clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 61

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/4/15 at 8:35am

7 countries where college is free

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/02/7_countries_where_college_is_free_partner/

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/4/15 at 8:36am

U.S. Paid Family Leave Versus The Rest Of The World, In 2 Disturbing Charts

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/07/30/3465922/paid-family-leave/

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/4/15 at 9:04am

"Bernie Sanders doesn't believe in gun control"

Here's an email that went out from Sanders yesterday...

 

"Here is the very sad truth: it is very difficult for the American people to keep up with the mass shootings we seem to see every day in the news. Yesterday, San Bernardino. Last week, Colorado Springs. Last month, Colorado Springs again. Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Isla Vista, Virginia Tech, Navy Yard, Roseburg, and far too many others.

The crisis of gun violence has reached epidemic levels in this country to the point that we are averaging more than one mass shooting per day. Now, I am going to tell you something that most candidates wouldn’t say: I am not sure there is a magical answer to how we end gun violence in America. But I do know that while thoughts and prayers are important, they are insufficient and it is long past time for action.

That’s why I want to talk to you today about a few concrete actions we should take as a country that will save lives.

Add your name in support of the following commonsense measures Congress can take to make our communities safer from gun violence.

1. We can expand background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. This is an idea that over 80% of Americans agree with, even a majority of gun owners.

2. & 3. We can renew the assault weapons ban and end the sale of high capacity magazines — military-style tools created for the purpose of killing people as efficiently as possible.

4. Since 2004, over 2,000 people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list have legally purchased guns in the United States. Let’s close the “terror gap” and make sure known foreign and domestic terrorists are included on prohibited purchaser lists.

5. We can close loopholes in our laws that allow perpetrators of stalking and dating violence to buy guns. In the United States, the intended targets of a majority of our mass shootings are intimate partners or family members, and over 60% of victims are women and children. Indeed, a woman is five times more likely to die in a domestic violence incident when a gun is present.

6. We should close the loophole that allows prohibited purchasers to buy a gun without a completed background check after a three-day waiting period expires. Earlier this year, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine of our fellow Americans while they prayed in a historic church, simply because of the color of their skin. This act of terror was possible because of loopholes in our background check laws. Congress should act to ensure the standard for ALL gun purchases is a completed background check. No check — no sale.

7. It’s time to pass federal gun trafficking laws. I support Kirsten Gillibrand’s Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking & Crime Prevention Act of 2015, which would “make gun trafficking a federal crime and provide tools to law enforcement to get illegal guns off the streets and away from criminal networks and street gangs.”

8. It’s time to strengthen penalties for straw purchasers who buy guns from licensed dealers on behalf of a prohibited purchaser.

9. We must authorize resources for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study and research the causes and effects of gun violence in the United States of America.

10. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are over 21,000 firearm suicides every year in the United States. It’s time we expand and improve our mental health capabilities in this country so that people who need care can get care when they need it, regardless of their level of income.

Add your name in support of these commonsense measures Congress can take to make our communities safer from gun violence.

Earlier today, the U.S. Senate voted against non-binding legislation to expand background checks, close the “terror gap,” and improve our mental health systems. I voted for all three, although each of them came up short.

They failed for the same reason the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey legislation failed in 2013, just months after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School: because of the financial political power of a gun lobby that has bought candidates and elections for the better part of the last several decades.

In 2014 alone, the gun lobby spent over $30 million on political advertising and lobbying to influence legislators in Congress and state capitals across the country. And just last month, it was reported that the Koch brothers made a $5 million contribution to the NRA.

Americans of all political stripes agree. It's time to address the all too common scene of our neighbors being killed. It's time to pass a common sense package of gun safety legislation.

With your help, that's what we’ll do when I’m president.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders"

Updated On: 12/4/15 at 09:04 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/4/15 at 4:26pm

 

Nice to see he's coming around on the gun issue after supporting the gun manufacturers in such devastating ways.

 

Meanwhile, according to the November Gallup poll released today, Hillary's favorable rating is 21 points higher than the Bernie's, an increase of 8 points from October.

 

76 percent of Democrats and "leaners" had a favorable opinion of Clinton, and 18 percent said they did not, giving her a positive rating of +58 points. In October, she had a net favorability rating of +51 points.

Sanders has only 51 percent favorable, with 14 percent unfavorable view of him: a net favorable of +37.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187496/clinton-democratic-image-advantage-sanders-expands.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

 

 

Posted: 12/5/15 at 12:56am

I am also happy he is coming around, however Hillary is still much more strict on gun control. She is going after the NRA, and gun manufacturers. 

[HorseTears]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 7:56am

We can argue about who is, supposedly, tougher on gun restrictions until the cows come home, but as long as the NRA exists, as long as dark money can continue flowing into elections, nothing will change.  No matter how tough Hillary or anyone else blusters from behind a podium.  This is just 5 mins of the 1-hour FRONTLINE special on the NRA's audacious response to the Sandy Hook shooting.  They didn't weaken after Sandy Hook, they grew stronger and even more influential.  If a mass shooting of elementary school children didn't change the story, I'm sorry, Hillary isn't going to change anything either.  Not to mention that a President can have influence, yes, but without Congress and the courts, nothing will change.  

 

 

Posted: 12/5/15 at 10:44am

So we all should just stop, and forget about gun control since nothing will change! That's fantastic thinking!

Updated On: 12/5/15 at 10:44 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 2:07pm

If sane, rational people could turn the very name NRA into a demonic symbol the way insane, irrational people have done with Planned Parenthood, we'd be more than halfway there.

 

I wonder if the NRA is prosecutable under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act?  I mean, that would extend all the way to Republican legislators, so probably not.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 2:54pm

I am 100% for gun control. I even think they should be banned, period.

 

However, can someone convince me that the wrong people will always be able to get guns, the same way they can get drugs?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/7/15 at 12:33pm

 

Hillary's op-ed this morning in the NY Times about how she'd take on big banking:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html?_r=0

 

I would also ensure that the federal government has — and is prepared to use — the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively. No bank or financial firm should be too big to manage.

 

My plan would strengthen the Volcker Rule by closing the loopholes that still allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits. And I would fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks, which were repealed during last year’s budget negotiations after a determined lobbying campaign by the banks....

 

Some have urged the return of a Depression-era rule called Glass-Steagall, which separated traditional banking from investment banking. But many of the firms that contributed to the crash in 2008, like A.I.G. and Lehman Brothers, weren’t traditional banks, so Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have limited their reckless behavior. Nor would restoring Glass-Steagall help contain other parts of the “shadow banking” sector, including certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks and other non-bank institutions. My plan would strengthen oversight of these activities, too — increasing leverage and liquidity requirements for broker-dealers and imposing strict margin requirements on the kinds of short-term borrowing that also played a major role in spurring the financial crisis. We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks....

 

And it shouldn’t just be shareholders and taxpayers who feel the pain when banks make bad decisions; executives should have skin in the game. When a firm pays a fine, I would make sure that the penalty cuts into executives’ bonuses, too. And I would fight to close the carried interest loophole that gives some fund managers billions of dollars in tax breaks: They should be taxed like every other citizen....

 

 

Updated On: 12/7/15 at 12:33 PM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/7/15 at 1:41pm

Well at least that op-ed is a step up from her vile "BECAUSE 9/11!!!" answer.

But I don't believe a word of it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/7/15 at 2:00pm

 

Elizabeth Warren does. She just posted Hillary's op-ed on her Facebook page with this message:

 

Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass government funding bill. Whether it's attacking the CFPB, undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisers, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we've made on financial reform, she and I agree: “President Obama and congressional Democrats should do everything they can to stop these efforts.”

 

 

[DAME]

Posted: 12/7/15 at 2:54pm

BRAVA

[Petralicious]

Posted: 12/7/15 at 3:10pm

Jane2 said: "I am 100% for gun control. I even think they should be banned, period.

 

However, can someone convince me that the wrong people will always be able to get guns, the same way they can get drugs?

 

"Bingo Jane.  Me too, but how many Billions have been spent on the war on drugs, and  Meth, Coke, Crack are very easy to find

Remember Prohibition? That did not work out either, well except for Organized Crime

Will Gun control cover pipe bombs? 

 

Updated On: 12/7/15 at 03:10 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/7/15 at 3:39pm

SUESTORM Asks: Will Gun control cover pipe bombs? 

 

Yes, it will.

 

BE IT ENACTED:

 

A well-regulated militia NO LONGER being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall henceforth be considered a privilege and no longer a right. This privilege shall be limited to licensed possession, ownership, carrying and use of small firearms including revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, but excluding assault rifles, submachine guns and light machine guns. Also excluded from the civilian privilege shall be heavy machine guns; hand-held grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns; recoilless rifles; portable launchers of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missile systems.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/8/15 at 2:37pm

Working Families Party Backs Bernie Sanders

"WASHINGTON -- The Working Families Party endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) bid for the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, after an overwhelming majority of its members backed the progressive candidate. It is the first time the party has formally backed a candidate in a national election.

Over 87 percent of Working Families Party members voted for Sanders, compared to 11.5 percent for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 1.1 percent for former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. The final endorsement decision was based on both the membership vote and the votes of the group's national advisory board. 

"We want to live in a nation that allows all people to live a decent life, no matter what is in their parents' bank account or who is in their family tree," Working Families Party National Director Dan Cantor said in a statement. "But the super-rich have used their economic muscle to buy political muscle, and unless you're one of them, what you think government should do basically doesn't count. That's why we're standing with Bernie Sanders to build the political revolution and make our nation into one where every family can thrive."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/working-families-bernie-sanders_5666f190e4b08e945ff0d87a

[Petralicious]

Posted: 12/8/15 at 3:23pm

Interesting. Is that not the Bill DeBlasio party?  He endorsed Ms Rodham Clinton after some thought he would not.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 12/8/15 at 4:34pm

Don't you mean Mr. Wilhelm de Blasio?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/8/15 at 4:39pm

Ha!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/8/15 at 9:27pm

 

Why do you keep calling her that, SueStorm?

 

 

[Petralicious]

Posted: 12/9/15 at 9:28am

Reginald Tresilian said: "Don't you mean Mr. Wilhelm de Blasio?

 

"Ha!  Was not sure what you meant Mr Tresilian so I googled it. I think you meantMr Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm or Mr William Wilhem, his previous two names. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/de-blasio-names-de-blasio-article-1.1463591 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/9/15 at 9:40am

Should we call you by your previous names?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/9/15 at 9:55am

 

Back to the original subject:

 

POLITICO: 

 

Why Bernie Sanders Can't Win

 

We’ve looked at the numbers: Populism might build crowds, but it can't deliver victories for Democrats.

 

Politics is polarized and a full-throated, angry populism seems to be burning all of the oxygen in the 2016 race. On the right, Donald Trump’s campaign is feeding on rage directed at government, immigrants, and a perceived loss of status in a quickly changing country. On the left, populist standard-bearer Bernie Sanders is packing auditoriums with vitriolic speeches about a “rigged” economic system and the greed of the 1 percent.

 

Populism can certainly build crowds and sell hats, but can it deliver electoral victories? We’ll leave the GOP to its intramural squabble. We’re focused on whether it could build Democrats majorities up and down the ballot.

 

We think the answer is “no.”...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/bernie-sanders-2016-why-sanders-cant-win-213414#ixzz3tprru81E

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/13/15 at 3:13pm

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 12/13/15 at 4:27pm

In my honest opinion I think Bernie sanders is the best option out of all the candidates in both sides. He's new meaning he's not another Clinton or bush. He's honest and is being back by people that would make him lose his honesty. He isn't a brainwasher. He knows what he's talking about and he was right for the Iraq war which isn't something to laugh at. I think Elizabeth warren would be a perfect running mate for him. They both have similar economic views and they are both from New England.