[peeker01]

Senator Bernie Sanders hopping mad over the price of crude.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/202084/ ... -autos.htm

[Outcast_Searcher]

And here I thought Michelle Bachmann had said the stupidist thing possible related to not liking crude oil (or related) prices when she recently declared (offering NO specifics of course) that as President she would reduce the price of gasoline below $2.00.

Congratulations Bernie -- you managed to roughly tie for first.

I'd like to see some of these politicians actually produce a barrel of oil, or run a company that produces some oil -- you know, actually learn something substantive about the industry -- BEFORE they stick their giant tin hats in their mouths.

Of course, the TV MSM left wing media like MSNBC, PBS, "Your Money" on CNN (this show clearly leans left -- fine -- they just should admit it), etc. all had great fun at how stupid Bachmann's comment was.

Somehow, I don't expect Bernie to get NEARLY the same level of attention on such channels. Yeah -- get ANGRY Bernie. THAT will have a meaningful and lasting impact on the global price of crude oil.

[vtsnowedin]

As a resident of Vermont I have been putting up with Bernie Sanders for a long time so perhaps I can give the rest of you some insight. First of all the term "It's an outrage" is one of Bernie's favorite terms and he uses it as often as normal people use commas.
Second he is as close to a honest politician you can find because he never switches sides or tells you he is on your side when he is not. He has always been in left field near the foul line and declaring that this is where it is at and all of you should join me here solidly in left field.
He is totally blind to the inability of the government to competently conduct a program that does more good for the recipients then it does harm to the tax payers that have to pay for it.
He may have a point that the stock market and commodities futures markets along with derivatives and credit default swaps have become a casino where big players place bets where they reap the winnings and we the holders of retirement accounts must absorb all the losses.
But his proposed remedies will be much worse then the disease.

[dohboi]

"stock market and commodities futures markets along with derivatives and credit default swaps have become a casino where big players place bets where they reap the winnings and we the holders of retirement accounts must absorb all the losses."

Yep, he's certainly right there. And it is indeed and outrage. The smartest people on the left (and a few on the right) are very good at articulating the problem. Their solutions, though, often do seem even worse than the problem.

[Cog]

More on the gun control front from Hilary. According to her, guns are being imported from Vermont into New York. I seem to recall not long ago that Bloomberg was blaming Virginia and Georgia for these guns. Which leads me to a couple of question. Is Vermont exporting their criminals into New York as well? Why isn't there massive gun violence in Vermont, where guns are freely available?

I don't suppose it has ever occurred to any of these gun grabbers that maybe, just maybe, they don't have a gun problem but a people problem. If only there was some organization could identify what demographic that is committing these senseless crimes. Oh wait there is. Its called the FBI crime statistics.

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-d ... ent-crime/

http://www.wcax.com/story/31650376/clin ... ns-from-vt

MONTPELIER, Vt. -
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has stepped up her attacks on Bernie Sanders when it comes to guns, and she says Vermont is part of the problem.

According to Politico, Clinton on Monday told a private gathering of New York lawmakers that statistics are coming out soon that show many of the guns used by New York criminals come across the border from Vermont.

Clinton has been going after Sanders' record on gun control in states with major urban populations.

[vtsnowedin]

Which leads me to a couple of question. Is Vermont exporting their criminals into New York as well? Why isn't there massive gun violence in Vermont, where guns are freely available?

It is the other way around. Many arrests in Vermont are of drug dealers that have come up to Vermont to deliver drugs. They do sometimes take guns in payment from their Vermont customers and sub dealers.
Most of our 1.2% blacks are college students that forgot to go home and many of the 1% Hispanics are working on dairy farms milking cows and are too busy to be doing much of any crime.

[Outcast_Searcher]

My sense from his explanations is that actually he saw the logical problem in those votes. We're talking about suing gun factories, for gun violence. I don't know the full legal thing on this, somebody jump in if they do, but I think I read it's about gun manufacturers that "knowingly" sell guns to stores in high crime big cities.

Under the "strong" legal theory, no doubt, that it's difficult or impossible to, say, buy a gun in a low crime area 20ish miles away, and transport it to a high crime area.

Liberal fantasies aside, I'm with you on the McDonald's fries from potatoes example, it's hard to take such lawsuits seriously.

[vtsnowedin]

My sense from his explanations is that actually he saw the logical problem in those votes. We're talking about suing gun factories, for gun violence. I don't know the full legal thing on this, somebody jump in if they do, but I think I read it's about gun manufacturers that "knowingly" sell guns to stores in high crime big cities.

Under the "strong" legal theory, no doubt, that it's difficult or impossible to, say, buy a gun in a low crime area 20ish miles away, and transport it to a high crime area.

Liberal fantasies aside, I'm with you on the McDonald's fries from potatoes example, it's hard to take such lawsuits seriously.

Though hard to win such lawsuits are expensive to defend and the anti gun people would file them repeatedly if given a chance.
Years back Strum Ruger paid out millions to people who dropped fully loaded revolvers on the hammer and shot themselves. Safe practice had always been to carry a revolver with the hammer down on an empty chamber but the owners could not be held to the responsibility of using safe practices.
The final solution was a redesign of revolvers and exposed hammer rifles to put a transfer bar between hammer and cartridge primer when the trigger is pulled so you can now walk around with your six shooter holding six and wack the hammer as much as you like without it going off unless you pull the trigger.
As to the liberals intentions Joe Biden gave it away in Obama's first term in a speech where he described pending gun control legislation as "Just the beginning"
That meets the definition of a gaff in Washington . ie. When a politician accidentally speaks the truth.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03 ... beginning/

[Sixstrings]

Under the "strong" legal theory, no doubt, that it's difficult or impossible to, say, buy a gun in a low crime area 20ish miles away, and transport it to a high crime area.

Liberal fantasies aside, I'm with you on the McDonald's fries from potatoes example, it's hard to take such lawsuits seriously.

You're talking about gun running, but from what I'm hearing on this debate, they just want to sue gun manufacturers.

Here's the part I don't understand -- *that if they want it to be illegal for a gun manufacturer to sell guns to gun shops in New York state, then that's the thing they have to make illegal*, and pass a law about it.

Otherwise, if it's not illegal, then how is a gun manufacturer supposed to be liable for where they are selling to. If they are in compliance with the law. How can anyone say, "well you should have googled some info and just decided to not to sell to the gun shop in that city, you should have known the right thing to do just intuitively, regardless of what the law says, and now we're gonna sue you."

It's like expecting potato farmers to know better than to allow their potatoes to go to high-diabetes cities.

Now if gun manufacturers are doing anything to skirt the actual law, then that's different.

But otherwise a legal product is a legal product.

You can't sue Ford Motor Company, because they "should have made a moral decision" to not sell Fords to dealers in cities with high rates of traffic accidents.

Unless there's a law about such a thing, so if that's what they want, then get that kind of law passed.

What I'm not clear about, is exactly what is it that Clinton wants to be done?

All I'm hearing is "let's make it possible to sue the gun manufacturers."

What I'm not hearing is, "let's pass a law that says gun manufacturers must do this and that," and then give the companies a chance to be in compliance.

[Sixstrings]

Years back Strum Ruger paid out millions to people who dropped fully loaded revolvers on the hammer and shot themselves. Safe practice had always been to carry a revolver with the hammer down on an empty chamber but the owners could not be held to the responsibility of using safe practices.

Hm, well that's a matter of law and I'm not a lawyer.

The line between where responsibility lies, the consumer or the business. Or if you're a homeowner -- if your guest gets injured on your property, where is the line between where it was their own fault and where YOU should have to pay for it (and your home owners insurance).

So this is all law, and up to judges and juries, where the lines are.

Something like your example -- that's a product that was working correctly, but maybe not ideally designed / needed a design revision. So then, one could look at whether the company KNEW from product research, if the design could be better to prevent injuries.

If a gun is flat out faulty though, then that's like any other product, and sure they should be liable.

Look at something like, "let's sue the oil industry over climate change." That kind of thing is ridiculous, just logically.

But I guess it's within the limits of tort law. A person can sue another person or company for anything, actually, and it's up to the judge to throw it out or not, or up to the jury to award damages or not.

Like McDonalds and the woman that got a million dollars because the coffee was hot.

So now those coffee cups say, "caution, this is hot."

P.S. A benefit to lawsuits like this though, is that it keeps business on their toes and that does help consumers. BUT.. what this can also amount to, is harassment of a constitutional right and just trying to make something illegal through the backdoor when it couldn't be outlawed outright.

Just make it too liable for anyone to risk doing.

Conceivably, the fast food industry could be put out of business, not by outright laws but diabetes lawsuits instead.

Oil industry could be curtailed -- not by passing laws, but by generalized climate change lawsuits.

And the right wing does this about abortion -- they don't have the votes to outlaw it, but maybe they can do a lot of things to make it *difficult* for women to exercise that right, and *difficult* and too risky liability wise, for physicians to go into that field.

It's the same kind of tactic / principle.

Same thing is done about guns, from the far left.

There's a line there, where "suing the gun manufacturers" is really just trying to come after the second amendment through a backdoor, when it couldn't be passed by statute otherwise.

Just make it too risky liability wise to even be in that business, etc.

So that's the concern I would have about what Clinton and the far left have been saying. Unless someone can explain to me, otherwise all I've been hearing her say and all they say on MSNBC is "sue the gun manufacturers" -- and they are not saying anything specific about regulations that companies could have a chance to comply with, but "just sue them."

[Sixstrings]

Long story short on the gun stuff -- I don't have guns, I actually don't like them, but it's the principle is the thing. ( ) Legislation and regulation really should be done in the legislature, and not from the bench, to this extent.

If they want less oil drilling, then regulate it the right way -- don't just start "suing the oil companies for climate change."

If they want less guns manufactured, or they don't want guns sold to certain people or certain areas, *then pass a regulation*. A very generalized tort law though, really isn't right. It's kind of like the restaurant example, allowing them to be sued because customers eat too much and get fat -- it's extending liability out TOO FAR, that's the problematic legal principle, in my opinion.

Clinton and MSNBC ought to be specific about specific regulations, but not just saying "we need to sue the gun companies" and they literally don't say anything other than that.

As a voter, I don't even know what they are talking about, it's just Clinton saying "Bernie Sanders won't let us sue the gun companies." And she gives no other detail besides that, and msnbc anchors and panelists don't either.

So I'm just confused, is this something everyone else knows the details on, but I don't?

Well anyhow, moving on, Bernie won Wyoming:

Bernie Sanders Wins Wyoming Democratic Caucuses

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/us/politics/wyoming-colorado-voting-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-ted-cruz-donald-trump.html

P.S. And being objective, last thing on the gun issue, I've actually heard the Sanders campaign start to move TOWARD the Clinton position. And his campaign says things like, "well if a company sells ten thousand rounds to someone or to a certain area and they didn't raise any questions about it and look more into it, then they should be sued."

But see, that's very problematic.

If something is to be regulated, then a business has got to have SPECIFICS. Government has to make a SPECIFIC law, like they do with banking regulation, etc.

This very generalized talk about tort laws and that are so open ended, that business can't even plan for to be in compliance, that's not fair.

[Sixstrings]

Some more on the gun issue debate, between Clinton and Sanders:

BERNIE SANDERS FACES MOUNTING CRITICISM ON GUNS

The former secretary of state especially has highlighted his previous support for the 2005 law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The measure prevents gun-violence victims from taking legal action against firearms distributors whose weapons are used in fatal shootings and other crimes.

On the defensive, the Vermont senator has leaned on his rural ties and goal to help mom-and-pop gun shops from facing legal action. He brags about his weak D-minus rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA), which he argues makes him an enemy to the gun industry. He even has vowed to co-sponsor a bill with congressional Democrats that seeks to void PLCAA, which he voted for when he served in the House.
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-comments-gun-manufacturers-sandy-hook-lawsuit-444688

I think Sanders is making a mistake lately, by backing away from his old 2nd amendment position a bit, and going more toward Clinton. His vote on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was the right one. Now he says, I guess, as president he would go the other way and support repealing it.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

That law sounds right, to me.

I don't understand why it would be right for gun violence victims and their families, *to sue the MANUFACTURERS*.

One could maybe argue about gun shops a bit, but even there -- they need a specific set of regulations that doesn't leave things up to guesswork, at least some framework. A questionaire they should ask, or perhaps they should report if a customer wants to buy ten thousand rounds, and then background checks. Waiting periods. SPECIFIC things like that, black and white, regulations that a store clerk could follow.

So that's one thing. But lawsuits are another thing, it's not specific regulation, using tort law for something like this would be like saying to the oil industry "we want a clean earth but we won't give you regulations, you just gotta figure it out or you'll get big lawsuits, heck maybe you should just go out of business and don't drill at all."

Do you guys see my point on that? Leaving regulation up to lawsuits and the courts isn't really responsible.

How exactly was sandy hook, a *factory*'s fault, in who knows what state. A manufacturer makes the thing, then sells it to a retailer, that then sells it to customers. So how is it the manufacturer's liability, I don't get it.

Democrats, gun violence victims blast Bernie Sanders for siding with gunmakers in comments to the Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-faces-recoil-gun-comments-made-news-article-1.2591035

Suing gun factories doesn't make any more sense than suing GM and Ford and Toyota over *car wrecks in general* -- NOT faulty cars. All that would do, if there were enough lawsuits, would be just fewer cars sold. And with guns, fewer guns sold.

It's just not cool, it's like the ends justify the means, but logically it's unfair and unsound.

Hillary Clinton uses Sandy Hook victims as ‘political props’ to shame Bernie Sanders on gun control

Three women, advertised by Ms Clinton's campaign team and who were affected by gun massacres, have called out Mr Sanders for saying he does not think they should sue the weapons manufacturers
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/hillary-clinton-uses-sandy-hook-victims-as-political-props-to-shame-bernie-sanders-on-gun-control-a6975706.html

I still don't get it, where is the logical connection to sue the gun *factory*? We're not even talking about the retailer.

What am I missing?

[Cog]

Don't try to ascribe logic to the left when it comes to guns. You will sleep better at night and your blood pressure will be considerably lower.


Gun manufactures can already be sued if their gun has a material defect which causes harm to the shooter. This harm can be financial or physical. What is not allowed under current law, it the ability to sue manufactures over the action of a third party.

This is just another attempt by the left to create liability out of thin air in order to make guns so expensive that the common man could never have one to protect himself. The function of a gun is to poke holes in things. As long as the manufacturer creates a gun that does this, in a reliable and safe manner for the shooter, he has fulfilled his obligation.

[Subjectivist]

Bernie won again yesterday. Hillary doesn't seem popular outside of her core east coast/southern strategy.

[ennui2]

Bernie won again yesterday. Hillary doesn't seem popular outside of her core east coast/southern strategy.

But demographics are such that she doesn't need anything more than that. And on the flipside, the GOP's lock on the white/bible-belt vote isn't enough for it to win presidential elections.

Bernie would need to win a state like New York to prove that the tide is turning his way, but current polls put him 18 points off, despite him being from NY and Hillary a carpet-bagger.

[Sixstrings]

Bernie would need to win a state like New York to prove that the tide is turning his way, but current polls put him 18 points off, despite him being from NY and Hillary a carpet-bagger.

The thing is, he'd have to not only keep winning every primary -- *but win by wide margins* to make up the delegate shortfall.

This is because all the D primaries are proportional. Without winner take all, "winning" a state doesn't mean so much. He would need to start winning by +20%, to make up lost ground from Clinton's wide margin wins in the South.

[vtsnowedin]

Yes Bernie won again in Wyoming 55.7 to 44.3 but Hilary split the pledged delegates with him 7 to 7 and kept the 4 super delegates she had already bought off in January so comes out ahead 11 to 7. A very democratic process the democrats have there don't you think.

[Sixstrings]

Yes Bernie won again in Wyoming 55.7 to 44.3 but Hilary split the pledged delegates with him 7 to 7 and kept the 4 super delegates she had already bought off in January so comes out ahead 11 to 7. A very democratic process the democrats have there don't you think.

Agreed, but look at the R side, there's talk they may nominate Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney at the convention. Neither of which appeared on ballots or got any votes.

Here's Paul Ryan's campaign video:

Politics These Days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxH4uIswiA

The Clinton situation was unfair, how weighted everything was in her favor, but yet the R side may wind up being worse -- a nominee that nobody voted for.

[vtsnowedin]

Yes Bernie won again in Wyoming 55.7 to 44.3 but Hilary split the pledged delegates with him 7 to 7 and kept the 4 super delegates she had already bought off in January so comes out ahead 11 to 7. A very democratic process the democrats have there don't you think.

Agreed, but look at the R side, there's talk they may nominate Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney at the convention. Neither of which appeared on ballots or got any votes.

Here's Paul Ryan's campaign video:

Politics These Days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxH4uIswiA

The Clinton situation was unfair, how weighted everything was in her favor, but yet the R side may wind up being worse -- a nominee that nobody voted for.

This is the biggest circus sense Barnum and Baily.
Consider a write in campaign in November using peel and stick stickers. Would you have to have a VP candidate on those stickers? Would Bernie have to like him, or her?
Could you get every registered voter in America a card with the stickers on it by election day?
What would that cost.
Wouldn't the establishment on both side have a spell if the sticker candidates won?

[Sixstrings]

I saw this on CNN, it's spun like Clinton is so far ahead in new york, "leads him by double digits:"

New York poll: Clinton tops Sanders by double-digits
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll-new-york/index.html

But from those earlier polls I looked at a few days or week ago, a 12 point gap is actually a significant gain for Bernie.