Bernie Sanders 2016?

Teague · **#2681** by **Teague** » Apr 26, 2016 4:11 pm

NineOneFour wrote:
Teague wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:

Really? You mean when she was for gay rights only 3 years ago? She's for the environment but supported the keystone pipeline and Fracking - ok.

Considering those are currently different positions than all three GOP candidates, are you insane?

Yeah we'll see about that after November.

crank · **#2682** by **crank** » Apr 26, 2016 4:11 pm

GT2211 wrote:
Teague wrote:
GT2211 wrote:Teague has become a broken record. Repeating the same debunked talking points over and over

What debunked talking points?

I'm not going to go through all of them again. Let's start with

The Criminal Justice System her husband and her were responsible for

This is just absurd. Attributing the entire criminal justice system of the country to the 1st lady. The 94 crime bill had plenty of issues, but it had zilch to do with mass incarceration which peaked around the time the bill was passed.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10961362/c ... -crime-law

a) Mass incarceration was well on its way.
b) Most incarceration happens at the state and local levels over state laws. Not federal laws.

There was no noticeable sudden increase in any trends after the law was passed

Finally, you continue to ignore Sanders role in this. Like the fact that Sanders voted for the bill. And has continued to pat himself on the back for his vote and his tough on crime approach campaigning on it for Senate in 06.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061018180 ... crime.html

So when Bernie goes around saying this(which i agree with fwiw), he might want to look back at his own campaigns...

“For too long in this country politicians have used getting tough on crime as a wedge issue to win elections. It is clearly about time to start talking – as we have in this election – about the really disastrous effects of too many politicians trying to win too many elections by locking too many people up,” Sanders told a forum on criminal justice reform at Allen University.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... e-century/

Peaked at the time the bill passed? When did that bill pass? The peak in that graph is about 2010. And how is the crime bill supposed to immediately start ramping up the numbers? Sentencing can't be based on a law passed after you were caught. There would be lags. Trying to extract what effect it had is nearly impossible, did it influence states in what laws they passed, did it encourage further get-tough attitudes amongst cops, DAs, judges? I would ask, how could all those provisions not lead to increased incarcerations? If that were true, it implies the bill was ineffectual, made no difference, who believes that?

Teague · **#2683** by **Teague** » Apr 26, 2016 4:12 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Teague wrote:
GT2211 wrote:Teague has become a broken record. Repeating the same debunked talking points over and over

What debunked talking points?

Well some tried to un-scrabble the dog's breakfast of postings you made but I dont why they bother as you just keep on repeating the myths and lies you scraped from the bottom of a filthy media barrel.

Money in politics is a myth - LOL ok just keep bending over Scott :thumbup:

Teague · **#2684** by **Teague** » Apr 26, 2016 4:15 pm

GT2211 wrote:
Teague wrote:
GT2211 wrote:Teague has become a broken record. Repeating the same debunked talking points over and over

What debunked talking points?

I'm not going to go through all of them again. Let's start with

The Criminal Justice System her husband and her were responsible for

This is just absurd. Attributing the entire criminal justice system of the country to the 1st lady. The 94 crime bill had plenty of issues, but it had zilch to do with mass incarceration which peaked around the time the bill was passed.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10961362/c ... -crime-law

a) Mass incarceration was well on its way.
b) Most incarceration happens at the state and local levels over state laws. Not federal laws.

There was no noticeable sudden increase in any trends after the law was passed

Finally, you continue to ignore Sanders role in this. Like the fact that Sanders voted for the bill. And has continued to pat himself on the back for his vote and his tough on crime approach campaigning on it for Senate in 06.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061018180 ... crime.html

So when Bernie goes around saying this(which i agree with fwiw), he might want to look back at his own campaigns...

“For too long in this country politicians have used getting tough on crime as a wedge issue to win elections. It is clearly about time to start talking – as we have in this election – about the really disastrous effects of too many politicians trying to win too many elections by locking too many people up,” Sanders told a forum on criminal justice reform at Allen University.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... e-century/

And that helped the Black community did it - what the Clinton's did to bring them to heel? I already addressed the other point above about his vote on that.

crank · **#2685** by **crank** » Apr 26, 2016 4:17 pm

In my last post, I'm not trying to say the crime bill caused the mass incarceration, I agree there was a trend already underway, I'm saying to say it didn't make things worse can't be proven with that chart, and saying it didn't doesn't make much sense.

Teague · **#2686** by **Teague** » Apr 26, 2016 4:21 pm

Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:Never the less all of Gish's accusations and arguments have been countered. I've yet to see even a slight attempt here to counter any of Alperstein's "accusations".

But thank you for the Gish Gallop comparison here because it applies to the Sanders camp and its accusations towards Hillary far more than it could ever apply to Clinton's.

I find it amusing that no one in the Bernie camp here is willing to counter any of Alperstein's accusations and opinions. You'd all rather just complain that there are to many to counter.

I'll do this one....

Sanders voted for a 1994 crime bill that he attacked Clinton for supporting.

In 1994, for example, he said that he would support it because it included the Violence Against Women Act, which helped crack down on domestic violence and rape. Sanders said:

I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act. We urgently need the $1.8 billion in this bill to combat the epidemic of violence against women on the streets and in the homes of America.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

Oh, sad day for you.

Sad how? In that the fact is true?

I mean, I agree that he had his reasons, but the criticism was that he attacked Clinton for supporting a bill he voted for and the blogger wrote about why she didn't like that. The fact at the centre is true, it's her opinion that you don't like.

As a reminder (or perhaps not "reminder", several people indicated they hadn't read it even once)
https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on- ... .rvv0qprke
Attacking Hillary Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed when she was First Lady is intellectually dishonest. This is so on several grounds. First, his attacks omit that he himself voted for that bill; Clinton supporters have had to bring that up. Second, Sanders keeps attacking Hillary for having on one occasion, two years after the bill was passed, used the term “superpredator”, when she has already apologized for it, said she would not use it today, and has put it in context (which I think makes clear it was not intended as code for race or to apply broadly), and yet he never admits that he used the term “sociopath” when supporting that same bill, nor has he ever apologized for doing so. Instead, he rips out all context and background for that bill, pins the entirety of its consequences on Hillary (who did not vote for it), and omits his own role in voting for it and the reasons why so many people supported it at the time, including him and the Congressional Black Caucus, despite its warts. So he blames Hillary for the draconian sentencing rules that the GOP insisted on in order to pass the bill, contributing to a false narrative he has constructed that Hillary is not actually a liberal.

And when confronted about his dishonest and hypocritical approach to discussing the crime bill and his own support for it, he lied. He claimed that he supported it in part because it included an assault weapons ban. This is false. He voted in favor of an earlier version of the bill, which did not include that assault weapons ban. Other Democrats — not Sanders — then insisted on that assault weapons ban and he voted for the new version of bill after that language was added. It’s dishonest for him to take other people to task for the consequences of a bill he himself voted for, which was the product of having to compromise with the GOP to get anything done, while blaming Hillary for the GOP’s actions, lying about his reasons for voting for it, and refusing to acknowledge or take any responsibility for his own role. It would be so much more productive to have a national dialogue about what we learned as a nation from these mistakes, the role of systemic racism in mass incarceration, and a proposed set of recommendations and legislation to correct it now, instead of disingenuously attacking, blaming, and lying by omission about Hillary, and further erasing the historical reality in which that bill was passed.

Your quoted text seems to differ from the facts that I posted and quoted.

Thommo · **#2687** by **Thommo** » Apr 26, 2016 4:59 pm

Teague wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:Never the less all of Gish's accusations and arguments have been countered. I've yet to see even a slight attempt here to counter any of Alperstein's "accusations".

But thank you for the Gish Gallop comparison here because it applies to the Sanders camp and its accusations towards Hillary far more than it could ever apply to Clinton's.

I find it amusing that no one in the Bernie camp here is willing to counter any of Alperstein's accusations and opinions. You'd all rather just complain that there are to many to counter.

I'll do this one....

Sanders voted for a 1994 crime bill that he attacked Clinton for supporting.

In 1994, for example, he said that he would support it because it included the Violence Against Women Act, which helped crack down on domestic violence and rape. Sanders said:

I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act. We urgently need the $1.8 billion in this bill to combat the epidemic of violence against women on the streets and in the homes of America.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

Oh, sad day for you.

Sad how? In that the fact is true?

I mean, I agree that he had his reasons, but the criticism was that he attacked Clinton for supporting a bill he voted for and the blogger wrote about why she didn't like that. The fact at the centre is true, it's her opinion that you don't like.

As a reminder (or perhaps not "reminder", several people indicated they hadn't read it even once)
https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on- ... .rvv0qprke
Attacking Hillary Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed when she was First Lady is intellectually dishonest. This is so on several grounds. First, his attacks omit that he himself voted for that bill; Clinton supporters have had to bring that up. Second, Sanders keeps attacking Hillary for having on one occasion, two years after the bill was passed, used the term “superpredator”, when she has already apologized for it, said she would not use it today, and has put it in context (which I think makes clear it was not intended as code for race or to apply broadly), and yet he never admits that he used the term “sociopath” when supporting that same bill, nor has he ever apologized for doing so. Instead, he rips out all context and background for that bill, pins the entirety of its consequences on Hillary (who did not vote for it), and omits his own role in voting for it and the reasons why so many people supported it at the time, including him and the Congressional Black Caucus, despite its warts. So he blames Hillary for the draconian sentencing rules that the GOP insisted on in order to pass the bill, contributing to a false narrative he has constructed that Hillary is not actually a liberal.

And when confronted about his dishonest and hypocritical approach to discussing the crime bill and his own support for it, he lied. He claimed that he supported it in part because it included an assault weapons ban. This is false. He voted in favor of an earlier version of the bill, which did not include that assault weapons ban. Other Democrats — not Sanders — then insisted on that assault weapons ban and he voted for the new version of bill after that language was added. It’s dishonest for him to take other people to task for the consequences of a bill he himself voted for, which was the product of having to compromise with the GOP to get anything done, while blaming Hillary for the GOP’s actions, lying about his reasons for voting for it, and refusing to acknowledge or take any responsibility for his own role. It would be so much more productive to have a national dialogue about what we learned as a nation from these mistakes, the role of systemic racism in mass incarceration, and a proposed set of recommendations and legislation to correct it now, instead of disingenuously attacking, blaming, and lying by omission about Hillary, and further erasing the historical reality in which that bill was passed.

Your quoted text seems to differ from the facts that I posted and quoted.

It might very well do. However, if you're going to criticise the text for either a) Not containing facts or b) Being factually inaccurate that's neither here nor there.

Since a) and b) are exactly what caused me to summarise the list and make the post you're now responding to it should be clear why this has become a non sequitur.

As stated all along, you do not have to agree with this woman's opinions, but if you're going to "do this one", then you actually have to "do this one". The alleged fact you quoted is agreed as fact by the source you posted, it's the opinion surrounding those agreed facts that differs.

Teague · **#2688** by **Teague** » Apr 26, 2016 5:02 pm

Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:

I'll do this one....

Sanders voted for a 1994 crime bill that he attacked Clinton for supporting.

Oh, sad day for you.

Sad how? In that the fact is true?

I mean, I agree that he had his reasons, but the criticism was that he attacked Clinton for supporting a bill he voted for and the blogger wrote about why she didn't like that. The fact at the centre is true, it's her opinion that you don't like.

As a reminder (or perhaps not "reminder", several people indicated they hadn't read it even once)
https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on- ... .rvv0qprke
Attacking Hillary Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed when she was First Lady is intellectually dishonest. This is so on several grounds. First, his attacks omit that he himself voted for that bill; Clinton supporters have had to bring that up. Second, Sanders keeps attacking Hillary for having on one occasion, two years after the bill was passed, used the term “superpredator”, when she has already apologized for it, said she would not use it today, and has put it in context (which I think makes clear it was not intended as code for race or to apply broadly), and yet he never admits that he used the term “sociopath” when supporting that same bill, nor has he ever apologized for doing so. Instead, he rips out all context and background for that bill, pins the entirety of its consequences on Hillary (who did not vote for it), and omits his own role in voting for it and the reasons why so many people supported it at the time, including him and the Congressional Black Caucus, despite its warts. So he blames Hillary for the draconian sentencing rules that the GOP insisted on in order to pass the bill, contributing to a false narrative he has constructed that Hillary is not actually a liberal.

And when confronted about his dishonest and hypocritical approach to discussing the crime bill and his own support for it, he lied. He claimed that he supported it in part because it included an assault weapons ban. This is false. He voted in favor of an earlier version of the bill, which did not include that assault weapons ban. Other Democrats — not Sanders — then insisted on that assault weapons ban and he voted for the new version of bill after that language was added. It’s dishonest for him to take other people to task for the consequences of a bill he himself voted for, which was the product of having to compromise with the GOP to get anything done, while blaming Hillary for the GOP’s actions, lying about his reasons for voting for it, and refusing to acknowledge or take any responsibility for his own role. It would be so much more productive to have a national dialogue about what we learned as a nation from these mistakes, the role of systemic racism in mass incarceration, and a proposed set of recommendations and legislation to correct it now, instead of disingenuously attacking, blaming, and lying by omission about Hillary, and further erasing the historical reality in which that bill was passed.

Your quoted text seems to differ from the facts that I posted and quoted.

It might very well do. However, if you're going to criticise the text for either a) Not containing facts or b) Being factually inaccurate that's neither here nor there.

Since a) and b) are exactly what caused me to summarise the list and make the post you're now responding to it should be clear why this has become a non sequitur.

As stated all along, you do not have to agree with this woman's opinions, but if you're going to "do this one", then you actually have to "do this one". The alleged fact you quoted is agreed as fact by the source you posted, it's the opinion surrounding those agreed facts that differs.

I responded to the hatchet job made against Sanders in that piece by providing a reason for one of the things he did. Then you stuck your oar in for some reason. If someone wants to put up the reasons Clinton voted for it and can quote her then let's see it and compare - oh, they didn't do that in that shitty piece of journalism now, did they.

Thommo · **#2689** by **Thommo** » Apr 26, 2016 5:26 pm

Teague wrote:I responded to the hatchet job made against Sanders in that piece by providing a reason for one of the things he did. Then you stuck your oar in for some reason. If someone wants to put up the reasons Clinton voted for it and can quote her then let's see it and compare - oh, they didn't do that in that shitty piece of journalism now, did they.

For some reason? You quoted me. Jesus.

Look, you can sit here and use epithets against the piece till the cows come home, but when you make demands like "If someone wants to put up the reasons Clinton voted for it and can quote her then let's see it and compare - oh, they didn't do that in that shitty piece of journalism now, did they." whilst sitting faced with a screen that contains the text of the article which very clearly points out she did not vote for the legislation (the first lady does not have a congressional vote after all) it just makes your argument look profoundly ill-thought out.

Scot Dutchy · **#2690** by **Scot Dutchy** » Apr 26, 2016 5:33 pm

Teague wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
Teague wrote:
GT2211 wrote:Teague has become a broken record. Repeating the same debunked talking points over and over

What debunked talking points?

Well some tried to un-scrabble the dog's breakfast of postings you made but I dont why they bother as you just keep on repeating the myths and lies you scraped from the bottom of a filthy media barrel.

Money in politics is a myth - LOL ok just keep bending over Scott

WTF are you are trying to mutter? Another load of crap.

GT2211 · **#2691** by **GT2211** » Apr 26, 2016 5:34 pm

crank wrote:
Peaked at the time the bill passed?

I guess you're right, that peak is not a good usage of terms. It started leveling off around the time the pill passed. It was rising sharply, then kinda plateaued.

When did that bill pass?

1994

The peak in that graph is about 2010. And how is the crime bill supposed to immediately start ramping up the numbers?

I think we would start to notice an increase in the trend/rate fairly shortly. The whole point of tough on crime bills are to accomplish two things a) provide more funds for police to catch criminals and b) stop slapping them on the wrist and releasing them back to the streets. So I think we should see an uptick in arrests in incarceration fairly soon.

Sentencing can't be based on a law passed after you were caught. There would be lags.

Well I agree and addressed above, but I think we disagree on just how long those lags are. And I think if you assume they are longer(I personally don't think they are that long), it helps my case more.

There would be lags. Trying to extract what effect it had is nearly impossible, did it influence states in what laws they passed, did it encourage further get-tough attitudes amongst cops, DAs, judges?

The article addresses, this and the answer is largely no.

I would ask, how could all those provisions not lead to increased incarcerations? If that were true, it implies the bill was ineffectual, made no difference, who believes that?
Who believes that? ME(and the author of the Vox article)! Which has been my point all along. Its not a bill that had particularly large significance. I'm not going to say it had zero effect. But if you are going to claim that Hillary was somehow responsible for mass incarceration, there needs to be evidence to support that claim.

Most of the policies that led to the incarcerations came in the 80's and 90's and/or the the state and local levels.

Shrunk · **#2692** by **Shrunk** » Apr 26, 2016 5:36 pm

Teague wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:
Teague wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:

Really? You mean when she was for gay rights only 3 years ago? She's for the environment but supported the keystone pipeline and Fracking - ok.

Considering those are currently different positions than all three GOP candidates, are you insane?

Yeah we'll see about that after November.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the Republican party is going to reverse its position on those issue come the election? I don't think you are. But then, what?

Scot Dutchy · **#2693** by **Scot Dutchy** » Apr 26, 2016 5:36 pm

Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:I responded to the hatchet job made against Sanders in that piece by providing a reason for one of the things he did. Then you stuck your oar in for some reason. If someone wants to put up the reasons Clinton voted for it and can quote her then let's see it and compare - oh, they didn't do that in that shitty piece of journalism now, did they.

For some reason? You quoted me. Jesus.

Look, you can sit here and use epithets against the piece till the cows come home, but when you make demands like "If someone wants to put up the reasons Clinton voted for it and can quote her then let's see it and compare - oh, they didn't do that in that shitty piece of journalism now, did they." whilst sitting faced with a screen that contains the text of the article which very clearly points out she did not vote for the legislation (the first lady does not have a congressional vote after all) it just makes your argument look profoundly ill-thought out.

That is just par for the course for Teague. He never thinks about anything just blurts it out. He cant come to terms that his dinosaur has lost.

GT2211 · **#2694** by **GT2211** » Apr 26, 2016 5:39 pm

crank wrote:In my last post, I'm not trying to say the crime bill caused the mass incarceration, I agree there was a trend already underway, I'm saying to say it didn't make things worse can't be proven with that chart, and saying it didn't doesn't make much sense.

I agree it probably contributed, I just think its contribution was rather minor whereas Teague and others seem to be focusing on it if as it were the primary cause. And there seems to be an attempt to dissociate Sanders role in this legislation.

Scot Dutchy · **#2695** by **Scot Dutchy** » Apr 26, 2016 5:41 pm

GT2211 wrote:
crank wrote:In my last post, I'm not trying to say the crime bill caused the mass incarceration, I agree there was a trend already underway, I'm saying to say it didn't make things worse can't be proven with that chart, and saying it didn't doesn't make much sense.

I agree it probably contributed, I just think its contribution was rather minor whereas Teague and others seem to be focusing on it if as it were the primary cause. And there seems to be an attempt to dissociate Sanders role in this legislation.

Well he is declared holy by Teague and can do no wrong.

GT2211 · **#2696** by **GT2211** » Apr 26, 2016 5:56 pm

Ugh, Teague, you simply aren't being intellectually honest here.

You claimed Clinton was responsible for mass incarceration, I posted evidence that contradicted your claim suggesting that whatever role the 94 bill played, it was minor.

You have now moved the goal posts to:

Teague wrote:

And that helped the Black community did it - what the Clinton's did to bring them to heel? I already addressed the other point above about his vote on that.

Now did it improve them? idk. I would lean towards no. I don't think it caused much harm neither. Though it was a bill that was pushed by many in the black community and the CBC in response to the high violence rates in their communities that started to decline shortly after(note I don't credit the 94 bill for this)

As for addressing Bernie... did you address it by noting the hypocrisy of Bernie's criticism of politicians campaigning as tough on crime while doing so himself? Or his flip flopping on the issue? Or his attempt to rewrite history?

Or did you attempt to handwave it away by saying 'sure he voted on it and touted his tough on crime record during his campaigns, but he didn't really support it'?

Byron · **#2697** by **Byron** » Apr 26, 2016 6:10 pm

willhud9 wrote:The Nordic economies are social democracy at work, but I'd hardly call them socialist.

Socialism at its very core seeks public ownership of the means of production. Socialist ideologies seek to remove free enterprise and capitalistic concepts through systematic, albeit peaceful, transitions from free markets to controlled markets to public markets.

The Nordic economies promote free enterprise, promote employer rights, and are very capitalistic. It is a pro-business part of the world.

It is not socialistic to fight for worker compensation, and social safety nets can be argued to also be good for driving an economy. An unemployed person collecting state given unemployment can contribute into the market still keeping it circulating. Furthermore none of those things are socialistic, but rather progressive, and while there are many similarities between the two the end goal for progressive ideology is not an abolition of capitalism or the free market.

This is a crucial point that Sanders should emphasize a helluva lot more.

Mixed economies aren't socialism. Heck, unless Sanders wants the people (whether directly, or via the state) to seize control of the means of production, he's not a socialist. Given the word's stigma in America, I don't know why on earth he ever applied it to himself. Willful nonconformism, perhaps, but the association hurts his cause.

When Clinton attacked Sanders for not supporting capitalism, he should've been able to fire back that he thinks capitalism's great, and it's her and her fellow neoliberals who undermine the free market by failing to save it from itself.

Byron · **#2698** by **Byron** » Apr 26, 2016 6:19 pm

GT2211 wrote:[...] Though it [1994 Crime Bill] was a bill that was pushed by many in the black community and the CBC in response to the high violence rates in their communities that started to decline shortly after(note I don't credit the 94 bill for this) [...]

This just shows the flaw in defining communities primarily by race, not class: there's no coherent "black community" that transcends economic and educational gaps. Members of the Congressional black caucus aren't ever likely to suffer from the crime bill, and nor are their friends and families. Neither are many of their voters, afraid of crime, and wanting criminals locked up for a good long while.

Oldskeptic · **#2699** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 26, 2016 9:51 pm

Teague wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
WayOfTheDodo wrote:
Thommo wrote:There are absolutely loads of claims of (alleged) fact throughout the writing, whilst they aren't sourced there's loads of potential for fact checking her various arguments. I went through and made a list of a few that jumped out at me:
<snip>
5. Sanders voted for a 1994 crime bill that he attacked Clinton for supporting.
<snip>
Anyone who is genuinely sceptical that her claims are rooted in fact could randomly sample half a dozen of these points and look them up to see if they're true. With the sheer volume of facts referred to, it's hardly surprising that a blog post doesn't provide a reference list (anyone who's written academic papers knows how long providing accurate references takes).

It's basically a massive Gish-Gallop. Duane Gish would be proud.

Never the less all of Gish's accusations and arguments have been countered. I've yet to see even a slight attempt here to counter any of Alperstein's "accusations".

But thank you for the Gish Gallop comparison here because it applies to the Sanders camp and its accusations towards Hillary far more than it could ever apply to Clinton's.

I find it amusing that no one in the Bernie camp here is willing to counter any of Alperstein's accusations and opinions. You'd all rather just complain that there are to many to counter.

I'll do this one....

Sanders voted for a 1994 crime bill that he attacked Clinton for supporting.

In 1994, for example, he said that he would support it because it included the Violence Against Women Act, which helped crack down on domestic violence and rape. Sanders said:

I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act. We urgently need the $1.8 billion in this bill to combat the epidemic of violence against women on the streets and in the homes of America.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

Oh, sad day for you.

Bullshit! Sanders also claims that he voted for the bill because it included the assault weapons ban, but he also voted for an earlier version that did not include the assault weapons ban or the violence against women act.

Something interesting in Bernie's excuses like this is the inconsistency. Bernie claims that he only voted for the crime bill because it had the assault weapons ban and the violence against women acts knowing full well (according to his comments at the time) that it increased death penalty offenses, and would increase sentencing for certain crimes, and would increase prison populations.

He also claims to have voted for the auto industry bailout, because without it 4,000,000 people could loose their jobs.

So far this is true, but that bill failed to pass congress. When the auto industry bailout was bundled into the the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Program release of funds and Bernie had another chance to vote for saving the jobs of 4,000,000 people he voted against it.

In the first case, according to Bernie, he was able to sacrifice his principle for what good it could do for gun safety and protection of women from violence. But in the case of the auto industry bailout he stood on principle and was willing to let 4,000,000 people become unemployed.

The auto industry/TARP vote just seems like spite to me. Bernie hates "Wall Street" and "Big Banks" so much that he was willing to sacrifice the well being of 4,000,000 middle class Americans and their families by voting no. And in the case of the 1994 crime bill he was willing to sacrifice the lives and well being of possibly millions of young less fortunate people.

Oldskeptic · **#2700** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 26, 2016 10:01 pm

NineOneFour wrote:

Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Who is online