Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.

Let's hope not. I think rhetoric gets heated in campaigns, and then things are patched up, especially considering the horrific alternatives.

Bernie has to beat Hillary in every April primary except New York, and beat my projections, to stay viable. So, he's getting more desperate. This month is his last throw until he reincarnates.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I keep finding stuff like this.

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

It makes some good points that might be true, except that it includes the usual conservative nonsense that is not true.

Originally Posted by playwrite

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 -

Well that's good to hear. That Hillary, if she loses, will swallow hard and support Bernie as she did Obama. Which her supporters likely will in that case. But Hillary was coming very close to saying that Bernie was unqualified to be President and that is something she would have a hard time taking back. This is the first acknowlegement from Hillary that she COULD lose the nomination. And that if she goes completely scorched Earth she could hand the election to Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Time will tell if she avoids the personal attacks (and more importantly tells her surrogates to avoid the personal attacks too). Because at the very least, Bernie has signaled that he will give as good as he gets.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

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

Hammers, cars, knives, all have useful purposes. GUNS DO NOT.

Guns kill people. Sue the manufacturers! It's an unsafe product!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hammers, cars, knives, all have useful purposes. GUNS DO NOT.

Guns kill people. Sue the manufacturers! It's an unsafe product!

The British decided through Act of Parliament that the Crown through the Police should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, even in self-defence. Americans have not. Americans have decided that yes, guns kill people. And that some homicides are legitimate, even when perpetrated by non-police citizens. Even here in California there are many rural counties in which the Sheriff cannot get to a home quickly enough to stop a home invasion and apprehend the perps. In rural parts of the country (and most of Vermont IS rural), it is legitimate and accepted for homeowners to possess a weapon or weapons and be able to handle what may occur themselves (or at least try to). (And this is true even in Canada, by the way). That ability deters a great deal of crime. We cannot blame gun manufacturers for the misuse of the weapons we sell when we have legitimated the use of them by non-police or military in certain legal circumstances. And especially not when we have extended that right to carry weapons to permitted civilians in most of the nation.
And then we need to be cognizant of the fact that the alternative to legally made guns are illegally printed guns of varying reliability. So suing gun manufacturers out of existence (or more likely forcing them to do a corporate inversion and give up corporate US citizenship to escape liability) is probably not harm minimization. To say nothing of the question of where our military will procure it's weapons if this happens.
It's a problem similar to drugs, overdoses of which kill people at 46,000 for 2013 as opposed to 35,000 (high statistics) for cars and 33,000 for guns. See http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...es-or-firearms and http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/...rugs_1500.html .
Is this a justification for continuing the war on drugs? And are these gun deaths a justification for a war on guns (which means a war on the quarter of the population that are gun owners)?
Maybe if gun deaths are that serious a problem we need to be moving toward widespread wearing of body armor (which some urban Democratic representatives want to ban). See http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._type_iii.html

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The British decided through Act of Parliament that the Crown through the Police should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, even in self-defence. Americans have not. Americans have decided that yes, guns kill people. And that some homicides are legitimate, even when perpetrated by non-police citizens. Even here in California there are many rural counties in which the Sheriff cannot get to a home quickly enough to stop a home invasion and apprehend the perps. In rural parts of the country (and most of Vermont IS rural), it is legitimate and accepted for homeowners to possess a weapon or weapons and be able to handle what may occur themselves (or at least try to). (And this is true even in Canada, by the way). That ability deters a great deal of crime. We cannot blame gun manufacturers for the misuse of the weapons we sell when we have legitimated the use of them by non-police or military in certain legal circumstances. And especially not when we have extended that right to carry weapons to permitted civilians in most of the nation.
And then we need to be cognizant of the fact that the alternative to legally made guns are illegally printed guns of varying reliability. So suing gun manufacturers out of existence (or more likely forcing them to do a corporate inversion and give up corporate US citizenship to escape liability) is probably not harm minimization. To say nothing of the question of where our military will procure it's weapons if this happens.
It's a problem similar to drugs, overdoses of which kill people at 46,000 for 2013 as opposed to 35,000 (high statistics) for cars and 33,000 for guns. See http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...es-or-firearms and http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/...rugs_1500.html .
Is this a justification for continuing the war on drugs? And are these gun deaths a justification for a war on guns (which means a war on the quarter of the population that are gun owners)?
Maybe if gun deaths are that serious a problem we need to be moving toward widespread wearing of body armor (which some urban Democratic representatives want to ban). See http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._type_iii.html

Here we go again.

I won't reply in detail. But a war on guns is not being contemplated. Not even close. Guns do not work for self defense AT ALL. The military need not worry about not having civilian guns. The right to conceal and carry weapons should be rescinded; it's stupid. Points already made ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hammers, cars, knives, all have useful purposes. GUNS DO NOT.

Guns kill people. Sue the manufacturers! It's an unsafe product!

As far as I can tell, one of the best deterrents to crime is a dog. It's domestication is nothing more than its predictability. In view of its power, strength, speed, agility, and bite force it is an animal whose predictability is to be maintained.

Four 80-pound Rottweilers, German Shepherds, or Dobermans makes one 320-pound tiger. Three such dogs makes on 240-pound lioness (the one that really does the killing in the pride). Two such dogs makes a 160-pound leopard or jaguar. One such dog... is good cause to not break into the jungle, which a house with one such dog is.

I can just imagine a graphic design as a warning to intruders. Next to the image of a dog with fangs bared,

BURGLAR: the other (choose color) meat.

Lethal as a large dog is, it's still far safer than a gun. A dog can be called back; a bullet can't. A crook isn't going to take the dog away from its owner and turn it against its owner. Dogs rarely attack the wrong person in the defense of family members.

I would let sport hunters keep their guns.

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.

People suing knife manufacturers are not being encouraged and supported by groups whole ultimate goal is banning guns. People like Eric who think guns should be banned are really common in the major cities and think us gun owners in "flyover country" are Cliven Bundy clones.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-policy-221655

“The Clinton campaign has to tell the truth — that Sanders is a rural know-nothing,” Moss said. “Vermont is filled with people who can’t make it anywhere — the skiers, the potheads and the people who tap maple trees. Hillary should challenge Bernie on his understanding of urban issues because he would fail.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz45CZikWB4
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Bernie is closing the gap in recent California primary poll: "Poll: Sanders surges in California"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-d...ry-poll-221711


Hillary Clinton still leads the Vermont senator in the state, 47 percent to 41 percent with 12 percent undecided, but the former secretary of state has seen only a modest, 1-point uptick since the last survey was conducted in January. Sanders, meanwhile, has jumped 6 percentage points.

Democrats favor Clinton by an 11-point margin, which is nearly equivalent to the 10-point advantage Sanders holds over Clinton among independents. As exit polls have suggested throughout the primary, Sanders also performs best among younger voters. The poll shows Sanders has more support among voters younger than 40, while older voters prefer Clinton, who also has the overwhelming support of African-American voters.

Sanders has a net favorability of +59 percent (75 percent favorable, 16 percent unfavorable), while Clinton’s net favorability is +43 percent (70 percent favorable, 27 percent unfavorable). Clinton supporters, however, view Sanders much more favorably (+35 percent) than his voters see Clinton (+3 percent), which could call into question their willingness to vote for Clinton in a general election should she win the nomination.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Bernie is closing the gap in recent California primary poll: "Poll: Sanders surges in California"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-d...ry-poll-221711


Hillary Clinton still leads the Vermont senator in the state, 47 percent to 41 percent with 12 percent undecided, but the former secretary of state has seen only a modest, 1-point uptick since the last survey was conducted in January. Sanders, meanwhile, has jumped 6 percentage points.

Democrats favor Clinton by an 11-point margin, which is nearly equivalent to the 10-point advantage Sanders holds over Clinton among independents. As exit polls have suggested throughout the primary, Sanders also performs best among younger voters. The poll shows Sanders has more support among voters younger than 40, while older voters prefer Clinton, who also has the overwhelming support of African-American voters.

Sanders has a net favorability of +59 percent (75 percent favorable, 16 percent unfavorable), while Clinton’s net favorability is +43 percent (70 percent favorable, 27 percent unfavorable). Clinton supporters, however, view Sanders much more favorably (+35 percent) than his voters see Clinton (+3 percent), which could call into question their willingness to vote for Clinton in a general election should she win the nomination.

The poll has reached the percentages I projected for delegates after June 7. So will Sanders continue to gain, or will this be the best he can do? It takes a lot more to shift the largest primary than a caucus.

CA Independents can vote in the Democratic Primary, but not in the Republican or the Green. Republicans can't vote in the Democratic Primary. Those who state a party preference in their registration (Green, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, etc.) must vote in that party's primary.

This just in: Clinton leads Sanders in NY 56-38% (Emerson poll). My projection of 147-100 is about 59-40. So, as of now, my projections are about the same as current polls in NY, PA and CA. Sanders has momentum now, but it may not last as we re-enter Hillary's turf.

Bernie is also narrowing the gap between Hillary and himself in Pennsylvania: "Sanders Significantly Narrows Clinton's Leads in California, Pennsylvania."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/08/sanders-significantly-narrows-clintons-leads-california-pennsylvania

As presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders' Wednesday rally in Philadelphia drew a crowd so large the line stretched ten blocks, Quinnipiac released a poll showing Sanders making double-digit gains on Hillary Clinton's once-formidable lead in the state—narrowing it to just a six-point margin.

The Pennsylvania poll showed Sanders behind Clinton among likely Democratic voters 44 percent to 50 percent in the closed-primary state; previous polling had Clinton ahead by a full 17 points. The margin of error was 4.3 percentage points.

Echoing previous polling that shows Sanders' strength as a general election candidate, Quinnipiac's poll also found Clinton tying with Cruz in a general election match-up, while Sanders beat both Trump and Cruz handily.

And again, Sanders has yet to surpass my projection in PA. He'll need to do that fairly handily in both PA and CA to win the nomination.

My projections for April:
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

For May and June:
5/3 IN 43-40
5/7 GUAM 4-3
5/10 WV 15-14
5/17 KY 28-27
5/17 OR 20-41
6/4 VI 4-3
6/5 PR 35-25
6/7 CA 255-220
6/7 NJ 70-56
6/7 MT 4-17
6/7 NM 17-17
6/7 ND 3-15
6/7 SD 5-15
6/14 DC 10-10

TOTALS: 2179-1872

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hammers, cars, knives, all have useful purposes. GUNS DO NOT.

Guns kill people. Sue the manufacturers! It's an unsafe product!

Guns kill or injure people (and other animals I may have a goal to kill or injure) in a given scenario. I think my given scenario is well thought out and as ethical as one can be beyond simply allowing the scenario to play out with no intervention on my part. My ethics however, do include intervention under the right conditions.

A criminal or a madman has a different, completely unethical construct.

A hard core pacifist who is willing to undergo injury or death for his or her own principles has a different construct.

Only one of these is true wrong - the second one - the criminal / madman.

The other two cases are differences of opinion.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here we go again.

I won't reply in detail. But a war on guns is not being contemplated. Not even close. Guns do not work for self defense AT ALL. The military need not worry about not having civilian guns. The right to conceal and carry weapons should be rescinded; it's stupid. Points already made ad infinitum.

Eric I used a gun for self defense. I was undergoing harassment and threats by a gang, when I was much younger and could only afford to live in a challenged area. My Dad loaned me his Mini-14 (yep, my hippie Dad had a Mini-14) - an act which would be illegal today - sort of dumb law - I digress. The next time a gang member climbed on my balcony and gave threat, I cycled the action and prepared for countering an assault. The gang never returned to bother me.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Eric I used a gun for self defense. I was undergoing harassment and threats by a gang, when I was much younger and could only afford to live in a challenged area. My Dad loaned me his Mini-14 (yep, my hippie Dad had a Mini-14) - an act which would be illegal today - sort of dumb law - I digress. The next time a gang member climbed on my balcony and gave threat, I cycled the action and prepared for countering an assault. The gang never returned to bother me.

But if the gang was armed, then you would have had a shootout with someone who probably uses guns more often than you do. And that loaded and ready-to-shoot gun might have put yourself or others in danger.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But if the gang was armed, then you would have had a shootout with someone who probably uses guns more often than you do. And that loaded and ready-to-shoot gun might have put yourself or others in danger.

I doubt an armed gang would be foolish enough to test the skills of an unknown shooter.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I doubt an armed gang would be foolish enough to test the skills of an unknown shooter.

Ever hear of drive-bys?

And how would they know he's a shooter?

Unless he puts up a sign. Which by the way says "this house has a gun to steal."

Originally Posted by Dan '82

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-policy-221655

Wow, what a condescending POS.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ever hear of drive-bys?

And how would they know he's a shooter?

Unless he puts up a sign. Which by the way says "this house has a gun to steal."

Yep. I've heard about drive by shootings. How did the gang that was threatening him know that he was armed?

Wil Wyoming get Berned today? Stay tuned.........

fivethirtyeight.com gives their estimate of what Bernie needs to win. So, if you don't believe my projections, you can take a look at theirs.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-in-delegates/

Wyoming got Berned

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-s...yoming-caucus/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hammers, cars, knives, all have useful purposes. GUNS DO NOT.

Guns kill people. Sue the manufacturers! It's an unsafe product!

Eric, we have gone over this so many times. Guns put food on the table and they are handy for self defense against animals, including the two legged variety. They are properly used hundreds of times each day. Misuse does not mean inherently unsafe.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here we go again.

I won't reply in detail. But a war on guns is not being contemplated. Not even close. Guns do not work for self defense AT ALL. The military need not worry about not having civilian guns. The right to conceal and carry weapons should be rescinded; it's stupid. Points already made ad infinitum.

Here we go again, because you ignorer the data.