Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for educating me on gun control. I did say several times that I would like to see stricter gun regulations. I also stand by my statement that the Clintons have done a great deal of harm to poor and working class women and, in sharp contrast, Sanders has consistently advocated for those women.

Can you see how your continued use of "the Clintons" is fundamentally anti-feminist? As if Hillary Clinton is no more than chattel, and therefore legally indistinguishable from her husband?

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for educating me on gun control. I did say several times that I would like to see stricter gun regulations. I also stand by my statement that the Clintons have done a great deal of harm to poor and working class women and, in sharp contrast, Sanders has consistently advocated for those women.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for educating me on gun control. I did say several times that I would like to see stricter gun regulations. I also stand by my statement that the Clintons have done a great deal of harm to poor and working class women and, in sharp contrast, Sanders has consistently advocated for those women.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for educating me on gun control. I did say several times that I would like to see stricter gun regulations. I also stand by my statement that the Clintons have done a great deal of harm to poor and working class women and, in sharp contrast, Sanders has consistently advocated for those women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, okay. It's clear that OP doesn't want to discuss the issues and would rather just respond to everyone who disagrees with the exact same talking points about how "Clinton did XYZ, and it's unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever". No real need to further engage.

The one thing I will say, however, is that it's totally disingenuous to ignore gun control as a women's issue when otherwise casting such a broad net as to include NAFTA. There's a reason that one of the biggest advocacy groups for gun control is called the "Million Mom March"...gun violence/accidents both against women and against their children and partners does have significant impact on women's lives. It tears apart the communities where women are the most impoverished and vulnerable. OP, and whomever, can define feminism however they want. But a feminism that insists on viewing the TPP as a major feminist issue but ignores gun control is a bizarre one indeed.

I am not ignoring gun control. I stated quite clearly that I do not agree with Sanders on all of his gun control decisions but I also do not think it is appropriate to blame him for gun violence against women.

So, it isn't appropriate to blame Sanders for his longstanding (and politically expedient) opposition to gun control as a congressional representative and US Senator, but it's totally fine to blame Clinton for policies enacted before she held elected office?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I know, the only gun control policy of Sanders which was in question was his vote in 2005 to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits when their guns were used in violent crimes. I am not sure how that vote promoted gun violence. It is kind of like protecting manufacturers of snack foods from lawsuits when people die of obesity related illnesses.

You need to get better educated about Bernie Sanders and about gun violence. Bernie's gun votes are below. Also below are details about Vermont's ranking as the state with the 8th highest rate of domestic gun violence against women. Let's talk now about how Bernie's a feminist.

Bernie's votes on gun issues -
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/bernie-sanders-vote-gun-immunity-black-market

But before Brady became law, it underwent many transformations. Sanders, elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, voted on it numerous times, virtually almost always in opposition:

• In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

• The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In Nov. 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

• After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time).

• He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.

• The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

"I think he has disappointed many progressives in Vermont with his gun positions, which sort of walk a middle line – and angering both sides through the years," said Chris Graff, the former Vermont Associated Press bureau chief.

"When it comes to guns, he’s not Ted Cruz, but he believes federal policy should be less intrusive than Martin O’Malley or Hillary Clinton," said Eric Davis, who studies Vermont politics at Middlebury College. "Guns are not an important issue for him, because they don’t fit into the class-based framework that Bernie looks at politics through."

Q: The parents of one of the 12 innocent people killed during the Aurora movie theater shooting, sued to hold ammunition sellers liable for the attack, but their lawsuit was dismissed. And one of the reasons was a law that you voted for which protects manufacturers of ammunition from being sued. Why did you vote that way?

SANDERS: We have been yelling and screaming at each other about guns for decades, with very little success. I come from a state that has virtually no gun control. But the people of my state understand, I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles. In our state, guns are used for hunting. In Chicago, they're used for kids in gangs killing other kids or people shooting at police officers, shooting down innocent people. We need a sensible debate about gun control which overcomes the cultural divide that exists in this country. And I think I can play an important role in this.

Vermont does face a dilemma of gun violence, one that carries a grisly association with domestic violence. This month, the Violence Policy Center released the newest iteration of its continuing study tracking the number of women murdered in the United States by men. As it turns out, Vermont has the eighth-highest rate of any state, with 1.58 victims killed per 100,000 people. Of those slain by men they knew, three-quarters were intimates (wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends) of their killers, and two-thirds were shot to death.

Between 2003-2012, 56% of domestic violence homicides [in Vermont] involved a gun.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/vermont-domestic-violence-suicide-gun-deaths/
http://www.gunsensevt.org/domestic_violence_and_guns_in_vt

Anonymous wrote:As far as I know, the only gun control policy of Sanders which was in question was his vote in 2005 to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits when their guns were used in violent crimes. I am not sure how that vote promoted gun violence. It is kind of like protecting manufacturers of snack foods from lawsuits when people die of obesity related illnesses.

But before Brady became law, it underwent many transformations. Sanders, elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, voted on it numerous times, virtually almost always in opposition:

• In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

• The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In Nov. 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

• After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time).

• He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.

• The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

"I think he has disappointed many progressives in Vermont with his gun positions, which sort of walk a middle line – and angering both sides through the years," said Chris Graff, the former Vermont Associated Press bureau chief.

"When it comes to guns, he’s not Ted Cruz, but he believes federal policy should be less intrusive than Martin O’Malley or Hillary Clinton," said Eric Davis, who studies Vermont politics at Middlebury College. "Guns are not an important issue for him, because they don’t fit into the class-based framework that Bernie looks at politics through."

Q: The parents of one of the 12 innocent people killed during the Aurora movie theater shooting, sued to hold ammunition sellers liable for the attack, but their lawsuit was dismissed. And one of the reasons was a law that you voted for which protects manufacturers of ammunition from being sued. Why did you vote that way?

SANDERS: We have been yelling and screaming at each other about guns for decades, with very little success. I come from a state that has virtually no gun control. But the people of my state understand, I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles. In our state, guns are used for hunting. In Chicago, they're used for kids in gangs killing other kids or people shooting at police officers, shooting down innocent people. We need a sensible debate about gun control which overcomes the cultural divide that exists in this country. And I think I can play an important role in this.

Vermont does face a dilemma of gun violence, one that carries a grisly association with domestic violence. This month, the Violence Policy Center released the newest iteration of its continuing study tracking the number of women murdered in the United States by men. As it turns out, Vermont has the eighth-highest rate of any state, with 1.58 victims killed per 100,000 people. Of those slain by men they knew, three-quarters were intimates (wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends) of their killers, and two-thirds were shot to death.

Between 2003-2012, 56% of domestic violence homicides [in Vermont] involved a gun.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/vermont-domestic-violence-suicide-gun-deaths/
http://www.gunsensevt.org/domestic_violence_and_guns_in_vt

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am surprised to see you defending welfare reform. I guess that explains why some people on this thread are supporters of Clinton.

Again with the snide slaps at Clinton supporters? You're adding to the level of anger.

What are you talking about? That same PP told me that I have a "Twitter-level understanding of public policy " and I did not even slap her back. I said that if people are okay with welfare reform, then it stands to reason that they might support Clinton. Just WOW.

You're the same poster who claims it's not meant as an insult when you say Hillary Clinton is not a feminist, aren't you? I think I understand now how you approach things.

It is meant as a criticism.

Here is a definition of insult: speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

No, I do not think I am speaking with disrespect or scornful abuse.

Seems you apply a double-standard pretty regularly, on lots of topics. You view someone describing your shallow understanding of policy issues as "twitter level" as a grave insult. But when you take digs at Clinton supporters as being opposed to welfare, or when you say Clinton is not a feminist, those are just high-minded criticisms in your thinking. And similarly, you view Hillary's tenuous connection to NAFTA as a dire character flaw because of NAFTA's supposed negative impact on women, but you refuse to see any link between Sanders' votes in favor of guns and the impact of guns on women. Double-standards everywhere.

This does not change the fact that I believe that Sanders is the real feminist in the race and Clinton is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am surprised to see you defending welfare reform. I guess that explains why some people on this thread are supporters of Clinton.

Again with the snide slaps at Clinton supporters? You're adding to the level of anger.

What are you talking about? That same PP told me that I have a "Twitter-level understanding of public policy " and I did not even slap her back. I said that if people are okay with welfare reform, then it stands to reason that they might support Clinton. Just WOW.

You're the same poster who claims it's not meant as an insult when you say Hillary Clinton is not a feminist, aren't you? I think I understand now how you approach things.

It is meant as a criticism.

Here is a definition of insult: speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

No, I do not think I am speaking with disrespect or scornful abuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, okay. It's clear that OP doesn't want to discuss the issues and would rather just respond to everyone who disagrees with the exact same talking points about how "Clinton did XYZ, and it's unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever". No real need to further engage.

The one thing I will say, however, is that it's totally disingenuous to ignore gun control as a women's issue when otherwise casting such a broad net as to include NAFTA. There's a reason that one of the biggest advocacy groups for gun control is called the "Million Mom March"...gun violence/accidents both against women and against their children and partners does have significant impact on women's lives. It tears apart the communities where women are the most impoverished and vulnerable. OP, and whomever, can define feminism however they want. But a feminism that insists on viewing the TPP as a major feminist issue but ignores gun control is a bizarre one indeed.

I am not ignoring gun control. I stated quite clearly that I do not agree with Sanders on all of his gun control decisions but I also do not think it is appropriate to blame him for gun violence against women.

So, it isn't appropriate to blame Sanders for his longstanding (and politically expedient) opposition to gun control as a congressional representative and US Senator, but it's totally fine to blame Clinton for policies enacted before she held elected office?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, okay. It's clear that OP doesn't want to discuss the issues and would rather just respond to everyone who disagrees with the exact same talking points about how "Clinton did XYZ, and it's unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever". No real need to further engage.

The one thing I will say, however, is that it's totally disingenuous to ignore gun control as a women's issue when otherwise casting such a broad net as to include NAFTA. There's a reason that one of the biggest advocacy groups for gun control is called the "Million Mom March"...gun violence/accidents both against women and against their children and partners does have significant impact on women's lives. It tears apart the communities where women are the most impoverished and vulnerable. OP, and whomever, can define feminism however they want. But a feminism that insists on viewing the TPP as a major feminist issue but ignores gun control is a bizarre one indeed.

I am not ignoring gun control. I stated quite clearly that I do not agree with Sanders on all of his gun control decisions but I also do not think it is appropriate to blame him for gun violence against women.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, okay. It's clear that OP doesn't want to discuss the issues and would rather just respond to everyone who disagrees with the exact same talking points about how "Clinton did XYZ, and it's unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever". No real need to further engage.

The one thing I will say, however, is that it's totally disingenuous to ignore gun control as a women's issue when otherwise casting such a broad net as to include NAFTA. There's a reason that one of the biggest advocacy groups for gun control is called the "Million Mom March"...gun violence/accidents both against women and against their children and partners does have significant impact on women's lives. It tears apart the communities where women are the most impoverished and vulnerable. OP, and whomever, can define feminism however they want. But a feminism that insists on viewing the TPP as a major feminist issue but ignores gun control is a bizarre one indeed.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, okay. It's clear that OP doesn't want to discuss the issues and would rather just respond to everyone who disagrees with the exact same talking points about how "Clinton did XYZ, and it's unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever". No real need to further engage.

The one thing I will say, however, is that it's totally disingenuous to ignore gun control as a women's issue when otherwise casting such a broad net as to include NAFTA. There's a reason that one of the biggest advocacy groups for gun control is called the "Million Mom March"...gun violence/accidents both against women and against their children and partners does have significant impact on women's lives. It tears apart the communities where women are the most impoverished and vulnerable. OP, and whomever, can define feminism however they want. But a feminism that insists on viewing the TPP as a major feminist issue but ignores gun control is a bizarre one indeed.