I love it. The same weekend Sanders flip flops on gun control is the weekend Sanders supporters

[stevenleser]

are trying to criticize me for changing my mind eight years ago.

And Sanders did this TODAY. I mean, heck, I changed my mind on something eight years ago and Sanders supporters want to crucify me for that.

Where is their condemnation for Sanders?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/13/why-the-most-liberal-candidate-for-president-opposes-strict-gun-control/

http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-stresses-gun-control-calls-assault-weapon-ban-234357994--election.html

[hrmjustin]

1. Let me commend you on keeping cool on a clear attempt to bait you.

I unfortunately let them bait me but at this point I don't care anymore.

[Fumesucker]

2. We appreciate you demonstrating Bernie's electability

If you can change such a firmly held and eloquently expressed negative opinion about Hillary as you had in 2008 then Americans will be able to change their opinions of Socialism and vote for Bernie Sanders.

[chillfactor]

6. Bernie lost my vote when he trashed the President...

I had not made up my mind until now.....Clinton will most likely get my primary vote...and Sander accuses the President of flip-flopping?.....

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. He did not trash him

He had an opinion

[bkkyosemite]

403. And said they were friends and he like him very much.

[Duckhunter935]

41. When did he trash him?

[murielm99]

95. For one, when he suggested primarying Obama. n/t

[sheshe2]

173. Boom!

[MannyGoldstein]

207. Why would anyone primary a good Democrat!!!

[beam me up scottie]

210. Whoomp! There it is!

[sheshe2]

222. Yup....

You have played that clip a hundred times.

Ok

Ummmm you were Republican once, correct? Not sure I trust your assessments. Oh and please do not bother with the Hillary was a Goldwater girl at 15. You were not 15 and you were VOTING for Republicans.

Me, never voted for a Repuke in my life. Never have and sure as hell never will.

Sleep tight.

[MannyGoldstein]

261. "Not sure I trust your assessments."

Do you trust our President's assessment?

I gave up those ideas more than 30 years ago!

[Zen Democrat]

289. Hillary never voted for a Republican that we know. She wasn't eligible in a Presidential til 1972.

We know that Bill and Hillary worked for George McGovern. And we know that she worked as a legal staffer on the Judiciary Committee during Watergate. I think her Democratic credentials are sound. I also think that Bernie Sanders is a man who was ahead of his time, and whose time has arrived. They are both quite qualified to be the nominee.

I'm not into infighting. Leave that to the Republicans who have ripped their former party into shreds of lies, innuendos, and obfuscations. They are on the scrapheap right now.

All the Democrats would be preferably to any of the Republicans.

Period.

[George II]

300. The video headline is incorrect, or at least incomplete - BACK IN THE 1980s! In fact...

...if Barry Goldwater were alive today he'd be considered a Liberal Republican.

[Time_Lord]

286. To create a dialogue from the LEFT

Because after 2008, the "Hope and Change" wasn't working and the 99% were still getting screwed.

That is why he suggested primarying from the left. And it made sense at that time, and no he did not trash the President.

For example, Bernie has supported the President on Syria situation, while Clinton wanted a no-fly zone.

[murielm99]

323. It did NOT make sense at the time.

It was irresponsible then and it is still irresponsible.

It is hard enough to win elections. It is hard enough to keep them from being stolen. Imagine if Romney was President now, and Ryan a heartbeat away. Think of all the people who would have no health insurance. Think of the mess the economy would be in. Unions would be hanging on by a thread. There would be more homeless people than ever. Think of the wars we would be fighting.

Who the hell did he think he was, to say he was pushing the party to the left when he isn't even a Democrat? He does not get to determine the direction of a party he refuses to join.

Don't 'splain St. Bernie to me. I know why he did it, or why he says he did it. I can read.

[PatrickforO]

338. You know, that seems to me to be one of those statements that often gets twisted around to read

more into it than was actually said.

"Here’s the point: If you’re asking me, do I think, at the end of the day, that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic candidate for president in 2012? I do. But do I believe that it is a good idea for our democracy and for the Democratic Party—I speak, by the way, as an independent—that people start asking the president some hard questions about why he said one thing during his previous campaign, and is doing another thing today on Social Security, on Medicare. I think it is important that that discussion take place.”

The readers, I'm sure, will all be fair in noting that this quote does not specifically say that Obama should be primaried. It says, to my mind fairly, that he needs to be asked some hard questions.

So, you know, if you say you're changing your mind on Bernie and that he's 'lost your primary vote' because of this, then I'm thinking you weren't ever for Bernie in the first place and are in fact a partisan for Clinton (probably) or some other candidate (possibly).

[murielm99]

407. I have made it clear that I am not a Bernie supporter.

I support HRC fully.

He did say that he though Obama should be primaried. You are the one trying to rewrite history.

[Exilednight]

392. The point of living in a democracy is to have as many choices as possible.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

305. Neva happened!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[artislife]

131. Wow, then you must not be aware of how H is

trashing President Obama on the TPP.


Especially, since she helped shape it for him.

[Walk away]

299. Trashing? Bernie must be pretty desperate sending his supporters out to...

make up this kind of garbage. Someone saying that the TPP isn't perfect and that, in their opinion, parts of it should be changed isn't any sane person's idea of "trashing".

Why do people representing Bernie Sanders insist upon making up things that are exaggerated and untrue about Hillary Clinton? I thought Sanders was supposed to run a dignified campaign and not attack other candidates.

[PatrickforO]

339. Well, in fairness, Walk Away is just as correct in making this assertion as

is someone who takes the quote from Bernie about the need to ask Obama some 'hard questions' and twists it into some kind of a call to 'primary' him from the left back in 2012. Both assertions are wrong. Clinton is not 'trashing' Obama when she says she doesn't agree with TPP as it is. Seriously, c'mon. These kinds of arguments take us away from the issues.

The issue is Bernie doesn't agree with TPP at all.

Clinton doesn't agree with it as it stands now.

So, instead of just arguing about these quotes, I suggest Americans would be better served by a) asking the question of why this thing has been developed in secrecy, b) why Obama was in such a hurry to 'fast track' it for a simple up/down vote, c) why Republicans supported the Fast Track and d) reading what's been leaked on the TPP - the ISDS, the patent protections, patenting plants and animals, etc.

See, because if we all do this, then we can consider what we've learned and then make up our own minds as to which candidate's position most closely resembles our now-informed position on TPP. On any issue, actually.

[Walk away]

359. What does that have to do with Bernie promising not to attack his opponent....

while he condones people like you stretching the truth and spreading it all over the internet? His campaign is his supporters...isn't that the idea with Bernie?
When you say that Hillary Clinton is trashing the President are you telling the truth??? When Hillary Clinton disagrees with aspects of the TTP and says so, is she trashing Barack Obama? Please let me know because that would mean that Bernie is constantly trashing the Democratic party and almost everyone who owns or works for a corporation or holds office in this country. Please tell me why you used the word "Trashing" so that, going forward" I can use it to describe your candidate as well...without worrying about offending a BS supporter.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

398. "he condones people like you stretching the truth and spreading it all over the internet?"

My goodness you have a vivid imagination.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

397. I represent Bernie Sanders as much as you represent Hillary Clinton.

His campaign is not attacking Hillary, but you already knew that. Give it a rest.

And if I ever receive an official memo from the Sanders campaign sending me to the dark corners of the internet to make up garbage, I'll be sure to let you know.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

166. LOL!!! Oh yeah,...Hillary NEVER trashed Obama!

[merrily]

238. Congratulations on joining the not at all suspiciously large group of current DU Hillary supporters

who have claimed to have supported Bernie until they found something to dislike about him or (snort) his supporters, yet never really posted once to support his winning the primary. Some of them never posted in the Bernie Group at all. Others did, but mostly to defend Hillary or make some passive aggressive posts. I have no clue why any of them bothered or who they thought they were fooling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128020854#post7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=21579

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=485562

Those are three out of the first five posts that a search of DU with the words chillfactor Bernie returned.

So far, I think I've seen only one DUer who claims to have supported Hillary at first but decided to switch to Bernie. We'll see how that ultimately pans out.

Oh, btw, Hillary has criticized and otherwise wronged Obama plenty, both during the 2008 primary and this one--and Bernie never worked for Obama.

[beam me up scottie]

249. Well isn't that special?

A fake Bernie supporter on DU, how original.

[jack_krass]

401. Cool story, bro (nt)

[Sheepshank]

226. So many of us are relived to have Bernie demonstrate

That it's actually ok to evolve on a topic. It means that he is putting arrogance aside and listening to his potential constituency

[treestar]

263. Still hanging onto that one?

It is so broadly overstating that you can't see the ends from here. Millions could change their minds on many things every day.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Do you know longer believe that Hillary lied? And, if so why.

[stevenleser]

4. I answered that in my endorsement. So what about this Sanders flip flop?

Waiting to hear your opinion on that.

[Luminous Animal]

14. No you did not answer that in you endorsement. Do you still believe that Hillary lied.

[stevenleser]

17. Yes, I answered that in my endorsement. Now what about this Bernie flip flop? nt

[Luminous Animal]

20. Do you still believe Hillary lied . Quote that passage in your endorsement.

[stevenleser]

21. Sure. Once I do that will you repudiate Bernie for flip flopping? nt

[Luminous Animal]

27. This will be fun.

[stevenleser]

32. So is that a yes or a no? nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

48. Fox tactic: if I agree to prove that what I claim is true, will you promise to make claims you know

...aren't true?

[stevenleser]

50. You mean like when Bernie is on Fox?

[cui bono]

133. Deflect much? Any person with integrity, especially one who considers themselves a political pundit,

would answer a simple question.

The fact that you can't or won't answer it causes you to lose even more credibility than your about face on someone you found so incredibly despicable just 8 years ago. And we're talking about what you thought of her character, not her policy positions.

And you post so condescendingly to people. Sheesh. How professional.

[stevenleser]

135. What simple question is that? nt

[cui bono]

137. Luminous Animal's question that s/he has had to repeat multiple times:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=663883

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=663905

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=663917

[stevenleser]

139. And I have repeated my answer several times. I responded to that in my endorsement.

If you dont like that answer or what I had to say about it in my endorsement, that is your problem collectively.

[cui bono]

143. So quote it. LA says it's not in there. Why can't you provide proof?

Especially without making a game out of it as you did by making some demand from the other person before answering their question. Really, you might want to quit now, you're just making yourself look worse and worse.

[stevenleser]

144. Here it is...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=662117

In analyzing this endorsement, some will no doubt point to eight year old articles of mine during the 2008 Presidential campaign where I endorsed Barack Obama. My criticisms of Hillary Clinton at the time were many and pointed.

The fact is, from the moment of Hillary’s concession to President Obama in 2008 at the end of their contest; I began to suspect my evaluation of her was incorrect. This is not a new revelation, I have said so many times to friends and in public appearances beginning in 2008, i.e. long before I thought of her as a Presidential contender in 2016. The grace with which she conceded the race to Barack Obama and endorsed him to include announcing the delegate votes from New York to be his at the Democratic convention made me realize my prior opinions of her, which had included attacks on her character, needed to be re-evaluated.

I’m sure critics of mine and of Secretary Clinton will minimize this, but I don’t think that I or many people would find it so easy to behave gracefully in a similar situation. Having poured your heart and soul in an effort for the better part of two years, working 14-18 hour days seven days a week in the effort only to fail by the slimmest of margins at the last minute I believe would make the vast majority of folks bitter at least in the short term and perhaps longer than that. It is under adversity that I think all people show their true character. This was a true moment of adversity for Hillary Clinton. She had lost in this effort and her character came through and we learned a lot about who she was.

During her tenure as Secretary of State, I and all of the country had additional opportunities to learn more about her. By the end of her first year as Secretary of State, I was convinced my previous opinions of her were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------
Why was it so difficult for you to figure this out?

[cui bono]

148. "Why was it so difficult for you to figure this out? "

Is that question to me?

I didn't read your endorsement. I wasn't trying to figure it out. I just wanted to know why you kept avoiding answering LA. You should post this to her/him.

[passiveporcupine]

221. I don't like the term flip-flop, unless it's done for political reasons

Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2015, 03:46 AM - Edit history (1)

And not a true evolution of how you feel about something. And maybe you should read your links more carefully, as Bernie did not just "flip flop" this past week or weekend. He's been evolving on this for a long time.

So now you think your previous opinions of her were wrong? Too bad, because many of those previous opinions of her were absolutely correct and she did show her true character at a time of great adversity...when she was losing her campaign. Of course she ultimately (after she knew she had lost) backed Obama. She wanted a place in the administration and she is the ultimate politician. Most life-long politicians are pretty good at playing this game.

And I really don't care if you've "flip flopped" on her or not. It's your choice and I really have not problem with it. What I do have a problem with is how nasty you've been to Bernie supporters. As a professional person, I think you owe DU members better than that. So if I was amused by that thread with your earlier video, it was because you were pretty much called out for being nasty to Bernie supporters, who still happen to believe you were pretty much correct in your first position.

I will say that it is brave of you to do this thread, considering you were pretty well jumped on in the other one, by a lot of people. I was conflicted by it...because you are a DU member, but I think your position as a public figure changes your responsibility to us and ours to you.

Anyway, I'm glad it didn't chase you away.

it is pretty annoying though to call Bernie's evolution on gun control a "flip flop". He started to evolve on this issue after the Sandy Hook shooting, and I think even before that. He voted to outlaw semi-automatic assault weapons in 2013, long before he decided to run for POTUS for 2016...so that was not a flip flop. It is truly him understanding and evolving on the issue of guns for this nation, and not just defending his own constituents in Vermont.

Please don't keep this up...it's really pretty small-minded to call someone a flip-flopper when over time they change on an issue. If they change overnight, it's a flip flop. If they change over time because of tragic events affecting American, it's called maturing and evolving to a more socially responsible position.

[frylock]

321. "I began to suspect my evaluation of her was incorrect."

What makes you so sure that your current evaluation is correct, and why would anyone trust your judgment now that you feel you were so monumentally wrong in 2008?

[Vattel]

351. That doesn't address whether you still think that she lied.

So you still haven't answered Luminous animal's question.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

390. Being graceful in defeat doesn't negate what you thought she lied about prior.

Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2015, 08:51 PM - Edit history (2)

What, specifically, did she "un-lie" about for you to change your mind? I think she was graceful in defeat because she didn't want to appear petty or sour grapes ("self-serving" -- hmm, was that you, or Zidzi/Chae?). Announcing the NY state votes in such good spirit was likely because she and Obama had worked out the SOS deal.

Your endorsement doesn't address what she "un-lied" about, and why she is suddenly trustworthy.

[treestar]

264. Well, the posters above are deflecting

The OP is about a specific question and they can't answer it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

26. Fox tactic: ignore the question you don't want to answer; then make a counter accusation.

Good for you for not buying that shit. He's doing it all over his endorsement thread, and I put a stop to that, at least where it concerned me. So now he's brought the counter accusation to its own thread. It's just another way to run from uncomfortable questions. You know you have them dead to rights when they run away from the questions and instead start the name calling and the unrelated counter questions and accusations.

See, it would be really easy to counter the OP by pointing out that Sanders, while not the most strident opponent of guns, has always been for gun control measures. But to do so would be to give in to AM conservative radio tactics, and that bullshit doesn't fly. It's ruined those inbreeders, and I'm not permitting it here, and I'm heartened to see that you're not permitting it either.

[stevenleser]

31. You mean like when Bernie is on Fox?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

40. Jealous that he's getting more air time?

[stevenleser]

46. Oh no, I support him going on Fox just as I supported him going to Liberty University.

I'm just waiting for the hypocrites here who attack me for going on Fox but are Bernie supporters to show some consistency or admit they were hypocrites and apologize.

How about it?

[Aerows]

70. Personally, I'm loving the heck out of this kerfluffle

If this is what you have to hit him with, I'm not concerned at all about his chances.

I'll just wait though - Tuesday is when the tires meet the road and we will all see that Bernie Sanders has a strong, grounded platform and that Hillary is truly camp Weather Vane.

I know you guys have to be disappointed in her; you all cheered her on with the TPP and right before the debate she saw the change in the prevailing winds and suddenly "has trouble with some aspects".

Now her supporters have to scramble to pretend that they were TPP neutral all along, or somehow try to bolt her strong speeches FOR the TPP to a "I may not be as firm on it because most people realize it sucks" skateboard.

Skateboard, because that is all it is - just momentary enough to glide past the first debate.

[jfern]

73. A lot of her supporters know she's lying

about claiming she's against TPP. She put carefully worded triangulation in, "As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it." to give her an out to support it in the future. The irony is that the OP once attacked her for flip flopping on NAFTA.

[stevenleser]

78. As am I. And you have so many incorrect items in your post its hard to get to them all.

"If this is what you have to hit him with, I'm not concerned at all about his chances."

Nope, its just one of many items.

"I'll just wait though - Tuesday is when the tires meet the road and we will all see that Bernie Sanders has a strong, grounded platform and that Hillary is truly camp Weather Vane. "

Oh yeah, we will see all right. We'll see someone who has the chops to be President versus someone who really is out of his depth.

"I know you guys have to be disappointed in her; you all cheered her on with the TPP and right before the debate she saw the change in the prevailing winds and suddenly "has trouble with some aspects".

Nope. I, like just about all Hillary supporters I know have been neutral on the TPP. I neither support nor am against it and have been that way from the beginning.

[Aerows]

81. Talk to me on Tuesday night, after the debate.

See you then!

[stevenleser]

86. It will have to be Wednesday, but absolutely!

I'm speaking before the debate at a debate gathering here in Harlem and staying late to talk with folks afterwards.

[Aerows]

91. Excellent, we can continue this conversation then!

[bvf]

246. Check it out.

Who would have ever thought a calendar might come in handy, if only to know what year it was?

[1StrongBlackMan]

269. Cool. I would love to hear what the people at the event ...

thought about the debates ... particularly, what people said about Martin O'Malley.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

132. THIS is a (mostly) intellectually-honest debate tactic.

You answered the other posters charges one-by-one. True, your first answer was vague, the second was a taunt more than an answer, and the third was an actual answer, if true. This is (sort of) how a debate is properly conducted.
--

There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

[stevenleser]

140. I'm so glad you approve. Have you apologized for being on both sides of five issues that I listed

downthread while attempting to criticize me for being inconsistent?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

176. Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics 24 (Innuendo) and 25 (Insinuation)

[Duckhunter935]

47. at least he agrees to go on TV

somebody has been hiding for months and any came out as she was losing and changed to Hillary 6.0

[stevenleser]

59. See my #46. nt

[treestar]

266. Rather disingenuous

with the usual DU attacks that just going onto Fox is a bad thing. The hypocrisy is complete, I see.

[leftupnorth]

316. Might have something to do with drawing a paycheck

Vs not drawing a paycheck.

But that's JMO...

[treestar]

346. What is wrong with being paid for one's time?

Amazing Fox would pay anyone to take the liberal side, but they do as they likely thing the liberal will get shown up.

[leftupnorth]

348. You're on the right track!

[treestar]

265. Like the question in the OP?

Which has been ignored and deflected?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

267. If you can show a flip flop on Sanders' part, you might have a point. But you cannot.

[morningfog]

252. How delusional and self important does someone think they are

when they refer to a DU post as their "endorsement?" Good lord.

[azurnoir]

52. show us exactly where Sanders flip flopped please both your May article and the link from that say

absolutely nothing that's nada zip zero about Sanders position on assault rifles, both are just lame attempts to smear Sanders as ProGun

so in short show us exactly where Sander says I approve of assault rifles or really you've got nothing except insinuation

[AlbertCat]

130. smear Sanders as ProGun

See.... the "he's a racist" thing didn't stick. So now they've cobbled together a "he's a gun nut" thingie.... that also isn't going to work.

[azurnoir]

141. it seems the flinging never stops but nothing ever sticks either

[Duckhunter935]

5. How can his his position not changing be called a flip flop?

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

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

Please do not tell falsehoods, you are better than that and you know it

[stevenleser]

8. That you are trying to claim that is hilarious!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/13/why-the-most-liberal-candidate-for-president-opposes-strict-gun-control/

When it comes to guns, though, the socialist is a moderate who has voted against gun-control advocates on several major bills during his time in Congress. That record may offer a hint of how the senator has managed to appeal to more moderate and conservative voters despite his hardcore liberal agenda.

.
.
.

Some say that Sanders first won his seat in the House because Peter Smith, the Republican incumbent he defeated, supported a ban on assault weapons. "There was absolutely no doubt in that '90 vote that the NRA got [Sanders] elected, and he owed them," Chris Graff, a former Vermont bureau chief for the Associated Press, told Paul Heintz of the Vermont paper Seven Days in 2012.

.
.
.

Sanders would later vote against the 1993 Brady Bill, which required background checks for gun purchases.

[chillfactor]

10. that was 2013...

this is 2015 and Sanders did flip-flop on gun control......do not accuse others of falsehoods when you do the same...

[Duckhunter935]

25. The OP was

that he just changed his mind this weekend

That is just not true and I really should say it is just an outright lie, but I will give him the benefit and hope he updates his post since that is proven to be factually incorrect.

[AlbertCat]

159. that was 2013...

The vote they're clutching pearls over is from 1993!!

Almost a quarter of a century ago.


Like, pre- Bush, pre- 9/11, Pre-Black Man in White House. I wonder if gun-y things were different then?

And the Bradey Bill wasn't a bumper sticker with a single idea in it. Do we know that background checks are why Sanders didn't vote for it?

[passiveporcupine]

235. Not only that, he's going back to 1990, which was even before

Columbine...the beginning of our young men shooting up schools and theaters and movie theaters.

Steve, you really need to stop "reacting" and start thinking and researching what you are saying before you post it here.

[Live and Learn]

388. +1 I wish everyone would just ignore his false accusations and let his posts (and other writings)

fade quickly like they should.

[jfern]

7. Quit lying, Sanders voted for an assault weapon ban 2.5 years ago

[chillfactor]

15. and this is 2015...

and Sanders did flip-flop on gun control and trashed the President.....he lost my vote as a result...

[Duckhunter935]

28. The OP said this weeekend

So please tell him to change his incorrect statement

[Live and Learn]

389. You know when Hillary lost my vote? When she voted for the Iraq War. nt

[beam me up scottie]

37. He voted for an assault weapons ban in 1994 as well.

Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

[jfern]

42. So the OP thinks it's a huge deal

that Bernie's position on guns changed in the early 1990s long before Hillary changed on NAFTA, which the OP attacked her for in the past, but seems fine with now? It's pretty amazing.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Well he does get paid by Fox.

[jfern]

49. Figures

[Duckhunter935]

51. Ouch

[azurnoir]

352. No the OP wants others to think that also note the OP also writes for OpEd news

http://www.opednews.com/author/author75.html

[treestar]

296. But he voted against the Brady Bill before that

so why is that not a flip flop?

[jeff47]

310. Because the Brady bill contained more than an assault weapons ban.

Sanders's position is more nuanced than "GUNS BAD!!!!!!".

[thesquanderer]

315. It would be a flip flop...

...if he subsequently voted for a bill that federally mandated waiting periods.

And that might not be a bad flip-flop to see.

But so far, there's been no flip-flop on that issue, and I'm not sure how you see one.

[Cha]

9. This is how it goes for BS supporters.. it's ok for him to change his mind. It's not ok for you or

Hillary. See how that works?

[Scootaloo]

45. And this is how it goes for Clinton supporters:

[passiveporcupine]

236. Bernie and Trump are both hate?

I think someone is projecting.

[beam me up scottie]

82. You mean like how you once called Hillary "morally depraved"?

Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) | |
37. Bullshit..hilary is morally depraved and
your attempts at covering up her depravity are worthless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5692646

[davidpdx]

99. Wow, talk about a flip flop

I find it interesting that some people are willing to forego their ethical standards to back a candidate that they know lies.

[beam me up scottie]

103. When HC supporters evolve they REALLY evolve.

[Duckhunter935]

109. just like someone else I know, mmmmmm

[WorseBeforeBetter]

400. From "hilary is morally depraved" to host of the Hillary Clinton Group.

That's one for the DU Hall of Fame.

[jfern]

106. And they seem to start lying themselves, too

[840high]

125. Haha!!!! Flip-Flop

[ChisolmTrailDem]

284. Love you Cha, always have. But you need to respond to post #82...please. nt

[treestar]

297. You got that right, Cha

[HerbChestnut]

11. When did Bernie change his position on guns?

Did I miss something?

[beam me up scottie]

38. He didn't, this is just more Fox news style journalism from Steve.

Gaslighting DU and hoping no one asks questions.

[jfern]

44. Probably before the 1992 election

since the NRA has always opposed him in every election starting with that one.

[Duckhunter935]

61. many many years ago

long before Hillary changed her mind on gay marriage

at least in 1994

May 5, 1994 HR 4296 Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Bill Passed - House
(216 - 214) Yea

HR 4296 - Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Bernie Sanders voted Yea (Passage) on this Legislation.

Read statements Bernie Sanders made in this general time period.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns#.Vhnr0j7XqHt

[Sheepshank]

231. Bernie marched 50 years ago

He's never ever changed his mind on anything....ever. He's been ahead of the curve since he learned to walk. He knew 50 years ago all the social issues important in 2015, so he made a stand then, and has never had to modify or update. I swear he still drives a stick shift and only uses rotary dial phones. Therefore your article doesn't really exist from a mere 20 years ago.

[JI7]

12. they didn't like you even before Sanders

this is about more than this primary campaign. the same ones had the same double standard with your appearance on Fox and Sanders at Liberty .

[stevenleser]

16. Not only that, Bernie has been on Fox a bunch of times too. I'm waiting to hear those folks who

criticized me for Fox appearances repudiate Bernie and endorse Hillary!

[HerbChestnut]

24. Who cares if he's been on FOX?

Seriously? He brought his message to a conservative audience, and you have a problem with that?

[stevenleser]

30. A lot of people apparently. I get criticized about it frequently from some folks here.

And I agree with the body of your message. Any Democrat bringing the message to a conservative audience has done a service to the party and Liberalism/Progressivism.

Many here do not agree with you on that and I am waiting for them to admit it and/or be consistent.

[stevenleser]

39. There it is again upthread in #26. A subtle dig on my going on Fox. nt

[HerbChestnut]

54. I read it, and I think you misinterpreted.

He/She didn't criticize you for going on FOX. They criticized you for using an argument tactic that is similar to the one commonly employed by FOX "analysts".

[stevenleser]

55. Nope, it's a criticism for going on Fox, and a thinly veiled one.

It shouldn't fool anyone.

[HerbChestnut]

60. So thinly veiled that it doesn't actually exist.

Seriously, you're reading too far into it. Get some sleep.

[stevenleser]

65. Well, you havent interacted here much so its understandable you dont know these things.

I go through this all the time here. Folks who have nothing else to say bring up Fox with me.

Which is OK in a way, I know the moment they have done so they have surrendered the argument.

It's like a person specific logical fallacy.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

89. Intellectually-dishonest debate tactic 3d and 3e

d. My resume’s bigger than yours. All the more reason why you ought to be able to cite specific errors or omissions in my facts or logic, yet still you cannot. Your resume being bigger than mine suggests a possible reason why I might make a mistake, but that does not absolve you from having to point out the specific error or omission in facts or logic that I made. The fact that I might make a mistake because of insufficient training or experience is not proof that I did make a mistake, and your trying to imply that it is dishonest.

e. Your resume is not big enough for you to comment on this and my resume is irrelevant to whether I can ban you from the discussion by pointing out the inadequacy of yours. This is an admitted know-nothing banning you from the discussion on the grounds that you do not know enough.

http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

[stevenleser]

90. Still waiting for your admission of being on both sides of three issues. Starting with

Where is your criticism for Bernie being on Fox since you criticize me for it all the time?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

92. Intellectually-dishonest debate tactic #2: changing the subject

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent. Political people on TV often use the phrase “But the real question is___” or “What the American people are really interested in is___” as a preface to changing the subject.

http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

[stevenleser]

94. Nope, not changing the subject. The subject is duplicity and you are on record three times as

being on both sides of an issue after accusing me of doing it once.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

105. Intellectually-dishonest debate tactic #5: false premise

5. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to successfully by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence.”

http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

(I've asked twice now what the hell you're talking about, asked you to re-paste whatever you're claiming. You won't. False premise/assumes facts not in evidence)

[stevenleser]

116. And Nance's #108 below. Do you repudiate Sanders for attacking the Democratic Party and then

when politically expedient running for the Democratic nomination?

Go on, here is another chance to be consistent. Otherwise this will be yet another instance of you having things both ways or supporting a candidate who has things both ways.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

123. Back to #2: changing the subject.

Hopefully you don't still need a link for the intellectually-dishonest debate tactics website, but let me know if you do.

[stevenleser]

124. And we have a #5. I'm supposed to answer all your accusations but you don't answer mine.

And there are a lot of them now.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

128. Order of operations, Steven. This can end if you want it to, but I told you...

...that I wasn't going to let you get by with changing the subject and making counter-accusations without first addressing my questions to you. Did you not take me seriously? I don't believe you did.

[stevenleser]

136. And you prove my point. Do you need a list, because there are a lot of them.

1. We have the snide jab when you said that my opinions aren't important, while you have spent considerable time data mining my old articles to troll for inconsistencies. Obviously my opinions are important enough to do that, and for the 650+ post attack on them starting on Friday.

2. We have your multiple attacks on me for appearing on Fox that you have not withdrawn and apologized for after I posted videos of some of Bernies appearances on Fox. I mean, either withdraw the attacks and apologize or repudiate Bernie and endorse Hillary. Either way I don't care.

3. We have you not repudiating Bernie for his flip-flopping on Gun control. If my changing my mind eight years ago is so terrible, you really need to get on Bernie for changing his mind on this.

4. We have you not repudiating Bernie for repeatedly attacking the Democratic Party and then hypocritically vying for the Democratic Party nomination for President because it is politically expedient. Again, If my changing my mind eight years ago is so terrible, you really need to get on Bernie for changing his mind on this.

5. And finally, you demand I answer whatever questions you have on my articles, but you refuse to address any of these.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

170. Partial credit. You will get SOME responses.

1. I said that your opinions were not to be trusted. I said this once directly, and once by way of asking something like 'why would anyone hew to your opinion?' It's not that they're important or unimportant--they're not trustworthy. I wasn't measuring on a scale of importance, but I did later let you know that I considered your writing important for research purposes, and that I was sure others actually enjoyed your writing and considered it important.

2. I have not attacked you for appearing on Fox. I have criticized you for using Fox-like tactics, also known as intellectually-dishonest debate tactics. And I've started citing chapter and verse.

3. I've told you that I wasn't allowing you to change the subject--another definite Fox tactic. You backhand-answered one of my questions in this post--your 136 that I am replying to. That's why you have responses to #'s 1 and 2. You still need to tell me clearly about my hypocrisy and your accusation that I'm wanting things both ways. Until then, no reward for you.

4. In the list of intellectually-dishonest debate tactics, this one is under #2 (changing the subject) and #7 (unqualified expert opinion). Still, you get no answer until you've answered my question clearly. I'm not permitting substandard tactics you've learned to employ on others to be used on me.

5. Do I really need to go here? You get me my answer (remember, no changing the subject permitted with me), and I'll give you answers to your numbers 3 and 4, which will of course, cover #5.

[stevenleser]

182. Lots of intellectually dishonest and weasel responses

1. I said that your opinions were not to be trusted. I said this once directly, and once by way of asking something like 'why would anyone hew to your opinion?' It's not that they're important or unimportant--they're not trustworthy. I wasn't measuring on a scale of importance, but I did later let you know that I considered your writing important for research purposes, and that I was sure others actually enjoyed your writing and considered it important.

That would be believeable without context. The context of your posts was as a subthread to this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251662117#post211

It was all about whether the opinions were important. You jumped in and responded on that idea. So no, this is not an honest response.

2. I have not attacked you for appearing on Fox. I have criticized you for using Fox-like tactics, also known as intellectually-dishonest debate tactics. And I've started citing chapter and verse.

Another weasel response. You attacked me for appearing on Fox and have not attacked Bernie for appearing on Fox and are now trying to slink away from that.

3. I've told you that I wasn't allowing you to change the subject--another definite Fox tactic. You backhand-answered one of my questions in this post--your 136 that I am replying to. That's why you have responses to #'s 1 and 2. You still need to tell me clearly about my hypocrisy and your accusation that I'm wanting things both ways. Until then, no reward for you.

And a weasel response to get out of not addressing Bernie's flip flopping on gun control. Sorry, you don't get responses from me on questions when you don't demand them of the person you are supporting for President of the United States.

4. In the list of intellectually-dishonest debate tactics, this one is under #2 (changing the subject) and #7 (unqualified expert opinion). Still, you get no answer until you've answered my question clearly. I'm not permitting substandard tactics you've learned to employ on others to be used on me.

And a weasel response to get out of not addressing Bernie's flip flopping on the Democratic Party. Sorry, you don't get responses from me on questions when you don't demand them of the person you are supporting for President of the United States.

5. Do I really need to go here? You get me my answer (remember, no changing the subject permitted with me), and I'll give you answers to your numbers 3 and 4, which will of course, cover #5.

And you continue to do this.

I will be linking to this post as the only response to future messages from you.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

190. Steve out, huh? Whatever.

If you ever decide you can hang with an honest, no bullshit debate, let me know. But you will debate by civilized rules of debate, or you'll be turned away again.

[SidDithers]

277. Jury results...

On Sun Oct 11, 2015, 10:14 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Lots of intellectually dishonest and weasel responses
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=664301

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attacks - calling a fellow DUer dishonest, untrustworthy, and a weasel. We should be able to express our opinions without getting personal. I've never seen him act like this on TV, when he's dealing with right wingers on FNC.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Oct 11, 2015, 10:18 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: over 400 DU members called the poster who is being alerted on a hell of a lot worse. Deal.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Really why is a Fox news regular ever trusted? This is proof.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dishonest alert. The poster didn't call the DUer dishonest, untrustworthy and a weasel. He called their response dishonest, untrustworthy and weasely, all the while responding to personal attacks. Learn the difference, alerter.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stop alert stalking.The whole thread is filled with personal attacks against this poster,he has the right to answer them.

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



The jurors spanked the alerter pretty good.

Sid

[leftupnorth]

295. Are you paid to appear on Fox?

[cui bono]

156. +1

[Marty McGraw]

188. +1000 for +1'ing

[treestar]

298. When you've been on DU a long time

you can recall the many previous times some posters have criticized stevenleser for going on Fox. Just for that alone, as if going on there to be the liberal viewpoint is somehow making one a devotee of Fox's right wingerism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5402991

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3821799

For more examples, look at the posts above this one.

[artislife]

36. So you don't get paid?

Are you running for office? Or are you a pundit?


Who knows, because you change with the weather.

[bvf]

214. Yes, Steve, we all get that you've finally

gotten the hang of embedding video. No need to repeat it ad nauseam like some two-year-old in a high-chair demonstrating a new skill.

Do you have any new tricks to share?

[stevenleser]

217. LOL, so pointing out this hypocrisy upsets you? Good.

It will continue until no more Sanders supporters attack me for going on conservative media.

[bvf]

229. "Amused" would be a better word.

Like when my then-baby daughter learned to catapult peas with her spoon. She would absolutely beam every time, with the kind of childish self-satisfaction known only to a two-year-old.

Know what I mean?

[beam me up scottie]

220. ...

[bvf]

243. Yep! There's one squirrel that's bound to be

scampering about at Venti-with-triple-espresso speed for the next day or two.

[Logical]

326. Lets just say Bernie makes Fox look worse! Get it now? nt

[virtualobserver]

13. I agree with your original assessment of Hillary. Great article!

no crucifixion necessary.

[stevenleser]

18. Great, so since you think so much of my opinion, you will agree with my endorsement of Hillary.

Welcome on board!

[virtualobserver]

22. your original article was so convincing and quite frankly, irrefutable, that my opinion is unchanged

Sadly, your assertion that Hillary has redeemed herself was far less plausible.

[stevenleser]

23. As are all my writings. Welcome to the Hillary camp!!!

[virtualobserver]

34. Thanks to your article.....you must mean the "Hillary is a liar" camp

I have never called her that.....but you won me over.

[Duckhunter935]

35. If you are a true journalist as I believe you are

you would correct your incorrect statement. Bernie has held the same position for several years and voted FOR the AWB and background checks. That was a long time prior to this weekend, am I correct?

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

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

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

[stevenleser]

62. So here is a question for you. If it is what he has been saying all along, why the need for the

announcement?

Why is the announcement any kind of a big deal?

Why when you Google Bernie Sanders and Gun Control are there tons of articles talking about his support for gun rights and how it is a problem for him?

[Duckhunter935]

69. How is it it took me under 5 minutes to research this

Mr. journalist?

May 5, 1994 HR 4296 Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Bill Passed - House
(216 - 214) Yea

HR 4296 - Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Bernie Sanders voted Yea (Passage) on this Legislation.

Read statements Bernie Sanders made in this general time period.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns#.Vhnr0j7XqHt

Please run your correction now

[stevenleser]

74. You didn't answer the questions. If this is what he has believed all along why

are folks saying this is something new for him. For instance

http://www.pressexaminer.com/sanders/75896

Senator Bernie Sanders, from the pro-hunting state of Vermont, has supported gun control measures. However, Bernie Sanders has also defended the law-abiding gun owners, saying their rights must be protected.

In the outcome of the massacre at an elementary school in Connecticut, Sanders expressed his support for gun- owning regulations. His statements on gun control are lightly expressed than the other democrats. Mr. Sanders’ ideologies on being pro-gun and pro-hunting are not unsuitable for the state of Vermont in which hunting is common, and accepted.
----------------------------------------------------------
His statements today are a sharp reversal from those bolded statements.

[aikoaiko]

272. His voting record on the AWB is perfectly consistent.

His stance on AWB and the RKBA is completely consistent with the party platform and even President Obama's.

You are trying to compare other's opinion of Bernie on guns with statements made today about the AWB which are consistent with his every vote on AWB back to 1994.

There is no sharp reversal. You are just ignorant of Bernie's stance on the AWB.

Now in truth I wish he weren't for an AWB, but given every Democrat us for it I have little choice if I want a Democrat in the Whitehouse. But I can't say that Bernie disappointed me by flip-flopping on the issue because he hasn't.

[thesquanderer]

292. Where is the contradiction?

re: "Bernie Sanders has also defended the law-abiding gun owners, saying their rights must be protected."

It's not a direct quote from BS (which obviously is what really should be used to prove a flip flop), but I will grant you that it is his position. It has always been his position to find a balance. You can outlaw assault weapons while still protecting, for example, the gun rights of hunters.

There are some aspects of gun control he has consistently opposed. There are other aspects of gun control he has consistently supported. It's not an all-or-none choice. I really don't see your point there at all, or how his latest statement is a flip.

As for the other bolded line that you seem to think proves something, "His statements on gun control are lightly expressed than the other democrats" (putting aside the poor grammar and that again no actual quote from BS is referenced), the fact that someone may be further to the left of him on this topic (after all, the NRA has sometimes rated him as highly as D-) again is not evidence of a flip-flop.

This post #74 is the one you keep referencing as proving your point, and really, it doesn't prove it at all.

If by some chance you really want to understand Sanders' position, he sums it up very well here, in a video from about 3 months ago:

[jeff47]

329. THIS is what you are hanging your credibility on?

So he's consistently backed assault weapons bans, but didn't talk about it as much as other Democrats, so that makes it a change in position?

No wonder you go on Fox.

[thesquanderer]

293. re: "Why is the announcement any kind of a big deal?"

Now I understand your confusion!

When HRC makes an announcement, it is usually to say the opposite of something she has said before, so you naturally assumed the same about BS. But in fact, when BS makes an announcement, it is usually to reinforce something he has already said before.



edit: and before I get flamed, note the wink! It's a joke, I thought it was funny! Though like most jokes, I won't deny that I think there is some element of truth to it.

[frylock]

322. It was funny and spot on!

[bvf]

232. Have you written anything else?

Links?

[ucrdem]

19. DU has a strange way of recognizing achievement.

I was going to say awarding honors but those are exclusively reserved for PPR / GBCW performances so I guess you don't get one.

[artislife]

33. Ooooohhh. "journalist posting.

Ooops, just a pundit.


nevermind.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Did you see this "article"?:

No Snitching Creed a Poisonous Ethos for the Black Community

By Steven Leser (about the author)

April 22, 2007 at 22:12:20


The last time I touched upon African American issues, it was to explain the reason why African Americans hope for the acquittal of high profile defendants. My article, “Why the Support for the Tookies and O.J.s in the Black Community?“, which can be seen at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_051212_why_the_support_for_.htm , was also cited by the National Association of Black Journalists, see http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/commentary/deathpenalty/index.html . I’ve been a member of Rainbow Push in the past and vigorously support African Americans in their fight for equality and social justice.

What I don’t understand is the no snitching philosophy that has taken root in the black community and I sat and watched, disgusted, as this poor excuse for a moral code was explained in tonight’s episode of 60 Minutes. “No Snitching” means that no matter the circumstances, you do not report crimes to the police and you certainly never become a witness at a trial even if you see a murder or a rape and clearly see who did it.

The 60 minutes segment included interviews with rappers, non-rapper adults, children, all seemed to indicate support for ‘No snitching’. It was so surreal it was like watching the equivalent of the last few pages of a Kafka story. I’m a fan of Chris Rock and marveled along with him that Tupac Shakur was killed on the busy Las Vegas strip and his killer has never been found. It doesn’t sound so surprising now.

If I were a criminal, knowing about the no snitch code, I would immediately change my operations so that all my criminal activities took place in black neighborhoods. In other words, this belief system is an open invitation to criminals of all stripes to prey on members of the black community. That is what this philosophy is. It’s the entire black community standing up with arms outstretched and saying at the top of their lungs, “Come rob, rape or kill me, (or all of the above) please!”.

After the 60 minutes expose, I would expect to see Burglars, Robbers, Rapists, Child Molesters, Drug Dealers, Con Artists, Organized Crime syndicates and any other kind of criminals move their operations into black neighborhoods. I am sure we will see this happen and see it reflected in the crime statistics over the next few years. A law enforcement official in the 60 minutes segment quoted a statistic that in some African American communities, ‘No Snitching’ has contributed to reduce the rate of murders being solved to less than 10%. It is a shame that only a few years after African Americans mostly rid their communities of gangs, they are extending an open invitation for criminals to take up residence there.

At the same time, now that this is known, law abiding people are going to start avoiding the black community. I certainly don’t want anyone I care about to go to a place where criminals know they are getting a free pass to rob, rape or kill them. This is going to translate into a measurable economic loss for businesses of the black community. All the work that many people are doing to create new businesses owned by African Americans along with other efforts to build up the economic power of the black community is going to be destroyed by “No snitching”.

I happen to be watching the IFC channel as I write this. They are playing a film called “Mississippi Burning”. I’m reminded of how hard blacks and the federal government had to fight to stop the violence and crimes being committed against blacks in the south and other places in the 1960’s. How did we get from that to “No snitching” where blacks see crimes happening against members of their community and turn their backs on them? Where are the brains of the people who buy into this garbage?

Leaders of the black community need to get together and take on this cancer in their community. No snitching isn’t noble or brave, it is a way for a community to commit a slow and painful suicide and up until now, leaders of the black community have stood by and let it happen. It is time for them to show that they are leaders and that no matter how pervasive and popular a bad idea is, they are willing to take it on. No snitching has to go.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=opedne_steven_l_070422_no_snitching_creed_a.htm

[Fumesucker]

63. The black community should trust the police, the police are only there to help

[jfern]

66. But he's a Hillary supporter, so he can't be whitesplaining

what those blacks should do. Impossible!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

402. "Bernie marched for civil rights."

"Useless white supremacist liberal! I was going to vote for Bernie, but his supporters suck, so I'm voting for Hillary!"

"If I were a criminal and going to rape or kill, I'd do it in a black neighborhood because of the no-snitch code."

Crickets.

My, my, such a double-standard from the vocal minority...

[beam me up scottie]

68. Right? And he wonders why we don't trust him on DU?

[artislife]

75. Just read it in the other OP thread

wow...just wow.





My esteem for "journalism" today is

[Duckhunter935]

84. true

[beam me up scottie]

93. I never considered Steve a journalist so my opinion on them hasn't been altered by what he wrote.

My opinion on Steve however has sunk to an all time low.

[artislife]

98. Just for you

'cause you make me happy.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Awww...

Right back atcha, artislife!

I like your spunk!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

76. Come rob me, rape me, or kill me! (Leser, taking on the voice of the black community, in his view)

Law abiding people are going to start avoiding the black community, he says.

I guess his comments about women will need to wait for another thread.

[artislife]

88. *chortle nt

[beam me up scottie]

101. I shudder to think of what advice he would have for us...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

110. It wasn't advice so much as blaming women for child support.

Not blaming one woman in particular, mind you, but women in general. Women actually default more on child support, according to him. And they (plural) will spend the money on alcohol. Oh, and he doesn't like kids who get too much child support money. Yes, I'm actually serious.

[beam me up scottie]

117. Well why should he let the other Fox news pundits have all the fun?

[U of M Dem]

412. This Article stinks of blaming the victims and is all around offensive garbage.

This Article stinks of blaming the victims and is all around offensive garbage.

When you don't know something and you purport to be a journalist, you ask questions until you 'get it' before writing something... or else this kind of ignorance happens.

"No snitching," or as many people know it, Omertà, is a concept that results from a culture of corruption and injustice; it is clearly not a root cause of these plights. Omertà is also associated with pretty much all organized crime since organized crime began and I bet anyone who has seen a mafia movie understands the concept enough to know why this article is seriously off target.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omerta

This article demonstrates that Steven Lesser favors blaming the poor and minorities rather than asking the tough questions that lead to solving problems. I wonder if he considered for a second the fear of imminent harm or death (vendetta) as one of the more pragmatic reasons to avoid cooperating with the authorities when living in an area controlled by organized crime. He must have never heard or listened to the age old adage "snitches get stitches." Even my phone's word suggestion feature knew that one as I typed that last sentence.

But this is modern journalism; pander to the lowest common denominator to stay relevant ($), even if that denominator is ignorant or complicit with our fundamentally structurally racist system.

Journalism is not about exposing the truth anymore and we are all worse off for it.

[beam me up scottie]

415. Good post, I completely agree with you.

I wouldn't go as far as calling that disgusting article "journalism" though.

I doubt I will ever think of the author as a professional journalist or someone worthy of respect.

[U of M Dem]

417. That's why he got the title of purported journalist.

As well as modern journalist. But I can understand if even that goes too far. He is another cog in the msm that plays games instead of saying something meaningful or astute. This OP and his behavior in this thread is evidence enough of the bully mentality where the loudest, most annoying, and most frequent voice shouts down level headed discussion. This OP is much more about trolling Sanders supporters with the very essence of punditry spin (ignoring the inconvenient facts and emphasizing opinion / truthiness) than anything else. Despicable.

[aikoaiko]

56. You should do more research on Bernies stance on the AWB

He was for it in the past. Your first link is just speculation about Bernie position back in the day.

[Purveyor]

57. ..

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. You changed your mind eight years ago? Wow. What'd she do to make you change it so soon?

You wrote what you wrote, and then pretty much instantly changed your mind? Did you write a retraction?

[Duckhunter935]

64. as a journalist please run a correction

It is the least you can do

May 5, 1994 HR 4296 Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Bill Passed - House
(216 - 214) Yea

HR 4296 - Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Bernie Sanders voted Yea (Passage) on this Legislation.

Read statements Bernie Sanders made in this general time period.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns#.Vhnr0j7XqHt

[stevenleser]

67. I've already responded to you on this upthread. nt

[Snotcicles]

72. Man, You should have just taken a few days off. nt

[Electric Monk]

349. 400 seems about fair, considering. nt

[Duckhunter935]

77. You have lost any respect that I had for you

you posted outright false information and when presented with the facts contradicting that you fail to correct it

So as far as I am concerned you are knowing posting lies on this board on should be scorned.

Jurors please note, I have asked him at least twice to correct his error, Bernie di not change his mind this weekend

May 5, 1994 HR 4296 Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Bill Passed - House
(216 - 214) Yea

HR 4296 - Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Bernie Sanders voted Yea (Passage) on this Legislation.

Read statements Bernie Sanders made in this general time period.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns#.Vhnr0j7XqHt

[stevenleser]

79. LOL, I'm sure I'll get over it eventually... yup, there it is. I'm over it. See my #74 above.

I provided all the links with backup in #74 above.

[Duckhunter935]

83. but your OP is still a lie

This is his same position well before this weekend

May 5, 1994 HR 4296 Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Bill Passed - House
(216 - 214) Yea

HR 4296 - Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Bernie Sanders voted Yea (Passage) on this Legislation.

Read statements Bernie Sanders made in this general time period.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns#.Vhnr0j7XqHt

[stevenleser]

87. Nope, it's not and my #74 shows have correct it is. nt

[Logical]

409. That sentence does not even make any sense. Nt

[beam me up scottie]

71. He won't but thanks for Correcting the Record.

[Duckhunter935]

80. It makes him look bad

and that is never my intention. He keeps saying he is a journalist, he needs to act like one.

[beam me up scottie]

113. He obviously doesn't care about his credibility anymore.

He knew DUers would expose the lies in the op but he posted it anyway and is now doubling down.

I can hear the sound of Bernie supporters bookmarking the op...

[Duckhunter935]

115. I know

[bvf]

274. Hey, give the poor guy a break.

He was obviously in a rush when he typed:

"...Sanders supporters are trying to criticize me for changing my mind eight years ago"

On second thought, screw giving him a break, not only for the lies, but for his general sloppiness in executing them.

But you're right: The OP's a keeper, and I bet it won't gather much dust.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

147. This post #74 business is also meant to deceive.

I looked at the link in post 74. It was the rabbit hole I expected, and IN NO WAY addressed your question, as he claimed it would.

The complete refusal, in...what...hundreds of posts (?), to admit that maybe, just maybe, he fucked up, is a warning sign. This is not how most people conduct their conversations and correspondence. We all make mistakes. We sometimes have to say we got it wrong. The refusal to do so is a DEFINITE hallmark of right wing radio and television. And it's filthy, and it's unhealthy.

[jfern]

85. Hillary supporters can't help but lie lie lie lie lie

Funny how no one ever talks about how crazy her supporters are. It's just about one supposed Bernie supporter who was mean to someone on Twitter.

[Autumn]

96. The same weekend???

[Duckhunter935]

97. as in a lie

[Aerows]

107. They are scared shitless that she might accidentally

tell the truth in Tuesday's debates, because heaven knows, lies haven't helped her any.

[Autumn]

121. It makes no sense. No one but those of us on DU are going to see this horse shit and we

fucking know it's a horseshit lie so it does nothing for Hillary it just reveals his propensity to play fast and loose with the truth.

[Aerows]

129. I quit trying to make sense of politics.

Confront a "seasoned" politician with a reasonable person that tells the truth, gets to the heart of the matter, and everything just dissolves.

I honestly think both Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders are reasonable people. Who the hell knows what will happen on Tuesday.

[Prism]

355. Or the more straightforward explanation

Once your reputation is shot, troll.

I can guess what the next year will look like from that quarter.

[840high]

127. I don't think she knows

truth anymore.

[jfern]

102. Wow, 12 people reced this total pants on fire lie?

Hillary supporters should be ashamed of themselves for pushing pants on fire lies.

[Duckhunter935]

104. I know, sad

[beam me up scottie]

120. And they complain about lies from the media?

[jfern]

122. They don't care about facts

Just whatever helps Hillary. A lot of them harshly criticized Hillary in the past, but they decided to sell their souls to support her this time.

[beam me up scottie]

126. I hope more of them rec it, the hypocrisy is hillaryous!

Every time one of them complains about using a source that lies about their candidate we can post the link to this op and say mmm hmmm...

[uponit7771]

366. I see 44 recs, people who aren't felling the "Bern" and don't see Sanders ability to throw a stone

[jfern]

369. The OP is a total pants on fire lie

[uponit7771]

371. So Sanders doesn't have an overall pro-gun stance all his career?! tia

[jfern]

372. He voted to ban assault weapons in 1994

So saying he flip flopped on them this weekend is a ridiculous pants on fire lie.

[uponit7771]

374. Not the question, overall... has Sanders had a pro - gun stance for most if not all his career?! tia

[jfern]

376. The NRA gave him a D-

Leahy got a C. Welch had a C.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html?_r=0

Dean had an A.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

So a D- is really low for Vermont.

[uponit7771]

377. Still not the question, has Sanders had a pro-gun stance most if not all his political carreer...

... what stupid ass's in the NRA give him is irrelevant seeing they helped him with his first campaign.

and then there's this

?oh=3da9c64d5d6a1e1f4a7a5a2f1c0b4ab8&oe=56978925

[jfern]

378. As I said, he voted against the assault weapons ban in 1994

And the NRA has opposed in him every other election but that 1 election.

[NanceGreggs]

108. For me ...

... Bernie's ultimate flip-flop is this:

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party." - Bernie Sanders

You can't get more flip-floppier than to spend your entire political career demeaning the Democratic Party, and then want to run on their ticket when it suits your political ambitions.

I mean, if there was a competition for the Ultimate Political Flip-Flop Award, that's the race Bernie could win in a heartbeat.

[stevenleser]

111. Excellent point and that is only one of many attacks he has made against the Democratic Party.

Waiting for the Bernie supporters to explain that.

[NanceGreggs]

154. They won't.

Because they're BS supporters. They're response to everything is if Bernie did it, it's okay.

You had to know they'd come after you, Steven - you refuse to drink the BS Kool-Aid, so you must be taken down. It happens to all of us who refuse to lockstep in unison (ironically enough behind the very people who prided themselves on not being "locksteppers" for so long).

You're either with 'em or against 'em. And if you're against 'em, they'll write vicious things about you - because that's how they think their much-adored candidate will wind up in the White House.

It's sad. But it is what it is.

[Duckhunter935]

112. At least that a true one and not a lie

[stevenleser]

119. I proved my OP in #74 above. So both are true. nt

[jeff47]

311. No, you lied. Again. But hey, it pays well. (nt)

[azurnoir]

418. ya he said it 25 years ago - seems some here are really digging :)

[azurnoir]

149. LOl Skinner said something about that

If it's any consolation, I really think this is in a gray area. I do not know the exact details of Bernie Sanders' relationship to the Vermont Democratic Party. My understanding is that he never actually ran in a Democratic primary, although he may have won the Democratic nomination a few times without running for it. Whatever the specifics, there does seem to exist a tacit agreement to not give him any serious Democratic opposition. So the question of whether Bernie Sanders is a Democrat is something of a red herring -- he isn't a Democrat but when he runs for congress he has the support of the Democratic establishment in Vermont and Washington DC. And he is running for the Democratic presidential nomination. So for all intents and purposes he is a Democrat, and I don't really see why anyone on DU would consider his party affiliation to be a worthwhile argument. Having said that, I wouldn't have voted to hide this, as it seems to be a close-enough description of reality. But that's just my opinion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598502#post1

[NanceGreggs]

172. I'm sorry, but ...

... when someone disrespects my Party and my fellow Democrats for their entire career, and then decides to run on my Party's ticket - and still refuses to BE a member of my Party - labeling that person as "a Democrat for all intents and purposes" doesn't cut it.

He wants Democratic support, he wants Democratic votes, he wants all of the benefits of running as a Democrat - but he doesn't want to BE a Democrat? Well, he can screw off and leave on the self-serving horse he rode in on.

[beam me up scottie]

180. That's a predictably hateful sentiment but I prefer Skinner's reasonable pov.

Who are you voting for again, Nance?

[NanceGreggs]

187. Obviously I will be voting for the DEMOCRAT ...

... Hillary Clinton.

And I love the irony of hearing a Bernie-supporter talking about "hateful sentiments".

[beam me up scottie]

193. The irony here is watching you complain about the behaviour of the other people.

At least your hypocrisy is consistent.

In fact I can set my watch by it.

[NanceGreggs]

200. As I set my watch by the fact ...

... that your posts rarely, if ever, make any sense.

[beam me up scottie]

206. Making sense? Like hating on DU 24/7 and still hanging around?

I love this place, why are you here?

[NanceGreggs]

208. Why am I here?

Why don't you ask that of the posters who come to DemocraticUnderground for the sole purpose of posting anti-Democratic swill, day after day?

[beam me up scottie]

213. I'm asking you. If I hated DU and it's members that much I'd leave.

[NanceGreggs]

223. I wil post what I want, where I want, and when I want.

I will defend Democrats on any message board I care to. And the fact that I have to defend Democrats on DemocraticUnderground speaks for itself.

If you have a problem with my posting here, I suggest you address your concerns to Skinner. Perhaps he can explain to you why RW bullshit is allowed here, but Democrats posting in support of Democrats shouldn't be.

[beam me up scottie]

227. Bullshit. You're broadbrushing and attacking Dems who support Bernie.

According to you we're just not worthy of the label because we don't support Hillary.

I don't have a problem with you posting here, I have a problem with you constantly attacking DUers and then criticizing others for their behaviour.

It's the hypocrisy Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

230. Projecting again. n/t

[yodermon]

347. Holy shut. Party over principle. Hear ya loud and clear Nance. N/t

[NanceGreggs]

350. There is nothing "principled" ...

... about letting a Republican be elected to anything. That's why I vote for the D every time.

I'm still not hearing what "principle" BS is demonstrating by now running for a Party he has disparaged for decades, and still refuses to be a member of.

[azurnoir]

354. so a guy that has won the Democratic nomination in his home state isn't good enough still

singing that old song, guess when that's about all you've got........

[NanceGreggs]

356. Well, apparently BS thinks ...

... that the Democratic Party isn't good enough for him.

He's happy to have their support and wants their votes. But by his own choice, he just doesn't want to BE "one of us".

[azurnoir]

419. yep I guess he's just not a good company man is he?

but if he were to win the primary then what will you be saying? rhetorical question because the reply is oh so predictable

[thesquanderer]

290. Is it a true flip-flop if the underlying belief is unchanged?

Even assuming that Sanders quote is exactly correct and complete in terms of context (I haven't found a verifiable link), that was in 1990, speaking about running for a seat in the House. Context is a little different now.

He admits he is running on the Democratic ticket for pragmatic reasons. From http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-on-why-he-wont-run-as-in-independent/

"If we were serious about winning this election...I had to do it within the Democratic primary caucus process," he said.

"What I did not want to do is run as a third party candidate, take votes away from the Democratic candidate and help elect some right-wing Republican.

Simply, I do not consider this a true flip-flop, as I will explain:

Position 1: I would not run for the House as a Democrat, because while it is the better of the two major parties (and the party I would caucus with), the party is still far from what I want it to be.

Position 2: Here I am 25 years later, and I still feel the exact same way about the Democratic party. However, in the context of running for President, unlike running for Congress, it is simply not realistic to be able to win without being affiliated with one of the major parties. If I were to run as an independent, not only couldn't I win, but I might even help elect a Republican, and their party is even worse.

Yes, it's a flip on the surface level, but the conviction underneath it remains the same. That is not something you can say about most charges of flip-flopping made against most people, where people's actual underlying beliefs about the subject have changed. (Not that that is always a bad thing, either!)

If he were consistent with the earlier statement on a literal surface level (as he would be by running as an independent), he would be at odds with it on a deep conceptual level (by helping to elect a Republican). Which is more important? You would genuinely prefer if he ran for president as an independent, so he could maintain literal consistency with his statement from 25 years ago? You would give him props for that?

[uponit7771]

365. +1

[Logical]

410. Not a shock you think our party is above being insulted. LOL nt

[NanceGreggs]

413. I think our party ...

... shouldn't be insulted by someone who then wants to reap the benefits of running on our Party's ticket when it serves his personal political ambitions to do so.

[Logical]

414. Want a list of dems who have complained about the party??? Really??? Nt

[NanceGreggs]

416. I know a lot of Dems ...

... who complain about the party.

But they ARE Dems - not Independents who want the Dem Party to support them, contribute to them, and vote for them despite an absolute refusal to BE one of them.

[Logical]

420. Oh FFS are you being silly. Nt

[Purveyor]

114. You ought to self delete this thread before it gets even

worse...

Just saying.

[stevenleser]

118. I think you should self delete this response. I proved my point in #74 above.

Just saying.

[Purveyor]

157. And here I thought you had me on ignore...

[treestar]

301. Then why did you make a direct post to someone you thought would not see it?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

318. To test a hypothesis that was, as a result, proven? Yes, I believe so.

[xfundy]

134. Does something make you someone whose opinion matters?

No disrespect intended, but I don't get it. I assume you're on the radio. Never heard of you till here.

[stevenleser]

138. You mean besides the 650+ thread started yesterday by people discussing my opinion?

I think you should get on those folks and ask them that question. Let me know what they say.

[xfundy]

241. 650? Wow, your opinion matters, apparently.

To 650 people. That's nice. So why should I care?

[Armstead]

142. Honest answer -- I don't give a shit about the specifics of his position on gun control

He supports a moderate level of gun control. Not super strict, but in general agreement with the otehr candidates on the majority of measures.

Beyond that I don't really care about it.

[cui bono]

145. You failed to state what this supposed 'flip flop' is.

But then this isn't really about Sanders is it? Just another meta OP against DU members who dare support Bernie. I voted to hide WillyT's OP about you and I alerted on this as well.

Grow up. You're supposed to be a professional pundit.

[stevenleser]

146. Actually, I did, and I clarified it in #74 above. nt

[cui bono]

150. I do not see it in the OP. The OP is about Sanders supporters.

Seems you are posting out of anger for being exposed as a hypocrite or a blind partisan.

I don't think what you say is true. There is an OP stating it is false. However, even if it were true, that is a policy position. You, on the other hand, wrote about how despicable Hillary's character was, and that is not something you can evolve on like a change of position on policy. Besides, if you want to criticize someone on policy changes you can start a dozen OPs about Hillary's.

[stevenleser]

151. It's all there. Anger? No absolutely not. I love this. This is bread and butter to me.

All of the analytics that show how much internet buzz I am generating are through the roof.

The longer these conversations go, the better for me.

Besides, I'm right. And if we are going to crucify folks for changing their minds on things, Bernie has a lot to answer for.

[cui bono]

153. I really don't see it. n/t

[artislife]

320. This proves that content doesn't matter to you

it is just about the numbers

How hollow are you?

A whisp of conscienceness in all of this.

Whisps float on the wind and have no substance.



A very good image of your career.

?itok=ybWVCDl2

[Spitfire of ATJ]

152. There's a big difference between nailing you and needling you.

[stevenleser]

155. And it all helps me either way. My phone will be ringing off the hook for radio and tv appearances

next week!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

161. It's nice of you to reveal your priorities.

[stevenleser]

164. Nope, not my priorities. I didn't create the OP that started all this. But I am grateful for it.

If you are mad that this is helping me so much, you should get on the person that started the OP and all the folks who posted agreeing with him/her.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

171. If you want a gig by playing "kick the hippie" that's up to you.

[stevenleser]

174. That's your third attempt to move the goalposts to attack me. You've now positioned them on Pluto

congratulations.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

179. You endorsed Hillary. Do you really believe she's a Liberal?

[stevenleser]

186. And a fourth goalpost move. Now they are on Proxima Centauri. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

196. Did you or did you not endorse Hillary?

Because that's what is behind all of the ruckus.

(And the humor)

[grasswire]

162. be sure to post a schedule of your appearances here on DU

Wouldn't want to miss anything.

[beam me up scottie]

165. Me either!

[grasswire]

168. got popcorn?

and maybe we need a drinking game.

[beam me up scottie]

169. Sure do, butter and kettle corn.

And micro brew!

[grasswire]

178. woo woo!

I have dark chocolate.

[beam me up scottie]

181. ZOMG! I love dark chocolate!

[grasswire]

183. LOLOL

Nothing is more fun than hanging with a pal on DU late Saturday night.

[grasswire]

184. I should add......

...."a pal who is on the right side of history..."

[beam me up scottie]

185. So true! And good of Steve to provide the entertainment!

Credit where it's due and all that!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

202. No time for that. High-powered podcast agents from all over are lighting up his phone.

They may even preempt the Knitting With the Spintster Sisters podcast to accommodate a hot news item like this.

[ibegurpard]

335. lol

No one knows who you are.

[Logical]

411. Lol, you love self promoting more than anyone I know. Nt

[SoapBox]

158. More crap stirring.

[stevenleser]

160. Pointing out folks changing their mind is crap stirring? I see. Please link to me

your post in the 660+ post thread discussing my 2008 campaign article about Hillary where you called it crap stirring.

[senz]

225. Seems to be what he does.

It seriously detracts from whatever image he's trying to project.

[longship]

163. Pshaw! Only in US politics...

is there condemnation for changing ones position on an issue.

When one thinks a bit about it, it is a childish ploy to play the flip-flop card. I want my government representatives to change their minds on issues when more information becomes available. Possibly only a ideologue whose positions are carved in stone plays the flip-flop card.

I've learned by my mistakes and I can repeat them exactly.
Peter Cook (1937-1995)

I hate the flip-flop ploy. It is low and adds absolutely no meaning or information to the discussion. It is a childish tactic.

[stevenleser]

167. Hey, I'm right there with you. But there is a 660+ post thread criticizing me for changing my

position here in GD-P and I'm not even running for President (I note that because GD-P is, of course, supposed to be about the candidates running for President).

And no, I didn't start that OP or encourage it.

[longship]

175. So why don't you take the proper position then?

In other words, don't play the same game. And especially don't respond by attacking a perceived opponent using the same idiotic childish tactic.

I've lost a bit of respect for you, Steve. You are more eloquent and thoughtful than this.

My best to you.

[stevenleser]

189. Nope, it's irony and it is a legitimate tool to show people the error of their ways.

You should be chiding the other folks who don't get the message.

[longship]

197. I chided you because I respect you.

I choose not to chide folks who would not probably learn by it.

Also, I have not, and will not, express a candidate preference on these forums. They have become toxic with childishness and mean spiritedness. I would prefer not to plunge myself into that vat of necrotizing fasciitis.

I implore you to take the high road, my friend.

Thank you for reading my responses. Best wishes to you.

[stevenleser]

199. That doesn't work. You know, back when the Greek civilization was at it's height

the playwrights of the day used irony in their plays to show the leaders where they were wrong.

Would you criticize the playwrights for doing so and not criticize the leaders?

[longship]

209. Well, at least please stop playing the flip-flop card.

Thanks.

One last time, take the high road, Steve.

Thanks.

[virtualobserver]

191. Actually, the OP just pointed out that you said that Hillary is a liar

That isn't a criticism. It is just a fact.

[stevenleser]

192. And it's also a fact that Bernie changed his mind on several things and has gone on conservative

media. The same ones that I get criticized for going on.

You can have both or neither and be consistent but not one and not the other.

[virtualobserver]

194. Why should I care if you changed your mind?

[stevenleser]

195. You tell me. You keep mentioning it to me and posting about it. nt

[virtualobserver]

203. I keep mentioning that you called Hillary a liar.....you outlined the reasons in great detail

You made a great case and you made it passionately. That you later "changed your mind" is irrelevant to me. I am not criticizing you for that.

[stevenleser]

211. LOL, there is no one on this board who believes you on that. Nt

[virtualobserver]

215. First you call Hillary a liar.....now you are calling me a liar.

of course, your may change your mind at some point.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

218. Demonstrably false claim. I believe virtualobserver. I'm on this board. Next.

[beam me up scottie]

219. I believe that poster since I've never seen them lie.

[treestar]

302. Well said! nt

[Truprogressive85]

177. Oh really

I have seen HRc supporters, imply that Sen.Sanders is

A gun nut
NRA lover
grumpy old man
Racist
Communist
Loony left

So don't cry when his supporters fight back if DNC had half the fighting spirit of my fellow Sanderistas there be heck of a lot more democrats in power.

In the mean time a little word from the poet out of Harlem

[slipslidingaway]

198. "This is bread and butter to me.

All of the analytics that show how much internet buzz I am generating are through the roof."

Glad you acknowledged you love the attention!!!

[stevenleser]

204. Yes, it is.

Yes, shocking as it seems, media folks live or die by how many folks are paying attention.

But I couldn't have asked for anything better than a huge post by folks trying to criticize my opinion.

You guys did that all yourselves. That's your fault.

[slipslidingaway]

212. Exactly and why we should not pay attention to your changing principles and let ...

your threads sink.

[stevenleser]

216. Blame the poster and commenter of the huge OP, I had nothing to do with it

Of course, my numbers will be huge for a while thanks to that post. But you only have yourselves to blame for focusing so much attention on me.

I did not solicit it and barely participated in that large thread.

As far as not wanting to see my posts, I'm sure you don't want Bernies hypocrisies exposed because it in turn exposes the hypocrisies of Sanders supporters, but if you attack me, don't be surprised if I point stuff like that out.

[JI7]

201. i think you are making people even more upset by your not seeming to really care

what they are doing and almost enjoying the attention and getting a laugh out of it .

[stevenleser]

205. Well, you can't blame a guy for showing folks that when they are trying to throw lemons at you

they are really making lemonade for you?

It's not my fault they started trying to throw lemons.

[msanthrope]

233. My dear Steve.....I am jealous. I was promised a thread exposing my plagiarism. ....

Heck, I was promised, years ago, that if I ever posted anything Luminous Animal didn't like, particularly about Glenn Greenwald, she was going to expose me to the world......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3051961

The subthread concerning that false accusation and her subsequent threat are fucking hilarious.......

To the jury....be fair. If it's okay for someone to repost what Steve has written, it's okay to repost a false accusation of plagiarism made against me.

[stevenleser]

421. Wow that is priceless!!!

All I can say is, I have the right friends and the right enemies here.

[msanthrope]

422. You do Steve....you do....nt

[aikoaiko]

399. He cared so little he had to start a new OP about it.

[JI7]

406. he likes the attention and enjoys ridiculing

those who are attacking him.

but he doesn't care that they think badly of him.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

408. LOL, he cares. This is "bread and butter" for him as a *cough* journalist...

and he's getting schooled by a bunch of DUers. This does not look good for one Steven Leser, no matter how much he claims his phone will be ringing off the hook. Journalism is 24/7, nontraditional work hours -- why isn't his phone ringing off the hook NOW? Will the masses be able to wait until AFTER the federal holiday? Tuesday?! My goodness.

[ALBliberal]

224. This is the first time I have ever heard of Steve Lesser

Hmmm....not impressed

[Sheepshank]

237. I'm pretty sure then, you've heard of everyone else

that you deserve to be impressed by.

That's awesome

[Fearless]

228. That's false. His opinion remains the same.

[TM99]

234. One professional to another Steven,

this is a very inappropriate OP, and you really should consider deleting and apologizing.

You must realize as a public pundit that your words will be visible for a long time. You were extremely critical of Clinton and her lying in 2008. Now eight years later, you studiously avoid discussing why you no longer believe that. You have become a hyper-partisan for Clinton as the ideal candidate.

No your endorsement did not address this issue. Yes, you are being called out on your hypocrisy. If you have even a shred of integrity you will own this.

But apparently you do not. This OP screams, "I am trying to deflect from my foibles". You are making up lies in order to attack Sanders supporters who have called you out on your very obvious hypocrisy.

Sanders has never flip-flopped on gun control. He has been consistently moderate through out his voting history. He certainly did not flip flop this weekend. That is a lie that has been proven to you numerous times through out this thread.

Man up Steven. Be the professional you claim to be. Own your mistake. Take the hit. And move on. But this is childishness on display. This is a kid caught shoplifting and trying to blame the store owner.

Right now, you are a perfect example of the typical Clinton supporter. She lies and flip flops. You lie and flip flopped. She offers non-apologies for mistakes and blames others instead of taking personal responsibility. You offer non-apologies for your mistakes and blame others instead of taking personal responsibility.

I do not expect you to own this and do the right thing. All the same, I might respect you just a little bit if you did.

[djean111]

253. Here is the good news - Leser will not affect one single vote, here at DU.

All he has really done is further alienate Bernie's supporters, and (inadvertently) expressed very eloquently, eight or so years ago, how we feel about Hillary today.
All of the ensuing contortions are just amusing. And I adore seeing the little thwarted-authoritarian streaks come out to play.

[Flying Squirrel]

239. The "flip-flop" meme

Was created by Republicans, was disingenuous in 2004 and remains disingenuous in this instance. Why should we be using Republican talking points or memes on this board? I'd just as soon not be reminded of 2004.

And this kind of crap should really be beneath you if you were the person of importance you pretend to be.

[merrily]

240. Please remind me when Sanders was NOT for a ban on assault weapons?

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/posts/10151539404652908

Despite his vote FOR an assault weapons ban and increased background checks, a Democratic majority Senate went the other way.

Crucified? Oh, the drama!

You are a public figure journalist--a status you've sought--who got criticized for potential hypocrisy or being compromised, or however one wants to characterize it--in his journalism.


P.S: Eight years ago would make it October 2007. You're welcome.

[beam me up scottie]

242. "Eight years ago would make it October 2007. You're welcome."

Maybe he should just delete the whole thing.

[merrily]

244. That required a massive amount of research and thinking, but I was happy to be of service.

And, no, I can't provide a link.

[beam me up scottie]

245. You should be a journalist! You're already better at fact checking than Steve!

Just don't go to work for Fox, I like and respect you too much.

[merrily]

247. Thank you. It was more subtraction than fact-checking, but

I'll take whatever compliments I can get.

FWIW: I am unadulterated dynamite at writing headlines and layout. I volunteered for my union newspaper and that is what they assigned me. (I always seem to get the last minute work jobs that need to be done fast after everyone else has blown their deadlines--no pressure.) As it turned out, I was "a natural."

[beam me up scottie]

248. But you also provided proof that Bernie didn't flip flop.

And I believe that, you're excellent under fire on DU as well.

[merrily]

250. Awwww, thank you.

I was so taken by your complimenting my subtraction skills that I forgot about the links, LOL!

I don't draw as much fire as I used to, probably because I'm in the Bernie Group most of the time.

Not sure why.

[beam me up scottie]

251. It's definitely safer in there.

But when you venture out you really make it count, merrily!

[merrily]

255. Wow. All these compliments. I am SO not used to them on DU.

While you're on a roll, though: Do you think these jeans make my hips look too slim?

[morningfog]

254. You are no Bernie Sanders, you are no candidate,

Your self importance is really hilarious.

You didn't "change your position." You jumped on what you think is the next gravy train. You put your finger in the wind and chose to sail with someone you believe to be a liar.

What is funny is Hills shills trying to use Bernie's supper for an AWB against him. lol.

[TexasTowelie]

256. Locking thread.

Statement of Purpose

A forum for general discussion of the Democratic presidential primaries. Disruptive meta-discussion is forbidden.

[HooptieWagon]

257. Takes a lot of hubris to accuse Sanders of flip-flopping.

Projection much?

[workinclasszero]

258. BOOM!!!!!

[leftupnorth]

259. I have always found unquestioning party loyalty

Pretty repulsive.

What is even more repulsive is unquestioning loyalty to a particular party candidate or elected official.

This isn't a football game where the winner doesn't matter.

[merrily]

270. +1

[DemocratSinceBirth]

260. As a dispassionate observer it is my considered opinion Mr. Leser has acquitted himself admirably

As a dispassionate observer it is my considered opinion Mr. Leser has acquitted himself admirably in this thread.

[merrily]

271. LOL!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

275. He brings a certain je ne sais quoi to this board that I can not help but notice./nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

309. You said Isaac Newton foresaw Steve Leser's greatness, and wrote about it.

Dispassionate observer. Yes, let's go with that. 😉

[DemocratSinceBirth]

324. My raison d'etre is to be half the man Steve Leser is

[artislife]

327. Why?

You already seem more of a man than he is.


Raison d'etre:the most important reason or purpose for someone or something's existence.


I would argue that your raison d'etre has been shown by your posts that deal with your love of civil justice, civil rights. We may not agree on candidates but you show yourself to be a much deeper and civic minded person than someone who aspires to mere punditry.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

332. Thank you for your kind words.

I would argue that your raison d'etre has been shown by your posts that deal with your love of civil justice, civil rights. We may not agree on candidates but you show yourself to be a much deeper and civic minded person than someone who aspires to mere punditry.

<<<<<<< puts serious cap on


I appreciate your kind words. Steve writes well and makes good arguments on FOX. He gets beat up a lot here for going on FOX. I detest that station too and believe it is an auxiliary of the GOP or the GOP is an auxiliary of FOX. With that being said when he goes on FOX he acquits himself well and doesn't let himself be pushed around like a lot of the house liberals on the station.

I don't believe he's a demigod or anything like that, many of my comments in this thread are tongue in cheek, but he's okay for a pundit. I can say what I truly feel because I am not a pundit and don't need to tailor my views for anyone.

But thank you again for the kind words.

[artislife]

367. Sometimes, when I read your words

I really wish you were on Bernie's team. And I mean that as a compliment.

I get excited on this site, say things that sometimes I regret and may not be the most beloved poster....but I believe both of us really want good to prevail. And a good that goes across color lines, up and down class lines and through the fly over states, the forgotten states, the blue states and red states...we just want a better world for as many of us as we can fight for.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

393. Thank you again...

I want to live in a nation/world where want is eliminated , everybody's civil rights are protected, and every man and woman can achieve their God Given potential.


That's utopia and I realize that... Some times in trying to create a utopia you create a dystopia.

But, thank you again...


P.S.

I get excited on this site, say things that sometimes I regret and may not be the most beloved poster

That describes the both of us.

Here is an interesting concept: I believe it can apply to politics.

DSB
Brian

[TexasTowelie]

262. Unlocked thread.

Lack of host consensus.

[boston bean]

280. Why in the world would this have ever been locked in the first place? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

268. Perhaps you do love it, and that's not good. You and others like to trade in extreme verbiage which

is casually discarded when other, even contradictory extreme verbiage is suddenly required. This cohort also uses opinion and candidate support as definition of identity 'I am an X supporter, you are a Y supporter, we are divided'.
I see that as a toxic, self indulgent habit.
Changing your mind, that's a great thing. However, allowing yourself the privilege to change while denying any memory of or understanding of your previous cohort is where the toxicity comes in. This is not only with you and Hillary but with many others and Hillary and many others with other issues. If you used to post that Hillary is a racist liar and now you say she's great you should if nothing else understand those who still feel the way you used to feel well enough to be an effective persuader of former Hillary opponents like yourself. The people you bark at all day were your cohort in 08. You act as if you can not understand them. You were them.

An ex smoker who stops smoking and then says 'I just can't understand those fucking smokers, how could anyone ever smoke?' is a big fat fake. Of course they understand them, they were them.

So those who have been in both camps understand both camps. If they pretend otherwise they are not being honest.

[Aerows]

343. 'I just can't understand those fucking smokers, how could anyone ever smoke?'

Hell, I still wake up in a panic at night because I dream I've lit up again, and am relieved that it was just a damn dream.

Sanctimonious isn't a good look for anybody, as you say, it just makes everything look fake.

[Evergreen Emerald]

273. Ignore them

Most of them apparently have no idea what they are talking about. They have lost reason, and are completely self unaware of their own double standards. When they gleefully swarmed you with the ugly attacks, they showed themselves for who they really are. Ignorance is incapable of reason.

Don't waste your time.

[Duckhunter935]

279. Yes the pesky truth

That highlights the lie that he refuses to correct when the facts are presented.

Something a real journalist would do in a heartbeat.

[orpupilofnature57]

276. Are you quoting Hillary ? Is it a statement about you? Or another soliloquy of diversion ?

Does Gun Control include War ?

[SidDithers]

278. DU rec for pissing off the right people, again....nt

Sid

[Gothmog]

281. Good Observation

[Motown_Johnny]

283. No, it is a lie.

Spend 15 seconds on Google please.

[Motown_Johnny]

282. An assault weapons ban is not "strict gun control".

Your misrepresentation of the facts is exactly what I have come to expect from Clinton supporters. It isn't even well done. This attempt was lazy, 15 seconds on Google proves you are wrong.

Bernie voted FOR banning assault weapons in '94, '96 and 2013.


https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns#.VhpxvnpViko


^snips (not contiguous)^


April 17, 2013 S Amdt 711 Prohibits the Sale of Assault Weapons Amendment Rejected - Senate
(40 - 60) Yea

March 22, 1996 HR 125 Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995 Bill Passed - House
(239 - 173) Nay

May 5, 1994 HR 4296 Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Bill Passed - House
(216 - 214) Yea

[William769]

285. Kick & highly recommended!

[JoePhilly]

287. People who have been wrong about Obama over and over and over ...

... who have predicted the most terrible intent and outcomes ... only to be wrong again and again ... are now very upset with you because you've come forward to say that you were wrong about Hillary back in 2008.

You should borrow a play directly from their playbook. Simply claim that Hillary saw your article, read what you wrote about her, and it forced her to change directions.

Hillary is now is doing the right things now BECAUSE YOU held her feet to the fire, as it were. You were not wrong ... you created the change!!!

That's how they'd play it.

[treestar]

306. And how often they claimed they supported Obama

and then flipped on him for not doing enough fast enough for them, how is that not a flip flop too? Though negativity is always OK with them, consistent or not.

[JoePhilly]

307. Also very true ... they claim they were his most bestest supporters ...

... but then he turned on them, or tricked them, or some such nonsense. They only hear what they want to hear.

The perpetually disgruntled are always disgruntled.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

312. Actually, Steve called Obama a liar. And unlike the OP, I have evidence.

Something to think about. Or not.

[TeddyR]

288. I don't understand the constant efforts of some on DU

To disparage (sometimes by misrepresenting either his position or the impact of whatever law is at issue) Bernie Sanders by attacking his record on gun control. Who do you hope to convince by casting Sanders as some sort of NRA shill when he certainly isn't? The people on DU will almost uniformly support Sanders if he is the Democratic nominee -- unless Hillary supporters intend to vote Republican because of Sanders' gun control record. And I don't get the sense that most Democrats are too put off by Sanders' record on this issue.

[treestar]

303. It is to point out to them that some of their "criticism" of Hillary

is applying to her a standard they don't apply to Bernie.

They are both politicians. They may change their minds over time. So why criticize the other candidate for it? Your own does it too.

[jeff47]

330. Except this is attempting to do that by lying.

The entirety of Steve's point, as outlined in #74 above, is Sanders didn't talk about gun control as much.

Same positions, but he's talking about them more, means he changed positions according to you and Steve.

[Exilednight]

394. To answer your question, it comes down to honesty and authenticity.

Bernie may, or may not switch his position. The question is still open ended. But his issue is only ONE issue out of many.

On the flip side, Hillary has switched positions in gay marriage, KXL, TPP, NAFTA, IWR and a gross tonnage of other issues that is so heavy that if Superman was told he had to move them or the earth perishes, he would reply "it was fun while it lasted".

[workinclasszero]

304. Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut

Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut
He supported the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in recent memory.

By Mark Joseph Stern

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

So are you saying this story is a lie?

[thesquanderer]

313. The headline, at least, is a lie

Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2015, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Or put more generously, an opinion.

Here's the exposition from further in the article:

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.

Is that law (and therefore that vote) truly reprehensible and odious?

I included a video in my post #292. Sanders defends the vote at 1:43. Agree or disagree, but it is not an indefensible position, even for someone generally on the left.

Funny, this is only the second time I've heard of that author, Stern... and the other time was for a column that I found poorly argued and disingenuous. So I guess at least he's consistent. In case you're curious, discussed at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650153 )

EDIT: p.s. - BS has further expounded on this vote at 17:17 in the video at http://www.democraticunderground.com/128060734

[TeddyR]

319. What (or who) is a "gun nut"?

I see that term used loosely on here a lot to attack anyone from the NRA to Democrats who support the Second Amendment. Apparently it doesn't have any particular meaning but is simply used as a slur for someone you disagree with.

Anyway, this article is the perfect example of my comment that people misrepresent certain laws - there is simply nothing "reprehensible" about the bill that Sanders voted for. There is no valid legal argument for subjecting a gun manufacturer to lawsuit for some individual's criminal misuse of a firearm. None. Any judge would worth his or her salt would throw out such a lawsuit even without the law passed by Congress. And again, I think the majority of Democrats agree with Sanders' position on guns, so attacking his record on that single issue is silly, and accusing him of flip-flopping on an issue is pretty ironic from a Hillary supporter.

[uponit7771]

368. His overall record on gun control has been consistent; he's against it. There are too many votes

... on record for him to come out now for it

Then there's shit like this

?oh=3da9c64d5d6a1e1f4a7a5a2f1c0b4ab8&oe=56978925

[TeddyR]

387. If he was against gun control

He wouldn't have a D- from the NRA. I assume you are intentionally misrepresenting Sanders' record instead of just failing to understand the issues and his votes. That's pretty sad for a Democrat and I would have hoped for better. In fact, that's a teabagger move.

[2pooped2pop]

291. who are you?

Seriously who are you and why would I care who you would vote for let alone endorse? I read parts of some of your posts (too long) and it's clear that you have a high opinion of your opinion but really I am way behind because I have no idea who you are. Could you fill one of the little people in?

[jeff47]

331. He's a "journalist" who appears on Fox, usually as "the liberal".

Unfortunately, I have to put "journalist" in quotes now.

[2pooped2pop]

395. oh so almost anybody can endorse someone?

Then instead of my just feeling the Bern, I believe I will go ahead and endorse the Bern. You heard it here first!
Thank you for the info by way. I really didn't know.

[Bobbie Jo]

294. IOKIYB

I'm learning...

[leftupnorth]

308. It is truly amazing that such lies about our candidates

Are allowed to be posted on this site by a paid Fox News 'liberal'.

Shameful.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

314. Steve has called Clinton, Obama, and Sanders liars.

He can in no way support the assertions he's made in the OP, primarily because they're lies. But I can damned sure support my statement that he's called all 3 liars. Funny how it works like that.

[ismnotwasm]

317. Heh!!

K&R

[99Forever]

325. Bernie Sanders has proven honesty and integrity. You?

Not so much.

In fact. None of either. At all. Ever.

[hrmjustin]

337. Wow this is creepy and uncalled for.

I get you don't like him but come on.

[99Forever]

358. I neither "like" nor "don't like" him.

I don't even know him.

My issue is with his actions.

I doubt you would understand.

[hrmjustin]

360. Why would I not understand?

[99Forever]

361. If you did understand...

... you wouldn't have made such a silly accusation as you did in your first response.

Okay, here's where you backpeddle and deny.

[hrmjustin]

363. Pointless even trying with you.

You just want to insult.

[marym625]

342. jury results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sun Oct 11, 2015, 12:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Bernie Sanders has proven honesty and integrity. You?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=665444

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a direct insult that really is over the top. Please hide this.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Oct 11, 2015, 12:27 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ad hominem attack. As tempting as it is sometimes, one doesn't do one's cause any favors by responding to disagreements in this way.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So, prove him wrong.
We're talking about a public figure. He's said that. Won't vote to hide.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack on a DUer because a Sanders supporter can't accept the truth.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with the poster.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[99Forever]

357. Thanks Mary.

The alert stalkers have been working overtime.


The truth absolutely scares the living shit out of them.

You're the best.

[marym625]

362. no, you're the best

[uponit7771]

370. Yes, he voted for legisilation that supported the Minutemen but lets see him be honest about why!?

He wont

[beam me up scottie]

379. Why? Please cite links to his reasons for voting for this legislation, tia!

The amendment states:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.

Reference: Department of Homeland Security appropriations; Bill HR 5441 Amendment 968 ; vote number 2006-224 on Jun 6, 2006

[BlueJazz]

328. I've never had a problem with anybody changing their mind...about anything. I may point out...

..(what I think).. are flaws in their decision and ask them to explain to me why they have a different opinion on the subject. In short, I have a degree in Physics and let me tell you, my mind changes a lot about this reality we live in all the time !

[forest444]

334. Hear, hear.

“The measure of intelligence, is the ability to change.”

― Albert Einstein

[BlueJazz]

340. Thank you, forest.

[forest444]

344. You bet.

As you know, it's been a favorite tactic of politicians lately (except Bernie) to use any changes or even minor shifts in their opponents' opinions against them as a cudgel. If they were for it before they were against it, the reasoning goes, they must have zero trustworthiness.

We all change our minds over time, of course. The real question should be: has it changed for the better ("evolved&quot , and is there reason to believe that, if elected, he or she won't accordingly.

On the Rethug side, they don't seem to mind that Trump has literally done a 180 on just about all the issues near and dear to the far right. I certainly hope our side won't let minor differences over gun control overshadow the really big debates like TPP, fossil fuels, the wars, astronomical health and college costs, etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

333. Tsk. Tsk.

[PatrickforO]

336. Uh, these links are not mutually exclusive.

In other words, someone from a mostly rural state can oppose strict gun control to favor hunters while at the same time working to ban assault weapons. I mean, I can understand you're for Clinton, and that's cool. Fair enough. But, honestly, these two links are misleading. Bernie hasn't changed his mind.

An example: here's what the WaPo article says about Sanders and assault weapons: "He's consistently supported a ban on assault weapons." I shouldn't have to point out that this is identical with the news.yahoo article headline.

As to gun control, just as honestly, it isn't my main issue. I guess I'm just not a one-issue type of voter. What I'm supporting Bernie for is that I like his stances on the following:
1. Raising minimum wage
2. Free tuition at state colleges and universities
3. Strengthening Social Security by removing the payroll tax cap
4. Defeating the Trans-Pacific Partnership "free" trade treaty
5. Single-payer healthcare system
6. Using the purchasing power of single payer to negotiate hospital and drug costs down
7. Upholding net neutrality
8. Revising the US corporate tax code to get at the $2 trillion in untaxed profits offshore
9. Raising the top tax rate on the wealthy
10. Keeping the estate tax, and increasing it for larger estates
11. Taxing capital gains as regular income
12. Preserving access to abortions and contraception

Well, that's just a few, but I think I got the main ones. Now, let's revisit gun control: To my mind, instituting the 12 things I've listed here will remove much of the economic stress that currently oppresses millions of Americans. Alleviating this stress may (and I stress the word 'may') indirectly reduce the incidence of gun violence, and in a related issue, may also indirectly reduce the incidence of mental illness - though this would be very difficult to prove. There have been some promising studies done with living conditions and rats, for instance.

So, your OP hasn't really done much to sway me at all. I'm still for Bernie.

[marym625]

341. no one criticized you for changing your mind.

And Sanders hasn't flip flopped.

Truth and fact go further than self promotion. While I know you love the attention, wouldn't attention to and for integrity be more satisfying?

[jfern]

345. 42 recs for what has been long pointed out to be pants on fire lying?

Shame on you, shame on all of you.

[uponit7771]

373. Sanders overall positions on guns is well known, he's for them. voted against the Brady Bill, that's

... gumper enough

[jfern]

375. He voted against the assault weapons ban in 1994

[beam me up scottie]

380. Obviously his overall position is pro-gun control, anyone who thinks he's a gun nut is insane.

[uponit7771]

381. Well there's this also, .... link inside

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/bernie-sanders-gets-his-gun/

Sanders’s record on gun legislation is somewhat mixed. He used to be a National Rifle Association candidate of choice, but these days, given his support for tepid gun-control measures, he’s persona non grata with the NRA. Even so, Sanders has been opposed for the most part to greater government oversight of ownership and sale of firearms. During his long tenure in Congress—for 16 years in the House of Representatives before being elected to the Senate in 2006—Sanders opposed universal background checks, and after the Sandy Hook killings in 2012 he said that even the strongest gun-control law would not have prevented a massacre of innocents.

Again his OVERALL career he's been against gun control...

He's evolving during his 2015 prez run...

Whether people like it or not

[beam me up scottie]

383. Cite proof that "his OVERALL career he's been against gun control". Tia!

[uponit7771]

384. You can look up his votes and stances from beginning to end yourself, not playing that game...

... and it's well known he's "evolving"

[beam me up scottie]

385. Nope, you made the claim so it's up to you to back it up.

Surely there's tons of evidence for that claim?

[valerief]

353. There's a lot of talk about trashing on this thread. I generally trash the Bernie vs. Hillary

threads. I don't have the stomach for them. Yeah, I'll trash this one, too.

[in_cog_ni_to]

382. A True Progressive

, a DUer from day one and a Great, GREAT writer gets vacationed permanently and THIS, a paid Faux NEWS talking head, straight from enemy territory, is allowed to stay? And is actually defended by some here?

Very, very interesting.

[stone space]

386. Depends on whether he's flipping or flopping, doesn't it?

If he denounces special legal protections for arms manufacturers, that's a flip, and I wholeheartedly approve.

If, on the other hand, he announces his support for extending those special legal protections to big tobacco and lawn darts manufacturers, that's a huge flop, and I would judge it accordingly.

Confusing flips with flops is an exercise in false equivalency.

[TeddyR]

391. He didn't vote

For special legal protections for firearms manufacturers, despite your misrepresentation. I really, really wish you would leave the lies to the Republicans.

[stone space]

396. asdf

[Electric Monk]

404. 404 error: Honest punditry not found.

[MrMickeysMom]

405. Unk...unk....