Will Sen. Sanders stand with his fellow Democrats filibustering in the Senate?

[bigtree]

Seung Min Kim ?@seungminkim 9h9 hours ago

Senate Dems are lining up for a late night on floor. Some senators are signing up for slots as late as 10:30 p.m. and beyond

[onehandle]

1. No. He's missing an opportunity for a true liberal leadership moment to play politics. nt

[bigtree]

2. looks like he's too busy

...filibustering the primary.

Alexandra Svokos ?@asvokos 5h5 hours ago
In last hour @clairecmc, @SenatorShaheen, @SenGillibrand and @SenWarren BROUGHT IT #filibuster

[WhiteTara]

63. Ain't that the truth.

[Silver_Witch]

5. Perhaps if you call him and let him know how....

important it is to you for him to represent you in this matter he would gladly do it.

But of course you are just being rude and saying it because it is mean.

Amazing that your Hillary won and you still are bitter.

Weirdness.

[okasha]

6. He's a Senator.

Knowing what's going on in the Senate is part of his job.

[leftofcool]

11. Shouldn't he know what is going on in the Senate?

[sheshe2]

14. He is a United States Senator. A DEMOCRAT?

He needs to be there.

This isn't mean or nasty. 50 people were slaughtered in Orlando. Past deaths and future deaths will continue...guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet you make this about Hillary.

[demosincebirth]

54. I thougt he served the Senate as an Independent not a Democrat.

[bigtree]

15. I'm being mean to Sanders?

...that's a novel defense.

All of this talk from the Senator about the party doing this and that...is HE still bitter? Is there room for ANY disagreement over his actions without getting the 'you hate Bernie' crap from his supporters?

On one hand, you folks want the campaign to end, as long as sanders isn't the target of criticism, but there seems to be endless room for slamming Democrats like you did here with me; like Sanders continues to without acknowledging Hillary's victory AT ALL.

Again, will Sanders join his fellow Democrats? Is he even identifying as a Democratic Senator right now?

[pnwmom]

56. I know Vermont residents who emailed to request that he participate.

He didn't gladly do it.

[imagine2015]

8. Do you think private ownership of firearms should be made illegal?

[onehandle]

9. Cool story, bro. nt

[LonePirate]

28. Yes, I do!

[imagine2015]

31. So only cops, the CIA, the FBI and armed forces and fascist militias will have guns. Is that right?

[LonePirate]

36. Not fascist militias as they would be subject to the civilian ban,

[imagine2015]

41. Really? Do you think a right-wing government would crack down on them?

Hardly. The guns laws would only be enforced against the rest of us. They will leave the right-wing neo-fascist gangs and armed militias alone and free to attack people of color, labor organizations, progressive political organizations, etc.,

We would be defenseless against these organized para-military groups during a genuine economic and political crisis.

Tens of millions of working class people from all races own firearms. We have that democratic right under our Constitution.
And the overwhelming majority of us are not supporters of right-wing militias and other reactionary racist armed outfits.
We are the last line of defense against any attempt to establish a police state and dictatorship in this nation.

We do not face that threat today. But it could become a very real threat in the not to distant future.

I don't think Trump is a fascist. However, he is planting the seeds for a very real big and dangerous fascist movement in the near future.

Read the history of what happened in Europe during the 1930's when such outfits were allowed to form and launch physical attacks against leftist and liberal political parties, community organizations and labor unions.

[LonePirate]

42. A right wing government would never enact the ban. A left wing government would, though.

I do long for the day when the Second Amendment fetishists around here wake up and realize how destructive their obsession is to America.

[okasha]

49. The right-wing militia fantasize about a race war,

the left-wing dilletantes fantasize about a class war.

To hell with both of them.

[treestar]

64. so are you preparing a militia

to defend against these right wing groups? We still have unlimited ownership of guns, maybe we ought to get organized in case the right wing groups start shooting? Just having the guns separately without organization against this threat is not enough for sensible people.

Of course we could not rely on the military and police as they just can't want to put us under a dictatorship as soon as we don't have guns. As happened in Australia.

[okasha]

35. I think private ownership of military-grade weapons

should be illegal. No civilian has any need for an AR-15 or AK.

[Laser102]

65. Absolutely agree!

[George II]

67. Not that simple a question. One can't reduce it to a yes/no question.

[edgineered]

3. He has plenty of time now if he decides to become a big D.

It has been explained here many times that caucusing with the dems doesn't mean he supports the party. Maybe it's time to let the real democrats do it.

[Renew Deal]

10. 2 republicans have been part of the filibuster

Got another excuse?

[edgineered]

13. Your point is understood -

In the title of the OP, fellow democrats is the term used. Some here, and I'm not pointing to you as one of them, confuse one or two republicans with fellow democrats. As I said, I understand. It's okay.

[anigbrowl]

43. Semantic analysis is no substitute for a substantive argument .nt

[imagine2015]

33. Maybe he doesn't get along with the big D DINO's who control the DNC.

[geek tragedy]

4. Heck no, his goal is settling scores with those who have offended him nt

[grossproffit]

16. Hell hath no fury like a man scorn.

[sheshe2]

19. Ha! nt

[George II]

71. I think Representative Raúl Grijalva "settled a score" today - he shifted his endorsement to Clinton

[imagine2015]

7. Most Democratic Party Senators are not participating.

[Renew Deal]

12. 38 out of 44 Democrats have participated

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

But most republicans are missing.

[imagine2015]

34. How can that be? Are Senators only speaking briefly rather than engaging in a true filibuster than

can last for days or even weeks until legislation they demand is passed by the Senate.

That's what true filibusters are for. To either tie up and prevent legislation from being passed to do force positive Senate action on legislation favored by the filibusters.

Otherwise it's just a little propaganda show.

That's OK but don't pretend it's a legislative filibuster.

[Renew Deal]

40. The floor is Murphy's but...

Others can ask questions. They are supposed to be working on some Commerce bill.

It is sickening that you call such an important filibuster "propaganda." What side are you on when it comes to guns?

[imagine2015]

45. I'm on the side of our Bill of Rights which includes the right of civilians to own firearms.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Don't think for a moment that just the NRA and right-wing nutcases claim to support civilian ownership of guns.

The overwhelming majority of people in all ethnic groups are against any open or hidden agenda that wants the government to confiscate all private firearms and make civilian ownership of guns a crime.

What side are you on? Do you think it should be illegal for civilians to own firearms?

[Renew Deal]

46. In a perfect world, no one would need one.

But the world is not perfect. I think terrorists shouldn't have guns.

[Maru Kitteh]

59. Well it's the NRA nutcases that pretend that "confiscating all private firearms" has been

proposed by any serious candidate.

Trump talks like that too.

[anigbrowl]

44. Nice deflection from admitting that your previous claim was total baloney. nt

[pnwmom]

57. Senator Murphy had to remain standing without leaving even for a bathroom break.

The other Senators could ask extended questions so he didn't have to constantly speak; but he had to remain standing and he had to remain there.

Never in history has a filibuster lasted for "days or weeks." It's not physically possible.

[George II]

69. You should have watched it, it was carried live on C-Span and on the internet.

Did you see what the result was?

[sheshe2]

17. Most?

List?

I will start.

Bernie Sanders

Add the rest please.

TIA

[sheshe2]

20. List?

[msanthrope]

47. # Bernie Math on the "most," eh? nt

[George II]

68. Not true - what do you mean by "most"? Forty Senators participated.

[Travis_0004]

18. I hope not

Its good to see somebody stand up for Due Process. It may be an unpopular position, but its the right one.

Of course, Hillary supported the Patriot Act, so at least she is predictable about not giving a shit about due process.

The FBI did an audit or the watch list and found 38% of the records contain inaccuracies.

We should not deny constitutional rights based on secret government list. If you want to take away somebodies rights, then be transparent about it, and let a judge make the decision, and let the accused defend himself.

Remember, Ted Kennedy had problems due to somebody with the same name being on a no fly list. It must be nice to be a senator, and resolve that with one phone call. For common folk its not so easy. What if somebody with the same name is on a terror list, should you loose your constitutional rights? I doubt I could call up the FBI and get it all straitened out.

[bigtree]

21. just wonderful

...to read opposition to gun safety legislation here on our Democratic board.

Maybe Sanders should weigh in with this pov.

[Travis_0004]

22. I am always for Due process, and will not apologize for it

There should be a way to take away gun rights from somebody, but it needs to involve an open transparent process, not a secret government list.

[dsc]

26. yeah the men and women in the Pulse had a whole heck of a lot of due process before they got shot

no wait, they got none.

[Straw Man]

61. So ...

yeah the men and women in the Pulse had a whole heck of a lot of due process before they got shot

no wait, they got none.

... shall we put you down as "opposed to due process," then?

[swhisper1]

23. he is writing a speech tonight, probably triggering a pivot point for Americans

and he is not into theater, he is into progress

[sweetloukillbot]

29. Was it progress or theater when he filibustered himself a few years ago?

[CorkySt.Clair]

24. Survey says!

Can somebody photoshop Bernie's face on Where's Waldo?

[tallahasseedem]

25. Nope...

he's too busy pouting.

[Chasstev365]

27. YOU'D SLAM HIM FOR GRANDSTANDING IF HE FLEW IN TO TAKE PART, wouldn't you?

Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2016, 07:55 AM - Edit history (1)

[imagine2015]

38. That'exactly what the contrists and moderates would do.

[George II]

70. How can you assume that? Remember, he was in Washington Tuesday night....

...meeting with Clinton. The filibuster was announced while he was in Washington. What's this "flying in"? Where did he have to go other than to demonstrate solidarity with the Senators that he claims to be allies with.

[riversedge]

30. Did he show up in the Senate today? Just curious.

[calimary]

52. It's a worthy question. Especially since he's still a sitting Senator.

It might be gratifying - and unifying - to see him stand up and join in on this. It would be a most welcome gesture of unity and reconciliation with his fellow Dems (after all, he did finally join last year, didn't he?). Seems to me that ought to be a top priority of his, as of now. It would also be a way he could reach out to those of us who balked at supporting him because of his earlier preference for protecting gun manufacturers and dealers, particularly when, to some of us, it feels like he's demanding that WE reach out to him. I've gotta admit, his stand on that issue bothered me, big-time.

He could singlehandedly do a LOT to bring us all back together.

[riversedge]

62. It would be a meaningful gesture that is for sure.

[peacebird]

32. The no fly list was a secret list, where folks couldnt find out if or why they were on it,

With no real way to challenge it. Has that changed? Can people challenge and get taken off? Can they find out if and why they are on it?
If the list has been reformed so it is no longer a secret black hole you can be sucked into simply for having the same name as a suspected bad guy, then perhaps I could see this as a positive. But if it us still a secret list as flawed as it used to be (where an INFANT was on it) then, no. This is silly posturing

[imagine2015]

37. And the list can include non-terrorist political leftists and radicals and probably does!

It's a secret political blacklist.

[peacebird]

39. The govt considers occupy and blm terrorists...

[workinclasszero]

48. Its pathetic that he isn't there in the thick of it

A real failure of leadership.

I'm so glad he lost the primaries now. He would have been a lousy President.

[LexVegas]

50. Hell no. Where do you think a lot of his support comes from?

Go to GD and see who is shitting on the efforts of these Senators. Many of the usernames will be very familiar.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. Will Sens. Boxer and Feinstein stand with their fellow Democrats filibustering in the Senate?

I've heard they aren't there either.

[Cali_Democrat]

55. Boxer and Feinstein have strong gun control records

Bernie has a record of coddling the gun industry.

He voted against the Brady Bill 5 times.

[leftinportland]

53. If he does someone would bitch about that too...

Lot of noise still coming from Clinton team here...such bull.

[robbedvoter]

58. That poor, poor, poor man!

🎻🎻🎻🎻🎻🎻🎻🎻🎻

[Eric J in MN]

60. He's in Vetmont, but he's advocated a ban on assault weapons

...for decades, and voted for Dianne Feinstein's amendment in December about stopping people on the terror watch list from buying guns.

[George II]

66. Report is that 40 Senators spoke last night. We should note which Senators did not....

...I haven't seen a complete list of those who spoke. But I do know the other Independent Senator, Angus King, was there.