Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Bernie Sanders: I voted for the auto bailout

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-i-voted-for-the-auto-bailout/

KalamazooBernie Sanders spent the day campaigning in Michigan, pushing back against Hillary Clinton's assertion that he did not support the auto bailout and trying to encourage supporters to vote in Tuesday's primary.

"Secretary Clinton went out of her way to mischaracterize my history as it relates to the 2008 auto industry bailout," he said to a crowd of 3,200 in Kalamazoo. He was referring to the debate in Flint, Michigan Sunday night when Clinton said that Sanders voted to oppose saving the auto industry and she voted for it.

"He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference," Clinton said during the debate. Sanders did vote against the $700 billion federal bailout program, which included money sent directly to the auto industry as well as the big banks, but he had been on the record in supporting funds that would help prop up the auto industry as a separate measure. He did support a $14 billion aid package which passed the House in December of 2008, but it was not able to pass in the Senate. Sanders referenced that vote.


"There was one vote in the United States Senate to support the automobile industry and, of course, I voted for it. To say otherwise is simply not telling the truth," he said.

The crowd responded positively when Sanders pressed his support of the auto bailout, but not everyone thought that he did a great job of explaining the issue Sunday night.

"It was done in the wrong way. There should have been some more finesse to it," said Benjamin Byrd, an 18-year-old Sanders supporter. "He should have brought up specifics about how big the bill actually was."

During the debate, Sanders' denial of Clinton's assertion wasn't very clear. He later explained to reporters that he was surprised to hear someone say "something that is absolutely distorting the record." He said he was "taken aback" by the accusation.

"Sometimes somebody says something to you, and it is untrue, so it took me about 12 seconds or less than that, I figure, to try to understand what she was saying," Sanders explained.

Meanwhile, Sanders' campaign released a new radio ad in Michigan on Monday, hitting Clinton for being dishonest -- though the ad does not mention her by name. It says that "Washington has always had a funny relationship with truth. So it's no surprise that his opponent is... trying to distort the truth about Bernie's record."

Sanders has also been making the case that Clinton's support of trade has hurt American jobs -- especially in places like Michigan.

"She has supported virtually every one of these disastrous trade agreements which have wreaked havoc," Sanders said on Monday. He argued that Sunday night she tried to deflect attention from her support for "almost every trade agreement."

Sanders also continued to make his pitch that high voter turnout will mean that he wins the state of Michigan. He is currently trails Clinton in the polls -- the latest CBS News Battleground Tracker has Clinton at 55 percent and Sanders at 44 percent.

Lori Brock, a 56-year-old Sanders supporter, has volunteered for the campaign for three days in the last week and she says "people were actually glad to hear from me. I liked that." She wished that she had been contacted earlier because, in her view, Sanders is the "revolutionary candidate that we need."

Does Brock think Sanders will win in Michigan?

"I want him to win," she said with longing eyes. If he does not win the nomination, she plans to write him into her ballot in November.
© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Had to laugh. From Bobsal's article.... I can imagine a momentarily befuddled Bern as he hears the snake-y words slithering out of HRC's mouth:

Quote izzy:

The difference between the USA and most liberal democracies is that in the US, you can run down any group and say terrible things about them, blame them for all the ills in history, and it is protected. What is not protected is a specific call to do violence to a member of the group.

There was a situation in Crown Heights, Brooklyn in New York City some years ago. The neighborhood was largely black and Orthodox Jewish and there was much friction between these groups. When a famous rabbi died, there was a huge funeral procession through the neighborhood. Somehow, a little black girl was run over by one of the cars in the procession. There was talk among the black people in the neighborhood that the little girl was on the sidewalk at the time and the car jumped the curb-I don't know the official findings. However, no charges were lodged against the driver of the car.

It should be noted that a large percentage of the City Administration was staffed by Jewish people, we do not know if anything was involved there. It is also possible that the girl was NOT on the sidewalk when she was hit, and the driver might be blameless, it is a possibility. At any rate, the black community was enraged. For three days groups of black gangs were roaming the streets of the neighborhood beating up Orthodox Jews. The cops didn't come down hard for fear of inciting even more violence-they let a lot of it go on.

There was a street speaker during this period who was speaking against the Jews, giving all sorts of things they were supposedly responsible for. Among the listeners were some black teenagers, who then left the gathering, came across an Australian student studying to be a rabbi, and stabbed him to death. The police found out the kid who did it and arrested him.

In America, before you go to trial, you go in front of a grand jury which decides if charges are even warranted, (an indictment). In fact, it's almost a sham, the prosecution virtually always gets the chance to go to trial. In this case, the grand jury said there was not enough evidence, and the kid went free. Combined with the light-to-nonexistent law enforcement following the incident, this also gave rise to speculation that the City Administration just wanted this to go away from the public mind. As the saying goes, any prosecutor worth his salt should be able to get an indictment against anybody. People assumed the prosecutor wasn't trying for political purposes. After much hoopla, the prosecutor found "more evidence" and went to the grand jury again, (double jeopardy doesn't apply unless you are indicted the first time), and the kid went to trial and was convicted.

The trial for the street speaker came later. He was eventually convicted. The court ruled that he had the right to put down Jews in his speech all he wants, make any accusation against them that he wants, and it is protected. However, witnesses listening to him did hear him tell the crowd to go out and "get a Jew". That part-and only that part-was NOT protected under the First Amendment. He was convicted and sent away for some years. In most other countries, he would be guilty of a crime even if he did not specifically say, "get a Jew". In America, that kind of call to direct violence is necessary for it to be a crime.

YES!
]

Im trying to understand the purpose of your post, and help me if I got it wrong...but you are saying we have good laws regarding the 1st admendment and call to violence does not fall under the 1st admendment? I believe a Law and Order episode also fell under that category regarding white Supremisists. Maybe a twist on that story? Either way, Trump better watch his back, this isnt the 1960's south.

He's a bad man; a dangerous man. He incites violence. He's a rich dummy.

Bernie's Billionaires, Take Two: Koch Brothers, the NRA, and a Glass House
http://linkis.com/thepeoplesview.net/jhUzU

The Koch Brother's ad for Bernie Sanders

I suppose Bernie will owe the Koch Brothers a big favor for this, tar sands anyone?

I cant see it. Can you summarize it?

Good music wasted on a jerk
https://www.facebook.com/IRBF.org.uk/videos/1543516199276321/

Trump is a sleazy idiot.

Warren SLAMS GOP over Trump: "“Guys, this is what you did to yourselves"

“What have Republicans in the Senate been doing since the very day that Barack Obama was sworn in?” she said in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the Massachusetts senator’s first television appearance since the beginning of the presidential race. “They have given in to their extremists, in fact they have nursed their extremists along.”

“They are paying the price for their own extremism,” she added in a referent to Trump's popularity, which has shocked much of the GOP.

Warren slamed Senate Republicans for a “shutdown approach” to legislating that she said extended to their refusal to grant a vote to anyone nominated by Obama to the Supreme Court.

.............

“Guys, this is what you did to yourselves,” Warren said of Senate Republicans. “And if you really want to stop it, stand up and do your jobs.”

............

MORE!
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/272632-warren-slams-gop-over-trump-you-did-this-to-yourselves

I like it when Trump gets media attention, because he makes a fool of himself every time he speaks.

He makes a fool of us too, which is not good imo.

Izzy is from the UK, and I wrote the post to illustrate the difference between America and what passes as free speech, and most other liberal democracies. In other countries, going on and on about how bad some ethnic or racial group is would be illegal and considered incitement. In America, you can run down the group all you want, but you have to get specific about actually advocating violence against them before you become illegal. I'm not passing judgment on which way is best, just saying there is a difference.

First of all, may I ask what this issue has to do with voting against republicans? I can answer for you, nothing.

Second, the whole issue is more complicated than it appears at first glance. Yes Bernie voted for a auto bail out, but not the one that actually passed in which the money came from to bail out the auto industry. He objected because in that bill (TARP) which actually passed, money to bail out wall street was also included. However, since he voted no, in a sense he did vote no for the money that was actually used to bail out the industry.




source

What is important, I think, is that the auto industry paid back the TARP loans.
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/TARP-Programs/automotive-programs/pages/default.aspx

I know what you meant.

AAAA HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The macabre truth of gun control in the US is that toddlers kill more people than terrorists do

by Lindy West at the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do?CMP=share_btn_tw

"SNIP............



.

In the US in 2015, more people were shot and killed by toddlers than by terrorists. In 2013, the New York Times reported on children shot by other children: “Children shot accidentally – usually by other children – are collateral casualties of the accessibility of guns in America, their deaths all the more devastating for being eminently preventable.”

And I’m supposed to believe that frightened Syrian refugees – or whomever becomes the next rightwing scapegoat du jour – are the real threat to my children? I’m supposed to be afraid of sharks? Heavy metal music? Violent video games? Horse meat in my hamburger patties? Teenagers pouring vodka up their butts?

States with more guns have more gun deaths. Keeping a gun in your house increases your chances of accidental death by shooting, but does not make you safer. A woman’s chance of being murdered by an abusive partner increases fivefold if the partner has access to a gun. “Good guys with guns” are a fantasy. How much longer will we keep participating in this great collective lie that deadly weapons keep us safe?

The accidental shooting of Jamie Gilt is the object lesson that my absurd nation deserves. When even supposed gun safety experts cannot keep themselves safe from their own toddlers, we should take that as an unequivocal reminder that guns are inherently dangerous. They are exploding projectile machines designed specifically for killing. And that’s not bleeding-heart hyperbole – it’s the explicit reason why many people are drawn to them. Cowboy games. Vigilante justice. Power.





..............SNIP"

Having a unlocked loaded gun in a home with children is just plain stupid.