clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 120

[South Florida]

Posted: 4/9/16 at 5:21pm

Uninspiring

Wow, you guys still don't get it.

 

[javero]

Posted: 4/9/16 at 6:25pm

I vote w/ my head as well w/ as my heart.  No one ever expected Hillary to come out as a hope-and-change candidate.  With her, what you see is what you get.  I <3 her when she's at her most wonkish & pragmatic best.  That's how she keeps it real.  It's a helluva task to pull off hope-and-change over three election cycles which you propose, South Florida.  Steady as she goes seems more appropriate until there's some resolution on Scalia's replacement and the makeup of both chambers of Congress.

 And as fond as you are of Sanders, were he to somehow sew up his adopted party's nomination, he'd instantly become the most hated man in America by a huge chunk of the electorate.  The charges that PalJoey and company level against him here pale in comparison to the all out assault that the GOP would launch against in the general election.  He has never faced the amount of public scrutiny that Hillary has endured for most of her adult lifetime.  Just this past week saw him coming unhinged as the MSM finally decided to turn up the heat.   We're at the business end of the primary process now.  It will separate the wheat from the chaff.

Updated On: 4/9/16 at 06:25 PM

[binau]

Posted: 4/9/16 at 7:19pm

PalJoey said: "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.

"

I'm sorry but that information just does not appear to be correct:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/16/hillary-clinton/clinton-gun-industry-wholly-protected-all-lawsuits/

It does not appear to be 'ALL' lawsuits (e.g., As I have mentioned, there is no protection against manufacturing defects). Additionally, regarding the specific case I described and whether it is an issue or not. 

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

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

The purpose of the bill seems to be for the specific case I describe. What kind of cases do you think gun manufacturers are being protected by the law? Regarding the two situations you have list:

"* Did your gun explode in your face? "

They are not protected from such a situation.

 

* "Do you think there should be curbs on manufacturing devices that can turn guns into semi-automatic killing machines? "

Yes, but in my opinion that should be through directly prohibiting such devices (assuming they are not already, I don't know about that device). I don't believe the USA government should allow these devices to be legally sold and then when they are used for their intended purpose hold a manufacturer or sales dealer accountable (unless they knowingly sell it to a criminal or have reason to believe it could be involved in criminal activities). That makes no sense. Of course, in reality/practically perhaps it's harder to get a bill that directly prohibits such devices, so perhaps this indirect method may discourage sales of the device without 'prohibiting it'. But the issue is that the USA is allowing these devices to be sold. 
 

Updated On: 4/9/16 at 07:19 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 4/9/16 at 8:45pm

Am I wrong to feel somewhat irritated by an Australian chiming in so vociferously on these matters?

I appreciate open debate, but... This is not an academic exercise for some of us. Whatever happens you can sit back and watch from the comfort of afar, so maybe you're not quite as invested as you seem.  I mean, you said in another thread that you have no interest in US history, so maybe look back a little further before forming such strongly held views.

Full disclosure : I'm with her!

Edited update : On mature reflection, carry on, it's not exactly unheard of for Americans to poke their noses into international affairs, I guess. :)

Updated On: 4/9/16 at 08:45 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/9/16 at 9:53pm

One might call it "kangaroo-splaining."

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/9/16 at 11:37pm

deleted.

Updated On: 4/10/16 at 11:37 PM

[HorseTears]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 5:38am

I know we're all very busy arguing about whether Hillary will make the White House the official DC office of Goldman Sachs and whether Bernie personally shot every victim of handgun violence since 1918, but could we just take a minute to chat about US Labor Secretary Thomas Perez? 

 

I'm sure he was already on the radar of political wonks, but I have to admit that, before this week, if I'd been told to name the current US Labor Secretary, I wouldn't have been able to do so -- even if Bernie had a gun to my head or if Hillary offered me $1Million.  Just caught him on this week's Real Time With Bill Maher and was utterly charmed.  He's obviously intelligent, has a great resume and a surprisingly sharp wit - which could be nicely deployed on the campaign trail.  I wonder if he's on the Veep shortlist.  Certainly hope he is.  

 

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 8:01am

Yes, you're definitely wrong, the next POTUS is important to the world, thank you qolbinau.  This poster made a keen insight into your essay, straightened you out, and had a source, an American source, and your weak comeback is kangaroo thinking.  Keep your blinders on Clintonites.

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 8:29am

HorseTears, upthread I posted a link to a Politico article that suggested he might be.  He brings a lot to the table, including being a high energy campaign speaker, but he lacks elected office experience.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 9:07am

South Florida said: "Yes, you're definitely wrong, the next POTUS is important to the world, thank you qolbinau.  This poster made a keen insight into your essay, straightened you out, and had a source, an American source, and your weak comeback is kangaroo thinking.  Keep your blinders on Clintonites."

 

I'm afraid ad hominem attacks like that are pretty common on this thread when a regularly repeated assertion is proven wrong or, at least, challenged.  But it's hardly an exclusive feature of Hillbots; I think we see it in equal measure from Bernie Bros, too.  

 

[javero]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 10:12am

LOL @ Hillbots & Bernie Bros!

[Steve C.]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 10:33am

So last week Bernie was saying "he has no control over what his surrogates say" in regard to the negative charges and remarks they were making about Hillary Clinton. This morning when asked about the "unqualified charges" made against him and whether Clinton owes him an apology. George Stephenopoulos pointed out that she herself did not say that, to which Sanders replied "well her surrogates said these things and she should apologize for what they said". Then he said nothing about he himself called her "unqualified".

When asked about his income tax disclosures, again, he spit out the same exact answer from last week again about how his wife does their taxes and, "we haven't had time". Then he said the same thing to Chuck Todd again. Maybe his wife should take a few days off and do their taxes. 

It's getting to the point that when I see him now, the saliva and juices start to moisten my mouth, I get a bubbly stomach, and I start to gag a little bit and get sick. (I guess I should relax a little).

(btw, that SNL/HC skit was pretty cute).   

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 11:15am

For many people, Thomas Perez has become the most favored VP pick over Julian Castro. They both have strengths, but I still prefer Clinton/Castro.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 12:23pm

Perez is actually growing on me - he seems steady and passionate at the same time. 

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 2:14pm

A vote for Hillary is a vote for war.  And Jimmy Carter knows it.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/international/203189-carter-on-clinton-she-took-very-little-action

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 2:29pm

The Hillary Formula:  Lie/Disseminate/Play the Victim/Repeat.

 

http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/04/08/the-war-between-us-how-the-clinton-media-machine-just-lost-the-democratic-primary/

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 2:46pm

Michelle Alexander responds to Bill Clinton's clash with Black Lives Matter protesters and explains why I no longer consider myself a Democrat:

"Bill Clinton says that he “almost” wants to apologize for his remarkable episode yesterday — you know, when he embraced long-debunked, racially coded "super-predator" rhetoric, compared Black Lives Matter protestors to Republicans and insisted that they support murderers, and blamed his crime bill on black politicians. Personally, I am not demanding an apology from Bill Clinton. Instead, I would like to say thank you. Thank you, Bill, for giving the nation a ten-minute tutorial on everything that was wrong (and apparently remains wrong) with the “New Democrats” and their approach to racial politics.

Unfortunately much of the mainstream media seems to be buying (yet again) much of what Bill was selling yesterday. So to recap what should be obvious by now: Black politicians and activists were not asking for "get tough" measures and nothing else back in the 1990s. Some black politicians opposed the Clinton crime bill, and those who supported it weren’t seeking punishment and nothing more; they desperately wanted massive investment in jobs and schools so the young people trapped in communities where work had suddenly disappeared would have some hope of survival. It is a gross distortion to suggest that black people wanted billions of dollars slashed from child welfare, housing and other public benefits in order to fund an unprecedented prison building boom. It was Bill Clinton's deliberate political strategy -- one he championed along with the "New Democrats" -- to appeal to white swing voters by being tougher on struggling black communities than the Republicans had been, ramping up the drug war and gutting welfare. That strategy of "getting tough" while at the same time eviscerating the federal social safety net was NOT supported by many of the black politicians he seeks to use as cover. Rep. John Lewis (who Clinton referred to yesterday as the "last remaining hero of the civil rights movement" fiercely opposed welfare reform, accurately predicting that it would thrust more than a million more kids into severe poverty.

John Lewis said back then: “How can any person of faith, of conscience, vote for a bill that puts a million more kids into poverty? What does it profit a great nation to conquer the world, only to lose its soul?”

The young people challenging Bill Clinton yesterday were asking these very same questions. You may not agree with their tactics, but they were, in their own way, fighting for the soul of the Democratic party and American democracy itself. Whether our nation can be redeemed in the long run remains to be seen."

http://usuncut.com/politics/michelle-alexander-clinton-blm-rant/

Updated On: 4/10/16 at 02:46 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/10/16 at 4:11pm

If you're not a Democrat, the Republicans will win.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 4/11/16 at 1:31am

PalJoey said: "For many people, Thomas Perez has become the most favored VP pick over Julian Castro. They both have strengths, but I still prefer Clinton/Castro."

 

PJ, I'm curious, what in particular do you prefer about Castro?  I honestly know very little about either of them at this point, but they both seem like very solid picks.  

 

[StageManager2]

Posted: 4/11/16 at 9:46am

My guess is because Castro was born and raised in Texas and served as Mayor of San Antonio. Texas is on the verge of turning purple and has the potential to turn blue by next decade. Furthermore, Texas has the second most electoral votes (3 after California (55), so netting the state would be a real coup. Also, Castro is 41. If Clinton served 2 terms, Castro would be 49/50 by the time of the 2024 election, still fairly young but with 8 years of experience as the second-in-command. We need to look ahead and start grooming young Democrats for the future.

Updated On: 4/11/16 at 09:46 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/11/16 at 10:48am

PJ, I'm curious, what in particular do you prefer about Castro?  I honestly know very little about either of them at this point, but they both seem like very solid picks.  
 

It was the way his daughter Carina flipped her hair when her daddy was delivering the keynote speech at the 2012 convention.

 

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 4/11/16 at 5:02pm

I guess it's OK to write about possible running mates.  The Bern is feeling low, looking at the daunting task ahead, nothing looks good about NY.  Let's hope for Trump or Cruz and just leave it at that.  Love the hair flipping, worth a million votes maybe.

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 4/11/16 at 5:07pm

So many people I know in NY who can't vote because they're Independent.  People who are imploring friends to vote for Bernie, who can't vote for Bernie.  Don't see how he can win.

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 4/11/16 at 6:01pm

Unabashed multiple poster.  How is winning by 12 points = less delegates.  Joe Scarborough nails it.  It's a fix and you guys go on and on.  Keep trying to spruce up this most flawed candidate in history.  I'll believe.

 

[StageManager2]

Posted: 4/11/16 at 6:41pm

Hillary's interview with NY Daily News:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-hillary-clinton-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2596292?/?/&utm_content=buffer4d1e3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer