Originally Posted by Odin

Being against a logically absurd lawsuit is "callous"?

What is logically absurd is having gun manufacturers enjoying an exemption from lawsuits that no other manufacturers are exempt from (and yes, I know the fussy argument misdirection that they can still be exempt for faulty products, but that's not the issue here).

Victims of gun violence, including the parents of a couple of dozen 5 year olds, should be able to have their day in court to make their case. If their case is logically absurd that is up to the court to decide not some blanket law passed by tools of the NRA in Congress.

As to callous, Bernie could have been a tad more polite and explained his position as if he was in front of those parents rather than his curt "no" made worse by trying to deflect it with suggesting Clinton should apologize for her Iraq Use of Force Authorization which she had already done her mea culpa some time ago. I realize these subtleties of politeness are considered beneath Savior Bernie by his flock of worshippers, but it is not going to be lost on the people of NY - we know blowhards.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What is logically absurd is having gun manufacturers enjoying an exemption from lawsuits that no other manufacturers are exempt from (and yes, I know the fussy argument misdirection that they can still be exempt for faulty products, but that's not the issue here).

Victims of gun violence, including the parents of a couple of dozen 5 year olds, should be able to have their day in court to make their case. If their case is logically absurd that is up to the court to decide not some blanket law passed by tools of the NRA in Congress.

As to callous, Bernie could have been a tad more polite and explained his position as if he was in front of those parents rather than his curt "no" made worse by trying to deflect it with suggesting Clinton should apologize for her Iraq Use of Force Authorization which she had already done her mea culpa some time ago. I realize these subtleties of politeness are considered beneath Savior Bernie by his flock of worshippers, but it is not going to be lost on the people of NY - we know blowhards.

Hammer manufacturers are held responsible for all the murders using hammers? What about Knife manufacturers?

Originally Posted by playwrite

What is logically absurd is having gun manufacturers enjoying an exemption from lawsuits that no other manufacturers are exempt from (and yes, I know the fussy argument misdirection that they can still be exempt for faulty products, but that's not the issue here).

Victims of gun violence, including the parents of a couple of dozen 5 year olds, should be able to have their day in court to make their case. If their case is logically absurd that is up to the court to decide not some blanket law passed by tools of the NRA in Congress.

As to callous, Bernie could have been a tad more polite and explained his position as if he was in front of those parents rather than his curt "no" made worse by trying to deflect it with suggesting Clinton should apologize for her Iraq Use of Force Authorization which she had already done her mea culpa some time ago. I realize these subtleties of politeness are considered beneath Savior Bernie by his flock of worshippers, but it is not going to be lost on the people of NY - we know blowhards.

Sanders understands something that some of us don't. That no good can come of driving gun ownership and gun sales underground. And gun sales cannot be stopped now that 3-d printers and the algorithms to manufacture gun parts with them have spread throughout the country. Nobody is going to be able to sue THOSE gun manufacturers. And if Colt and other gun manufacturers are driven out of business by lawsuits there will be a lot of those "printed guns" made. Just as the Volstead Act led to a great deal of bathtub gin.
Frankly, a "war on guns" would amount to the same situation for the same reasons as the War on Drugs, a war that John Erhlichman admitted, Nixon started to target African-Americans and hippies. In the case of a "war on guns", the target would be poorer whites, mainly. The marginalization and criminalization of the kind of voters who are Trump's core support. On top of already criminalized African-Americans.
Bernie is to be congratulated for wanting no part of a War on Guns. As a Senator of a rural state, he knows the stakes of such a war.

Bernie apparently made a major breakthrough in Wisconsin amongst all elements of the Democratic coalition. African Americans (31%), older voters, women... See http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...through-221659

And Bernie has crossed the political Rubicon (or is it the Delaware?) Bernie told a rally in Philadelphia that Hillary Clinton is "not qualified to be President". http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...esident-221666 Bernie cannot take that back. Bernie has basically just said that if he dosen't get the nomination he will likely run as an Independent against Hillary. And he might even be able to carry states. Particularly if Trump also runs as an Independent and drives the threshold for plurality down to the 30s.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Sanders understands something that some of us don't. That no good can come of driving gun ownership and gun sales underground. And gun sales cannot be stopped now that 3-d printers and the algorithms to manufacture gun parts with them have spread throughout the country. Nobody is going to be able to sue THOSE gun manufacturers. And if Colt and other gun manufacturers are driven out of business by lawsuits there will be a lot of those "printed guns" made. Just as the Volstead Act led to a great deal of bathtub gin.
Frankly, a "war on guns" would amount to the same situation for the same reasons as the War on Drugs, a war that John Erhlichman admitted, Nixon started to target African-Americans and hippies. In the case of a "war on guns", the target would be poorer whites, mainly. The marginalization and criminalization of the kind of voters who are Trump's core support. On top of already criminalized African-Americans.
Bernie is to be congratulated for wanting no part of a War on Guns. As a Senator of a rural state, he knows the stakes of such a war.

I have been opposed to the 'war on drugs' for some time. I advocate across the board legalization, taxes on drugs( same as for alcohol), and use of these taxes for drug treatment & education against drug use. Essentially I would make drugs legal, but make every attempt to discourage their use.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Sanders understands something that some of us don't. That no good can come of driving gun ownership and gun sales underground. And gun sales cannot be stopped now that 3-d printers and the algorithms to manufacture gun parts with them have spread throughout the country. Nobody is going to be able to sue THOSE gun manufacturers. And if Colt and other gun manufacturers are driven out of business by lawsuits there will be a lot of those "printed guns" made. Just as the Volstead Act led to a great deal of bathtub gin.
Frankly, a "war on guns" would amount to the same situation for the same reasons as the War on Drugs, a war that John Erhlichman admitted, Nixon started to target African-Americans and hippies. In the case of a "war on guns", the target would be poorer whites, mainly. The marginalization and criminalization of the kind of voters who are Trump's core support. On top of already criminalized African-Americans.
Bernie is to be congratulated for wanting no part of a War on Guns. As a Senator of a rural state, he knows the stakes of such a war.

Horsepucky. This is absurd hyperbola of the 'war on ALL guns.' I've been a gun owner and hunter for most of my life, but like MOST gun owners, I believe there could be plenty of reasonable restrictions that would still allow for the continued ownership and use that would be more than reasonable. There is no reason for wide access to either large capacity or high velocity fire power, period. And there is no reason why every gun shouldn't be registered and strictly and solely used by the licensed owner of that gun. There is no reason why gun safety shouldn't be equivalent to what we are increasingly demanding of motor vehicles. A gun should be rendered useless without the fingers on that gun being positively identified by the smart chip on the gun as the owner; we should get the point where a gun manufacturer could be sued for the lack of that attribute just like people are now suing exploding air bag manufacturers.

As to 3D printers printing illegal guns, we already have the capacity for people to cook Meth and most people don't; those that do are likely either soon dead or in jail for a long long time. I'm more than okay with any of those outcomes for those that print illegal guns. I've had enough of ammosexuals and their enablers like Bernie.

Boomer ideologues like playwrite are mistaken in their belief that hillary is the wave of the future and that the values she embodies could ever be accepted by the american people. Instead Restorationism is the wave of the future, Restorationism embodies all that is good in american and western culture in general and reflects the last couple generations or so of american cultural development and the aspirations of most post-boomer cohorts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...iew/?tid=a_inl

Originally Posted by Debol1990

Hammer manufacturers are held responsible for all the murders using hammers? What about Knife manufacturers?

Or the way we punish car manufacturers for producing getaway cars or for equipping hit and run drivers.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And Bernie has crossed the political Rubicon (or is it the Delaware?) Bernie told a rally in Philadelphia that Hillary Clinton is "not qualified to be President". http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...esident-221666 Bernie cannot take that back. Bernie has basically just said that if he dosen't get the nomination he will likely run as an Independent against Hillary. And he might even be able to carry states. Particularly if Trump also runs as an Independent and drives the threshold for plurality down to the 30s.

Yea, that's going to go over well with the closed primaries in NY, PA and MD.

You add this to: his not knowing how to close banks, telling the Sandy Hook parents to go F'off, and his staff's pre- post-mortem in the NYT, all in the last few days, and one might conclude he's trying to blow himself up.

If he does go 3rd Party, and we not only get Trump/Cruz in the WH but a Scalia clone on the SCOTUS, all the BernieBots should start working on their apologies to their children and grandchildren. It should start with - "I am a moron and I once believed in magic ponies that could poop out single payer while breaking up banks with laser beams..."

By the way, Clinton's response was classy, many millions believe, Presidential -

Look, I didn’t — I don’t know why he’s saying that. But I will take Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump or Ted Cruz any time. So let’s keep our eye on what’s really at stake in this election. We have Republicans whose values are so antithetical to what’s right for New York, or what’s right for America. And I’m just going to keep doing what I’ve been doing, with my friends like [Bronx borough president] Ruben [Diaz Jr.] for all these years to try to really make a difference in peoples lives.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Boomer ideologues like playwrite are mistaken in their belief that hillary is the wave of the future and that the values she embodies could ever be accepted by the american people. Instead Restorationism is the wave of the future, Restorationism embodies all that is good in american and western culture in general and reflects the last couple generations or so of american cultural development and the aspirations of most post-boomer cohorts.

Restoration?

Did you get your Viagra mixed up with your Thorazine again?

Originally Posted by Debol1990

Hammer manufacturers are held responsible for all the murders using hammers? What about Knife manufacturers?

You CAN sue a hammer manufacturer or a knife manufacturer or any other manufacturer. You still have to make the case.

You CAN'T sue a gun manufacturer. You can NEVER make the case.

Do you see the difference?

The Senator from CT gets it -

Chris Murphy ✔ ‎@ChrisMurphyCT
Democrats cannot nominate a candidate who believes that toy gun makers should be held to a higher legal standard than real gun makers.

psss, a lot of NYers have family and friends in CT.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Restoration?

Did you get your Viagra mixed up with your Thorazine again?

What's Wrong with Restorationism? I see such a reorganization of the nation as leading the country and the world into a new golden age.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Or the way we punish car manufacturers for producing getaway cars or for equipping hit and run drivers.

If the car manufacturer is producing a tank with rocket launchers and has a marketing strategy for promoting/selling that to kids in my neighborhood, you're damn right I'd sue their asses off.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

What's Wrong with Restorationism? I see such a reorganization of the nation as leading the country and the world into a new golden age.

I'm sure your restoration is along the lines of empire or White supremacy or some horseshXt myth that the Right elites feed their sheeple about the 1950s or 1770s or just before Nero burned the house down. Whatever, I'm not buying.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm sure your restoration is along the lines of empire or White supremacy or some horseshXt myth that the Right elites feed their sheeple about the 1950s or 1770s or just before Nero burned the house down. Whatever, I'm not buying.

Boomers have always been hostile to the Ancient Mesopotamian-derived, the Roman-derived and Imperial-derived aspects of western civilization. This is in fact a main characteristic of their deranged incompetence. What makes you delusional ideologues want to propagate the systematic cultivation of human failure.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Boomers have always been hostile to the Ancient Mesopotamian-derived, the Roman-derived and Imperial-derived aspects of western civilization. This is in fact a main characteristic of their deranged incompetence. What makes you delusional ideologues want to propagate the systematic cultivation of human failure.

Yep, people who prefer not to be sheeple tend not to prefer totalitarianism. And we eventually win.

Funny how that works.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And that was the artful smear I was talking about that resonated in Michigan

There is a real difference between Clinton's and Sander's views on trade. Clinton is a centrist Democrat and her positions tend to reflect the center-of-gravity in the Democratic electorate, particularly mainstream liberals, which is pro-free-trade. The big exception amongst Democratic interest groups is Labor who have opposed free trade initiatives. Sanders, in contrast, has occupied the less popular position on Trade his entire career. Trade has become an issue this campaign, and Clinton has shifted a bit away from free trade, but fundamentally she believes free trade to be in America's broad interest although it certainly harms a minority. It is virtually certain that president Clinton will not act to dismantle past trade agreements. In contrast, Sanders could well do this.

I'm a New Deal liberal and so I am more sympathetic to Labor's view on these things. Although I do not thinking eliminating free trade will have much of an impact, by itself, on American manufacturing or displaced workers, it will magnify the impact of future fiscal stimulus, should the US engage in that in response to another deep recession.

most of all I like Sanders tax policy, which of course could never be enacted, but it creates the meme that taxes need to go up A LOT if we are to restore the American dream. Sanders is the first politician since Eisenhower to make that case.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You CAN sue a hammer manufacturer or a knife manufacturer or any other manufacturer. You still have to make the case.

You CAN'T sue a gun manufacturer. You can NEVER make the case.

Do you see the difference?

The Senator from CT gets it -

psss, a lot of NYers have family and friends in CT.

No one with any sense would sue a hammer or knife manufacturer. Guys like you are stupid enough to sue a gun amnufacturer. Thus the need for protection.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If the car manufacturer is producing a tank with rocket launchers and has a marketing strategy for promoting/selling that to kids in my neighborhood, you're damn right I'd sue their asses off.

Wher is selling a gun to a minor legal?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And Bernie has crossed the political Rubicon (or is it the Delaware?) Bernie told a rally in Philadelphia that Hillary Clinton is "not qualified to be President". http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...esident-221666 Bernie cannot take that back. Bernie has basically just said that if he dosen't get the nomination he will likely run as an Independent against Hillary. And he might even be able to carry states. Particularly if Trump also runs as an Independent and drives the threshold for plurality down to the 30s.

NO Mo, what Bernie said does not say that he will NOT DOSE.

NOR does it say that he will run as an independent.

But let's see where the race stands and where it's going this month.

Clinton now has 1302 pledged delegates, and Sanders has 1088, according to wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...rimaries,_2016

My projections for the April primaries:

DATE STATE CLINTON-SANDERS (delegates won)
4/9 WY 4-10
4/19 NY 147-100
4/26 CT 30-25
4/26 DE 13-8
4/26 MD 60-35
4/26 PA 100-89
4/26 RI 10-14

TOTAL 1662-1369

Hillary needs 2026 to get a majority of pledged delegates, and thus keep most superdelegates from bolting. That's 364 more. She could get all those and more from CA, NJ, and a portion of the May primaries (IN, WV, KY OR and Guam) even if she loses most of them.

Of course, Sanders could beat my projections. So far though, he hasn't. I projected a Sanders delegate win in Hawaii of 20-5; results (though impressive) were only 17-8. I projected Sanders would win Wisconsin 56-30; he won it 48-38. He now has momentum going into mid-Atlantica, so we'll see if he beats my projections for April.

I think it would be a major blow to the Democratic Party's chances if Bernie wins a bare majority of pledged delegates, and then fails to win the nomination because the superdelegates choose Hillary. That is one reason for me to hope that Hillary wraps it up in the primaries, even though if I were voting, I would choose Sanders in a heartbeat.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

NO Mo, what Bernie said does not say that he will NOT DOSE.

NOR does it say that he will run as an independent.

But let's see where the race stands and where it's going this month.

Clinton now has 1302 pledged delegates, and Sanders has 1088, according to wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...rimaries,_2016

My projections for the April primaries:

DATE STATE CLINTON-SANDERS (delegates won)
4/9 WY 4-10
4/19 NY 147-100
4/26 CT 30-25
4/26 DE 13-8
4/26 MD 60-35
4/26 PA 100-89
4/26 RI 10-14

TOTAL 1662-1369

Hillary needs 2026 to get a majority of pledged delegates, and thus keep most superdelegates from bolting. That's 364 more. She could get all those and more from CA, NJ, and a portion of the May primaries (IN, WV, KY OR and Guam) even if she loses most of them.

Of course, Sanders could beat my projections. So far though, he hasn't. I projected a Sanders delegate win in Hawaii of 20-5; results (though impressive) were only 17-8. I projected Sanders would win Wisconsin 56-30; he won it 48-38. He now has momentum going into mid-Atlantica, so we'll see if he beats my projections for April.

I think it would be a major blow to the Democratic Party's chances if Bernie wins a bare majority of pledged delegates, and then fails to win the nomination because the superdelegates choose Hillary. That is one reason for me to hope that Hillary wraps it up in the primaries, even though if I were voting, I would choose Sanders in a heartbeat.

Not in so many words. But Bernie has just made it infinitely more difficult for him to endorse Hillary if he loses and infinitely more difficult to carry his following with him in voting for Hillary if he does. Bernie has created a situation in which he will be under pressure from his following to go independent.

I keep finding stuff like this.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/j...icle-1.2591052

Originally Posted by playwrite

If the car manufacturer is producing a tank with rocket launchers and has a marketing strategy for promoting/selling that to kids in my neighborhood, you're damn right I'd sue their asses off.

I'd worry about such a car too. If only because it is the very rich who would be buying it.