2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThinkingabout
(30,058 posts)To work even more.
kpete
(72,006 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)I believe that one can be bought with money but the other can't.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)What are you referring to?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)it might indicate that Bernie is opposed to gun control. Note that although he might have benefited from the negative publicity of his opponent, he didn't receive any funds. His current grade from NRA is F. I don't agree with you that the NRA's support of Bernie's opponent raises him to the level of "crook". There is no evidence that he had any influence on the NRA at that point.
Thanks for bringing it up. I profited from the research.
The facts throw cold water on innuendo.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)innuendo, actually directly applies to the basic rules of objective thinking and is at the heart of all scientific practice.
Scientists ask "Do facts support a theory?" If not, the theory needs work.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Sanders I'd claiming a D rating from the NRA, dont know where the F rating came started. Where did you arrive at the "crook" accusation, dont think I would promote that one. On the other hand, Bernie did vote against the Brady Bill ergo creating a big problem for me.
Glad to hear you have researched and know Bernie's record.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)he had a "D" rating from the NRA. I wasn't sure whether he said "D" or "B". I looked it up tonight researching my response to you and found the "F" grade in a couple of place, but didn't think to check the dates of that grade.
About the "crook" accusation: that came from my original post when I said that "the other couldn't be bought with money". To me, that was the equivalent of "crook". I wasn't accusing you of calling anyone a "crook".
I was aware that Bernie voted against the Brady Bill and I disagree with this position although I've never heard his comments about it one way or the other. In any event, I wouldn't stop supporting him over that particular move.
merrily
(45,251 posts)bumper stickers saying "Dump Smith."
The F rating "started" because Sanders has been rated F by the NRA each year for most years of his Congressional career. However, his most recent rating from the NRA was D-.
The bit about Bernie's vote on the Brady Bill creating a big problem for you is a joke. You have a big problem with anybody but Hillary, no matter what.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bernie, but rather spent money to endorse Bernie because the NRA was ticked off at his Republican opponent for changing positions. I do not think Bernie has ever been offered, or accepted, a donation from the NRA. However, perhaps Thinkingabout can prove me wrong with a link. We'll see. Until then, it's just an unsupported claim by Thinkingabout.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)"The NRA spent $18,000 to unseat Smith that year, including printing bumper stickers that said Dump Peter Smith. The money wasnt spent on Sanders behalf, but he ended up being the main beneficiary."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/#ixzz3omADy4DP
merrily
(45,251 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Money that the NRA SPENT to defeat Smith was not "donated" to anyone.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This is what I stated:
" Like the $18,000 donation to defeat one's opponent?"
"As I stated, NRA donated money to help defeat Sanders opponent, it wasn't donated to Sanders."
merrily
(45,251 posts)I asked you to provide a link to show a donation. You have not, yet you continue to use that word. So, yes, once again, your Reply 5 was misleading, and your use of "donation" is plain wrong.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Bernie has actually worked his entire life for Civil Rights and for the less fortunate and as a legislator, was more successful than most in getting good amendments passed. Hillary's record in the Senate was pathetic by comparison.
Veterans et, have given Sanders their highest award for his work on their behalf.
Hillary can't stop telling the poor they need to be 'responsible' and how we 'can't enable their dependency'. So wonderful, coming from a very privileged white woman whose college tuition was paid for by her parents.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Not to mention Clinton simply won the debate, objectively, as Romney did in one debate I recall.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)huge amount of small donations he received, not to mention the tens of thousands of new followers on Social Media, he wiped the floor in that debate.
I take it you are referring the Corporate Media's pathetic attempt to change the facts, by deleting their own polls, shutting down other independent media, deleting comments supportive of the WINNER. They are the ONLY entities claiming he was not the winner.
Now they are suffering from the backlash and making some moves to try to regain some credibility. But it's too late.
They are viewed now pretty widely, as part of the Clinton Campaign. Therefore not credible as unbiased arbiters of who did or did not win a debate.
The Old Media is the past. The New Media is far more powerful now. They seem puzzled as to why all their dirty tricks are not effective anymore. That's good, let them remain in the last century.
Meantime the world moves forward leaving them where they belong, in the past.
I see even the DNC is getting nervous as a result of the power of the people they have not seen until now.
Finally acknowledging that their attempts to ignore the people and the people's candidate have only cause a total distrust of them and their candidate.
There are more of us than there are of them, and CNN and the rest of the Corporate tools who tried to claim victory for a candidate who didn't just LOSE that debate, she was literally hardly even a factor with those who count the VOTERS.
rocktivity
(44,577 posts)rocktivity
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Surprise, surprise, surprise!
The corporate media and the oligarchy think Hillary won.
No hope for change with her...same old, same old.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Sure glad that saved us!!!
marym625
(17,997 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,389 posts)Thanks for the thread, kpete.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
.and her DNC to the pile under Clinton.
Call Wasserman-Schultz and demand more debates so that the Democratic message is broadcast and we also get the free advertising that debates provide. Just like the Republicans have been king for months.
Her number at the DNC is: 202863-800
StrongBad
(2,100 posts)Unless you are saying dems that intend to vote for her are mindless CNN obeying drones?
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)DrBulldog
(841 posts)She delivered a series of lectures in Canada for the nation's energy industry and got paid $1.6 million for it.
Why is that not upsetting to Americans?