clinton vs. sanders your vote? — Page 119

Bernie got an invitation to speak at The Vatican today,



Um...no, he did not get "an invitation" from the Vatican.



POLITICO: Sanders visit to Vatican sows confusion: The Vermont senator said the Holy See invited him to speak at a conference. But organizers are disputing that.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-vatican-conference-221708

...the invitation was actually made by Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, the chancellor of the pontifical academy, an autonomous institution that receives some funding from the Holy See but is not officially part of it....

Updated On: 4/9/16 at 11:44 PM

Everyone should read the Bloomberg article that Jordan posted previously. Here it is again.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-08/sanders-accused-of-discourtesy-in-seeking-vatican-invitation

This is so obviously a ploy just to use this visit as something "inclusive (and pandering)" he can put in his speeches. He's crashing the symposium: he was not invited! His senior campaign manager called the Vatican and begged for an invitation; it was sent on April 4th (for a summit that was planned for months); just as an observer, not a speaker. He will NOT meet the Pope and slobber on his ring.

Now he's trying to get more votes from uninformed and middle class Catholics. He probably thinks a rosary is a little necklace. Sanders is constantly using these gimmicks and lies, and he's running a fair campaign??

Neither of you read what I wrote so the hell with you.



In case this hasn't popped up on everyone's social media, here is the best Hillary/Bernie blogpost ever, titled "I'm With Her...I Guess":







http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021

PalJoey said: "


Bernie's law extended UNPRECEDENTED protections to the gunmakers. The proven benefit to the American tradition of corporate liability is that if you sue Ford because your new car explodes and you WIN, all the other automakers will make their cars safer.

Bernie's law exempted the gunmakers from that tradition of liability.



"

I mean, this is exactly the issue. A new car exploding is such a different situation than a gun being used irresponsibly to kill people. A car is not designed to explode, but a gun is designed to kill people. It makes no sense for manufacturers or gun shop owners to be liable when their products are being used for their intended purpose and within the law. Also, my understanding that if a gun DID say explode when a person was using it (i.e., non-intended purpose) - the gun manufacturer would be liable in the same way that Ford would be liable.

To clarify, I am extremely anti-guns and would not care if such a law were implemented and it indirectly led to the fall of the gun manufacturing and sales industry. Similarly, if it indirectly led to increased safety measures for guns as you describe, I would see that as a desirable outcome.

My main point is that I can understand why Bernie is voting this way - because logically it just makes sense if you want gun manufacturing and sales to remain in the USA.

The reason he probably does is because he is from a rural state that has different attitudes towards guns than metropolitan states (he used to talk about this early on in his campaign).

Updated On: 4/9/16 at 01:31 AM

PalJoey said: "Neither of you read what I wrote so the hell with you.

In case this hasn't popped up on everyone's social media, here is the best Hillary/Bernie blogpost ever, titled "I'm With Her...I Guess": http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021"



This was great^.

Updated On: 4/9/16 at 03:48 AM

Thank you HT, somewhat arrogant PJ to suggest that people must not have read your essay or else they couldn't possibly hold a different opinion. You guys keep pumping up the least trusted candidate to ever gain the nomination of either party, maybe she'll still win, she'll get my vote, but will we win with this weakest of candidates ever? Perhaps, but only because Trump or Cruz is the opponent. Any other Republican beats her like a drum, and when they turn the convention into a circus and come out with someone different, we'll be done.

I believe that if a person legally buys a firearm and uses it for its designed purpose - to kill someone - it's actually the USA government that should be held more responsible for allowing such manufacturing and sales to take place. It's not the manufacturers or the gun shop owners working within the law that should be responsible.



You STILL haven't read what I wrote, so to hell with you again.

That case you just described is not at issue here. No lawyer would take it on and if one did, the case would be thrown out of court, and future lawyers would be disinclined to take a similar case.

Bernie's Law exempted the gun industry from ALL lawsuits, including those claiming design flaws and those seeking curbs on the kind of weapons sold and the amounts of ammunition. Did your gun explode in your face? Sorry, Charlie. Do you think there should be curbs on manufacturing devices that can turn guns into semi-automatic killing machines?

You and Bernie want to frame this as a law that penalizes gun-shop owners, when he knows perfectly well (although his laptop-activist acolytes can't seem to make the distinction) that Bernie's law protected the gun MANUFACTURERS.

THE INDUSTRY.

THE MAN.

WHY, WHY, WHY would Bernie want to exempt this Gun-MAKING INDUSTRY from the natural legal ebb and flow every OTHER industry must respond to? That's the question of this primary,.

I happen to think it's because the man is a one-issue meshuggeneh, and the GOP will be able to paint him to the vast majority of people in this country as a crazy man who must not be president, and the Democrats will lose an election that otherwise is being handed to them on a Trump-lined platter. And with the loss of this election goes the Supreme Court for the next several decades..

Bernie on Charlie Rose proving he's as much of a big, whiny baby as Donald Trump is:



ROSE: But take a listen to this, this is what you've said. You said that, "Clinton should apologize for Iraq war deaths."

SANDERS: This is after I was asked to apologize for the tragedy in Sandy Hook. You know, put these things into context.

ROSE: Tit for tat.

SANDERS: It is tit for tat. But I'm responding to attacks that are being made against me.

ROSE: I'm asking where the tenor of this campaign is going. And is that going too far to say she bears responsibility for Iraqi war deaths?

SANDERS: Do I bear responsibility for the tragedy and the horrors of Sandy Hook? So, you know, let's get off of that. Of course she doesn't bear responsibility. She voted for the war in Iraq. That was a very bad vote, in my view. Do I hold her accountable? No.

...

ROSE: I just wanna come back to the Iraqi thing one second, and one more question. You have said that she voted for the Iraqi war. Other people did as well. Many other people. Do you hold all of them responsible for the deaths of Americans?

SANDERS: No.

ROSE: Then why say it, Senator? That's the question.

SANDERS: I am saying it because I was attacked.

ROSE: That's not a reason, I promise you, to say, "I'm saying it because they attacked me."

Updated On: 4/9/16 at 09:25 AM

There is also reporting that Sanders was wrong on the Panama trade pact - and that as part of the trade deal, more transparency resulted, and a substantial decrease in the use of Panama for tax havens...



"Specifically, the number of offshore incorporations fell from 4,741 in 2005 to 835 in 2015. Most important, as of last year Mossack Fonseca appeared to have nearly completely ceased incorporating the least transparent form of company — known as “bearer shares” — which often don’t need to register an owner’s name.



Even before the free-trade deal, Panama was under pressure from both the United States and Europe to clean up its tax-haven act; the pressure intensified after the financial crisis of 2008. The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal — which Panama badly wanted, to match a deal between its Central American neighbors and the United States — hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the “bearer shares” loophole. Panama agreed and changed its laws accordingly — before the free-trade agreement reached the Senate and Mr. Sanders nevertheless voted “no,” claiming, wrongly, that it would make the tax haven “worse.”



In response to our questions, the Sanders campaign didn’t address the data, but said the administration had missed an opportunity to completely “eradicate” the Panama tax haven. To us, it looks like the Obama administration’s diplomacy resulted in real progress, and that if anyone’s entitled to say “I told you so” about that, it would be Ms. Clinton."



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-panama-papers-prove-mr-sanders-was-wrong-about-a-trade-pact-with-panama/2016/04/08/31f43106-fda0e-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

And speeches!!!

Back at you, Borstalboy. This is becoming fun.

The Pragmatic Tradition of African-American Voters by Johnathan Chait

This group is by far pro Hillary, sad. I recommend you treat your rivals gently, they might come out in November if you behave.