Democratic Debate

Started by Time-Immemorial7 pages

Clinton claimed that Sanders “voted to let guns go onto the Amtrak,” and that “he voted for immunity [for] gun makers and sellers.” She added, “There is no other industry in America that was given the total pass that the gun makers and dealers were.”

Sanders did vote to allow guns on Amtrak trains, but in checked baggage only. And separate legislation he voted for didn’t give a “total pass” to gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits.

On Sept. 16, 2009, Sanders voted in favor of an amendment to a transportation appropriations bill that restored the right of Amtrak passengers to transport guns in checked baggage. Doing so had been prohibited since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

The amendment allowed passengers traveling to and from Amtrak stations with checked baggage service to place an unloaded firearm in a checked bag if the passenger provided advance notice that he or she would be traveling with a firearm and if that firearm was stored in a locked, hard-sided container to which only the passenger had the key or combination. The amendment also said passengers would be allowed to place ammunition for a small firearm inside the checked bag if the ammunition was stored securely in a box made of fiber, wood or metal, or other packaging used to transport small amounts of ammunition.

But Amtrak does not allow travelers to have firearms or ammunition physically on them while traveling or in their carry-on baggage. Amtrak also says that only its employees have access to the area of the train where checked bags are stored (see page 4 of a 2010 document explaining the Amtrak Checked Firearms Program).

Sanders also voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which provided some protections for licensed manufacturers, dealers, sellers of firearms or ammunition, and trade associations from civil lawsuits resulting from the misuse of firearms or ammunition. But gun makers and dealers did not receive a “total pass,” as Clinton claimed.

As the Congressional Research Service pointed out in a 2012 report, the legislation included six exceptions where civil suits could still be brought, including cases in which a firearm seller acted with negligence, cases involving the transfer of a firearm with the knowledge that it would be used to commit a crime, and cases in which manufacturers and sellers marketed or sold a firearm in violation of state or federal law.

We should note that Sanders now says that he would support legislation that has been proposed that would take away the protections for licensed firearm manufacturers and dealers that were included in the 2005 bill he supported.

She lied about everything😂

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I understand why on principle a lot of people oppose that kind of system. What I don't understand is the level of passion from people who aren't and never will be rich in defending the rights of rich people to keep their money and get richer. Like, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Well, couple of things:

1. I think we should do away with income taxes. No more income taxes.

2. Excise taxes such as the Texas tax system. It would very much disproportionately hit rich people who spend much more money (even they they also save and invest much more money).

If a rich person needs to purchase a shit ton of stocks, then they can pay taxes on the purchase. If they need 1,000,000 tons of steel, then they can pay taxes. If you need a soda, pay a tax on it. This tax system would not hit the poor as hard as the rich. And it would be harder for the rich to get away with tax havens and loopholes.

DDM what do you think about Hilary just lying about everything?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, couple of things:

1. I think we should do away with income taxes. No more income taxes.

2. Excise taxes such as the Texas tax system. It would very much disproportionately hit rich people who spend much more money (even they they also save and invest much more money).

If a rich person needs to purchase a shit ton of stocks, then they can pay taxes on the purchase. If they need 1,000,000 tons of steel, then they can pay taxes. If you need a soda, pay a tax on it. This tax system would not hit the poor as hard as the rich. And it would be harder for the rich to get away with tax havens and loopholes.

Do you have some calculations how that would work out on the national level? Estimates how high it would have to be to achieve the same level, etc.?

Good job ducking out on the second link and ignoring all her lies.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Children are society's responsibility, and there are parents who are unfit to provide sufficient education or care to their children. That is not just unfair to the children, it also leads to greater problems for society down the line. It is beneficial to have well adjusted, well educated adults, and the upbringing of children is the main contributing factor of that.

Now, that means that everyone should contribute, via taxes, to ensure that all children have access to education, have enough food, and are taken care of. Rich people, who are blessed with most of the money and assets of a society should contribute their fair share to that tax pool (whether that is a progressive tax, that taxes the rich more for being able to partake more in a communities common goods, or a flat tax may be debatable, but currently, the very wealthiest do not pay their fair share due to exceptions and loop holes that their direct lobbying has created).

I assume that is basically Hillary's stance. Support children and tax the rich fairly.

So its the rich people job to pay for peoples problem with over population, and its everyone elses to pay for their abortions.

Do you know how stupid that sounds. Its like she has no brain at all.

I hope sanders leaves her in the dust where she belongs, ignorant retard she is.

You know there weren't two links when I posted.

At any rate, the two things that you quoted just can't be qualified as "total lies".

One is an exaggeration which is based on an actual difference between her and Sanders.

The other is a claim based on a prediction that turned out to be false that has however still been quoted in relatively recent publications, which could very well be just a mistake (and was very much qualified by her anyways). At any rate the underlying problem, that African American's are incarcerated at a shocking rate, much larger than White Americans, is true, so even if it was exaggerated, it's not really a bold faced lie.

You didn't even read it..

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So its the rich people job to pay for peoples problem with over population, and its everyone elses to pay for their abortions.

Do you know how stupid that sounds. Its like she has no brain at all.

I hope sanders leaves her in the dust where she belongs, ignorant retard she is.

It's everyone's jobs to pay taxes, if they are able, to contribute to the common good, yes.

When you say it's everyone elses job to pay for "their" abortions, what exactly are you referring to? It doesn't seem to be anything that Clinton said in what we are discussing.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You didn't even read it..

I did actually read it. It is very telling that you are not replying to my posts with anything of substance.

Im saying she wants the rich to pay for everyones child care, on top of it, we already have to pay for peoples abortions.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im saying she wants the rich to pay for everyones child care, on top of it, we already have to pay for peoples abortions.

Most abortions for low-income women are not supported by the government. Although, I of course think that abortion should be a fully funded health care option.

And everyone should pay to support children where it is needed. It's not the children's fault that they were born into poverty, or that their parents aren't very capable parents. Do you not believe in equality of opportunity? Why should poor children be completely screwed over compared to a billionaire's children?

Then why does planned parent hood get $500 million a year from us?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Then why does planned parent hood get $500 million a year from us?

Because Planned Parenthood provides many non-abortion health care services to Americans.

What do they provide besides contraceptives? It was already proven they do no provide mammograms.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What do they provide besides contraceptives? It was already proven they do no provide mammograms.

Breast exams, pap tests, STD test, educational programs and family planning.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So its the rich people job to pay for peoples problem with over population, and its everyone elses to pay for their abortions.

No, you should totally agree with this policy.

Then we should also create policy that prevents said families from having more children........or heck even put a limit on the front end as well.

The liberal utopia, use govt force (steal) so that whatever "poorer" families can't afford they are given anyway.........in the meantime cell phones are everywhere, large screen tv's are a must, internet highspeed is required............

Originally posted by Bardock42
Breast exams, pap tests, STD test, educational programs and family planning.

Im sure that costs $500 million a year😂

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im sure that costs $500 million a year😂

Yes.

I think you don't quite understand, or care to understand, the extend of Planned Parenthood's services, they do 400,000 Pap tests, 500,000 breast exams, 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, and they reach 1.5 million people with educational programs.

So if each of these tests and each person to teach only costs 70 dollars (and you and I know that tests and treatment by doctors is way, way, way more expensive), that would already reach the $500 million.