Friday Open Thread [4.15.16]
NATIONAL—FOX News–Trump 45, Cruz 27, Kasich 25
NATIONAL—FOX News–Clinton 48, Sanders 46
NATIONAL—CBS News–Trump 42, Cruz 29, Kasich 18
NATIONAL—CBS News–Clinton 50, Sanders 44
NEW YORK—Optimus Consulting–Trump 49, Kasich 23, Cruz 14
NEW YORK—NBC 4 NY/WSJ/Marist–Clinton 57, Sanders 40
NATIONAL—Fox News–Clinton 48, Trump 41 | Clinton 45, Cruz 44 | Sanders 53, Trump 39 | Sanders 51, Cruz 39
NATIONAL—CBS News–Clinton 50, Trump 40 | Clinton 45, Cruz 42 | Sanders 53, Trump 36 | Sanders 50, Cruz 38
PENNSYLVANIA—Monmouth–Trump 44, Cruz 28, Kasich 23
Nothing has pissed me off more this primary season than the dismissal of Southern Democratic primary voters.
“Well, you know,” [Bernie] Sanders said, “people say, ‘Why does Iowa go first, why does New Hampshire go first,’ but I think that having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality as well.”
When Sanders partisans first began dismissing those states, one could argue that they did so out of ignorance, not understanding that it wasn’t conservatives voting in those primaries, but some of our most liberal, most committed constituencies—Latinos and African Americans. But this far into the primary season, it’s not so easy anymore to explain away those bullshit claims after repeated efforts to correct the record. And of course, this isn’t coming from a random supporter on the internet, or even his campaign team. It’s coming from Bernie Sanders himself.
So let me ask this as explicitly as I can: how does a bunch of African American and Latinos voting “distort reality”? Demographically, America isn’t Vermont. This primary battle is being waged in the reality that is modern-day America. So exactly how did those black and Latino voters “distort reality”?
Now, there are plenty of ways Sanders could talk about his demographic challenges without coming across as a dick. He could talk about how he started off poorly with those groups, but he’s made inroads over time (debatable, but whatever). He could pivot to how much better he did among youth and independents, and talk about his accomplishments, rather than diminish those who aren’t already with him.
Bernie did it again last night, suggesting the Southern Democratic electorate is conservative. That will be news to them. If Bernie wants to try to win in November without the black vote he is so intent on dismissing, he is delusional. Not that he will ever get that chance, though.
Josh Marshall: “What’s Bernie Sanders’ endgame here exactly? […] This primal scream phase of Sanders campaign reminds me of Barney Frank’s critique of Sanders as someone who spent all his time critiquing the inevitable compromises that go into actual passing laws rather than actually putting his shoulder on the back of the car and helping push.”
Well, he is a purist, after all.
Old Guy Who Yells A Lot Sick Of Listening To Old Guy Who Yells A Lot
— John Dingell (@JohnDingell) April 15, 2016
This to me summarizes the entire debate, all the debates, and the entire Democratic primary campaign so far.
Bernie: Here is the problem, in simplified terms.
Hillary: Here are the solutions, in comprehensive terms. #DemDebate
— Victor Ng (@victomato) April 15, 2016
Personally, I didn’t enjoy last night’s debate at all, and it had nothing to do with the candidates. It was the crowd. Whether it was Hillary partisans, New York partisans or Bernie partisans, the screaming, cheering, shouting, chanting, all of which was sustained for too long, forced the candidates, on each side, into awkward waiting periods until the crowd decided to quiet down and listen, or it forced the candidates into screaming at each other, over each other, and through the crowd noise.
Evan McMorris-Santoro and Ruby Cramer at Buzzfeed said last night’s debate came down to three minutes:
That was the amount of time it took on Thursday, from 9:15 to 9:18 p.m., for Sanders to try and seemingly fail to make the central case of the sharper-elbowed campaign he’s run ahead of the New York primary: that Clinton’s ties to Wall Street have made and would make her a shill for the billionaire class. On the trail, Sanders raises questions about Clinton’s character and her commitment to the cause of income inequality in connection to paid speeches she’s given to financial firms.
But asked to name one decision by Clinton that shows she favored Wall Street as a result of money she’s received, Sanders struggled to provide an example beyond arguing that the former senator should have moved to break up the big banks.
“Sure, sure. The obvious decision is when the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior of Wall Street,” said Sanders, “the obvious response to that is that you’ve got a bunch of fraudulent operators and that they have got to be broken up.”
Clinton, he added, “was busy giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225,000.”
“Well, you can tell, Dana,” Clinton replied, addressing CNN moderator Dana Bash, “he cannot come up with any example, because there is no example.”
To me it was a telling moment. What Bernie, his campaign and his supporters have been doing for a year is lying about Hillary Clinton, saying she takes bribes and is corrupt. But either he could not repeat the charge to her face with an example of the criminal activity, which proves he is a coward, or there is no evidence of his allegations, which proves he is a liar. Which is it Bernie?
Speaking of which, it’s hard to judge whether the back-and-forth between the two candidates about what their campaigns represent — delivered amidst a return to the horrid shrieking and chanting from the audience — will matter in the long run. Sanders seems to be trying out an argument that Clinton’s nomination-contest victories are irrelevant because they happened at the wrong time (early in the process), the wrong place (the South), or with the wrong supporters (old Democrats rather than young independents).
If he goes over the brink into a claim that a pledged-delegate victory by Clinton is illegitimate, the Democratic convention could be nearly as divisive as the Republican confab looks sure to become. After tonight, the superior unity of Democrats is at least partially in question for the first time.
Ed, remember that the wrong supporters in Bernie’s mind are not just Old Democrats, it’s also African Americans and Latinos. Their votes don’t matter because they are not northern white progressive men.
I just don’t get this strategy of arguing primary victories and thus pledged delegate leads are not legitimate. If he tries a floor flight at the convention, he will lose and alienate all those he seeks to alienate (shockingly). And even if through some criminal trickery he does get the nomination somehow by disqualifying African American delegates from the South, those he sought to alienate will not be there for him in the fall. I certainly won’t be if he tries to win that way.
There was nothing in this debate that shifted the dynamic of the New York primary. Sanders needed to appeal to Democratic primary voters, but his answers remained tailored for Independents. Bernie Sanders didn’t have a bad debate, but his performance was just like all of his previous performances. Sen. Sanders drew groans from the crowd when he said that he would withdraw the nomination of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, and it is unclear how his answer will play with Democratic voter in the closed primaries. Sanders was more confrontational, but being more aggressive while offering many of the same answers that he has been using for months likely wasn’t enough to cut into Hillary Clinton’s double-digit New York lead.
Yeah, attacking the President last night ahead of a closed Democratic primary was an interesting choice.
The problem for Sanders is that momentum doesn’t count unless you can translate it into the currency of presidential nominating races: delegates. As such, Thursday’s debate was aimed almost entirely at next Tuesday’s primary in New York, the second-biggest pot of delegates, after California. Both campaigns have put all their chips on New York, Clinton to arrest Sanders’ momentum and Sanders, down by at least 10 points in most polls, to try to score a Michigan-like upset that would finally cut into Clinton’s delegate lead and raise real doubts about her electoral prospects with Democratic Party power players.
Clinton and Sanders had debated eight times before Thursday’s face-off in Brooklyn. This one was different. With so much at stake, maybe it was inevitable that Thursday’s debate would have a lot more sharp elbows. But for anyone pleased that the Democratic primary hasn’t descended into the gutter fight between the “professional wrestlers emerging from the RNC’s clown car,” as New York’s Rebecca Traister put it, well, the change wasn’t a good one. (“Oh my god make it stop,” Traitor pleaded.)
Probably the most replayed moment of the night, because it summed up the tone so well, was Wolf Blitzer’s plea to the two candidates in the middle of a heated discussion over the minimum wage: “If you’re both screaming at each other, the viewers won’t be able to hear either of you.”
Hey look, now that there’s a primary challenging the establishment from the left, President Obama signed another executive order for the 99%. I think he’s feeling the Bern! Each time Obama signs another one of these orders, somewhere a BernieBro gets his wings.
Bernie may not win the nomination but he is definitely winning the revolution.
A couple of observations before the partisan vitriol, laser beams, and photon torpedoes start flying:
1) John Dingell kills it on Twitter
2) Man… You love yourself some hyperbole, DD… “even if through some criminal trickery he does get the nomination…”
3) ” I think that having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality as well.”- His premise came across as “We need Iowa and NH voters to provide a bulwark against the skewed voting results that Southern states provide.” Maybe I’m projecting, but that sounds an awful lot like a definition for disenfranchisement… Or perhaps summed up as “It doesn’t matter than I got waxed in almost all of the Southern states because their voters shouldn’t count as much as voters in X, Y, Z states, they aren’t as representive of America.”– Do I think that’s what he meant? Probably not. But he’s blasting the trumpet of ‘Perception is Reality’ and it’s hard to shake the perception, by virtue of his statements, that he is totally dismissing the voters in those states.
“Their votes don’t matter because they are not northern white progressive men.”
Stop with this intentional misinterpretation. You just called Sanders a racist, further bleeding credibility. Their support matters little because there is no way a Democrat is going to win in those states. Bill Clinton (someone who apparently stumps for Hillary) made the same dumbass comment about Obama in South Carolina. Go ahead. Tell me the Dems have a real shot at Mississippi. The primary is over isnt it? All you’re doing at this point is making sure Sanders supporters know that their voice was heard, dismissed, and forgotten.
With crowds marching outside their rallies for $15/hr and denouncing the TPP, Hillary supporters have little to do except scour comments for anything that can be twisted into a racism or sexism gotcha.
Manwhile they ignore polls (like the ones at the top of this very thread) that have Cruz (who will be the republican nominee) within striking distance. All he needs is a general election center-pivot (will happen) for Hillary to completely alienate Bernie’s fan base (is currently happening) and the media to not remind anyone of what he said in the primary (will happen)
“All he needs is a general election center-pivot (will happen) ”
I also expect ISIS to stage an October surprise that allows the Repub to grandstand on security fears.
Here’s my problem with the comments about the South:
1. It diminishes the high minority voters in those states (many of whom have relatives in blue states, btw) by telling them their vote isn’t worth the same as other voters.
2. If winning red states in the primary don’t matter for Hillary then Bernie’s red state wins don’t matter either. I disagree with this assessment, but if that’s the argument then only swing states should matter, right (because we won’t win red states, but blue states are automatically wins)? So who wins Florida, Ohio, Virgina, etc. should win the nomination. Seriously, follow this talking point to its end.
As far as the “calling someone a racist” claim… Did you watch the debate?
So yeah, there was that.
One other thing I don’t get… why is it when Hillary moves left she gets criticized? I thought that was the point. If we criticize someone for doing something we want them to do why would they keep doing it if all they get out of it is being called out. Personally, I’m thrilled she’s moving left.
Guns. Oh boy. That was brutal. Perhaps Bernie could move left on this issue?
Obama’s SCOTUS nominee: I really don’t understand why Sanders keeps going there; why he keeps saying he’d ask the President to withdrawal his nominee? Can someone explain this to me?
Do you think Bernie Sanders is a racist who doesn’t care about black votes? Let’s do away with this “well what it looks like is…” “how one might hear it”…
Do you, Pandora the blogger (or DD, or Cassandra.. or anyone else on the right side of that picture), think what Sanders said about Southern primary voters, was said because he is a racist?
Also, I think I understand the basis of where he is coming from on gun manufacturers, but it isn’t a well put-together argument and it is certainly not in line with the left platform. We should be holding distributors more accountable and focusing on outlawing the sale of such guns (a position he, as a Vermonter, is very unlikely to support… not to mention the wall of opposition from every Republican and a hand-full of DINOS)
As far as Hillary’s left leanings…. that is what we (sandernistas) hoped she would do. The only thing i would guess is that people still dont fully trust her, and we’ll have to wait to see how she Presides to know for sure.
I hope i have satisfactorily answered specific questions, while posing some of my own. Trying to make a better attempt at the answering part, rather than participate in a type of conversation where everyone is just shouting loaded, rhetorical questions back and forth at each other.
@p “Obama’s SCOTUS nominee: I really don’t understand why Sanders keeps going there; why he keeps saying he’d ask the President to withdrawal his nominee? Can someone explain this to me?”
Because there are far more liberal highly qualified candidates out there (that probably can’t get confirmed.. but could make for an interesting fight).
@B “Do you think Bernie Sanders is a racist who doesn’t care…”
No. Of course not.
I think he’s a candidate who’s already lost and just doesn’t know how to end his campaign gracefully and in a manner that will help the party and help the nation.
…and to that end, he’s a fool.
I happen to agree with Bernie on guns. If you can sue someone for manufacturing a legal product that is used illegally, we are opening a vat of worms. If you sell a car to someone who has multiple DUIs, are you open to a lawsuit? If you sell your home to MOVE, are you liable when they start hanging raw meat in the back yard? Etc.
There are lots of legitimate ways to curtail gun sales. Holding people liable for something they are NOT liable for is not the way.
This avenue is being pursued, by the way, because 50 years of incrementalism have produced lots of laws and no results.
He’s helping the nation. Fuck the party.
The debate over guns is a sideshow. The answer to gun violence lies in the Supreme Court, not in presidential debating points.
“This avenue is being pursued, by the way, because 50 years of incrementalism have produced lots of laws and no results.”
There have been results. Gun rights have been expanded and mass-shootings have become commonplace. Whatever is being done is either failing horribly, or a resounding success.. depending on which side you are on. Either way, if you are someone who wants to see fewer people shot, we must change the approach.
“No. Of course not.
I think he’s a candidate who’s already lost and just doesn’t know how to end his campaign gracefully and in a manner that will help the party and help the nation.”
Thanks, LE. That is a refreshingly honest and reasonable answer that I have to say I agree with.
I think a narrow Clinton victory… or even a narrow Sanders’ upset (wont matter she’ll still get more delegates) will be the message she needs to move more to the left. Sanders’ goal of making her a better Dem candidate is evaporating as this race turns bitter.
“Sanders’ goal of making her a better Dem candidate is evaporating as this race turns bitter.”
I guess Hillary’s listening tour was over once the primary began. At the convention there will be people protesting for $15/hr, an end to TPP and NAFTA, and breaking up the big banks. The media will report them as protesting on behalf of Bernie’s nomination, but the media will be wrong.
With guns it’s the blanket immunity. I’ve never said if you sue gun manufacturers you win. This debate doesn’t make me think of automobiles or selling your home, it makes me think of cigarettes, and to some extent alcohol advertising.
And no, I don’t think Bernie is a racist, Ben. Not. At. All. He has a problem with minority voters. Hillary has a problem with young voters. Both are true statements. If Hillary was dismissing states that had large populations of young people we’d be correct in pointing out what made these states different from those she won. I’m just baffled by the path he’s chosen to take on the South.
I’ll also point out that Bernie not being able to give an example of how she’s been “bought” made me wince. He had to know that was coming – it had been broadcast all week.
My takeaway is that Sanders did a modicum better job of talking about world affairs and foreign policy than he has done in any previous debate.
Second takeaway, Clinton cemented the meme that she can and will get things done. The minimum wage discussion put it in perspective. Clinton thinks that $15 would be great, but that she is pretty sure she can get it $12. Sanders says that’s not good enough and wants to hold out for $15.
Clinton is a realist. Sanders is an idealist. The debate confirmed those characterizations. If idealism is your bag, you are probably riding the Sanders Sled. If you are pragmatist you are in the Clinton Car. Everyone knows I’m in the Clinton Car. I don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
“I’ll also point out that Bernie not being able to give an example of how she’s been “bought” made me wince. ”
Yes, Bernie missed some low-hanging fruit there.
@aaa… “He’s helping the nation. Fuck the party.”
Look. The only “winner” of last night’s debate was Ted Cruz.
How in hell is that helping the nation???
Sorry, but answer your own claim first: How does this help Ted Cruz? Hillary is too centrist, so it helps the far right? How?
What low hanging fruit, puck?
On Wall Street influence, the smoking gun is what is omitted from her platform, not on what is in it. The times call for strong oversight measures, not the current ones that are designed to be evaded. I have already called out her answers to the NYDN in a previous thread.
“sorry, but answer your own claim first: How does this help Ted Cruz? Hillary is too centrist, so it helps the far right? How?”
If Hillary runs too far to the center, (which is something I’m afraid she will do in the general election…. I welcome a compelling argument as to why she wont) she will lose a left-wing base of support. Cruz is going to run toward the center as well and he will keep his right wing base. you, yourself will help Ted Cruz by not voting for Clinton… which is your right, but it will help Cruz all the same. If he wins, he will govern like the right-wing idealouge that he is. Scallia will be replaced by someone who makes him look like Ginsburg, and she will be replaced by someone even worse. Everything you hope for and support will be destroyed and forgotten.
@aaa “Sorry, but answer your own claim first: How does this help Ted Cruz?”
At this point (after losing the nomination), increasing the level of acrimony within the party unnecessarily does nothing but help the GOP.
Why make self-inflicted wounds that will never heal properly, when it only serves to help the enemy.
@B “If Hillary runs too far to the center, (which is something I’m afraid she will do in the general election…. I welcome a compelling argument as to why she wont)”
I’d like to hear a compelling argument why it matters.
We know who Hillary is. Why does it matter what silly postures she may take to get elected?
As one of the folks on the right side of the picture, I do not, by any stretch, think those statements are because he’s racist (as much as little me in Delaware could actually know that for sure)…
I just think he’s not exceptionally fluid or nimble when it comes to speaking/answering on-the-fly. That doesn’t really mean you get a pass, because the potential for people to take a totally wrong meaning, apply and make it stick, means you really ought to get better at that kind of thing before it kills you.
“This debate doesn’t make me think of automobiles or selling your home, it makes me think of cigarettes, and to some extent alcohol advertising.”
And that’s why you misunderstand. Cigarette manufacturers were liable because they hid the knowledge that they were selling a harmful product by claiming it was not harmful. Same with asbestos.
I don’t think gun manufacturers are hiding the fact that guns hurt people. I’m pretty sure that’s the selling point.
The problem with blanket immunity is that you can’t even sue a manufacturer for selling a defective gun that harms the owner. If you’re an incrementalist, you ought to be going for the limited goal of making that legal — after all, the people being hurt are the gun owners themselves, so it ought to make a good wedge to drive between owners and manufacturers. But liberals can’t do that — they’re idealists, it seems, when it comes to scary, scary guns.
Again, incrementalism at work. As Ben noted, every attempt to curtail gun ownership results in more guns sold.
I was all for incrementalism. Then I put my hope for change in Obama, and realized that the right will not allow incremental progress, because they know as well as we do that conservatism has never won the day in the long run.
I no longer believe in incrementalism. Your mileage may vary, but I’ve logged enough miles to know we’ll never get there in that vehicle.
@aaa “I don’t think gun manufacturers are hiding the fact that guns hurt people. ”
I can’t think of a more ridiculous thing you’ve said. On whose behest has ALL research on guns-hurting-people been blocked???
“We know who Hillary is. Why does it matter what silly postures she may take to get elected?”
Indeed, we do know who she is. It’s why we don’t trust her when she claims to be against TPP.
I wish you people — yeah, you people, you Hillary lovers — would make up your minds. Should Bernie have pointed out the ongoing criminal enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation? Would you have wanted him to point out that these people have solicited $200 million from corporate sources and are spending it in ways that do not comport with how charities are normally run? What is that money, imaginary? Do you really think those companies are giving to Clinton’s charity instead of real ones for any reason but political access?
“I no longer believe in incrementalism. Your mileage may vary, but I’ve logged enough miles to know we’ll never get there in that vehicle.”
There is now an ironic fatalism to “The work goes on, and the dream will never die.” (1980)
“I can’t think of a more ridiculous thing you’ve said. On whose behest has ALL research on guns-hurting-people been blocked???”
And that’s the most ridiculous thing you’ve said. Do you think the research is really about guns hurting people? Do you really think we didn’t know that without research grants being handed out? Please.
Explain why this should apply to guns but no other product.
“We know who Hillary is. Why does it matter what silly postures she may take to get elected?”
Because “we” dont make up the majority of the electorate. Most people dont have any clue and will base their vote on how the media reports what happens over the next few months.
On a brighter note… Hooray! Women’s reproductive rights brought up at a debate!
“I guess Hillary’s listening tour was over once the primary began.”
What is left to say? I’ll see you in line on the 26th.
“Explain why this should apply to guns but no other product.”
because guns are a unique product in that their main purpose is to destroy. You can use a car to kill people, but that isn’t it’s primary function. Guns are a special case that need special regulation….. but we’re never going to get it and that most certainly is NOT Bernie Sanders’ fault.
@aaa Should Bernie have pointed out the ongoing criminal enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation?”
Another ridiculous thing. You’re on a roll today.
The Clinton Foundation has funded some really good things. And unlike many so-called-charities, it doesn’t have a ridiculous load factor.
@aaa “Explain why this should apply to guns but no other product.”
Are you totally dense? That’s for your side to explain. Why can we get research funds to study nearly ANY subject except guns?
You should tell us why this should apply to guns but no other subject!!!
LE, Ben agrees with us.
“At this point (after losing the nomination), increasing the level of acrimony within the party unnecessarily does nothing but help the GOP.”
How does it help the GOP? That’s an assertion without evidence.
“Why make self-inflicted wounds that will never heal properly, when it only serves to help the enemy.”
Three assertions with no evidence. How is it a wound to point out that your candidate or mine is a pile of crap? What’s the evidence they will “never heal properly”? Bill Clinton insulted every black voter in South Carolina in 2000, and it’s apparently all healed up now. And, of course, how does it help the “enemy”?
That’s leaving aside the notion of the other half of the country being “the enemy.” All those blacks and Latinos who voted for Hillary are living in “enemy territory” under that theory.
You’re obsessed not with winning the election, but in NOT LOSING the election. Do you follow football? It’s the prevent defense problem.
It strikes me that in their panic at the thought of losing, Hillary backers want to blame anyone and anything that seems to present an obstacle, ahead of time, for her potential loss.
The issue isn’t research funds. The issue is allowing lawsuits against the manufacturer of a legal product illegally used. Focus.
If you can’t even overturn the ban on research funds, why should you allow this? Because you can’t win in the legislature, that’s why. Your beloved incrementalism failed again.
@pandora: Spoken like a true cheerleader. You go, girl!
@p “LE, Ben agrees with us.”
My comment was not directed to Ben, but to aaa
“The Clinton Foundation has funded some really good things. And unlike many so-called-charities, it doesn’t have a ridiculous load factor.”
No, it hasn’t. The Clinton Foundation gives NO money to reputable charities — it hires its own people to work on situations that lots of other people have devoted their lives to. It’s a jobs program, not a charity. And you’re a typical “liberal” sap for not knowing that.
Okay, not seeing the low hanging fruit. Bernie has specifically claimed that taking money from Wall Street and SuperPacs has influenced how Hillary votes – that she’s been bought, and paid for, and we all know this. When asked for examples, he had none. And, “I feel it in my bones” isn’t an answer. Neither is “I predict this will happen” altho that’s probably a stronger point, but it’s still predicting the future. And if we start accepting predicting the future as valid, all of us could add some predictions that wouldn’t be well received.
@aaa “The issue isn’t research funds.”
You obviously have no clue what the issue is nor what the purpose of the research would actually be.
“Your beloved incrementalism failed again.”
Not mine. I want America to join the rest of the 1st world and ban nearly all private ownership of guns.
Should research on gun violence be funded? Of course. Should product liability laws apply to guns? Of course.
Now explain how suing gun manufacturers will accomplish those goals.
You people are doing an incredibly lousy job of addressing my points. You take one little aside and respond to that instead of defending your poorly thought out positions.
You’re all little Hillaries.
@aaa “The Clinton Foundation gives NO money to reputable charities”
Thank goodness.
And did you actually think I implied that??
@LE: Ah, so you’re an idealist on guns. You are correct in identifying the only way of curtailing gun violence. Unfortunately a majority of the country disagrees with you. If you really believed in incrementalism — if it actually worked — we’d be well on the way to the ideal you profess to care about. It. Doesn’t. Work.
I know more about gun research and the history of the issue than you ever will. And really, your inability to keep up is not my problem.
Notice how I didn’t spin my “Hooray” comment to my preferred candidate? Of course, you didn’t. You keep wanting to paint yourself as being “above the fray” the “keeping it real” commenter. Yeah, don’t think anyone’s buying that. Tell me how I was a cheerleader – was it because I dared to mention an issue important to me?
@LE: Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. You don’t know the first thing about it and want to pretend you do.
What is the “geek” supposed to represent — you know computers? Because you don’t know dick about politics.
No, because you dared to say nothing except, “Yay! Someone agrees with me!”
That’s cheerleading.
Your interpretation of my motives is nice, glad to see you’re working on that psychology degree, but how about actually engaging on the issues I keep raising and you keep ignoring?
You claim to want to talk about issues, but you don’t. You want to scold people who point out your hypocrisy of claiming to be “liberal” while supporting a non-liberal candidate — or, rather, a candidate who is liberal only on issues that don’t affect her bulging wallet.
Do you even know who you’re talking to, AAA?
Wait… what? So when people on here “cheer” when the minimum wage and income inequality is addressed in a debate that’s valid and not cheerleading?
“@Ben: Because guns are a unique product in that their main purpose is to destroy.”
Exactly. So how is a gun manufacturer, selling a legal product, liable for a customer using the product in the manner for which it was intended?
You can’t win in the legislature, so you want to win in court. Democracy in action, eh?
“Do you even know who you’re talking to, AAA?”
Sure do. A bunch of people who are liberal when it comes to helping the downtrodden, but squishy when it comes to pulling down a rotten system.
Still won’t engage the issues, I see. Any particular reason why not?
Your comment was “Ben agrees with us.” That’s it. That’s all you said. That bears no relationship to cheering for the minimum wage.
Do you people live in houses without mirrors?
Hmmm… I thought you agreed with me about the blanket immunity being a problem. Guess that’s not considered cheerleading.
@p “Do you even know who you’re talking to, AAA?”
He obviously doesn’t.
Cheerleading is when you make the comment you made about Ben. Jesus, are you now going to deny having made it?
I’ve made clear my position and the reason for it. Neither pandora nor LG have — they have merely dismissed the issue because they can’t really articulate rationally why they support it.
If you can’t engage, it means you have no argument. And you have no argument because the position is not rational, it’s emotional, and over-emotional at that.
What difference does it make whether I know you? I see what you write here. You don’t provide information about the authors, so what research am I supposed to do?
Why don’t you enlighten me, little man?
I’ll enlighten you… it’s the difference between an E and a G.
And my comment about Ben was clarifying his position to another commenter. Turns out the commenter wasn’t addressing Ben. How you get cheerleading out of that baffles me.
aaa… We’re just making fun of your quick assumptions… and how wrong some of them are.
Be good and have fun…
My bad, then. But you still haven’t engaged a single issue-oriented thing I said. You almost never do.
@LE: Yes, you’re doing that instead of engaging because you have no leg to stand on. Thanks. If you ever figure out why a legal product’s manufacturer should be held liable for how the product is misused, post it here. Not a single one of you, whatever your names, has been able to do it yet. You keep bringing up issues, like research and product liability, that don’t apply to the case.
Do you people even know how to hold an argument? Because I don’t see any content to your comments. Essentially it’s all cheerleading.
@aaa “If you ever figure out why a legal product’s manufacturer should be held liable for how the product is misused, post it here.”
That’s easy. If it’s marketed and sold in a way that promotes misuse, then they could be liable.
“Old Guy Who Yells A Lot Sick Of Listening To Old Guy Who Yells A Lot”
That’s how they got Dean, too. Is the sound of a candidate’s voice fair game again?
@AAA: “Do you people even know how to hold an argument? ” Careful with that one… Not like you are a paragon of reasoned, polite, and logical discourse yourself….
Okay, I went back and reread the comments.
My first point was that I thought Bernie should move to the left on guns. (my opinion)
My second point was that I had a problem with blanket immunity. I said it reminded me of cigarettes and alcohol. I could have been clearer by adding that both had to change their marketing/had their marketing/advertising limited.
So, you had a problem with my “called to mind” examples, but you agree with my main point on immunity? Is that correct?
AAA has a point. Unless there is a defect, as long as the product is being used for its intended purpose by the intended consumer, liability would seem to be difficult to assign to a company.
The closest parallel I can think of is dram shop liability laws where serving alcohol to a consumer who is intoxicated results in injury to a third party. There has to be some evidence that the alcohol was a “proximate cause” of injury. Some states have safe harbor laws to protect the bars in some fashion.
So, someone would have to demonstrate that:
1. the gun was sold to the consumer by the defendant
2. damages were sustained by the plaintiff;
3. the sale of the gun was at least one proximate cause of the damage/injury
It would seem to me that gun shop owners are the more likely direct target of such laws rather than manufacturers. Anyway this is the closest I can come to liability.
@Dave “Unless there is a defect, as long as the product is being used for its intended purpose by the intended consumer, liability would seem to be difficult to assign to a company.”
Not true.
All they would need to show is that the maker or seller encouraged misuse.
For example, when I purchased my DVD, there came with it loose instructions on how to convert it to a region-free DVD player.
Now… If I did that and my misuse ever became a legal issue, who could be liable?
Just me? or could the seller also be liable for encouraging misuse?
Yes, it is similar to cigarettes and alcohol, with important distinctions. Tobacco companies lied. Dram shop laws apply only when an INTOXICATED person is served alcohol. That is, the person being held liable was in a position to know the product would be misused. Given the hundreds of thousands of such weapons that are not put to such illegal use, it’s going to be difficult to show that the sellers/manufacturers should have known that THIS PARTICULAR person, Lanza’s mother, would misuse the weapon by letting her son use it. That’s a joke, and should be laughed out of court.
Did the guns come with instructions on how to circumvent the security measures the school had in place? I don’t think so.
The blanket immunity law was passed at the point at which this avenue of pursuit was showing promise back in the ’90s. The point at which manufacturers MIGHT be liable is in the advertising: Ads claim guns make one safer, while the facts show that owning a gun makes one more likely to be shot, therefore, it is false advertising to say guns provide safety.
Now explain how that applies to Adam Lanza. You might be able to hold his mother liable for giving him access to the guns, had she not been his first victim. But the “safety” of the gun had nothing to do with the purpose he put it toward.
Had he used pistols — had so-called assault weapons been unavailable to him — would we be having this discussion about pistols?
You might not be old enough to remember, but “gun control” started with laws against cheap “Saturday night specials.” It did nothing to deter shootings, so more and more guns were added, and still, no deterence.
You said it yourself: The only way to stop the gun violence is to tighten ownership to far fewer people than can own them now. I am among the group that was aghast at the failure of the Lanza massacre to convince people to give up their guns. I confess that I see no way at all forward on this issue on a national level, and state-level bans are too easy to circumvent (thanks, Virginia!)
To pretend that this is a viable issue in a Democratic Party context is just complete bullshit. The way it is discussed shows it’s the left’s version of what abortion is to the right — the arguments are emotional nonsense, but serve as a shibboleth for a lot of liberals.
Just my opinion, but I think the way forward here is to drive a wedge between the NRA, which long ago abandoned gun owners for gun manufacturers, and the members it supposedly represents.
Again my opinion, but if we devoted more energy to pointing out that a gun owner can’t sue the maker of a defective product — and there are plenty of examples of this, google it — it might help them see that the NRA stands against them, not for them.
The NRA wields so much power not because it has any, but because it has convinced lawmakers it has lots of it. That emperor has not only no clothes, but very few subjects. More gun owners, and lawmakers, need to be made aware of that.
Guns are similar to wine bricks, which were pressed grapes legally sold during Prohibition with the warning, “Do not add one gallon of water and store in a cool place for twenty days.”
“Not like you are a paragon of reasoned, polite, and logical discourse yourself….”
I’m not asking for paragons. I’m not polite, but that’s because you don’t get anyone’s attention around here until you insult them. If you look past the insults there’s plenty of reasoned, logical discourse. You engaged in some of it yourself yesterday.
Meanwhile, I am perplexed that people can’t see what a can of worms this opens. If I sell you a Ferrari, shouldn’t I expect that you’ll break the speeding laws with it?
“Again my opinion, but if we devoted more energy to pointing out that a gun owner can’t sue the maker of a defective product — and there are plenty of examples of this, google it — it might help them see that the NRA stands against them, not for them.”
Which was my point about blanket immunity. No one can ever sue – not win the case, just sue.
@puck: That’s fascinating. I had never heard of wine bricks before.
Remember why people supported prohibition: It was supposed to improve public morals. I guess cheating your way around it was just another moral improvement.
@pandora: I agree. But this isn’t a product liability case. I still don’t see how this lawsuit overcomes the ban on product liability lawsuits; indeed, it looks to me, just from the common-sense standpoint, that this justifies such a ban. Protecting gun manufacturers from defendants looking for deep pockets was the justification when it was passed.
To me the problem is that gun manufacturers have complete immunity – even if there’s a case that’s justified. That’s special treatment. If there was the possibility of being sued they might be motivated to take certain actions.
I think it would be a good strategy for curbing gun sales. A different example.. I’m all for carbon taxes and MUCH higher fines and much harsher punishment for environmental violations (example, I dont believe BP should be allowed to conduct business in the US or use our waters). The reasoning is, it makes it too expensive for companies to do anything but 100% environmentally responsible. If we open up gun manufacturers and distributors to liability for how those guns are used, the industry will move away from their “gun in every hand” approach. You cant deny that the manufacturers and the NRA are one in the same. By going after the people who MAKE and Sell the death sticks, you’re actually combating the NRA. Is it a potentially slippery precedent? maybe… is it worth dealing with that later on if it stopped a few deaths? totally.
Again, I agree. But I don’t see how supporting this particular lawsuit is anything but an emotional ploy, especially when used as a cudgel against a Democrat (or pretend Democrat, in Sanders’ case).
“is it worth dealing with that later on if it stopped a few deaths? totally.”
Think that through. By that measure, Prohibition was totally a success, because it cut alcohol consumption in half. Ignore that mafia problem, we’ll deal that afterwards.
@B “I think it would be a good strategy for curbing gun sales”
A better approach would be to have mandatory gun liability insurance. The proceeds could be used to pay victims. Those who shouldn’t have guns (e.g. crazy people), might find their insurance rates rather high, just like auto insurance for those who can’t drive properly.
“Again, I agree. But I don’t see how supporting this particular lawsuit is anything but an emotional ploy, especially when used as a cudgel against a Democrat”.
Because it’s a political election and that’s what you do. … Like spending any more time on DeBlasio’s CP time joke.
” Ignore that mafia problem, we’ll deal that afterwards.”
Prohibition, while a disaster, owed lots of deaths to high-powered guns…. so, common thread here.
I like that, LE… Really anything that helps. The way you get this country to do something is to make it the cheapest way to do things.
or should i say..
Gimmie an “L”! Gimmie an “E”! Gimmie a “nice”!
@LE (not G): That’s another excellent idea, but again, that’s not what Clinton is calling for. All she’s doing is trying to make Sanders seem like he’s not Of Our Tribe.
That line last night pretending that by attacking Super PACs he’s attacking Obama? That’s some lame bullshit right there. It’s rationally false, plus it’s hiding behind Obama’s skirts.
One more debate and I’ll start agreeing with Susan Sarandon.
This particular lawsuit may overreach, but it becomes an issue because, given the blanket immunity, the verdict is already decided. Yes, it’s emotional and there are probably better cases, but this is politics – and there are twenty dead six year olds.
I was reading this thread saying “How did I get dragged into this?” It turns out that AAA wasn’t wearing his/her reading glasses.
Back to the regularly scheduled “nuh-uh” “yuh-huh” of an open thread these days.
AAA, do you want to talk about the policy of it, or about how debates and campaigns work? Is it concerning to gun control advocates that someone who wants to be the party nominee differs greatly from the party on this one issues? I think so…. conversely, I think it should matter to the party who a candidate’s donors are.. But I think they matter about the same. If you’re going to make one an issue, you better be ready for the other to be as well.
“Prohibition, while a disaster, owed lots of deaths to high-powered guns…. so, common thread here.”
The point being that instead of alcohol killing people, guns killed people. The point being that if your solution creates a bigger problem, no, you’re not going to solve that one later.
“Is it concerning to gun control advocates that someone who wants to be the party nominee differs greatly from the party on this one issues? I think so.”
Then prepare to lose elections until hell freezes over. There are plenty of Democrats who don’t agree with the position you claim is the “party’s” position.
The Democratic Party has no answer to gun violence; they just pretend that their “solution” to it actually works. We have plenty of evidence that it doesn’t. If gun control advocates want to ignore all that evidence, there’s no word for that other than “ignorance.”
now i have no idea what you’re talking about. First of all…. The democrats will have to be EXTRA democratty to lose the presidency any time soon. As minority voting blocks grow, the party of old racists will get more and more hurt. I happen to think it is a great time to move the party… and by extension the nation… to the left, but for now I’ll take Preventing Trump.
Anyway, Allowing law suits against gun manufactures is in no way the same as a nationwide ban on ANYTHING… much less alcohol. You just make it so they could easily lose money if they dont act responsibly… and honestly, I would GLADLY apply that to every business… It is actually perfectly in line with my Socialist beliefs, so bring on the unforseen consequences.
“Yes, it’s emotional and there are probably better cases, but this is politics – and there are twenty dead six year olds.”
Indeed there are better cases, and there are 26 dead children involved. I also believe there are better ways forward, and disagree strongly with using this as a litmus test. To claim that not supporting this lawsuit means you are for unlimited sale of guns is, to be blunt, a lie. But then we can’t busy ourselves counting her lies because it would leave no time for anything else.
@Ben: OK, try this one: What could the manufacturers have done differently to prevent the Newtown massacre? At what point should they have foreseen this?
And your use of the phrase “corporate whore” is somehow different? please.
“What could the manufacturers have done differently to prevent the Newtown massacre?”
As i said before, gun makers and the NRA are on-in-the-same. The NRA has, for DECADES been pushing guns into people’s hands, encouraging “second amendment solutions” and appealing to emotionally unstable people who feel they need protection from “them”… basically Adam Lanza’s mother. It was only a matter of time.
So that doesnt answer your question, but that is because there is no single thing they could have done differently. This… and all that have happened and all that will happen.. is a result of a culture created BY the gun makers. We need… non-incremental 🙂 sweeping change to alter the trend.
LE, there’s another protected category of manufacture, and I wouldn’t be surprised to have it held up as a model for the gun manufacturers.
I’m speaking, of course, of vaccine manufacturers. After some early “successes” in suing vaccine manufacturers for damage, they threatened to stop manufacturing their product, because widespread mandates made it statistically likely that some individuals would have reactions. The response was that the government assumed responsibility to indemnify the manufacturers through “vaccine court.” The manufacturers no longer have to worry about the potential that defective product ( or product, that, unfortunately, sometimes injures people even when used correctly) will be brought back to haunt them.
Funds for payout are raised through a small tax on the sale of product.
But we don’t need research into possible ill effects of the product. Because we have it covered.
Legal proceedings don’t work the way you seem to think. You have to show that the deadly use of THAT PARTICULAR weapon was foreseeably irresponsible. You can’t, because it wasn’t.
Being against this particular lawsuit is the height of reason. To pretend that someone should abandon reason because that’s the way the party’s base thinks is to justify everything conservatives politicians do. That’s what they’re all about — making up laws that don’t work and do much harm so that their constituents will feel good.
Do you really want to emulate the Republicans?
The meaning of the phrase “corporate whore” is clear: Someone who sells political favors to corporations. I myself was the victim of people trying to pretend that the “whore” was meant sexually, which is of course bullshit, because corporate whoredom is not gender-specific. Why? Because they can’t argue using reason.
FYI: 26 killed in Newtown – 20 were children
This is a Dem primary – I thought we were supposed to show our progressive bona fides during this time.
You’re letting this turn into a major issue.
Did you just refer to yourself as a victim after using a word most closely associated with sex slaves?
Can we please stop trying to rewrite that words definition. Every time I hear it I shudder. Yeah, it’s personal. I’d hope we could agree that women have a different relationship with that word than men,
“Did you just refer to yourself as a victim after using a word most closely associated with sex slaves?”
Since when is “corporate w***e” associated with sex slaves?
“Someone who sells political favors to corporations.”
That is simple bribery. The W word connotes someone who sells something sacred that ought not to be for sale.
I agree the word should no longer be used in public policy debates, simply because it now promotes distraction from the point.
Would you try to argue that n***r can be used any other way? Sure, there may be a different definition somewhere, but it has a very specific meaning in our society. So does w***e… and if the people (women) who that word is usually pointed at are saying it means something, …. what’s the ol’ chestnut?… oh yeah… shut up and listen.
LOL! Thanks for the asterisks, puck!
I love Ben!
I demand that other words also be banished if they make me shudder. Stay tuned for a list.
I’ll await that list with bated breath.
I can’t stand the word “Moist”…
They have assemblies, big campaign, called “Spread the Word to End the Word”, w/ the word being “R*****”.
And it always made me think “Hmm… Curious that there’s a sizable national movement all bent towards ending use of the R-word but there’s never been a movement of similar size/success/reach to end use of the N-word.”
Heh, I hate the word “onion”…
Not sure why. It probably has as much to do with the reason I don’t like Kevin Costner (except for Mr. Brooks – I loved him in that!)
Fleek, pimento, and the phrase “run it up the flagpole”
I’m still staying tuned for that list, puck.
My wife is working on it. We’re kind of busy around here.
You have to show that the deadly use of THAT PARTICULAR weapon was foreseeably irresponsible. You can’t, because it wasn’t.
Except that this is not the legal theory of the case.
I think that this approach is a long shot and suspect that an appeals court will stop this at some point, but their argument doesn’t rely on foreknowledge on what this particular gun would do.
“I think that this approach is a long shot”
Probably since all attempts to blame music for inciting/inspiring criminal acts have always been rebuffed.
I think any list without “hysterical” would be incomplete.
I have a working title for this list: “Glossary of Political Correctness.”
On the subject of gun violence, have you seen all the coverage in The News Journal today?
This op-ed on reducing gun violence was in today’s paper: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/04/11/our-neighborhoods-not-war-zones/82890516/
Then, there is also this story: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/15/congressional-candidates-stake-their-ground-gun-rights/83029248/
Related, the TNJ also posted this Q&A with each of the Congressional candidates: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/15/where-do-your-congressional-candidates-stand-gun-control/83039592/
this is starting to sound like Trump’s definitive proof that Obama was born in kenya.
Every time I hear someone complaining about political correctness I just hear “waaaaaaa i cant get away with being an ass hole anymore’. This had better be good.
Annnnnd … The News Journal posted a video of each mayoral candidate on the topic of public safety. Excellent!
No one can come up with ways that Hillary supports the wealthy elites against the interests of ordinary Americans? Really? That’s easy. Just do the political math. She opposes reinstating Glass Steagal + she wants a private profit making health insurance system for all Americans and not a public one + she’s against free college education for Americans but wants them to pay for it + she’s against a living wage standard and only supports an inadequate increase in minimum wage = she supports what chiefly benefits wealthy elite interests and not the financial needs of most Americans.
“Every time I hear someone complaining about political correctness I just hear “waaaaaaa i cant get away with being an ass hole anymore’. ”
When you have lost the argument, then start picking at your opponent’s language.
Actually, if you can’t communicate without using language that demeans other people, you’ve started out as a loser of whatever argument you are trying to make.
124th!!
Actually, if you can’t communicate without using language that demeans other people, you’ve started out as a loser of whatever argument you are trying to make.
Donald Trump is a raging piece of moronic shit.
Am I wrong? Did I lose the argument?
See how that works?
LOL! That’s really not how it works – not if you’re trying to have a discussion or a substantive argument. And, depending on who you say this to, there’s no guarantee that you’d win the argument.
for cassandra being politically incorrect means saying something she doesn’t agree with. she will sometimes use “mansplaining” in a similar way.
The mistakes are two here:
1. Presuming that I do not know the difference in meaning between “demeaning” and “disparaging”
2. Mansplaining to me what I think.
cassandra: just telling you what you seem to think based on your words here. that’s how it works whatever the gender. guess you need to womansplain more clearly. and you seem to these have no trouble demeaning the people you disparage when they don’t agree with your politics. or am i thinking of somebody else?
I have no problem demeaning people who deserve it and no problem disparaging the people who deserve it. That doesn’t make me any different than most of the editors or contributors here. What I do not do is use gendered or sexist language to get my point across. If you were a better reader, you would have known that — whatever your politics are.
But this is the trait of the mansplainers, yes? Bypass the clear evidence in front of you to concoct a stupid narrative that is only useful to you. The joys of privilege.
🙄
Demeaning, disparaging – let’s call the whole thing off.
There is a difference between calling someone a jerk or stupid or an a$$hole or a f*cker and calling them the N word or a wh*re or a f*g or a k*ke. This really isn’t complicated – unless you’re attached to sexist or racist or bigoted words. Then it’s hard.
Just from a simple overview, and one can see it reinforced skimming down all the comments pro and con to either candidate, the Hillaryists want to preserved their slices of the status quo (particularly evident in their use of “pragmatic” and “incrementalism”), and Berniests want to see great change in the immediate future.
Nothing wrong with either. But looking backwards I think Hillary meticulously planned her campaign over years, thinking that she’d only need to nip at Republican margins for a win.
Trump made that moot. And there was this yuge movement literally boiling under the politically astute’s radar, that Bernie simply got in front of… Yes, it could have been Hillary up there right now, and very few of us would even know who Bernie Sanders was today. But like every person in DC, Hillary brushed it off and ignored it as being a few crazies dreaming for the moon, because it could not be endorsed by or centered around BIG MONEY … And if you have a good historical frame of mind, you can look back and see that each of the progressiveness Hillary now proclaims against big money, came step by step after Bernie first showed it had considerable support.
Hillary’s problem is the movement, not Bernie. The fact that if polls are as wrong as they were in Michigan, she is now in danger of losing her home state’s vote to a movement that wants to break up big banks, wants to remove college debt, wants to stop global warming with strong steps, wants to get big money out of politics, and wants the rich to PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES….
Bernie is the only one who stepped up to lead the charge… it could have been anyone else out there. What’s absolutely amazing though, in retrospect, is how he now seems tailor made for that part…. the perfect man leading the perfect cause, at the perfect time…
If Hillary does lose, it will come down to this question: why did you run from being liberal so early in your campaign?
cassandra: agree you’re not alone in this. and isn’t mansplaining “gendered language?” i know, i know, you were taught in gender-studies school that it doesn’t work that way, but still.
pandora: can’t men be whores too? (that also might have been covered in the gender studies program.)
anyway, enjoy sparring with you both no matter how demeaned it makes me feel.
isn’t mansplaining “gendered language?
Umm, yes, which would be its specific and disparaging point.
*shudder*
cassandra, actually i meant that you yourself use the word mansplaining. you acknowledge it’s “gendered language,” yet just above you said you “do not” use gendered language. i believe that would be a contradiction. i guess you mean it’s ok to use gendered language if it’s a response to something you disagree with.
The word has a specific and disparaging point, if you could just get past your privilege here.