GatewayRedbirds.com

Myles wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:Republicans were “giddy” about suppressing turnout with voter ID law, recalls former staffer - See more at: http://isthmus.com/opinion/madland/republicans-were-giddy-about-suppressing-voters/#sthash.UoL1w9YW.dpuf

You wanna know why I left the Republican Party as it exists today?

I was in the closed Senate Republican Caucus when the final round of multiple voter ID bills was being discussed. A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters.

Think about that for a minute.

To be fair, you would probably have just as many Democrats all "giddy" about not needing ID's.

I will take you flat earth society bait-It is a republican in that piece belching about this lame GOP tactic ...

Schlich wrote:

thrill wrote:I'm with her! Because she's gonna be tough on Wall Street. Er, what?
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/06/hil ... ll-street/

Say what you will of this and similar stories, but Jilani's investigative journalism through this cycle has been crazy thorough.

Like:
Hillary is v tough on the gun lobby! I know that's true because of her tweets. It's not true? Oh.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra ... undraiser/

Her actual voting record for gun control is very strong.

Michael wrote:Her actual voting record for gun control is very strong.

That's not the point. It's her horrible campaign rhetoric.

Like this absolute trash. Can't play this card and have a party with the gun lobby.

Earlier today she said Bernie criticizes her, her husband and Obama but he doesn't criticize George Bush. What the holy hell is she getting at? Unconditional suppport of her or you're a secret neo-con? Queen of the insidious straw man.

You know, Bernie doesn't talk about Benghazi because he doesn't think she did anything wrong. But Hillary? She'll make any nonsense grasp at any nonsense straw to attack him for nothing. It's gross. She's got more exposed soft spots than any candidate I can remember and he doesn't touch them. He's got none so she makes it up.

thrill wrote:

Michael wrote:Her actual voting record for gun control is very strong.

That's not the point. It's her horrible campaign rhetoric.

Like this absolute trash. Can't play this card and have a party with the gun lobby.

Earlier today she said Bernie criticizes her, her husband and Obama but he doesn't criticize George Bush. What the holy hell is she getting at? Unconditional suppport of her or you're a secret neo-con? Queen of the insidious straw man.

You know, Bernie doesn't talk about Benghazi because he doesn't think she did anything wrong. But Hillary? She'll make any nonsense grasp at any nonsense straw to attack him for nothing. It's gross. She's got more exposed soft spots than any candidate I can remember and he doesn't touch them. He's got none so she makes it up.

He does, but only because he's a smearing misogynist.

It's pretty amusing to read that Sandy Hook thing and recall the Hillary tweet my coworker asked me to see that said something like 'retweet if you want Bernie to stop the smears.'

She's super, super full of [expletive].

Someday we're going to look back on a campaign like this for the super, super bull [expletive] it is.

thrill wrote:snip

She's referencing this question:

Sanders was asked by the Daily News whether family members of the Sandy Hook victims should be allowed to sue gun manufacturers, and he responded, "No, I don't."
"But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of the wrong people," Sanders added.

That said, it's a lame connection and she shouldn't go there. It was also lame Sanders said Clinton should apologize to the victims of the Iraq War. I hope the democratic side stays above this type of stuff.

Also, it was a former gun lobbyist and not a party with the gun lobby.

Schlich wrote:

thrill wrote:I'm with her! Because she's gonna be tough on Wall Street. Er, what?
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/06/hil ... ll-street/

Say what you will of this and similar stories, but Jilani's investigative journalism through this cycle has been crazy thorough.

I don't care the article was posted, but I find it a bit ironic you trashed an opinion from a piece national paper I posted on here because it was too biased from the right, but articles from Jilani who's twitter is basically filled with pro bernie/anti clinton postings passes the purity test. The NRA article had to be updated because he incorrectly attributed a lobbyist for still working for the gun lobby. Not exactly crazy through.

Michael wrote:

thrill wrote:snip

She's referencing this question:

Sanders was asked by the Daily News whether family members of the Sandy Hook victims should be allowed to sue gun manufacturers, and he responded, "No, I don't."
"But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of the wrong people," Sanders added.

That said, it's a lame connection and she shouldn't go there. It was also lame Sanders said Clinton should apologize to the victims of the Iraq War. I hope the democratic side stays above this type of stuff.

Also, it was a former gun lobbyist and not a party with the gun lobby.

Just for a second assume Hillary had Benghazi and the emails to work with from Bernie. I think she'd be beyond happy to talk about the 'damn emails.' And somehow questioning Hillary's WS ties (you know the millions she has personally and the well beaten path from Clinton Inc. to some hedge fund or another) is smearing?

She's in this game, not above it. She is a poster child for the game: sensational, always a victim, you're talking points become mine, it's only ok when I do it, champion of the issues as electability prudence dictates.

MrSaigon wrote: Just for a second assume Hillary had Benghazi and the emails to work with from Bernie. I think she'd be beyond happy to talk about the 'damn emails.' And somehow questioning Hillary's WS ties (you know the millions she has personally and the well beaten path from Clinton Inc. to some hedge fund or another) is smearing?

She's in this game, not above it. She is a poster child for the game: sensational, always a victim, you're talking points become mine, it's only ok when I do it, champion of the issues as electability prudence dictates.

I'm not sure she's the "poster child", but I don't really disagree with anything you said. Clinton plays by a traditional political playbook.


edit - I don't think Sanders is completely pure on these things either.