|
If you want to see less violent crime work towards sweeping and systematic changes that create an environment of economic opportunity for everyone and a healthcare system that addresses the deep psychological issues that come with the alienation of living in a world like ours. If you're unable to look at the role firearms play in our society beyond an occasional school shooting and the homicides committed as a direct result of the previous issues I just mentioned, I don't know how to help you. Firearms have played a significant role in the labor struggles in our own country, and I can't see why a progressive person would want to get rid of them before we have the changes we need.
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
jarofpiss posted:This is dumb. The "gun show loophole" is one that allows private owners, not dealers, to sell their property without a background check. You might as well be lobbying to be able to sue rolling pin and pan manufacturers for when cartoon wives hit their husbands over the head with their product. Well, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes when their reps are meeting with Bed Bath and Beyond. But you are actually able to sue rolling pin and pan manufacturers for that... Whether it proceeds is up to the courts. I don't get what's so complicated here, we don't legislate immunity for every scenario you might personally feel to be ridiculous, because it isn't necessary. Nor is it necessary for gun manufacturers to be specially protected.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Leave it to the stupid neo-paulites to derail this thread into gun control chat.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Leave it to the stupid neo-paulites to derail this thread into gun control chat. You're right. My point is that whatever Sanders's position is around gun control, single issue voting on him because he isn't strong enough on it for you is the dumbest thing in the world. You will see less gun violence as a direct result of the policies he's advocating, not passing a new assault weapons ban.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That seems like it would depend on the details though, which is why the blanket ban on lawsuits is a terrible idea. Look at what was happening with drug manufacturers - they were (are) paying their reps to talk up doctors about off-label and dangerous uses of their products. They were rightly found liable for this practice even though there was no product defect. Those things would not be protected under the PLCAA. Read the law: quote:The term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include—
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Gop GOTV efforts are spurred by fear. They are scared of socialists. Ergo, bernie is a living get out the vote machine for republicans. I would love to see Fox News during this. "I know we're always calling everyone a socialist, but this guy is actually a socialist!" Like, I almost think they've done Sanders a favor by making that word lose all meaning.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
I'm fairly sure any GOP fence sitters that still terrified of Socialists (especially after they've spent 8 years of using that on Obama and by proxy all Democrats) are going to be just as motivated to run to the polls by the terror of the Clintons back in the White House.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm fairly sure any GOP fence sitters that still terrified of Socialists (especially after they've spent 8 years of using that on Obama and by proxy all Democrats) are going to be just as motivated to run to the polls by the terror of the Clintons back in the White House. Fence sitters would be more motivated by statements like "we want to end police brutality (and let those urban thugs come to your neighborhood)". Fortunately, Bernie Sanders doesn't have this problem.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Nobody is going to single issue vote on Bernie, I don't give a crap about guns, and the dumb smug superiority exuded by Bernie fanboys is annoying.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Nobody is going to single issue vote on Bernie, I don't give a crap about guns, and the dumb smug superiority exuded by Bernie fanboys is annoying. Well he is primarily running on income inequality and corporate influence in government, but that's a bit too broad for single issue really.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Well he is primarily running on income inequality and corporate influence in government, but that's a bit too broad for single issue really. It's about as broad as someone campaigning as the "Christian values" candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Fence sitters would be more motivated by statements like "we want to end police brutality (and let those urban thugs come to your neighborhood)". http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-on-baltimore-police-officer-must-be-held-accountable-for-their-actions/
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-on-baltimore-police-officer-must-be-held-accountable-for-their-actions/ It's a local issue, and you need a thorough investigation, butttt I guess some police do bad stuff and let me tell you about jobs!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Well he is primarily running on income inequality and corporate influence in government, but that's a bit too broad for single issue really. What do you think Hillary is running on.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
The_Raven posted:I can't help but think that all those who are banking on Sanders making Hillary "move to the left" having some long-term effect on her governance are deluding themselves. I think folks who use verbiage implying that clinton has to be forced/herded/lured left are the delusional ones. This is the woman who dedicated two decades of her political life to universal health care - starting long before it was cool. This is a woman who was born the child of an enlisted man and a secretary, became rich as an adult, and gives a significant portions of her personal fortune to plant trees, build schools/daycares, fight aids, and provide disaster relief/infrastructure to people in need. Her spouse raised taxes on the wealthy when he was in office and she has promised to restore taxes to that level both for income and cap gains. And she is the only democratic candidate running I trust to accomplish that last bit because her competition have neither the political skill nor the ability to invoke 90s nostalgia to the degree she does. She's also started talking about universal kindergarden/daycare which our country desperately needs. Not quite as badly as we needed universal healthcare but with over one in four US children in a single parent home - disproportionately minority children btw - it's a big deal. I hope this is her next big push leftward policy-wise. And you can see her policy mirrored in her charity's actions showing they come from her heart. She doesn't just make noises about climate change to get votes from American conservationists. She has spent tens of millions of her own dollars on projects fighting it. She doesn't just talk about the importance of green infrastructure, she has spent giant piles of her own money building it for other people and giving it to them. Etc. Her tentative rhetorical poking at universal childcare - in the context of CGI's initiatives to help impoverished mothers - is immensely exciting. I agree. Her commitments and principles are very clear. Which is why it is baffling that you don't know what they are. You appear to know very little about her beyond conspiracy bs and prefer to substitute negative social stereotypes/handwaving for actual knowledge.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
I'm honestly not really sure what Hillary could do to make think President Hillary will not backtrack on most of Candidate Hillary's promises. I mean, she'll probably be more effective then Obama at them, but her record on campaign donations makes me somewhat skeptical of her sincerity.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:What do you think Hillary is running on. The same thing, but ironically 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
McAlister posted:This is the woman who dedicated two decades of her political life to universal health care - starting long before it was cool. And we still don't have universal health care. She failed. And she won't do anything to alter PPACA, so she's useless. Bernie has a plan.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:As left as I am, I have to disagree. No other industry is held to a standard like that. No one sues kitchen knife manufacturers for murder. No one sues car manufacturers for (non-defect-related) car crashes. No one sues oil companies for arsonist fires. It's a third party selling a tool. Suing third parties for selling tools that are used in ways not intended by the manufacturer is unfair, unless the manufacturer is encouraging "off-label" use a la a pharmaceutical company advertising a product for a use not approved by the FDA. I don't like any law that forbids people from suing. Even if bs medical lawsuits were a thing ( they aren't ) that was noticeably increasing operating costs and raising medical prices ( they aren't ) I would still oppose torte reform there because the people who actually have a case need the ability to sue. If some kid shoots himself because the biometric Palm scanner on mom's gun didn't work the manufacturer should indeed be held liable. If gun companies are tapping into the zombie thing and encouraging the shooting of minorities with their advertising that too is a problem.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
I'm voting for Hillary because I'm very skeptical of some Great Black Hope delivering on their promises, while I can most definitely trust Clinton to spend eight years ripping the GOP a new blowhole.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:I'm honestly not really sure what Hillary could do to make think President Hillary will not backtrack on most of Candidate Hillary's promises. I mean, she'll probably be more effective then Obama at them, but her record on campaign donations makes me somewhat skeptical of her sincerity. This whole article is worth reading, but this part is particularily relevant quote:he relationship between Senator Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton, the Party’s most likely Presidential nominee, goes back to the second half of the Clinton Administration. Warren told me recently that the most dramatic policy fight of her life was one in which Bill and Hillary Clinton were intimately involved. She recalls it as the “ten-year war.” Between 1995 and 2005, Warren, a professor who had established herself as one of the country’s foremost experts on bankruptcy law, managed to turn an arcane issue of financial regulation into a major political issue. In Warren's own words quote:This time freshman Senator Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the bill. Had the bill been transformed to get rid of all those awful provisions that had so concerned First Lady Hillary Clinton? No. The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not. As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs. Her husband was a lame duck at the time he vetoed the bill; he could afford to forgo future campaign contributions. As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. Campaigns cost money, and that money wasn’t coming from families in financial trouble. Senator Clinton received $140,000 in campaign contributions from banking industry executives in a single year, making her one of the top two recipients in the Senate. Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton’s constituency. She wanted their support, and they wanted hers—including a vote in favor of “that awful bill.” http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-virtual-candidate
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Bernie has a plan. A secret plan to fight inflation?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:The same thing, but ironically when will this stupid meme die.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Morrow posted:I'm voting for Hillary because I'm very skeptical of some Great Black Hope delivering on their promises, while I can most definitely trust Clinton to spend eight years ripping the GOP a new blowhole. Put this on a yard sign and she has my vote.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Riptor posted:A secret plan to fight inflation? No that's the Republican plan - it's called "keep wages at the same rate forever"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:This whole article is worth reading, but this part is particularily relevant An indictment on the candidate or an indictment on the system?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:I'm honestly not really sure what Hillary could do to make think President Hillary will not backtrack on most of Candidate Hillary's promises. I mean, she'll probably be more effective then Obama at them, but her record on campaign donations makes me somewhat skeptical of her sincerity. Why on earth would you find how she gets money to be of more interest than how she spends it? Go to read about her charity. She has put her money where her mouth is in a wholly unprecedented way for a politician. And admit it, if Goldman sachs rolled up and offered you give a pile of cash to your favorite charity you'd take it in a heartbeat. Should I question your principles because sure you got the money you gave to children's hospital or whatever from someone I don't like? I mean, normally when people redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor they are portrayed as Heroes around here. Are you guys saying that Robin Hood is only cool because he used robbery instead of social engineering to liberate funds?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:when will this stupid meme die. Does it have a full data set attached? Cause it would be hilarious if Clinton's 20-X are the same donors in bernie's top 20 ... and they are giving as much/more to Hillary. A more meaningful/honest info graphic would be a bar chart type thing showing total contributions for each candidate broken down by source such that her total union donations could be compared to Bernie's total union donations.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Nobody is going to single issue vote on Bernie, I don't give a crap about guns, and the dumb smug superiority exuded by Bernie fanboys is annoying. Yeah, Venom Snake, you're right, smug superiority is annoying.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
McAlister posted:And admit it, if Goldman sachs rolled up and offered you give a pile of cash to your favorite charity you'd take it in a heartbeat. You're deflecting the issue - Hillary is a bought and paid for cog. If she couldn't get any of the 200,000 jobs created that she promised as NY Senator (NY actually lost jobs while she was in office) - and she blamed that on Republican control of the state - then how the hell is she going to get anything done as President with both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans? Hillary's going to do party-line soft-target bullshit as President. Bernie actually wants to fix the system. I'd rather see someone try to fix America than someone go along with whatever corporate interests support the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
She's such a benevolent aristocrat though.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Why on earth would you find how she gets money to be of more interest than how she spends it? Oh come on, really? You really don't think donations affect a persons behavior? So you're fine with our current system of PACs and corporations throwing money at candidates? Large speaking fees? You don't find this slightly corrupt at all? And for clarification I was actually referring to her campaign donations (see that image) and articles like this: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-wall-street-backers-we-get-it-117017.html where-in Wall street types, when interviewed, still consider Hillary their candidate and that all the populist rhetoric is hot air. She could be playing them of course, but I can't think of a single example of that happening with any other politician.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:She's such a benevolent aristocrat though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:You're deflecting the issue - Hillary is a bought and paid for cog. If she couldn't get any of the 200,000 jobs created that she promised as NY Senator (NY actually lost jobs while she was in office) - and she blamed that on Republican control of the state - then how the hell is she going to get anything done as President with both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans? When you talk like this you make it sound like you think Bernie actually has a measurable chance of winning either the candidacy or the election. As much as I agree with his rhetoric, we know this isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Wait, are people seriously Ron Pauling for Sanders? I thought we were all just gonna vote for him in the primaries for shits and giggles, then gird ourselves for the inevitable Hilldawg coronation.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:Yeah, Venom Snake, you're right, smug superiority is annoying. you have spent several pages of this thread asserting everyone who's not Ronpauling for Bernie is evil.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:you have spent several pages of this thread asserting everyone who's not Ronpauling for Bernie is evil. and you've spent several pages of this thread being smugly superior
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to eventual creation of a D&D subforum for the Bernie-obsessed that eventually transforms into a cool, hosed-up unironic far-right echo chamber. We can call it The Workers' Collective.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:and you've spent several pages of this thread being smugly superior About what? Bernie isn't going to win and spending the entire primary arguing that he's a better choice than Hillary is pointless because A. nobody disagrees B. Bernie isn't going to win the primary The reason it's so annoying is because people like to make Hillary out to be more evil than the people she's facing (in the general) when in reality shes a loving maoist compared to someone like Jeb Bush.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted:you have spent several pages of this thread asserting everyone who's not Ronpauling for Bernie is evil. That's not what I'm doing at all, but sure. Misrepresenting your opposition is very appropriate in a politics thread i guess. No one thinks Hillary will be worse than the Republican candidates. She will, if she gets in, however, be almost as bad. Sheng-ji Yang posted:and you've spent several pages of this thread being smugly superior
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:59
|
|