[LuLuDrops]

Bernie's interview made it to the front page of BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35975079

[Ramcoro]

Originally posted by Marvin

YOU guys told me "he calls him self a socialist" "he's a communist" etc. The Republicans already know about Bernie's negatives and yet, the Republicans still prefer him over Hillary

It's time to face the facts: Hillary is pretty much universally hated by the Republicans, and no amount of attacking will cause Bernie to be hated more than her.

How sure are you that is true?

[RihRihGirrrl]

So is Bernie going to take the DNC lobbyist money if he gets the nomination...

[LuLuDrops]

Originally posted by RihRihGirrrl

So is Bernie going to take the DNC lobbyist money if he gets the nomination...

[danitykanelover]

Originally posted by Ramcoro

Maybe make a better argument?

What is with everyone making this so personal today.

my argument had no holes unlike you're "i'm physically incapable of using my eyes" argument.

maybe they are making it personal because you are acting like a dumb bitch

[RihRihGirrrl]

Originally posted by danitykanelover

my argument had no holes unlike you're "i'm physically incapable of using my eyes" argument.

maybe they are making it personal because you are acting like a dumb bitch

seriously? So uncalled for! We've been pretty civil in this thread no need for all that

[Mike91]

Originally posted by Ramcoro

This sums up the case for liability.

The question that follows, what else would those guns be used for? Fishing? Target practice?

There is no solution? You can change the constitution if that is what it takes. There have been 27 amendments to the constitution, it is not impossible to have a 28th. I know that's probably not going to happen, but neither is anything Hillary or Bernie has been saying will probably happen. It's about building a case for the future. If we never talk about it will never. Also, it is not universally accepted that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to carry a firearm for self defense.

See Distrcit of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v City of Chicago. That is the first time SCOTUS decided that individuals can keep and bear arms for self defense. Those were 5-4 decisions. Now with Scalia gone, a new court could reverse that.

You're missing the point. They didn't do anything illegal. Most alcoholic companies know that most people who drink will likely get drunk and make stupid decisions. But they still cannot be sued when someone makes the decision to do something stupid.

Are you not getting it? It;s makes no sense. Why not go after knife manufacturers next? They kill people too. If somebody makes the decision to kill, that's their decision and they'll find a way to do it. Doesn't make gun manufacturers responsible for it.

Just think about what you're defending. No one says change doesn't need to happen, its just this is not the way to do it.

[LuLuDrops]

Originally posted by LuLuDrops

Bernie's interview made it to the front page of BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35975079

If New York is the key, however, Mr Sanders's campaign there may be stumbling out of the gate. Today he received a raft of negative press for an interview he gave with the editorial board of the Daily News, a New York City newspaper, that critics say exposes his thin grasp on the issues - and foreign policy in particular.

When asked about Israeli-relations, the senator said he didn't know the answer to some questions and wasn't qualified to respond to others. He said he hasn't thought much about where so-called Islamic State leaders captured by the US should be held and didn't know whether President Barack Obama has the right policy to deal with IS.

He even demurred on questions about whether the US government has the authority to order the breakup of banks that the president determines are too powerful.
"If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist," he said. "And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination."

Oops.

[Marvin]

Originally posted by LuLuDrops

If New York is the key, however, Mr Sanders's campaign there may be stumbling out of the gate. Today he received a raft of negative press for an interview he gave with the editorial board of the Daily News, a New York City newspaper, that critics say exposes his thin grasp on the issues - and foreign policy in particular.

When asked about Israeli-relations, the senator said he didn't know the answer to some questions and wasn't qualified to respond to others. He said he hasn't thought much about where so-called Islamic State leaders captured by the US should be held and didn't know whether President Barack Obama has the right policy to deal with IS.

He even demurred on questions about whether the US government has the authority to order the breakup of banks that the president determines are too powerful.
"If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist," he said. "And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination."

Oops.

That interview will be history by the time he destroys her in the debate!

[Benzene]

Originally posted by Ramcoro

Oh please. So calling out a problem = politicizing? If so, then does that means Bernie is politicizing college debt? No, that sounds rediculous. Same thing here.

The whole "stop politicizing deaths!" thing is a core tactic that Republicans use to suppress discussion about gun control. Interesting to see ~progressives~ adopt this tactic. But given that many Sanders fans have now taken to right-wing news sources, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that they're parroting the same rhetoric.

Literally only Sanders fans think that NYDN interview wasn't a disaster (well...I did see the National Review is defending him, surprise surprise ). The inability to even criticize him just a LITTLE is quite astounding. That interview was the equivalent of walking into a job interview and not being able to explain the stuff in your resume. The media finally does a tiny bit of vetting and Sanders immediately wilts under scrutiny, yet I'm supposed to believe he can survive an entire election cycle under attack from the GOP because of some meaningless matchup polls 8 months out.

[LuLuDrops]

Originally posted by Marvin

That interview will be history by the time he destroys her in the debate!

He'd better hope the GOP doesn't latch on to it, they'll bring up more than Hilldawgz

[hooky]

Originally posted by Marvin

That interview will be history by the time he destroys her in the debate!

this is cute

[Ramcoro]

Originally posted by Mike91

You're missing the point. They didn't do anything illegal. Most alcoholic companies know that most people who drink will likely get drunk and make stupid decisions. But they still cannot be sued when someone makes the decision to do something stupid.

Are you not getting it? It;s makes no sense. Why not go after knife manufacturers next? They kill people too. If somebody makes the decision to kill, that's their decision and they'll find a way to do it. Doesn't make gun manufacturers responsible for it.

Just think about what you're defending. No one says change doesn't need to happen, its just this is not the way to do it.

Did you read the article I linked to form LATimes? These are very different situations than drinking and knifes. First you can use either of those in logically, legal, and reasonable ways, i.e. cooking. The case that the LA Times was citing was when a store sold pistols that were so cheap, so small, and so incurrate they couldn't hit targets 40 ft away. How can it be reasonably used for self defense if it is so inaccurate that police don't want it? Some Sandy Hook victims are trying to make the same argument. That it is not reasonable to use a semi automatic rifle purely for self defense.

I think I do get your point, but perhaps you are missing my point. I know they didn't do anything illegal, and if that's true then they should be charged with anything. What I am arguing is that what they did should be come illegal, so we can stop it from happening. I'm not suggesting we make a law then punish people for breaking the law before it was written. That would be ex post facto.

She's trying to make law that would hold gun manufacturers accountable in the future, in order to try to prevent more Sandy Hooks. That's literally not politicizing.

[Ramcoro]

Originally posted by Benzene

The whole "stop politicizing deaths!" thing is a core tactic that Republicans use to suppress discussion about gun control. Interesting to see ~progressives~ adopt this tactic. But given that many Sanders fans have now taken to right-wing news sources, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that they're parroting the same rhetoric.

Literally only Sanders fans think that NYDN interview wasn't a disaster (well...I did see the National Review is defending him, surprise surprise ). The inability to even criticize him just a LITTLE is quite astounding. That interview was the equivalent of walking into a job interview and not being able to explain the stuff in your resume. The media finally does a tiny bit of vetting and Sanders immediately wilts under scrutiny, yet I'm supposed to believe he can survive an entire election cycle under attack from the GOP because of some meaningless matchup polls 8 months out.

Right? I can still criticize Clinton. I didn't agree with her vote on Iraq or Patriot Act. I support her ideas not just her.

[danitykanelover]

Originally posted by RihRihGirrrl

seriously? So uncalled for! We've been pretty civil in this thread no need for all that

yeah i know i'm such an animal... sometimes people being little dicks need a slap in the face, i'm not going to hold his hand until he arrives at reality.

[Mike91]

Originally posted by Benzene

The whole "stop politicizing deaths!" thing is a core tactic that Republicans use to suppress discussion about gun control. Interesting to see ~progressives~ adopt this tactic. But given that many Sanders fans have now taken to right-wing news sources, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that they're parroting the same rhetoric.

Literally only Sanders fans think that NYDN interview wasn't a disaster (well...I did see the National Review is defending him, surprise surprise ). The inability to even criticize him just a LITTLE is quite astounding. That interview was the equivalent of walking into a job interview and not being able to explain the stuff in your resume. The media finally does a tiny bit of vetting and Sanders immediately wilts under scrutiny, yet I'm supposed to believe he can survive an entire election cycle under attack from the GOP because of some meaningless matchup polls 8 months out.

Again, miss me with your ******** today. To hold gun manufacturers responsible for someone making the decision to kill people is illogical.

If they broke laws or personally forced people to mass kill, then yes, they would be responsible. But they didn't. They legally sold guns to the persons mother and he got a hold of them. What is so hard to understand?

And miss me with this "turning to right-wing sources" ******** as well. This is literally what Clinton supporters run to every time. Bernie said it best that democrats are not always right. Sorry I don't just fall in line and can think for myself. And no, Bernie had no influence over my views on this. It's called common sense, especially when you look at the details.

Fight for gun control but don't start going over the top about it and making illogical choices in dealing with it. And especially don't use it to attack someone in a political campaign because Bernie has not said anything "shameful".

And I find it odd that Clinton now supports less guns when she sold guns to dictators in exchange for Clinton Foundation favors. I guess I'll get accused of using republican tactics there as well. That's the same thing Clinton tried to use against known republican Barack Obama back in 08 as well.

[bleuwaffle]

"I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton is the real progressive candidate."

[BlueTimberwolf]

If you want to ban certain types of guns, that's fine. But you can't hold manufacturers responsible for what is done with legally available firearms. They have no way of knowing what types of guns are "inherently bad", and that is the govt's decision anyways.

[Mike91]

https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/s...25062321733632

[BlueTimberwolf]

DeBlasio is so annoying can't wait till he is voted out of office and I'm not even from NY.