2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAny article written that uses Hillary and honest should be discredited.
Hillary has an honesty problem, that is she doesn't know how to be honest. She lies when there is no reason to lie.
You best believe republicans will loop all of her lies 24/7.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)that is not the one I would use. But, Republicons love simplistic shit like that.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I shudder to think of the new ammo she is buying with her mouth.
dchill
(38,505 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)See? I got it done
Hillary + honest= true statement the way I phrased it
bravenak
(34,648 posts) 
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)the troubling thing: she refused to admit she was against it. that is a huge character flaw.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)and my favorite....
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)it makes me 
no character.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Tortmaster
(382 posts)Starting with just the conspiracy theories, we have that fine gentleman alleging, during a debate no less, that the Clinton campaign had accessed HIS data! What evidence did he provide? None. None whatsoever. His big, beautiful lies are so mind-blowingly spectacular they can be called conspiracy theories.
And the day after the Iowa caucuses, my friend, the Senator, said he was worried about whether the voting was "honest." Honest! And what evidence did he have that It wasn't? He admitted that he had none.
That's two full-blown conspiracies in about a month. That outstanding legislator could have a career in the tabloids if his current gig fails to pan out. And lest we forget, there's the general conspiracy theory about how the Democrats are out to get him! After his campaign is caught stealing data, it is he who sues! What a little rascal.
You have to stand back in awe and marvel at his genius ability at shading the truth. Let me give you two cute and cuddly examples. In the debates he wanted everyone to believe that he was the NRA's worst nightmare, so he mentioned the one vote that displeased the NRA (banning assault rifles) but failed to tell the audience about the 15+ votes that made the NRA shiver with delight. What a fabulous bit of obfuscation!
He also performed a nifty bit of prestidigious prevarication by saying he was for "background checks." The audience heard those magic words and loved it! But if you listened closely, you'd have noticed that the master manipulator had actually slipped in a very important word when nobody was expecting it! He said he was for "instant background checks." Why is that important? Because instant background checks are still impossible to perform!
That means he's, for all practical purposes, against any background checks. What a showman! Bravo! Bellisimo!
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Tortmaster
(382 posts)... that lovable scamp told about Madeline Albright. The worthy Senator had no idea what her position was concerning a war with Iraq, he even admitted he didn't know her position, but out of thin air he conjured up the accusation that Albright had supported it! What a delightful falsehood!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Hillary complained that she and her husband left the White House “dead broke.” In fact, they left with contracts for lecture and speeches worth between $20 and $30 million.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Tortmaster
(382 posts)... moment when our delightful hero, Senator Sanders, lied directly to Rachel Maddow during the debate. I'm sure it was Maddow's fault forcing the fine Senator to assert that he had never claimed, in a recent ad, a newspaper endorsement that never existed.
Fabulous!
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Guess I should just toss it in and vote Hillary. Maybe, in some parallel dimension I actually will. Naw...
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)but not take it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
Q: For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Do you want to shield gun companies from lawsuits?
SANDERS: Of course not. This was a large and complicated bill. There were provisions in it that I think made sense. For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't. On the other hand, where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action.
Source: 2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas , Oct 13, 2015
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
....However, the Nation and the other reports like it don’t shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They don’t explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if there’s a consistency to Sanders’ positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernie’s position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.
Yet there is an explanation. It’s consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And it’s in Bernie’s own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. House—in 1990—where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.
In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmen’s groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle ban—even bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.
I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidates—as the Sanders’ campaign press secretary—and recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in hunting—he previously was mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nation’s characterization, isn’t “open-minded.”
As you can see, Bernie—who moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960s—has an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. He’s not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jock—being captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.
“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/
Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernie—to test his mettle after Smith’s about-face.
“Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation?” he asked. “Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?”
“Yes,” he replied. “Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsman’s Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.
“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.
“I said that before the election,” he continued. “The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We don’t know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.
“I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades
WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:
A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."
Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/
If he's a pro-NRA/pro-gun industry shill why did the NRA give him a lifetime D- rating?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Because every woman in America has one child who’s always attended private schools, was married to a President, had a personal chef, personal jet, and makes about $200K plus for every speaking engagement.
Yep, she really understands us.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Tortmaster
(382 posts)... Senator from Vermont claimed on national television that he was projected to do better against all the Republicans in the general election than Secretary Clinton. Those bad people at Politifact said that that claim was false! They said our fine Vermont lad had lied. I can never forgive them for that!
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)But, hey, I'm glad you're vetting my candidate for ALL his lies, ALL his changes of mind, ALL his windward positions, ALL his inconsistencies over 40+ years of public life, ALL his pandering, ALL his cronies in Chicago as president of CORE, ALL those photogenic shots of him speaking and getting arrested (you don't know what you might find there!), ALL those snow removal contracts he awarded through competitive bidding in Burlington, ALL those uber-rich donors who bought him a mayoralty, ALL those uber-uber-goober-rich donors who put him in Congress, and so on. He's got a lo-o-o-ong record in public view, and you're sure to find a couple of things to nail him forever as a human being.
But you won't find anything to match $600,000+ in speeches for Goldman Sachs, or family vacations with Henry Kissinger. Hillary really does take the cake (and the Oscar) for windward positions, not to mention getting awarded a Rotten Tomato for excruciatingly bad friends, and sources of income, and sources of campaign funds. I mean, she is priceless as an emblem of corruption. And you don't even have to look hard. It's all out there. She doesn't even hide it (except for some of it). It's as if the riff-raff--us voters--don't matter at all.
When all is said and done, we ought to create a list with two columns: Column A: Bernie's sins and fuckups. Column B: Hillary's. I'll betcha $27 that his list won't be much bigger than a quark, while hers will be as long as it took that gravitational wave to reach us. Billions and billions of pages.
No, no! Sorry! I exaggerated. I was sarcastic. Keep trying! I really do like to see candidates vetted, even people who live simply and appear to be as honest as Abe Lincoln, and who are as devoted to the public good as Mr. Smith who went to Washington. We've rarely seen the like, and it could be an illusion.
eridani
(51,907 posts)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Reinforces my assertion that Bernie is more electable than Hillary because of her strong negatives with independents and moderate (and that is before any potential criminal referrals or indictments).
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Really?!? OMG. I didn't realize.