Isn't it tragic that Hillary Clinton was the only candidate honest enough, brave enough and strong

[lunamagica]

enough to address the gun control issue in the last presidential campaign, and it hurt her?

Is one of those things that goes beyond my comprehension.

[BigmanPigman]

1. The MSM was too busy going after ratings/$$$

to focus on issues. Instead they were showing an empty stage and podium waiting for the fucking moron/reality show star to appear for his campaign rallies. They are still going after distractions right and left so they still haven't really learned any lessons. Neither have most Americans. Oh, and here come the midterms!

[iluvtennis]

14. ++++ Agree.

[EffieBlack]

39. So true

[elleng]

2. Too bad many didn't recognize this:

https://martinomalley.com/policy/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/

GUN REFORM
As a nation, it is time for sensible gun safety laws that save lives. That is why Governor O’Malley has set a national goal of cutting deaths from gun violence in half within 10 years. Week after week, more images of horrific gun violence flash across our TV and computer screens. These tragedies aren’t isolated incidents; they are part of a full-blown—and entirely preventable—epidemic. We cannot afford to sit by and let this constant heartbreak become the norm.

As Governor of Maryland, O’Malley implemented some of the toughest measures in the nation to reduce gun violence. He put in place licensing, fingerprinting, background checks, and safety training requirements for all buyers. If a firearm was lost or stolen, owners were required to immediately notify law enforcement. And Maryland prohibited the sale of assault weapons and limited the size of magazines—all while protecting the state’s proud hunting tradition.

Governor O’Malley is calling for the nation to adopt similar, commonsense reforms—while also closing loopholes that allow prohibited individuals to easily purchase guns, prevent law enforcement from holding dealers and gun traffickers accountable when they break the law, and lead to the deaths of thousands of children every year. These proven solutions are achievable at a national scale—if, as a nation, we have the courage and conviction to do the right thing.

GOAL: CUT DEATHS FROM GUN VIOLENCE—HOMICIDES, SUICIDES, AND ACCIDENTS—IN HALF BY 2025

Federally licensed firearms dealers are already required to conduct background checks in order to keep firearms out of the hands of people who have committed violent felonies or domestic abuse. While this requirement has effectively prevented more than 2.4 million prohibited people from acquiring guns, large loopholes allow others to easily purchase firearms.>>>

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12813600

[SunSeeker]

24. Everyone "recognized" O'Malley supported gun control. Please don't insult our intelligence.

The OP, as it explicitly states, is about "the last PRESIDENTIAL campaign," not the Democratic primary. It makes no sense to read the OP as referring to or conparing Democratic primary candidates. All of the Democratic primary candidates supported gun control.

[bettyellen]

26. Someones always got to come along and make it about the primaries when its not.

[lapucelle]

30. "Anyone but her" was a theme that Republicans and the MSM

continually stoked during the GE.

But the point is well taken that both the Democratic presidential nominee and former Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley represent Democratic party core values on this issue, had the courage of their convictions when it counted, and have no need to run away from their voting records on sane gun laws like so many Republicans are doing today.

[Squinch]

31. Yes, yes. Only you were smart enough to know that O'Malley was for gun control. The rest of us

were just standing around drooling from open mouths.

[dawg]

37. Wow. You just received an awful lot of hostility just for ...

pointing out that Hillary wasn't the only one to stand up for gun control.

I don't understand that at all.

Then again, I've never understood why Gov. O'Malley has been so consistently disregarded and minimalized, both on DU and in the mainstream media.

[elleng]

56. Thanks, dawg,

and thanks for noticing. I'm not spending time on the thread(s), but do appreciate those who pay attention.

[lapucelle]

50. And it's such a shame that so many "journalists" failed to cover the 2016 Democratic Party Platform

because they were too busy chasing ratings and revenue.

"Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe.

To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets.

We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue."

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[Cha]

3. The OP is about Hillary.. and yes

it is too bad.

Hillary knows how badly we need Sensible Gun Laws.. and she would have gotten in if it weren't for the Russian hacking emails and voting machines.

And, all the Lies that 3rd party assholes like ssarandon and stein told the suckers.

Gracias, Lunamagica!

[elleng]

5. The OP is about 'a' candidate honest enough, brave enough and strong enough to address

the gun control issue in the last presidential campaign. There were more than one such candidates.

[Cha]

6. The OP is about Hillary.

[SunSeeker]

8. Only Hillary and Trump participated in the 2016 Presidential debates.

This isn't about the primary debates. And it certainly is not an appropriate time to refight the primaries.

[JI7]

10. the OP is clearly referring to the Presidential Election since she won the Primary

and her gun control stand helped her in winning it.

[Jim Lane]

12. That is by no means clear

I was just on the jury and I voted that it doesn't quite break the rule. It is, however, clearly false.

[JI7]

13. her gun control position helped her win among black women

and other women but especially black women who are the base of the party. her gun control stand was a help to her in winning the primary.

[Jim Lane]

17. You're probably right, which is another reason the OP is false.

For the reason you state, it's false to assert that her position on guns "hurt her" (as the OP does).

I meant that it was false to assert that she "was the only candidate" to address the issue "in the last presidential campaign", not limiting the statement to the general election. As elleng pointed out, O'Malley was a candidate in the campaign, and he had a strong record on the issue while Governor.

Another candidate in the campaign was the Senator from Vermont, who said:

I come from a state that has virtually no gun control. And yet, at political peril, I voted for an instant background check, which I want to see strengthened and expanded. I voted to ban certain types of assault weapons, which are designed only to kill people. I voted to end the so-called gun show loophole. What I think there needs to be is a dialogue. And here's what I do believe: I believe what I call common sense gun reform. Plus, a revolution in mental health, making sure that if people are having a nervous breakdown, or are suicidal, or homicidal, they get the care they need when they need it. I think the vast majority of the American people can support and agenda composed of those features.

If the OP had said "in the general election," then there wouldn't be any basis for the alerter's charge of refighting the primary. The actual wording is, at best, ambiguous. Most people would take "the last presidential campaign" to include the debates in 2015 and the primaries and caucuses in 2016.

[JI7]

18. Lincoln Chafee supported Gun Control also. it's clear the OP was referring to the GE because her gun

control position did not hurt her in the primary .

[lunamagica]

34. It DID hurt her. I have lost count of the many, any people who said they wouild never vote for her

because "she's going to take away our guns"

[R B Garr]

41. Just because Hillary is the subject doesnt

mean this is about the primary.

[SunSeeker]

16. The OP clearly refers to "the last presidential campaign."

It makes no mention of the primary campaign, and was clearly not talking about the primary in any way.

[Jim Lane]

20. I did a search for the phrase "2016 presidential campaign" (which was the last campaign)

Quite a few of the hits concerned the nomination phase of the campaign. You may be interested in this one: "Sexism, Alive and Well in 2016 Presidential Campaign". Originally posted on February 8, 2016, it began:

As a scholar of Communication Studies and gender, the rhetoric and media coverage of Hillary’s speaking style, post Thursday’s Prime Time Democratic Debate, came as no surprise. Sexist attitudes and perceptions, regarding men and women’s speaking styles, are supported by an abundance of scholarly research.

While men in the political arena who raise their voices are often reported as more presidential, competent and viewed as leaders, women, on the contrary, are depicted as irrational, angry, and emotional. But one doesn’t need to enact a literature review in academia to find evidence as to how prevalent a role sexist attitudes play in this presidential election.

The phrase "last presidential campaign" gets fewer hits but is still not limited to the general election. Let's hear from some right-wing anti-Trumpers, who are (correctly but quite belatedly, IMO) concerned about "Irrationalism in Politics":

Yet nothing prepared the scene for the revolutionary shift that began in the last presidential campaign. Rationalism was shown the door, as Donald Trump turned the Republican presidential primary contest into a food fight.

It would have been helpful if the OP had specified the general-election campaign.

[SunSeeker]

21. You are trying too hard. The OP was clear. nt

[Jim Lane]

23. Well, that settles that, then. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

25. I would hope so. I don't know why someone would read the OP otherwise.

It makes no sense to read that OP as some kind of TOS-violating primary campaign post comparing Democratic primary candidates and suggesting some didn't support gun control. The Democratic primary candidates all supported gun control.

[Jim Lane]

27. I know that you don't know why anyone would.

Alas, you also don't seem to know that anyone did, even though it happened (elleng, the alerter, and myself, at a minimum). You might want to consider the possibility that your own perspective is not the only one with any validity.

[SunSeeker]

32. There is no other valid reading of the OP. All of the Dem primary candidates supported gun control.

For someone to believe the OP was talking about the Democratic primary, you would have to believe the OP poster thought that Hillary was the only Dem primary candidate who supported gun control. No one here can honestly believe that of this poster. The OP is obviously talking about Hillary in the "last PRESIDENTIAL campaign," as the OP itself states.

[LanternWaste]

40. You should dig in even deeper...

You should dig in even deeper...

[R B Garr]

43. You also might consider that you are making this about

Bernie out of defensiveness over the pro gun atmosphere in Vermont. Apparently there are a lot of rural hunters there who like their guns.

No need to force false arguments on Hillary to compensate.

[R B Garr]

42. This isnt about the primary. If you read it, its about

the Presidential election. Just because someone types Hillary’s name doesn’t mean it’s about the primary. LOL

[Jim Lane]

48. "If you read it" -- great idea!

I read the OP. Then I reread it, because I thought your post was so flatly wrong that maybe I'd made a mistake. Nope, I was right the first time.

You write that "its [sic] about the Presidential election." Upon rereading, I confirmed that the post does not contain the word "election" but does contain the word "campaign" -- which, as I showed, is frequently used, on the left and the right, to encompass the entire process, beginning in 2015.

If you use the word differently, that's just an example of the ambiguity in the OP. It's because of that ambiguity that I voted to leave it alone, although I could certainly understand the alerter's contention that it was refighting the primary.

[R B Garr]

51. That's it?? BTW, the contraction I just typed for "that's it" won't

show up as typed because of the KNOWN glitch that has been published here for many months. You haven't seen the comments in the ATA section about the contractions problem in the title lines??

Here's the sentence without the glitch:
That's it?? BTW, the contraction I just typed for "that's it" won't show up as typed because of the KNOWN glitch that has been published here for many months." LOL @ your "sic" as if that has some deep meaning to you about your correctness.

I see the problem, though. You should focus on the word PRESIDENT. Neither Martin O'Malley NOR Bernie Sanders were in a CAMPAIGN for President. Neither one was in an ELECTION for President.


Martin O'Malley was not in a Presidential campaign. Martin O'Malley was not in a Presidential election.

Bernie Sanders was not in a Presidential campaign. Bernie Sanders was not in a Presidential election.

Hillary Clinton WAS in a Presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton WAS in a Presidential election.

Here is the definition for "President". Note it doesn't talk about also-rans, lol.


1.

(often initial capital letter) the highest executive officer of a modern republic, as the Chief Executive of the United States.


2.

an officer appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons.


3.

the chief officer of a college, university, society, corporation, etc.


4.

a person who presides

So looks like the 7 people on the jury got it just fine , too...

[Jim Lane]

54. That glitch appears to be quite uneven.

As I look at your subject line for #51, it has three apostrophes, all properly displayed. Inexplicable computer weirdness.

You want to lecture me about who was or was not in a "campaign" while ignoring the multiple uses of the term that contradict your hypothesis. You may continue sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La-la-la-la I can't hear you." I'm done.

[R B Garr]

55. Indeed it is uneven. But it is apparently very exciting to you.

I was previously typing on a phone. Have you ever tried it?

I'm so glad to see that you are reduced to counting apostrophes in my posts. That pretty much sums up your inane efforts in general to pretend that you don't understand the OP.

[R B Garr]

45. It is certainly clear. MoM was eliminated early anyways,

so CLEARLY this wasn’t about him — at a minimum. That’s how CLEAR it is.

[KT2000]

4. she was stolen from us

what a loss for this country.

[iluvtennis]

15. ++++++++++++++ Agree

[byronius]

22. [phone].

[betsuni]

7. K&R

[Hekate]

9. KnR

[SunSeeker]

11. K & R

[Snackshack]

19. True.

...and yes incomprehensible for anyone with a reasonable grasp on reality. But don’t forget the right blasted and lampooned President Obama for simply saying that keeping tires properly inflated can increase gas mileage and save one money. So applying a standard like comprehension to the right has become incomprehensible.

[Mike Nelson]

28. It was a...

...strong message. She made a decision to talk about the issue in a more direct way... still, the media said she had no messages.

[oberliner]

29. Did she get any campaign money from the NRA?

Or any similar organizations?

[yardwork]

33. Far from it. The NRA went after her, funneling Russian money.

[Bradical79]

46. I only found about $5400 from a couple lobbyists

Did a quick attempt to look that up, and that's all I found. NRA spent millions against her though.

[NCTraveler]

35. Im not sure her position hurt her.

I just don’t have certainty.

I did say it nemerous time. I’m really happy we have Democrats running on the gun issue, not running from it. Clinton was bold and a breath of fresh air to anyone not distracted.

[lunamagica]

36. Many people said they would not vote for her because "She'll take our guns away"

[NCTraveler]

38. That is not new or unique. Nt

[Bradical79]

47. Skeptical those people would have voted for her regardless

Anecdotally going by what I know of those people in my life.

[mcar]

44. Did it hurt her?

I'm honestly asking. The media and Rs spent so much time on emails!!11 and Benghazi!!11 that they never really discussed her policy positions.

[Jim Lane]

49. Good question.

There were certainly millions of voters who disagreed with her about gun control. As against that, the overwhelming majority of those voters would have voted against her anyway.

There remains the question of turnout. In 2008, and to some extent in 2012, the Republicans were scare-mongering that Obama, if (re-)elected, would somehow take away everyone's guns. After eight years of not having everyone's guns taken away, were they still able, in 2016, to get gun-humpers to the polls with this stuff? I can't say. I don't hang with that crowd. You would think that, at some point, even people who are really keen to protect their guns or their sheep would stop believing the boy who cries "Wolf!"

To ask if the issue hurt her, we have to consider the net effect. There were also millions of voters who agreed with Clinton about gun control. Most of them were probably voting for her anyway, though.

I don't think she could have improved her electoral fortunes by a flip-flop on gun control. She changed her position on the TPP without suffering much for it, but her support for gun control had been constant throughout her career. She would have had zero credibility with a change. Whether it hurt her or not, she was stuck with it.

Who knows, maybe if there had been a horrific mass shooting a few days before the election, Hillary Clinton would be President now. That one lone psycho might have changed the course of history. (No, I'm not wishing there had been a mass shooting; I'm just idly speculating about what-ifs.)

[R B Garr]

53. Oh, please. It's common knowledge that Democrats get beat up

and lied about over gun control stances.

And look how you go from gun control to the TPP. It looks like you are having fun, lol. It would be good times to point out Bernie's many flips, and since this thread is about guns, it would be more pertinent to talk about his many problems with his gun votes instead of bringing up the TPP.

[dlk]

52. It Was the Toxic Machismo

It poisons us all.