you mean this SoS:?

[Volaris]

37. The time limit isn't over until the next timer starts.

Because, apparently that's just who we are, now.
If it were up to me, personal handguns would be legally required to be kept at a FIRING RANGE, and police issue firearms would stay IN THE PATROL CAR until a request has been submitted to Dispatch for assistance/backup.
But that's just me, and I understand I might be in the national political minority. If so, fine, but I don't think a fair way to take the vote is that millions of us get pissed and want something done, and the NRA gets to write a couple of CHECKS.

(On edit) Hillarys right on this issue, but if she thinks we can just take a public opinion poll and then that thing happens, she's flat wrong.
It doesn't matter where any of us land on any particular issue, because unless and until we get Publicly-funded elections, that poll isn't worth taking, what we think just DOESN'T MATTER to them. That's the Meta-change that has to be made in my opinion.

[jeff47]

26. So, did the time limit for mourning the dead expire? (nt)

[BainsBane]

29. Evidently for you it has

[jeff47]

33. You seem to have forgotten which one of us made an OP to exploit it. (nt)

[BainsBane]

36. This is exploiting?

Is that what you said about the OP about Sanders remarks yesterday? Or are we only allowed to post statements by politicians who oppose gun control? Is the NRA your new muse?

[jeff47]

42. I didn't create any OPs about Sanders's remarks yesterday.

In fact, I rarely post OPs. My last one happened to be on Wednesday, but it had been quite a while before that.

Or are we only allowed to post statements by politicians who oppose gun control?

I find it tacky to attempt to turn it into a "my candidate is better than your sucky candidate" subject before the bodies are buried. So I don't.

As always, you are free to disagree.

Is the NRA your new muse?

Well, here's my post where I go after the "If only someone else had a gun" bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6858774

Here's the posts where I go after the "3d printing makes gun control moot" bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6859520

Now, you want to quote that post I supposedly made about Sanders's remarks yesterday? How about a lengthy history of pro-NRA posts?

[BainsBane]

44. The argument about exploiting tragedy is the NRA's stock response

that is why I asked that question. If I knew you to be a gunner, I wouldn't have said "new muse." I would have probably just put you on ignore so that I wouldn't speak my mind and get a hide.

I didn't ask if you had posted an OP. I asked if you had criticized the people who posted Sanders remarks about the shooting yesterday, or the one that said he was the only one who used the word racism? Have you even criticized his votes on gun control?

I'm guessing the answer to all those questions is no.

"Exploiting" does not mean posting a candidate's remarks on gun control. I rec'd a similar thread about O'Malley, and if Sanders actually supported gun control, I would have rec'd one about him, but of course we know he votes against it.

Nor does exploiting mean having the nerve to post about a politician you don't support. I notice you rec'd several today that were supportive of Sanders. Your use of the term "exploiting" is highly selective.

This is a Democratic discussion board. There is NOTHING shameful about supporting a Democrat, even if you choose not to. This Democratic candidate happens to support the leftist, liberal, Democratic position on gun control. I will support that in her and O'Malley any and every day. If, as you say, you support gun control, there is no reason you should find that offensive UNLESS the political career of a certain candidate is simply more important to you than the issue.

[jeff47]

57. You blasted the NRA for exploiting this incident for political gain.

And now you post an article that exploits this incident for political gain. The article isn't just about Clinton's remarks. It's also trying to harm the other candidates, and does so by creating a contrast in the immediate aftermath because Clinton was scheduled to speak before the others.

IMO, if you're going to blast your enemies over a tactic, than one should avoid using the same tactic.

I asked if you had criticized the people who posted Sanders remarks about the shooting yesterday

I'm not criticizing you for posting a story that has her remarks. I'm criticizing you for posting a story that uses her remarks to do what you find offensive when the NRA does it.

The NRA is a terrible organization. They are morons. They should not rush to exploit tragedies to help their political goals. And neither should we.

[tymorial]

39. Gun control must happen but it isn't the only problem.. hear me out

I absolutely believe that gun control must take place. Expansion of background checks must take place. Expansion of waiting periods must take place. I believe that if you want to purchase a firearm, you should be forced to waive your HIPAA privacy so that your medical and mental health history is reviewed. That being said, as much as access to guns is a problem.. its more.

Guns have always been available. Mental health has always been a problem. The biggest change to our culture over the last 20 years is access to information. The internet has allowed people (including paranoid and disturbed individuals) access to information which can feed their delusions and paranoia. Consider all of the websites that are dedicated to spreading hate and bile. they exist to bring like minded whack jobs together... they spread fear and hate about Muslims, Minorities, Homosexuals etc etc etc. There are several famous websites which only spread racism towards Black men and women. Have we ever wondered the effect of that sensationalism and manipulation of fact on a diseased mind?

Now, speaking of sensationalism... Consider how the media sensationalizes violence and tragedy. They manipulate facts and information about current events to create an emotional response in people. The response is designed to keep people engaged, coming back for new information. With web based delivery there is often comment threads and forums which are designed to allow us to discuss those events with other engaged readers. Yahoo along with most news delivery media allow you to comment and then follow that comment for future response. The existence of this capability isn't egalitarian. No, it exists to create revenue. Every page creates advertising revenue. As anyone who reads yahoo comments can attest, it is full of racism and hatred. Sure, the use of certain words is banned but the same point can be stated without resorting to banned words. Our emotions are constantly stimulated on a day to day basis. For disturbed and disgusting individuals like Dylan Roof, the result can be tragic and terrible... so very very terrible.

I do not have a solution to this problem. I absolutely advocate for gun control. I wish access to mental health services was more widespread. Many states have completely dismantled their state run facilities. Most wait until the mentally ill commit a crime... by then its too late. I so wish I had a solution but this problem is far bigger than just gun control. It is our entire culture.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

41. I hear you. The culture of hate and fear has a lot to do with these kinds of senseless crimes.

I put part blame on the Rush Limbaughs and the Fox News. Just for an example how they treat the President, how they disrespect him and say the most vile and cruel things about him and his family. How they deny there is any racism, in fact they claim the racism is against white people.

Violence, hate, fear, anger fed every day, over and over and in so many places. This is the real killer.

[tymorial]

53. Its not just Rush and Fox. 6 Corporations own 90% of all media

We like to point to Fox and Rush as being worse than the rest but that is just politics. We don't like what they are saying so we give a pass to those channels and providers which match our sensibilities. I'm as guilty as anyone else. The real truth though is that they are all guilty of the same 24 hour feeding frenzy that is engaged whenever a tragedy or scandal occurs. MSNBC is no better than Fox when it comes to sensationalism and manipulation. consider how they one up each other and quite often get facts wrong. Facts only get in the way. Look at how the media posted the wrong person Ryan Lanza after Newtown... that wasn't just Fox. MSNBC was involved in that. NBC and others ruined Richard Jewell's life.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

56. Agreed. They are all in it.

If it bleeds, it leads. If it's sensational, it's news. If it's mean and ugly, it gets more air time.



Big media should be busted up like the big banks should be.

[okasha]

59. This should be an OP.

+100

[tymorial]

64. Thanks

I was going to do just that but I didn't want to ruffle feathers. I've been reading for a long time but haven't posted a whole lot. Didn't want to get banned.

[okasha]

76. You have enpugh posts that only the Admins could ban you.

and this post breaks no rules. Post away--we need more thoughtful pieces like this!

[tymorial]

88. Well let's see what happens :)

I posted it. Wasn't sure if it could go in General Discussion but the rules state high profile issues currently in the news. Doesn't get more high profile than this unfortunately.

[okasha]

89. Good. You put it in the right place.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. And I love her for it.

[Sancho]

55. Exactly...she sees through the junk and goes to the real problems...

intellect and experience. A powerful candidate.

[Hekate]

63. KnR

[hrmjustin]

82. K&R!

[okasha]

85. Aleady R'd.

[sheshe2]

87. KnR

Thanks BainsBane.

[Snobblevitch]

90. Secretary Clinton took the easy way out and did not actually mention anything specific

that she thinks should be done, other than more talk.

[BainsBane]

91. Unlike other candidates?

Did I miss those specifics? One didn't mention gun control at all, probably because his voting record is against it.

[Snobblevitch]

92. The thread was about Clinton. My post was accurate.

My post was not intended as a way to show support for any candidate.

[okasha]

97. The address in Las Vegas

was not the place or the time to lay out a detailed policy position. All the candidates were invited to speak, and each had a designated time period. You would have preferred that she stage a self-promoting filibuster and use up other speakers' time? Imagine the outrage if she'd done what you criticize her for not doing!

[Snobblevitch]

100. Yeah, you are correct.

That would not have been the time to present details. I took her comments to be a little vague. If she believes new gun laws are part of the answer, she could have at least mentioned it, but I do not think she intends to make gun control laws a part of her campaign.

[Iliyah]

94. K & R

No matter what she says or do, a few will hate it. Therefore, move forward Mrs. Clinton!

[Cha]

96. "So far, Clinton is the only 2016 candidate to explicitly call for the reevaluation of guns in

America following this mass shooting, although candidates on both sides have explicitly called out the role of racism."

Thank you SOS Hillary Clinton for leading on this important issue of sensible gun laws.

Mahalo BB

[BlueStreak]

101. Good for Hillary, but she is not the only one. Bernie is raising money to help the rebuilding.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6867664

Good for both of them.

[Sheepshank]

102. Yup...the rest clearly want to steer it aay from race. N/t

[cascadiance]

104. I hope she doesn't just talk about weapons reform like DiFi did...

... when proposing the assault weapons ban bill after Sandy Hook tragedy at the start of a new congressional session but at the very same time was one of a small number of Democrats that stood in the way of fixing the filibuster rules so that her bill could have actually "walked the walk" and get passed too without a Republican filibuster that ultimately killed it!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/18/1202879/-Dianne-Feinstein-whines-about-filibuster-rules-she-voted-for#

[still_one]

105. Not accurate, and it is more than just guns anyway. O'Malley spoke directly to the gun issue,

Sanders to the race issue. Frankly, of the 3 Democratic candidates running, they have all articulated clearly the problems.

However, if you want to discuss someone avoiding the issue, I suggest you look at the republican candidates, who not only shy away from the racist act it was, but ignore it entirely

[BainsBane]

107. I believe O'Malley's statement on gun control was after this article was published.

but it was clear and to the point.

[still_one]

108. Ok. I am always not good with the sequence of events

[BainsBane]

111. It's hard to know

I know I saw it afterward, and I'm guessing Salon would not have published the article if O'Malley had already made his comments.

[still_one]

113. Thanks

[Bonobo]

106. And her not recognizing it as terrorism = White privilege. nt

[bigtree]

110. wow

...this is unnecessary and unhelpful.

ALL of our Democrats have offered responsible and reasonable responses to the tragedy. Scoring political points should be far from our own representations of those responses.

[BainsBane]

112. O'Malley's statement was afterward

After Salon published the article, I believe, though I think it was more forceful than Clinton's, at least in regard to gun control.

I don't think Sanders addressed gun control at all.

[bigtree]

114. all of the candidate's statements have been helpful and reasonable

...none of the campaigns are claiming superiority over the other in their responses. If they do, it will be equally offensive and unhelpful.

Can we end this?

[BainsBane]

115. Look

This is one important issue where Clinton stands out from Sanders. Gun control matters. It matters a great deal to me, and I very much appreciate O'Malley's statements on the issue, which is why I rec'd your thread and others on the subject.

Sanders' comments may have been reasonable, but the fact is he has cast votes against the Brady Bill and another giving immunity to gun corporations. It's every bit as relevant as Clinton's Iraq War vote. She is a leading Democratic candidate running for the presidency. I think her positions on these issues are of interest to the Democratic electorate.


Did you actually read the article, or is it just its headline you don't like?

[Bonobo]

116. I self-deleted when it was pointed I was playing politics with tragedy.

Will you?

Cause that is what you are doing.

[great white snark]

117. K&R

TY BainsBane, it's becoming glaringly obvious which candidates (and which candidate's supporters) will not be using the NRA's talking points to defend a position.

[Cha]

118. Hey Great White Snark..