His message speaks of an unfair system focusing on the elite and powerful.
Let’s be honest and acknowledge what we are talking about. We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected. That is not what this country is supposed to be about. That was not Abraham Lincoln’s vision of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Albeit, somewhat shocking Facebook message, it appears as if Bernie Sanders has in some part, un-endorsed Hillary Clinton.
I like honesty. Kudos, to Bernie!
The Republican controlled U.S. Senate FINALLY did something IMPORTANT and stood up to Obama’s attempts to overthrow the U.S. Constitution with a vote tally: 53 against / 46 for.
All but two that voted for this bill are Democrats.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
TPP, TTiP, WTO... will further cripple America's ability to compete, add to job loss, add to immigrants coming into America and taking jobs that Americans already fill (H1-B, H2-B visas, corporations holding superior rights to state and nation).
This isn't really about Trump or Hillary so much as it is about Globalism and NWO vs Nationalism and Liberty and Freedom.
That's great, because the proliferation of millions of firearms has really worked out well for the world hasn't it .
Yes it is. Partly because at least some people are willing to look and think, quickly figuring out that the proliferation of millions of firearms hasn't done a thing, positive OR negative to the US. Except, of course, given millions the ability to provide for their families and thousands more the ability to provide the protection they needed.
If I had my way, I would totally ban the manufacture and sale of firearms everywhere on the planet. Alas that's not a realistic prospect for all sorts of reasons. But that doesn't mean I have to like firearms, or think their proliferation is a good thing. I don't, and I don't.
Remember Bernie said that Hillary has poor judgement?
One of Hillary’s top aides and advisor, Neera Tanden, doesn't even think Hillary's is qualified to be president evidently. In a Wikileaks hacked email she wrote that "Her (Hillary's) instincts are suboptimal".
Suboptimal ... of less than the highest standard or quality.
Have you ever had your home broken into?
Have you ever been in a store or bank that was robbed?
Do you have children that depend on you for support and protection?
Shh! Everyone knows that a gun never has and never will provide any form of protection. That is strictly the task of the police, and because of that task we also know they will always arrive before their help is needed. We can even verify this by asking those killed at the Miami nightclub recently.
Have you ever seen someone with no gun and no bullets shoot anyone?
Criminals don't follow the law, the Drug Cartels don't follow the law.
Unlike Britain we are not an island, we have a VERY long border with Mexico, bringing weapons into the country illegally is as easy for them as bringing in the billions worth of drugs every year.
Crime would shoot through the roof, if people who were inclined to commit violent crimes KNEW that no one had weapons in their homes to stop them. It is the very threat of a gun that often deters violent criminals during a home invasion, and those that aren't deterred can be fended off with a gun, not with a call to 911.
Not that our government or the politicians so detached from us would care about that, so long as THEY were safe not just from criminals, but their own citizens, they could care less what the costs to average Americans were.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson
No one said it would be easy.
Finding the cure to cancer isn't easy. Ending poverty isn't easy. Eradicating famine isn't easy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to do all those things. In fact we should do more than aspire, we should actively pursue those goals. Stopping the global proliferation of firearms isn't easy either, but when did "it's difficult" become a valid excuse for not to try to do something?
Generally, I find gun control to be a non-starter.
That said, nobody is discussing taking people's guns away. That's not going to happen. Nobody wants it to happen. It's unconstitutional.
That said, almost all sane people, gun owners included, want certain forms of gun control. We could just start by making sure insane people, criminals, and people on the terrorist watch list, don't have easy access.
I mean, there's got to be somewhere we can start that conversation given the widespread support for it.
No, I have never seen "someone with no gun and no bullets shoot anyone", but I have seen someone with no gun and no bullets get shot, but that is beside the point. The minute US citizens are stripped of their weapons is the minute US citizens will be under attack by those who have weapons and don't give a rats behind for US law.
That's great news that the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty didn't pass the Senate.
"TPP, TTiP, WTO... will further cripple America's ability to compete, add to job loss, add to immigrants coming into America and taking jobs that Americans already fill (H1-B, H2-B visas, corporations holding superior rights to state and nation)."
We don't want any of that either. At least I do not.
"This isn't really about Trump or Hillary so much as it is about Globalism and NWO vs Nationalism and Liberty and Freedom."
Americanism not Globalism is Our Credo!
Pure hogwash. The treaty has absolutely nothing to do with the legal sale of arms within the United States. The Obama Administration specifically mandated the following with respect to the treaty:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
Perhaps you believe that, or even read it somewhere, but that statement in essence is an outright lie.
Just as we were sold a lie about Obamacare, and how it would save families on average of $2,500, and make Insurance more affordable.
Insurance costs more than ever, has higher deductibles than ever, and by no means can you still go to the same doctor you always had.
Right! It's the first time in my 64 years that I can no longer afford medical insurance. I have to pay for everything out of pocket which is expensive, but still less than Obamacare.
The treaty has no impact, whatsoever, on national sovereignty. You are just making stuff up.
Prediction , National security , gun rights , border protections , the exposure of corruption in the Clinton camp ,The protection of the constitution , corruption in congress , senate and the media = all of these are going to be the reason that Trump wins this election . The American people are tired of fraud ! Especially media fraud !
"Look, I ran against Hillary for over a year, so I understand where she is coming from. For me, this is not a tough choice. I am a United States senator, and I know what would happen to our government if Donald Trump became president. I think Donald Trump is the worst candidate for a major party that has surfaced in my lifetime. This guy would be a disaster for this country and an embarrassment to us internationally. A man who is a pathological liar. Somebody who, to the degree that he deals with issues at all, changes his position every day. That is clearly not the kind of mentality we need from somebody who is running for the highest office in the land.
What is particularly outrageous and disturbing is that the cornerstone of his campaign is based on bigotry—trying to turn people against Mexican-Americans or against Muslims or against women. To my mind, it’s very clear that Donald Trump would be an incredible disaster to this country, and I will do everything I can to see that he is defeated...
On a number of issues, I believe Hillary Clinton’s positions are quite strong. I was happy to negotiate an agreement with her in the party’s platform which said that she would support making public colleges and universities tuition-free for families making $125,000 or less. That is pretty revolutionary. That will not only transform the ability of people to go to college, it will have an impact on kids in elementary school today who know that if they study hard, they can get a college education. She and I also agreed to a doubling of the expansion of community health centers. That’s tens of millions more people who will have access to primary health care and dental care and low-cost prescription drugs and mental health counseling. I want to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and I think Clinton is open to moving in that direction, to at least $12 an hour. She supports infrastructure projects that will put millions of people back to work. She understands the significance of not acting on climate change, while Donald Trump does not believe that climate change is real, which is a real threat to the planet. So what I would ask people is to take a hard look at (a) what a Donald Trump presidency would mean for this country, which in my view would be a disaster, and (b) how Clinton’s views on a number of issues are fairly good.
I think that Hillary Clinton is sincere in a number of areas. In other areas I think she is gonna have to be pushed, and that’s fine. That’s called the democratic process.
https://newrepublic.com/article/137103/ … ooks-ahead
Bernie Looks Ahead
Oct 17, 2016
Yeah, I don't think so.
And we know how false all of that is.
We know Bernie now has a couple nice new houses, a new ride, and probably a sweet offshores bank account.
We also know Hillary has her public positions on matters of import, and private positions that are often the exact opposite of what she states in public.
We know Hillary is the poster child for Washington corruption, and we know she is a continuation of ALL that has wronged the American worker for the last quarter century, as well as our rights and liberties.
We have had 28 years of continued control, where either the Bush family or the Clinton family has been in control in Washington with the Obama family bridging the gap. It will be 32 years or 36 years if Clinton wins.
For people who are frustrated with Washington, with lower wages, less benefits, less opportunity, etc. I would think America would want to put an end to the cycle of continually putting the same corrupt politicians back into office over and over again.
This is the one chance, no matter how repugnant he may seem, to completely shake up the system of corruption in Washington, while at the same time, saving the BALANCE of the Supreme Court, and keeping it from becoming an extremist extension of radical views not shared by the majority of Americans.
I do agree with most of what you stated, but I just don't think a man like Trump is our answer to ending the cycle of corruption. I think he will just add a whole new layer.
In all my years, this is the worst election, as far as candidates go, that I have ever seen. I don't want to vote for either of them, but don't think Bernie could take the popular vote either if we all wrote him in, and then there is the electoral college. Christ, what a fiasco!
"Christ , what a fiasco ".............all of it created , vetted , ventured and completely volunteered by your apathy , like many, many rhetorical complainers . Welcome to the welcoming springs of revolution .
Well you only have two choices... Trump or Hillary.
If you don't like the things that Hillary will bring... an extremist Supreme Court, a hard course towards globalism, 'no go' zones for millions of Syrian and Middle East refugees she wants to bring in, etc. etc. you don't have much other choice.
Agreed, actually! However, Trump is not the answer.
So, you'd rather support a crook, a swindler and a thief.
I'd rather support somebody who doesn't claim that voting is rigged and that China creating the global warming hoax. In other words, either somebody who is trying to actively undermine both science and the democratic process or just a moron.
Not only did Hillary pay for Violent Rioters at the Chicago Trump Rally, they were also instructed to act as if they were for Bernie Sanders.
* http://truthfeed.com/video-hillary-paid … rts/30305/
My apology. I admit, I got trolled on this one and thought it was Bernie supporters, but I was skeptical at the same time. To take the “heat” and focus off of Hillary, she had many of these people wear “Bernie” shirts, hold signs, and asked them to chant, “BERNIE!”
Project Veritas Action: undercover DNC Rigging the Election
* http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1384 … -election-
You just continue to post made-up stuff. The thing about Hillary defending a rapist. She defended an accused rapist because she was appointed by the court to do so. If you don't support the concept of everyone having an adequate defense, then you are un-American.
by Grace Marguerite Williams12 months ago
According to yesterday's Election 2016 poll results, Hillary Clinton won the California Democratic primary. However, Bernie Sanders refuse to concede to Hillary Clinton. It is obvious that...
by Grace Marguerite Williams13 months ago
Bernie Sanders is still running & aiming to be our next President. What chances will he have against Hillary Clinton?
by Susie Lehto5 days ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ )...
by Susie Lehto14 months ago
The Sanders’ campaign reportedly submitted the registration fees of $2,500 earlier this month well before the June 14 Democratic primary.But D.C. Democrats did not email the candidates' registration information to the...
by Steven Escareno7 months ago
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think he never would've stood a chance against Bernie. No offense to Trump, but if he's not insulting someone on stage during a debate, then he's practically useless...
by ahorseback13 days ago
The usual waving of the arms , heavily accented rant about how disillusioned he is about the disaster of the DNC , it's leadership , it's mission statement , it's war on "wall street " ...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.