to able change that, no matter how much money they spend on Rovian talking points. They are going to shocked in the not too distant future when they see how many minority leaders are supporting Bernie who truly understands what 'rights' mean.

I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for those who are struggling so hard to try to negate the TRUTH something you just can't do, and then watching Bernie soar despite their best efforts.

Go Bernie, just keep climbing and leave the wolves to their own devices.

Big media can turn HRC into a liberal, so they can certainly turn Sanders into a racist. The DU Hillarians are grasping at straws, but they have the media juggernaut helping them.

the lies and distortions vehemently because those billions of $$ will be used to silence anyone who challenges the status quo.

I believe he knows that and despite knowing he personally would be attacked, he's watched it for decades with other good candidates, he courageously choose to step forward.

The BEST WAY to fight what we are already seeing, is NOT to address it but every time there is a new negative talking point, and you know them when they won't let them go even after being proven wrong, is to SPREAD THE TRUTH.

We have many tools now we did not have when the Corporate Media destroyed other candidates.

Social Media is POWERFUL in spreading facts AND for exposing lies. But when people engage those who continue to spread distortions, they are helping to spread them.

Hard to beat that record.

please tell us exactly what was in the 1994 crime bill and why you think Sanders may have, like all other Democrats, chosen to vote for it even though he spoke against mass incarceration?

I will give you just a few to get you stated -- Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Violence Against Women Act, and COPS.

He executed Ricky Ray Rector, the retarded murderer, but it was more than that. I remember the ads the Repukes ran in 94 about how soft Clinton was on crime - criminals in tutus and so forth. Rather than take a hard look at the real problems, he took the bait an escalated the war on (some) drugs, was on board with mandatory minimums, etc. I don't understand why our candidates and politicians try to act like and/or appease republicans. It doesn't work. All it does is make liberals feel like there's no one representing them.

There are SOME people in goernment who have honest, consistent liberal and populist principles. One of them is running for president thank god.

Like, three times as high in some categories, twice as high in others. Politicians were responding to what people were concerned about. Vermont wasn't then and isn't now high crime, so Sanders was responding to his constituents' concerns too (though he did end up voting for the bill).

He hasn't changed at all in 24 years. No bloat, no expensive plastic work, no forced diet. That's a sign he's healthy and confident in who he is. He sounds as strong and sane and compassionate as he did in 1991 when he was one of the few speaking out against the Clinton pro-imprisonment Bill. Bernie is a mensch.

I'm increasingly confident he can become President. I already know that Hillary shouldn't - and that has nothing to do with looks.

guess my dad who had a heart attack in his 40's and died a few years ago of heart failure must have been a real sucky guy in your opinion. I would alert but hell it won't be removed, nothing here ever is. And the thing is if your guy won you would expect me to join hands with you and sing kumbaya. Well screw that.

P.S. - So did mine.

• which position on a given issue -- of two or more previously-stated, contradictory positions -- is the one to which he is actually committed, because, for the most part, his past positions are essentially the same positions he articulates today;
  
  
• whether some newly-embraced populism is the real thing or not, because he's always been a populist;
  
  
• how his hopeful sounding, but ultimately vague, rhetoric will translate into policy commitments, because he doesn't typically speak in vague generalities;
  
  
• whether i need to meticulously deconstruct and parse any and every statement he makes in order to find some hidden avenue for later equivocation, because he doesn't equivocate.

Funny how a First Lady is more responsible for a bill than a congressman who voted for it. Does that mean the Iraq War is Laura Bush's fault rather than Hillary's?

and comments about Sanders having voted for it were not taken well.

Interestingly, that bill included the Assault Weapons Ban; I'm not sure where that fits in to the "Bernie and guns" narrative...

It's far too long ago for me to remember the details. Plus, I was in Brazil at the time, but it is ironic they use that bill against Clinton while completely ignoring Sanders votes. Actually it's par for the course.

I'll not rehash it but the answer is in the replies.

I was supposed to divine that several days later someone would actually respond--er, make excuses--several days later, so you could then come along and tell me I hadn't read the thread. When in fact there was no such response when I posted and in fact you all made a point of ignoring the information. Now the answer is, there was other stuff in the bill. Clearly it wasn't a priority for him. But go ahead and pretend it's all the First Lady's fault and that the congressman who voted for that bill had absolutely nothing to do with the changes that ensued.

If that's the best you can come up with, that's just plain sad. It's not that hard to look at post dates. Besides, you all made a point of ignoring my repeated comments on that vote for several days. I guess it took that long to come up with an explanation--er, excuse.

Meanwhile, back in the real America of the 1990s:

I remember when Bill Clinton was mocked for being from a poor crappy little state...his opponents tried to blame him for the poor schools and the state's high rates of poverty.

Sanders has spent decades doing great work lashing out. Take a look at O'Malley. He is where the rubber meets the road and it morphs from brilliant lashing out to actual action. Granted, when one is willing to stick their neck out, work with others to actually accomplish progressive goals, the outcome is often not as pretty as Sanders words. It does show O'Malley has the courage to take the next step. Something that is almost completely void in Sanders career. I can see why people really like it though. The lashings I keep hearing he has been delivering for fifty years sound really good.

If the fricking Congress and executive branch had actually passed much of the legislation and solutions Sanders has either introduced or supported -- and avoided the stupid moves he has warned against -- we'd all be a lot better off.

The problem was not Sanders own effectiveness. The problem is that Washington is a Sewer. That includes too many Democrats who have been locked into the pockets of the Corporate/Wall St. Oligarchy, and/or were too damn timid to actually support such things.

It's hard to turnaround a Congress that's filled with creeps who are stuffing wads of cash from Big Time Oligarchs into their pockets, or who do not want to offend their Future Employers as they prepare for their careers as lobbyists.

Bernie has done the best he could to play the game, and has been as effective as one can be in that sewer. For example, he fought the Obama Gift to Big Insurance Healthcare Plan, and tried to push for Universal Coverage. But when push came to shove, he voted for Obamacare because it was better than nothing -- But also in the process got the bill to at least include support for community clinics to address the people who were left out completely otherwise.

That law created 60 new death penalty offenses under 41 Federal capital statutes.

It made prisoners ineligible for Pell Grants for postsecondary education while incarcerated.

The Act authorized the initiation of "boot camps" for delinquent minors and allocated a substantial amount of money to build new prisons.

It also made drug testing mandatory for those serving on federal supervised release.

Mr. Sanders voted for it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml

when you just mention those aspects of the omnibus bill.

But let's also consider several other provisions --

1) Driver's Privacy Protection Act
2) Community Oriented Policing Services
3) Violence Against Women Act
4) Federal Assault Weapons Ban

In other words, with a large omnibus piece of legislation there are good components and bad components.

Do you do the pragmatic and rational thing and vote for it so that the good components are brought about? Or do you instead vote against it so that the bad components are stopped?

Sanders voted for it for the good components AND then continued to speak out about the bad.

It took Bill Clinton 20 years to admit the bad components were really fucking bad. And Hillary Clinton, who was as supportive of all of it as her husband was, has never admitted that the bad components were really fucking bad.

I will give you a C- for effort.

The same people who criticize Sanders when he compromises to get something out of bad bills, also complain that he only complains.

It's called Catch 22.

this same poster would be posting the list I made. He would thin spin it to suggest that Sanders is a misogynistic gun humper.

I have gotten to the point where I correct the obvious lies, distortions, and smears and then move on.

It's was all the First Lady's fault even though Sanders voted for the bill.

I don't know if there was a 91 crime bill, but he voted for one in 94. Amusingly enough, he also voted 'yes' on a 'Minimum sentences for gun crimes' bill in 98, which kind of goes against the meme that he's 'soft on guns'.

Bernie crime related voting: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/20/crime

(Edit: also see post 28 - the 94 bill was an omnibus that also included things like the 'Violence Against Women Act'.

That makes alot of sense. It would be VERY had for me to vote against something that included a violence against women act. I reallydon't think he's soft on guns, but I do live in a place that requires you to have at least a hunting rifle if you live outside of the city. So many brown bears and moose and wolves up here. So much wild life.

that we should ban guns not used for hunting, only killing humans. Which, to my mind, would mean handguns more than 'assault rifles'. I know there are people who hunt with AKs or ARs, but I've never seen a pistol hunter.

Like, control the sales and transfers in a realistic way. Like once you purchase one it's in they system under yr name until you legally transfer it to an authorized buyer. And I don't think just ANYBODY should ave access just becaus they're 21 and legal. Maybe a wa to approve buyers that coincides with training and I would LOVE it if ammo for weapons or the weapons themselves like that were stored in an armory where enthusiasts/owners could keep them safe. Like, maybe if the guns or ammo were in a place where alot of peope interact, there would be fewer of those isolated types who go bananas, since other gun owners could notice signs of something wrong. I don't know. Maybe not that but something. Seems like there were fewer mass killers when folks used swords. Guess that would take a bit of effort to murder 20 folks with a sword or crossbows and shit. Need to go back to swords.

I'd be more worried about the longbow men, though. They could really fuck up your day and you wouldn't see it coming. Then there's this guy: