Hopefully someone can clear this up for me. I want to root for the democrats on this sit-in. I support stricter gun control. But what exactly is the goal?
It seems to me that the democrats want a vote on a gun bill that won't pass if they do get a vote and most likely is unconstitutional and would never hold up anyway.
So, why do they want this vote so badly when they won't win it and the courts won't hold up any law that comes out of it? The only thing I can come up with is that they want the vote so that republicans will vote against a bill requiring background checks for terrorism suspects. They want to use that vote against republicans when they come up for reelection.
So, if that's the case, isn't Paul Ryan right? The democrats aren't actually doing anything here other than trying to pin an embarrassing vote on republicans that they can then use against them in future elections. It's a political move with no real goal to pass anything that will make the American people any safer from gun violence.
I'm all for embarrassing republicans, but it seems like we shouldn't be kidding ourselves into thinking that democrats are actually trying to accomplish anything here. They are playing a political game.
"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message"
This article should be interesting to those who want to better understand exactly what happened with the FBI and their request for Apple to break into Syed Farook's work iPhone:
Many of the comments on the article are enlightening as well.
It's a shame Hillary supporters need to stoop so low.
Regardless of how you feel about either man, I think we can all agree that democrats will not put up a serious primary challenge against an incumbent. If Kerry had won in 2004, he would have been the party's nominee in 2008.
A lot of people on this board would have us believe that every election is life or death for the United States. But there will be an election in 2020 regardless of who wins in 2016. If Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, she will run again as an incumbent and inevitably she will be the party's candidate in 2020. She may or may not win in 2020, but either way the next time we will see a different democratic presidential candidate will be in 2024.
Would I ever advocate against voting for a democratic presidential candidate? No. But if she does not win, the world will not come to an end. There will be another election in 4 years and there will not be an "inevitable" democratic candidate waiting for coronation.
Excellent article documenting the extraordinary hypocrisy of Clinton's attacks against Sanders:
Vehement opposition to Reagans covert wars in Central America, as well as to the sadistic and senseless embargo of Cuba, were once standard liberal positions. As my colleague Jeremy Scahill, observing the reaction of Clinton supporters during the debate, put it in a series of tweets: The U.S. sponsored deaths squads that massacred countless central and Latin Americans, murdered nuns and priests, assassinated an Archbishop. I bet commie Sanders was even against Reagans humanitarian mining of Nicaraguan waters & supported subsequent war crimes judgment vs. U.S. Have any of these Hillarybots heard of the Contra death squads? Or is it just that whatever Hillary says must be defended at all costs? The Hillarybots attacking Sanders over Nicaragua should be ashamed of themselves.
It seems that, overnight, Clinton and her supporters have decided that Sanders opposition to Reagan-era wars against Latin American governments and rebel groups a common liberal position at the time is actually terribly wrong and something worthy of demonization rather than admiration, because those governments and groups abused human rights. Whatever else one might say about this mimicking of right-wing agitprop, Hillary Clinton for years has been one of the worlds most stalwart friends of some of the worlds worst despots and war criminals, making her and her campaign a very odd vessel for demonizing others for their links to and admiration of human-rights abusers.
Sanders: Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True.
Lies are all she has left.
Has she no shame?
"Secretary Clinton went out of her way to mischaracterize my history as it relates to the 2008 auto industry bailout," the Vermont senator said during a rally in Kalamazoo, Michigan. "Let me be as clear as I can: There was one vote in the United States Senate on whether or not to support the auto bailout and protect jobs in Michigan and around this country. I voted for the auto bailout."
In Sunday night's debate, Clinton declared that Sanders "was against the auto bailout. In January of 2009, President-elect Obama asked everybody in the Congress to vote for the bailout. The money was there, and had to be released in order to save the American auto industry."
She added: "I voted to save the auto industry. He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference." Clinton's campaign began airing a radio ad in Michigan on Monday with a similar message.
Clinton voters are oblivious to the dangers. Polls show they no longer consider her honest and trustworthy, but they still dont think she has committed any crimes. Countless Clinton supporters have told me, These investigations wont find anything. The Benghazi hearings proved it. This is simply a partisan witch hunt.
They are half right. The Benghazi hearings proved, once again, that Congress has the investigative prowess of Homer Simpson. They are right that Republicans hate her. Divided as the GOP is, it is united in thinking Bill and Hillary are corrupt, self-serving liars.
But the GOP is not leading the criminal investigation. The FBI is. The bureau is not partisan, and it is not on a witch hunt. Despite the obvious risks of investigating the presumptive Democratic nominee during a Democratic administration, its agents are sorting through mountains of evidence pointing to serious, deliberate crimes.
The Benghazi accusations were nonsense from the beginning. This is different. There is substantial evidence that Hillary Clinton and members of her staff broke the law, repeatedly.
The whole "weren't classified when they were sent" defense means nothing if those email were then stored on a private email server after they were classified.
Clinton is in real trouble.
Profile InformationMember since: Tue Nov 26, 2013, 11:59 AM
Number of posts: 1,668