Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumI am feeling encouraged
Bernie is up to 24% In Iowa and now clintons are worried they sent McCaskill to bash bernie
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/claire-mccaskill-bernie-sanders-criticizes-liberal-2016-morning-joe-119419.html
Strange if dems all love hillary and bernie has no chance.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)appalachiablue
(41,221 posts)Joe Scar of all people. Claire needs to get her own house in order, Missouri is not doing well at all.
GD, 'Claire McCaskill, a Major Clinton Ally, Unloads on Bernie Sanders'.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141126755
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Jump up and down enthusiasm with her retorts
swilton
(5,069 posts)I'm not a gun lover - in fact I'm anti'gun...But I can't fault Sanders' record.
The core issues of this election are economics, peace and the environment.....
Always thought O'Malley's populist credentials are/were extremely shallow.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)I don't believe in banning them no matter how much i hate NRA.
People should be able to have them for protection,and hunting or to collect but
no assault rifles
what's wrong for law abiding citizens to have to go through waiting peroid and background check first
and i oppose carrying conceraled weapons in public.
Bernie is moderate on guns.some non-dems will say hey he seems more reasonable on guns.
erronis
(15,486 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)I think the only "anti-gun" vote he has ever made was to retain the 3 day waiting period. Requiring a waiting period to give time for someone to cool down after an argument may not be "pro-gun", but it sure as shit ain't anti-gun either except to the most extreme absolutists.
merrily
(45,251 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Bernie has strongly pro-gun. He just hasn't been absolutely 100% more, more, more, more guns everywhere 100% of the time. That is enough for the NRA to fail a Liberal.
I used to belong to the NRA. I read that they have changed this stance, but when I was a member they would not endorse a pro-gun Democrat over an anti-gun Republican. Although that was not one of the two reasons I quit. Those would be:
3-Strikes Law. The 3-Strikes Law is pretty similar to the #1 reason the American Revolution came about. It is horribly draconian. Worse yet, when the NRA drafted the first 3-Strikes Law for California it was *not* aimed solely at recidivist criminals. They purposely wrote it to apply if a person was convicted of three violent crimes for that criminals first ever arrest. The NRA successfully sued the State of California for failure to apply the crime to a first time offender and bragged about said success in their magazines.
Paranoid conspiracy theories. In an ironic twist the very same issue that featured Wayne LaPierre's "we don't encourage that kind of thinking" after the OKC bombing also featured a Neal Knox article about the government, complete with black helicopters, rounding up all the residents of a Chicago suburb one night as a practice for Clinton's eventual plan to declare a dictatorship.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Do you think you are helping Bernie with that?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)It is the extremism that turns most of us off. Most of us are perfectly okay with farmers owning firearms. Most of us are okay with sportsmen owning firearms.
Most of us also think there should be more controls on firearms. Bernie has shown that he belives there should be more controls. Does that make him and us anti-gun? Ceratainly, not. We are still pro-gun. But we are also pro-reasonable gun control.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts) Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
What about "checked" do people not seem to understand? People aren't allowed to walk around Amtrak trains with firearms, open or concealed. This means they can put it in the baggage which is stored by Amtrak personnel in a safe location only accessible to Amtrak personnel. This is no more an issue than sending a firearm through UPS or FedEx.
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
This sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory bullshit to me. In fact, it's justification was, "no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact." And not one Senator spoke out against this, though a very small number did vote against it.
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
I disagree with Bernie on this one. The legislature often fails us as they did with Gay marriage. The courts are sometimes our only recourse to get things right. The gungeoneers on this topic always resort to the most ridiculous comparisons. "You don't sue a car manufacturer if someone driving a car kills someone."
Well, no. But you do sue a drug manufacturer who doesn't secure their product with childproof caps. So why can't we sue gun manufacturers who fail to add childproof security to their firearms?
Frankly, I don't think the courts would uphold these prohibitions anyway. They might see it as violating the separation of powers. The one thing that may cause the Rightwing USSC to oppose the Right is when the Right threatens their power.
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
The point of the waiting period wasn't to give time to run a background check. The point was a cooling off period to let anger die off. The #1 reason for firearm murders is "an argument". It's not drugs. It's not gangs. It's not robbery. And an argument is not only the #1 reason for firearm murders, it is the reason for the majority of firearm murders where the cause is known according to the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report.
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
All this does is prove that the NRA is more Rightwing than pro-gun as Bernie is clearly pro-gun.
http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Bernie_Sanders.htm
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)make hay for his campaign. Attacking Sanders is NOT the way to do it. He's trying desperately to remain relevant.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)We have an ever diminishing window for addressing climate change. That is an issue that is directly tied to economics, we need growth but we must insist it is growth for the commons and for the overall good. We can no longer afford to be bad stewards to our natural world nor continue to abide those who are. Not if one has any shred of respect or empathy towards the least of this world and the voiceless and suffering in our animal kingdoms.
As much as I personally would like to drastically reduce gun violence, end racism, provide universal health care and create equality for all. Any of those victories will be for naught without a unified and educated populous working to restore our world so that we not only have the time to right our overall wrongs, but that we also don't lose what so many fought and died for before us. If this society collapses under the weight of corporate avarice, there will be nobody to enforce anything and the descent will be swift and more horrible than most could imagine.
I've been slowly learning more about O'Malley. I was a little surprised in a poll I took on here earlier that showed my agreement with Bernie and Hillary on the issues both in the area of 90% and O'Malley in the low 70's.
But anyone speaking out against corporate greed and using up everything on this planet so we are the last to enjoy it and to hell with all the wildlife and all the kids, has my ear.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Bernie's creds are supreme when it comes to nature. No true enviro will be able to sit out this chance to put a real leader in the WH.
appalachiablue
(41,221 posts)backgrounds day by day, it's no wonder he's up so much in Iowa.
Bernie is THE SUNSHINE CANDIDATE that we sorely need to expose, disinfect and help us clean up the dysfunction and fungus to move ahead in a progressive, bright direction for the future!
Sen. Bernie Sanders and grandson
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Hillary in '08.