Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by Humbert

The aim should be to drive gun ownership down.

The aim should be to reduce, if not eliminate, crime.

Originally Posted by bowie

Originally Posted by Humbert

The aim should be to drive gun ownership down.

The aim should be to reduce, if not eliminate, crime.

. . . one way is to radically reduce the number of guns in private hands

^

How?

Are you theorizing that its the guns that commit the crime?

^ Is it ridiculous to think that buildings kill people, not earthquakes?

Guns give people the confidence to commit crime, an ordinary little runt with a gun becomes a big man in his own eyes.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by bowie

Originally Posted by Humbert

The aim should be to drive gun ownership down.

The aim should be to reduce, if not eliminate, crime.

. . . one way is to radically reduce the number of guns in private hands

Originally Posted by bowie

^

How?

Are you theorizing that its the guns that commit the crime?

Replace guns with rubber chickens and see the result. Easy, really.

Originally Posted by birding

Guns give people the confidence to commit crime, an ordinary little runt with a gun becomes a big man in his own eyes.

Indeed, indeed . . .

Gun Control: Myths and Realities | Cato Institute

Gun Control: Myths and Realities
By David Lampo
May 13, 2000

The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement.

As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a “Million Mom March” to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother’s Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it’s easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case.

Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.
False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn’t know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.
False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.
False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t.
True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.
False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.”

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.
False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.
The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let’s hope more people are catching on.



Really should get back on topic - although it may be possible to make a gun control platform an election keypoint. But gun control has been discussed ad infinitum into its perpetual stalemate corner.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Gun owners should have to carry liability insurance for claims against death, injury and property damage and it should be very, very expensive

Excellent.

Originally Posted by bowie

^

How?

Are you theorizing that its the guns that commit the crime?

In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642.

'Only' 142 children under 15? A total of 642?? Jaysus, isn't that 142 too many?!

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by bowie

^

How?

Are you theorizing that its the guns that commit the crime?

I'll see your Ozzy with an Archie...

Former Benghazi Investigator Says He Was Fired Unlawfully
The New York Times The New York Times
By NOAM SCHEIBER, ERIC LIPTON and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

WASHINGTON — The Republican leaders of a House committee who have been in a bitter partisan battle with Democrats are enmeshed in a new fight with one of the committee’s former staff members.

A former investigator for the Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi plans to file a complaint in federal court next month alleging that he was fired unlawfully in part because his superiors opposed his efforts to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic mission in the Libyan city rather than focus primarily on the role of the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The former investigator, Bradley F. Podliska, a major in the Air Force Reserve who is on active duty in Germany, also claims that the committee’s majority staff retaliated against him for taking leave for several weeks to go on active duty. If true, the retaliation would violate the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, which Major Podliska plans to invoke in his complaint, according to a draft that was made available to The New York Times.

The case is now in a confidential mediation phase, limiting what the Republican-led staff can publicly say about the matter.

The committee firmly disputed Major Podliska’s allegations, saying Saturday that he had been “terminated for cause.”

A committee spokesman, Jamal Ware, cited Major Podliska’s “repeated efforts, of his own volition, to develop and direct committee resources to a PowerPoint ‘hit piece’ on members of the Obama administration, including Secretary Clinton, that bore no relationship whatsoever to the committee’s current investigative tone, focus or investigative plan.”

“Thus, directly contrary to his brand-new assertion, the employee actually was terminated, in part, because he himself manifested improper partiality and animus in his investigative work,” Mr. Ware said. “The committee vigorously denies all of his allegations. Moreover, once legally permitted to do, the committee stands ready to prove his termination was legal, justified and warranted — on multiple levels.”

In countering the complaints, Mr. Ware said Major Podliska had “never previously raised any allegation with respect to his work involving Secretary Clinton (other than that he was not allowed to do it) throughout.”

snip

The House committee is under increasing criticism for what critics say is the partisan nature of its investigation. In late September, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House majority leader, rekindled these suspicions when he suggested that damaging Mrs. Clinton’s presidential prospects was a welcome byproduct of the committee’s investigation.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” Mr. McCarthy said on Fox News. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”

Major Podliska, a lifelong Republican, holds a doctorate in political science from Texas A&M University and spent more than 15 years working at a federal defense agency, as an intelligence analyst for much of that time.

Somebody's lying again. There's a paper trail on this one, I betcha.

More at
Former Benghazi Investigator Says He Was Fired Unlawfully

Benghazi Witchhunt Trey Gowdy Seven Investigations Already Partisan Kangaroo Court etc. etc. etc.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It's that time.... the Hillary vs Bernie show with O'Malley, Webb and Chafee there to make up the numbers.

8am Thailand if my calculations are correct.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015
CNN Democratic Primary Debate
Live Stream: CNN.com
9pm ET (8pm CT, 6pm PT)
Coverage begins 8:30pm ET / 5:30pm PT
Location: Wynn Las Vegas
Sponsors: CNN, Nevada Democratic Party
Moderators: Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, and Dana Bash
Candidates: Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Benghazi Witchhunt Trey Gowdy Seven Investigations Already Partisan Kangaroo Court etc. etc. etc.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ahh, but now the tables are turned and that little ferret Gowdy in on the run. Could get suddenly interesting now that it has some meat on it...ferret meat.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Benghazi Witchhunt Trey Gowdy Seven Investigations Already Partisan Kangaroo Court etc. etc. etc.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ahh, but now the tables are turned and that little ferret Gowdy in on the run. Could get suddenly interesting now that it has some meat on it...ferret meat.

What is that in English?

Podium on standby for Biden in first Democratic presidential debate

Podium on standby for Biden in first Democratic presidential debate
Daily News Article — Posted on October 13, 2015

There will be five top candidates on stage for Tuesday night’s first Democratic Party presidential debate, and one conspicuous absence in Vice President Joe Biden — although CNN will have a podium available on stage just in case.

CNN, which is hosting Tuesday’s contest, announced Monday that an empty podium will be onstage beside front-runner Hillary Clinton and rivals Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former senators Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee.

The network…has…re-written its participation rules to allow the vice president to participate even if he doesn’t declare his candidacy until Tuesday morning.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by bowie

^

How?

Are you theorizing that its the guns that commit the crime?

So this is where you get the information to form the rediculous illusion you believe to be reality, good choice my friend.

Is this catchup time om my Biden his time thread ?
Jo can't win Goldman Sachs backs the other runners

^er nutbags - go talk about fairytales elsewhere

Bernie might be the man the world needs at the helm of the USoA for one session before letting Hillary have a go with a few more grey hairs of experience

Why Bernie Sanders Needs to Start Talking About Foreign Policy - The Atlantic

He’d also be the one major candidate in either party challenging the pervasive, and to my mind untrue, narrative that under Obama, America’s retreat has sparked chaos around the world

Originally Posted by baldrick

Bernie might be the man the world needs at the helm of the USoA

So far Bernie has been a one trick pony. His domestic policies resonate well with the electorate but although he would likely oppose US military intervention abroad unless there was a clear threat to the US he needs to be more specific or he'll be out of the running after a few primaries.

" Hillary Clinton is moving to the political left on just about every domestic issue, yet positioning herself to Barack Obama’s right on foreign policy. In so doing, she’s making it almost inevitable that American foreign policy will grow more hawkish in the post-Obama era, even though that’s not what most Democrats want."

^From your link.

Bernie needs to take her on related to her hawkish intentions. Clear to me Hillary will move to the right.

Obama has not done much to get the US disengaged in the ME. He as his predecessors just don't get it. Overthrow a dictator in the quest to spread democracy to the masses is shear folly proven to end in disaster. Obama insisting Assad be removed will be another in the long line of US blunders in the region. Hillary will be more hawkish on this point dragging the US deeper into ME morass. Putin has the right approach. Support Assad in maintaing power.

Come on Bernie. Get with it!

Hillary Clinton is moving to the political left on just about every domestic issue, yet positioning herself to Barack Obama’s right on foreign policy.

Given that her major foreign policy talking point is doing a deal with Iran, I find that statement laughable.

Where are there any examples of her being to the right of Obama on foreign policy?

Originally Posted by baldrick

Bernie might be the man the world needs at the helm of the USoA for one session before letting Hillary have a go with a few more grey hairs of experience

No, HILLARY NOW! We primarily need to break the gender barrier a.s.a.p. and, Hillary as the head-of-state in America NOW following 8 years of Obama, will push sexism and racism further out of the American psyche than ever before, possibly never to return.