May 26, 2016

Sky so full of chairs that it blots out the Nevada sun

Just thought I'd throw this out there: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/national-media-retracts-its-claim_b_10132518.html

Y'all got punk'd.

May 26, 2016

Bernie's debating Trump is consistent with Bernie's promise

From months ago, when Bernie was requesting a full debate schedule from DWS (https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Letter-to-DNC.pdf) he wrote the following:

That is why I believe we should be open to a less traditional form of debating by welcoming the opportunity to debate not only amongst members of the Democratic Party but also having debates between Democratic and Republican candidates during the primary process. I believe that these inter-party debates would put in dramatic focus the shallow and at times ridiculous policies and proposals being advocated by the Republican candidates and by their party’s platform.

He's doing this to embarrass and defeat Trump. After all, Sanders did promise to do everything he could to defeat him. The only embarrassment Clinton suffers is her own fault by reneging on her promised third debate. She could have avoided it by just keeping her word; Sanders can't control that.

May 25, 2016

I was willing to suck it up and vote for Hillary in the GE, but not after this

What the hell is wrong with her?

May 25, 2016

Suing gun makers

To distract from all the petty threads about who's the meanest meanie, how about we discuss guns? Specifically, can anyone describe how letting victims sue gun makers will depress gun violence? On her site, Hillary talks about reigning in straw purchasers, which makes obvious sense. It's this other part that concerns me:

She voted against the dangerous immunity protections Congress provided gun dealers and manufacturers that prevent victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable.

The part about immunity is not completely true. However, the most relevant paragraph from the PF article:

The law at issue is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and seen as a victory for gun rights advocates. The purpose of the law is to protect gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when their products are misused. For example, if a person buys a gun legally and then uses the gun to intentionally kill someone, the gun dealer and manufacturer cannot be held liable for the crime under the law.

...gets at the "immunity" she often describes. No suing of manufacturers.

For Clinton to achieve what she advocates she'd need to pass some new legislation explicitly allowing those suits or just repealing the old law (that would still be iffy though, since it would then be an open question for courts to decide). I don't really see how that would be much of a direct benefit to those victims. It seems like gun makers would simply purchase some form of liability insurance, make the guns marginally more expensive to cover the cost, and go back to business. Then the victim of an attack would have to not only wade through the legal system to get a settlement of some kind, but also go head-to-head with some well-heeled legal teams. It would simply be a minor nuisance for gun makers and a generally non-viable option for gun crime victims.

Obama's still pushing the TPP. That has some provisions in it that make suing foreign manufacturers far more difficult. How would things play out with a victim attempting to sue a foreign gun manufacturer? Could a foreign victim sue one of our manufacturers?

It's not that I disagree on the basic concept of addressing gun violence; I just think suing gun makers won't get it done. If we go through all the fight to pass such a law, then even if it's totally ineffective, it'll give some cover to anyone opposing an improved law later: "We already fixed that, now you're just piling on." So the old adage, "something is better than nothing" isn't necessarily true.

May 24, 2016

If Bernie had dropped weeks ago he could not have gotten the influence he now has over the DNC.

Looks like those donations people sent in despite Clinton's "inevitability" weren't in vain. Realizing that should make Clinton's latest snub of Bernie and California voters feel even more foot-shooty.

May 22, 2016

Sanders has been hit by negative ads

PF: Hillary Clinton wrong that no negative ads have hit Bernie Sanders

Enjoy your shoes.

May 22, 2016

The condescension shall continue until unity improves

http://nvdems.com/press/math-is-hard-for-sanders-campaign/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280785-reid-nevada-convention-was-fair

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/nv-sanders-uproar-unacceptable-dnc-chair-687659587714

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/nv-dem-chair-speaks-out-about-threats-violence-687561795738

All that lying and insulting is going to make kumbaya a whole lot harder. Meanwhile, the republicans are rapidly getting their shit together.

May 20, 2016

Hillary reneges on California debate

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/19/hillary-clinton-ducking-final-debate-with-bernie-s/

Rationalize it how ever you want, a promise is a promise and she broke hers. People already accuse her of not sticking to her word. This isn't going to help that at all.

Edit to add:

May 20, 2016

Sore loser BernieBros resort to yelling after losing a vote--not even real democrats!

What violence!

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/nation-world/national/article78608032.html

May 20, 2016

The Nevada kerfuffle wasn't actually violent

According to the NPR Ombudsman Elizabeth Jensen:

Donovan and I disagree on this; "violence," which NPR more often uses to describe events in war zones, seems too strong a term to me based on the evidence I have seen so far.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/05/18/478579787/fact-checking-nprs-reports-on-vegas-violence