Political Processes - Can we talk?

[BarbStAubrey]

Interesting...

The Glass Ceiling We Must Shatter in 2016
by March Elizabeth Twisdale

It would be nearly impossible to live in America today and not know that there is a woman running for the position of President. Indeed, with a campaign hashtag that focuses your attention entirely upon her gender (#ImWithHER), how could you miss it?

Let me be clear that I am a feminist, and a product of feminism. I was born in 1972. My mother and father have long fought against the institutionalized form and gross depredation of sexism. My mother lost several jobs as a direct result of refusing sexual advances of her male managers. Her access to a bank account and college loans was predicated upon her having a parent or husband co-signer. She and my father knew, through personal experience, the harm of sexism.

So when they became parents of a baby girl, they named me March. My name is intentionally androgynous—the result of my parents’ feminist leanings and their hopes that I would be hired for who I was, not my gender. In the 1970s, it was normal for a person sorting applications to toss female applications into the “secretary pile” while male applications would be placed into the “managing position” pile. My parents figured that if no one knew whether I was a man or a woman (when they saw my name on an application) that I would be more likely to live a life based upon who I was, how I thought and what I did. A person-based life, not a gender-based life.

When we vote for a candidate, we are—in effect—hiring that person for a job. Given that, I find it offensive to see Hillary Clinton using her gender to solicit votes. It feels like a personal insult to see Hillary Clinton use her gender to further her election potential.

True feminism means you seek to eliminate the role of gender, not capitalize on it. Far from being a vote for feminism, a vote for Hillary is a vote for a President willing to promote sexism for personal gain.

I am not alone in holding a view that reflects the achievements of the feminist movement. Across the board, young feminists (male or female) are not drawn to Hillary’s gender as a reason to vote for her. This is because the feminist movement has, to a very large degree, been a monumental success. All over our country, glass ceilings have exploded into dust. In fact, in most universities women outnumber men, sometimes nearly two to one. [3] Between 1998 and 2014, the number of women in charge of Fortune 500 companies (CEOs) went from one to 24. [4] Business ownership by women has expanded dramatically since 1997, partly as a result of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the Women’s Equity in Contracting Act. [5]

What do these persistent and growing changes prove? That women can do anything as well as a man can…and vice versa.

That is, after all, the whole point of feminism, isn’t it? To equalize the sexes? Even the playing field, institute official standards that prevent a slide back into sexism (of any sort), and ensure that every person is free to excel based on who they are and what they do—not the body parts they were born with.

As such, a campaign that focuses on one’s gender is nothing more than a slide back into the very sexism that feminists have long fought and suffered to overcome. Yes, Hillary Clinton has busted through a political glass ceiling of sorts, but she did it by showing us that a woman is just as capable as a man at being power-hungry, lacking in scruples, opportunistic, misleading, and otherwise machiavellian. Do we really need more proof that a female politician can be just as bad as a male one? While not often acknowledged, history abounds with evidence that women, just like men, can be bought.

However, there is another glass ceiling that matters greatly in 2016. It is a thick slab of muddy glass, obscuring our view of the puppeteers who manipulate our fair nation for their personal gain. I’m talking about the global glass ceiling of economic privilege.

Since the earliest beginnings of our nation, the wealthy (or the puppets of the wealthy) have held a near monopoly on the American government. Rarely before Bernie Sanders have we seen a man or woman with such a humble beginning, middle and end succeeding in government. Bernie Sanders’ lifetime of political service has aligned consistently with the needs of the common men and women of America, of which he is one.

Every temptation, every moneyed threat, every opportunistic bribe extended to him has been denied. In doing so, he has triumphed time and again. When the integrity of our government hangs by a thread, Bernie Sanders is continuing to prove that our system actually can work!

In a very real way, Bernie Sanders’ campaign represents the culmination of centuries worth of philosophical thinking and the highly-esteemed concept of a society based upon self-governance. America is on the brink of readiness to enact the fullest purpose of its constitution: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In a world awash in governments by the elite and for the few, we stand poised to throw out the facade in favor of honest progressiveness and egalitarianism. Which makes Hillary Clinton’s bald-faced abuse of the ethics of “feminism,” in her pursuit of personal gain and elitism, all the more disingenuous and contemptible.

Rule by the wealthy falls under many names, none of which have anything to do with representational democracy. We are a nation of diversity. As such, our leaders ought to reflect that diversity, and today, they do not. Let me run through a few numbers, just to drive home the point.

Typical American Earnings: $53,657
Typical U.S. Senator Earnings: $190,000

Typical American Average Net Worth: $301,000
(Average # is driven up by wealth of our economic elites)
Typical U.S. Senator Average Net Worth: $14,013,596

Typical American Median Net Worth: $44,900
(Median # is more accurate, as 50% of our citizens have LESS than this amount)
Typical U.S. Senator Median Net Worth: $1,008,767

That is our reality. For the first time ever, the majority of elected officials in Washington D.C. are millionaires. Over the past 10 years, while the median American citizen’s net worth has decreased by -0.94%, a handful of American citizens (who have the power to control our government and regulatory agencies) have seen a median annual increase to their net worth of +1.55%, equaling a total increase of $316.5 million in assets. [2]

This is why 2016 matters. Sometimes, things have to get “bad enough” for us to wake up, pay attention and respond to a grave threat. The moneyed elite of the world, who seek to prey upon our people and our land, are a grave threat. Who are their greatest allies? The American elite who are willing to sell the rest of us down the river. Hillary Clinton, woman or not, is a member of that dangerous and corrupted society.

The end game will be accomplished when political literacy has expanded across the country and a new American culture of lifelong political engagement has become the norm.

To those in America and abroad who seek to maintain their corrosive control of our government and society—for the betterment of their class at the cost of all others—I say GAME ON!

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives

[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_Net_Worth_of_U.S._Senators_and_Representatives_(Personal_Gain_Index)

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2013/jan/29/how-many-men-and-women-are-studying-at-my-university

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/04/the-number-of-fortune-500-companies-led-by-women-is-at-an-all-time-high-5-percent/

[5] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/women-are-owning-more-and-more-small-businesses/390642/

About March Elizabeth Twisdale
March Twisdale and her family live on Vashon Island, near Seattle, where freakishly-hot, California weather is drying out the rain-forests of Washington State. An activist since her teens, March Twisdale's life revolves around Betterment Projects.

She is especially proud to be the producer and host of Prose, Poetry & Purpose, where guest authors share their hope to inspire positive social change...one reader, and one listener, at a time. Listen locally on 101.9 FM KVSH or catch PP&P on-line at: voiceofvashon.org/prose-poetry-and-purpose.

[mogamom]

A thought-provoking article, BarbStAubrey.  I do hope Bernie Sanders didn't just sell out his political influence for a 'place at the table' (I don't think he would for money); we'll see.  He has certainly brought much light to bear on many issues. 

But, now - there have been 29 terrorist attacks on this country since this administration came into power.

As has been put so aptly, "Not all Muslims are jihadists, but all jihadists are Muslims."  This is not a problem that is going away any time soon, I think.  And we have much to carefully, thoughtfully, reflectively consider before deciding as a country on how to approach it.  Here are two separate reactions:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/mourning-orlando-longing-for-truth-and-love

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/06/13/milo-yianopoulos-islam-is-the-problem/

[bellamarie]

I knew at some point the Democratic party would put the squeeze on Bernie and force him out.  This exact same thing happened to Hillary in 2008.  She could have won the nomination but of course they did not want her in office, she did not fit their agenda.  So the famous meeting between Hillary and Obama took place at Diane Feinstein's home and the next day or so Hillary was announcing she was dropping out and was asking all her supporters to back Obama.  I was working on her campaign and was in complete shock to see her back out.  So, when all the Bernie supporters were telling me he will never back out I said, just wait and see.  He met with Obama at the White House and I knew it was the end for Bernie.

"I find it offensive to see Hillary Clinton using her gender to solicit votes. It feels like a personal insult to see Hillary Clinton use her gender to further her election potential."

  March Elizabeth Twisdale

I am a woman, Independent registered voter, and will not be voting for Hillary.  She has not proven to me this time around to be worthy of being President of the United States of America.  I don't care about "breaking a glass ceiling."  She sold out her supporters in 2008, and as SOS I did not see the strong woman I thought I was helping in 2008 to become president.  Gender, color, ethnicity, religion, etc., does not sway my vote.  She may have proven she can play on the same playground as the big boys, but she has not proven she is up for this job.  Since 2008 I have followed her closely, the FBI's investigation for possible criminal actions is just one of the many illegal, corrupt things I feel she has committed, even if they do not recommend she be indicted I will always feel she knew she was using that private server to do dealings that were illegal.  Yep, she played with the big boys and turned into one of them.  I'm saddened it is Clinton vs Trump.  I know this country has better but the fix was in the deal back when she stepped aside for Obama to be the nominee in 2008, and the American people have voiced their desire to have Trump.  So let them put their gloves on, get your popcorn and pop, sit back and watch the circus my fellow Americans, and let the show begin.

I just know with the crisis we are having with ISIS, I prefer Trump over Clinton to deal with them. 

[mogamom]

Well...if we just look at the facts here.  The FBI had investigated this guy, they had him on a watch list but took him off, they were not allowed to use his 5 facebook pages as evidence of his intentions, they were notified by the gun shop owner of the first gun shop where he attempted to purchase guns that his behavior was suspicious and that he called someone and spoke in a foreign language, but they did not act on this information.  The FBI is not allowed to talk about their restrictions, but a former FBI person has said that they are not allowed to even engage in normal investigation tactics when it involves a muslim; they have to wait for someone in the muslim community to notify them of suspicious behavior.  And these 'rules of engagement' come from the White House.

And still there are those who would have us believe that we just need more gun laws - like that will keep us safe.  That, and going after 'right-wing extremists' are their whole answer.  And this administration (including Hillary Clinton) bears the full responsibility for the instability in the middle east and the rise of ISIS in the first place.  Amazing.

[bellamarie]

mogamom,  Very well put.  The laws we have to deal with illegals and even immigrants with visas and temporary permission to be here are not enforced whatsoever.  This president/administration, has placed so many restrictions on ICE, FBI, DOHS and CIA when dealing where these situations are involved it's a joke to even think these departments are able to do their jobs to protect our country.  The solution is always about gun laws.  Radical Islamic terrorists and criminals DO NOT abide by laws.  Look at Chicago the worst crime rate in the nation and they have strict gun laws.  California is allowed sanctuary cities and ICE is told to back off and illegals who have committed multiple crimes are let go and not deported. 

This guy who did the shootings in Orlando should have been flagged and watched carefully.  He pledged his allegiance to ISIS as he was shooting the victims, yet this president and the liberals want to blame it on hate for the LGBT, Christians, NRA and gun laws.  They could have dealt with this situation years ago and have refused to even call it what it is.... Radical islamic terrorists.  Just four days ago Obama said they are making progress.  John Brennan CIA director two days later testified and said this:     http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-isis/

I have NO faith in trusting and believing anything this administration says, and Hillary will be another Obama presidency. 

[mogamom]

I read an article just before this past week-end that France blames its problems with our 'failed multiculturalism' and our state department which has 'promoted Islam around the world'.  The French are saying that their Islamic immigrants refuse to assimilate into French culture and insist on Sharia Law as holding their highest allegiance.  Since it is this law that the Koran teaches must be the Law of the world, and since 51% of muslims in America agree with this, how can this faith group ever live cooperatively with any other group in a democracy that values freedom of religion for all?

Is it true that there are 85 Sharia Courts in England?  Friends tell me that muslims have been trying to establish the same in Minnesota?

[BarbStAubrey]

Had someone say something this week to me that stopped me short - he said if we took all the guns and put them in one gigantic pile - there would be no gun on its own walk out from the pile and shoot someone - it takes a human to use the gun to shoot someone.

Another scenario was offered by a friend, if kids on a playground and one had a stick he was using to bash other kids would we take the stick away or give all the other kids sticks - and then another friend piped up that taking the stick away sounds logical except this kid is angry and willful so, he will use nearby rocks or his fists. He is not going into a corner and feel punished or be calmed but rather he will only become more angry. 

All I see is that these guys are blaming it on ISIS or being homophobic or being ignored or taunted in school or stood up by a girl - these are the kind of excuses you hear from guys who beat their wives - as if the world owes them something and they take out their anger on someone who they perceive is not only weaker but who should look upon them as being powerful.

Using a gun is simply an extension of personal power. Another interesting fact is all these mass murders were committed by males - my guess for the couple of women that have been mentioned as supporters, if these guys are lording their masculine power over anyone who they want to express their rage they are probably as much a bully at home with their women and the women do not even realize it - all except the women in the San Bernardino shooting, I think she was a radicalized Muslim.

So, for what is it now 15 years, we have males young and old shooting up many people, all with the excuse of others being wrong. They see guns used on their computer games, in the movies, on TV, in print ads - all showing the gun as a sign of power.

Bottom line I see male entitlement extending their personal power with a gun so they can let their rage out because they do not feel good about themselves or are able to cope with folks who live and think differently and then, they blame their actions on whatever group they think represents either, justification or the group is the subject of their rage.

What I see is if we cannot get a good handle on bullying in grade and middle school than there is no hope - because that is the same behavior only a grade or middle school male does not have a gun but it is the same behavior of hurting others because they feel entitled to be Mr. Bigshot to make up for something they feel is lacking within themselves. They can blame the cliques that form in school or that another kid can build better forts with their blocks or they did not make the football team or the pretty girls do not talk to them or they cannot get their team to win the schoolyard stickball games or whatever - but it is the same behavior. 

[bellamarie]

Barb, with all due respect the radical islamic terrorists are not about bullying on the playground, and I too saw that reference to kids on a playground with a stick.  We are not talking about kids or sticks, we are talking about ISIS, they are filled with hate and taught as children Sharia Law.  No one has said it better than Prime Minister Netanyahu:

https://www.facebook.com/IsraeliPM/videos/1339013092780099/?pnref=story

[BarbStAubrey]

Not in the playground but bullies on the world stage - bringing events and people down to a level of children helps many of us see what we are dealing with and it takes the fear away that prevents our mental and emotional freedom from devising solutions.

As I understand, Sharia Law is law older than the law in most western cultures - it just does not fit today - most of civilization has matured past these old tribal and religious laws however, some Christians also have aspects of religious law that to me are questionable. The difference is we in the US do not want to replace constitutional law with religious law however, our state is the only state to ban the use of religious law to by-pass or usurp constitutional law. I was amazed to learn that many states see the protection of religious freedom as the rational to allow private courts that use Sharia Law to function in the state.

I've only heard stories of what is included in Sharia Law - it would be neat to know what the laws say - I wonder if the laws was practiced by word of mouth - We have many families new to our neighborhood from Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria with over 100 of the children in the elementary and middle school - these children had not ever been in a classroom and none of the women can read since they were children when the Taliban ruled that did not permit girls to be educated - over 60% of these families are Christian and yet, all the women and girls wear Hijabs so it must not be a religious practice but cultural - as Christian they were subject to Sharia Law. I guess because where they came from was essentially a Muslim Theocracy although, the more you read the more I'm learning the tribal culture and Law and Sharia Law, the bedrock of Islam, are tied in knots with each other.

I've been reading The Tribes Triumphant by Charles Glass and he is talking about the return of and increase association and pride those living in the middle east have with their tribal association and roots. He sees a greater association with tribalism now than he did 20 and more years ago during his earlier reporting from the Middle East. He was a journalist captured and kept for I think it was over 2 or maybe 3 years before he escaped. Reading the book I'm seeing this different viewpoint to the world and how it shows itself in why we are not able to make a difference towards calming things down. I also learned that ISIS was mostly the angry disenfranchised Sunni that were put out of power when we invaded Iraq - they were the professionals that ran the nation - and were in the high ranks of the military for over 200 years that we replaced with Shiites, most of whom had little education and really did not know how to make things work or how to govern. It appears we went in without knowing the culture and we did not realize what would happen.

Hate to see that we are gearing up again for war in the area. Most of these journalists that have spent years in the area say the debacle in Syria is really tribal warfare - that the original group of military men who left Assad's army to fight for freedom were really all about replacing him and the Alawite with their own tribe and that was how they disintegrated since each of the 5 were from different tribes and started to fight with each other. I bet when Obama understood that was when he backed out of participating even giving arms to these so called freedom groups. Trying to eek out what the news just glosses over is a challenge isn't it - thank goodness we are all book readers or we would all be in the dark.

The book I really want to read is finally getting into a price range I can afford - also there are finally some used copies - Culture and Conflict in the Middle East by Philip Carl Salzman - has anyone read it - from the excerpt on Amazon he seems to go into how the people are organized to protect themselves and to do the necessary work of a society so that without understanding the value of the various tribes to the entire society and assuring their work continue the society dies.

Seems to me I only read an ad for a book along similar thinking about our life in the US - that the old groupings of families and parishes and small community schools are no longer so that we do not have any groups to identify with except sport teams - I wish I remembered the name of that book - it was new so maybe I will see another ad.       

[bellamarie]

We must see it for what they are yelling it is as they are shooting people in mass....allegiance to ISIS.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Until, and when this president and administration opens their eyes and sees it for what it is, calls it by it's name and deals with it, we will as our generals, CIA, FBI, DOHS and ICE say....It will continue and they are working their way to the western front and are already here.  By NOT dealing with it, it has multiplied and has infiltrated many other nations. 

[BarbStAubrey]

Agree Bellamarie - the trick now is how to deal with it... we will never rid the earth of all the Sunni - the Shiites have been trying to do that for 1600 years. From what I read these tribal association have always been fighting each other and there is an expression for it - forgot exactly but something like aggression with boundaries or maybe contained aggression - Anyhow it appears to be a culture that only knows to be aggressive with each other and our mixing into the middle of that upset the balance because we can only imagine a goal of peace - it seems the only time in history where the aggression was in check was during the time Turkey was the leader of the Ottoman Empire and WWI brought an end to that -

So I just do not know - everything we currently hear is some of our leaders want to wage war and they are saying Hillary wants to wage war - listening it sounds more like a competition with Russia than the hopes of ending aggression in the Middle East -

In the meantime I just keep reading away to find out what has been said by those who know the area - I pay more attention to those writers who are from the Middle East and whose work is translated -

My gut says the media is simply trying to whip us up so that we will back an initiative for a greater war footprint in the area - we shall see what we shall see.

[marjifay]

Just heard that the Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the laws some states have that ban the sale of assault weapons.  Thank goodness, the Court has finally made some sense.  California, where I live, has a law banning the sale of assault weapons, (and also gun magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition), and some gun loving idiots who think they are so clever by saying that guns do not walk about killing people, can hopefully (but doubtfullly, of course), shut up.  Now the ban on the sale of assault weapons here in California will stand!! Yay!!  Did you hear that in Ohio some idiots wanted to be able to carry guns into the Republican Convention in July?  The federal security people who have jurisdiction denied their petition, and have declared that no guns will be allowed at the Convention.  Thank goodness there are still a few people with authority in this country who have brains!!

Marj

[BarbStAubrey]

this is what brought me to my knees today...

http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/clinton-email-syria-israel.jpg

[mogamom]

Where did this come from, BarbStAubrey?

[BarbStAubrey]

her email that has gradually been made public - as you can see the code and document number

[bellamarie]

Did you see the date on that email you provided?   It is 11-30-2015. 

This administration has snubbed its nose at Israel.  They just made a deal with Iran giving them over a billion dollars, which will help them amp up their nuclear enrichment program.

Barb you ask what is the solution?  No matter what the top generals and military experts have advised, this president has ignored. Drones are certainly not the solution. Prime Minister Netanyahu does not trust or respect Obama.  He has seen where he refuses to put any pressure on Syria. 

Terrorists and criminals will get their choice of weapons illegally, so what the Supreme Court does or does not decide makes no difference.  Like I said, look at Chicago, it has the strictest gun laws and has the highest murder rate.   

[marjifay]

I am really tired of hearing that even if the sale of assault weapons is banned, terrorists and/or orther criminals will still be able to obtain them.  While that may be true, does that mean that we should just do nothing about controlling the sale of these weapons?  I heard that the man who killed and wounded all those people in Orlando, Florida bought his weapon legally.  If Florida had had a law banning the sale of these weapons, those poor people might still be alive.

Marj

[bellamarie]

marjifay,

I heard that the man who killed and wounded all those people in Orlando, Florida bought his weapon legally.

Yes, he did but I feel the FBI dropped the ball on this, just like they dropped the ball on the Boston terrorists and the San Bernardino terrorists and now they have allowed this shooter's wife to go free with knowledge she was an accomplice. They were alerted by the gun sellers six weeks prior to the shootings, he was interviewed for possible terror actions three times prior.  This administration refuses to enforce laws on the books, they like to make it about guns every time there is a shooting so they do not have to take responsibility for the incompetence, and lack of action on their part.  This president has changed the rules of engagement, tying the hands of all the departments that keep them from being able to do their jobs efficiently.  He likes to blame everyone but who is really at blame.  Obama has created this mess and refuses to even admit we have a problem with radical islamic terror.  Just last week he said they are making progress while two days later Brennan says it is worse and we are not able to make progress.  Deflect, Distract and Deny is this president strategy, while ISIS grows.  Terrorists and criminals DO NOT OBEY LAWS!  So make all the laws you want, ban all the weapons you want..... it will NOT stop the terrorists or criminals, it will just leave Americans defenseless in the time of their need.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/gun-shop-told-authorities-about-suspicious-mateen-before-slaughter/

[nlhome]

I am in agreement with marj. I also think that the President is looking at the long picture, hoping to keep our country from more active war. It's not a simple "bomb and be done with it" process, nor does making a religion the enemy discourage terrorism.

Criminals have never obeyed laws, that's why they are criminals. That doesn't mean we don't have laws. Laws requiring background checks, restricting these high power guns with extensive magazines, not allowing people on the "no fly" lists to buy guns - yes, criminals will try to get around those laws, but that process makes them more likely to be caught because it's more difficult than walking into a store.

[marjifay]

Per Bellamarie, "I feel the FBI dropped the ball on this, just like they dropped the ball on the Boston terrorists and the San Bernardino terrorists. 
I agree that it was really too bad that the Orlando shooter was not denied a gun based on what the FBI knew.  However, I still feel that if Florida had a law denying the sale of assault weapons to anyone, that Orlando shooting, the worst in our history, would never have happened.

I feel that the sale of assault weapons should be banned. I can't see any reason whatever that anyone would need to have an assault weapon.  There are much less dangerous guns to use for target practice, and one certainly doesn't need one for hunting.  Do you disagree with that? 

I agree with the ACLU's disagreement with using the government's no-fly list to deny the purchase of ANY gun to someone on the list.  Evidentlly people have been put on that list more than likely in error. at lease I think that is the ACLU's argument.

Marj

[marjifay]

How many remember when the political party conventions were really exciting affairs and were when the candidates were selected by votes from each state.  Someimes it took several voting rounds before one candidate became the winner.  I wonder why and when  this method stopped.  Now conventions are just mostly rah rah speeches since the candidates have already been chosen by voting in primaries in each state.

I have been hearing that the GOP Party is talking about not allowing Trump to be GOP  party's candidate.  What do you think about this?  Should it be able to happen when Trump received by far the most votes?  (I would never vote for him since I am not a Republican, but still wonder if it would be right to do this after his receiving the most primary votes. Just as I think Hillary should not be denied the nomination if she indeed receives the most primary votes (and I would not vote for her either, in fact, did not vote for her in the California primary -- I voted for Bernie Sanders.  I think Sanders would have a better chance than Clinton to beat Trump in the Novemberr election
I think a lot of people don't care for Clinton's personality and little sense of humor.  Am I the only only one who feels this way?  Do you think personality traits are what matter most to people in a national election?:

Marj

[BarbStAubrey]

Oh goodness - I guess we do disagree - I am amazed at still hearing from so many who absolutely believe that those who are not for Hillary are making that choice because she is a woman - I see that thinking as defying logic - Yes, middle age and older men may have that as their top concern but the masses of young have no such preconceived notion of a women as a President ?!?

Both my sisters have this opinion as well that it is all about gender so that I wonder if the media back east slides this rational into their reporting since one lives in the Hudson Valley and the other on the coast of NC - Where as I do not hear this concern to be a featured attribute or issue, I only hear, from both young and old and the women over 50 who are behind Sanders that our concerns have nothing to do with gender and everything to do with a vision for the future that does not include war, is transparent and involves the people's will and is not cozy with wall street and disproportionate taxation. That the next presidency is about a vision for progress that arms us for the rest of the century with initiatives like, affordable education for a more capable and competitive society, fair wages, and affordable medicare for all.

Amazing to me is to hear those who have gender as an issue that for the majority of those who want to see Sanders have more influence and even hold a hope he will be the Dem nominee, gender is not even in play. But then that would be like saying all those against Bernie Sanders have an issue with ageing?!? or that Sanders as an elder is not presidential - We should tell that to the Irish whose president is the exact same age as Bernie Sanders.

Well obviously in this discussion some of us are Republicans and some Democrats and some Independents and so, I am sure we will read from each other a variety of opinions and reasons for support.

However, when push comes to shove most of us know if our vote carries any weight at all - no matter my wishes this state will vote Republican regardless who the candidate and what those of us who like another candidate wish for our future. About the only ones who have a say in the election are those who live in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and California only because early reporting can influence who comes out to vote since they are 4 hours behind the east coast.

We know that Oregon and Washington will go Dem just as we know the Southern states will go Republican and we know that none of us are persuasive enough in our writing to convince another to change their affiliation or vote - and so to fantasize why folks choose a candidate different than our choice is really us coming from our own bias. Ah such is life...

[bellamarie]

Barb, 

we know that none of us are persuasive enough in our writing to convince another to change their affiliation or vote - and so to fantasize why folks choose a candidate different than our choice is really us coming from our own bias.

I'm not so sure this is why any of us are posting our views and concerns for the next candidate.  I feel we are posting for discussion purpose, to give others our thoughts and not to convince them we are right or wrong in how we see these candidates, or to try to persuade others to vote like we do.  I do think the media has an affect on how different parts of the country see these candidates.  Most of the media is owned by liberals, they push their positives for the democrats, and the negatives for the republicans.  I am an Independent and can clearly see this happening.  I watch various news stations and even late night programs, and I sit and laugh at how you can immediately distinguish a network's party allegiance.  Those women on The View could scare anyone away, the way they outright attack republicans, make personal, unintelligent remarks and get a bit crazy with their ideology.  I stopped watching that show a few years ago and when I see snippet's I just cringe as a woman to think they are so attacking and insulting.  Phew.... At least our discussion here are respectful, calm and have substance. 

[bellamarie]

marjifray, 

However, I still feel that if Florida had a law denying the sale of assault weapons to anyone, that Orlando shooting, the worst in our history, would never have happened.

I disagree with this statement.  He would have found other means to carry out his act of terror, because he was a terrorist. The Boston terrorists made homemade bombs.   

We MUST enforce the laws we already have. We MUST vet who is allowed into our country, we MUST flag and keep a close watch on those coming in, and out, and coming back in,  from parts of the world who radicalize and hate our country.  In all these incidents there was a commonality..... prior warning signals that were ignored.  This president refuses to acknowledge radical islamic terror, and refuses to act to stop it, so he uses the gun argument and has the media and liberals to push it so you argue about guns rather than hold his feet to the fire for NOT doing anything, allowing ISIS to become a caliphate, and to infiltrate other regions.

[mogamom]

Just a thought, from Bob Lonsbury in February, 1915:

   
GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER

 On Saturday, the police say, parolee Michael Morris dragged his ex-girlfriend halfway across the county – twice putting a gun to her head and threatening to execute her – before he crashed a birthday her family was holding and shot a half a dozen people, wounding some of them severely.

This was in Syracuse, New York, at an Irish bar in the old Irish neighborhood known as Tipperary Hill.

Twenty-two years old, out of prison in December after doing five years for a crime at 17 he committed while toting a stolen handgun.

On the plus side, the bar was able to hose out the blood in time for the Super Bowl. On the negative side, it all led to an anti-gun lecture from the liberal mayor.

Stephanie Miner, one-time co-chair of the New York Democratic Party, stood up, while some of the wounded were still fighting for their lives, and said that this situation demanded more gun control.

Which is insane.

One, that a politician would so quickly spin what was almost the largest mass murder in city history into a political talking point.

Two, that she would expect anybody with a brain to take her seriously.

New York, with the harshest statewide anti-gun laws in America, had already long since outlawed everything Michael Morris allegedly did – and yet he still did what he did. Does the mayor think that passing one more law will stop the likes of Michael Morris from breaking the laws that are already on the books?

He was a parolee, a felon, and the possession of a firearm was against the law. Kidnapping and terrorizing his former girlfriend was against the law. Shooting up the bar and half the people in it was against the law. Doing so with what apparently was a high-capacity magazine was against the law. It was all already banned, and this ex-con still reportedly did it with impudence.

He is a walking demonstration that gun control – laws limiting access to weapons by people who obey the law – does nothing to limit the behavior of criminals. ...

Anti-gun laws which castrate the rights of good people while doing nothing whatsoever to control bad people.

This is preposterous.

In fact, the reality of gun control is that it empowers and emboldens criminals by disarming their victims. ...

For example, it may well have been the prevalent gun-control passion of Syracuse’s power elite that allowed so many people to be shot at the bar. In Onondaga County, where Syracuse is located, almost no one is given a concealed-carry permit. In a process lorded over by a local judge, requests for carry permits are almost always denied.


That all but assured that as that family found itself under attack on Saturday that it was defenseless against the onslaught. The law-breaker had an unlawfully possessed, illegally equipped handgun in his possession. The law abiders had nothing.

And it was their blood that was spilt.


Note:  I believe that all the mass murders (even Ft Hood) were perpetrated in Gun Free Zones.  At least we know the bad guys are not stupid as well as evil.
 

[mogamom]

Sorry this is so long....but I just wanted to reiterate that the shooter was taken off the watch list because the FBI was told to do this by the White House.  I think they're in a tight place - many have complained that they are not able to investigate muslim suspects as they would anyone else.

[bellamarie]

And now Loretta Lynch the Attorney General when asked yesterday where is the wife of Manteen, who is believed to have been an accomplice states:

If the FBI believes she was aware of the impending attack, she could be prosecuted.
"Has the shooter’s wife left the state of Florida?" a reporter asked Lynch during her press conference Tuesday.
"Right now, I don’t know exactly the answer to that," Lynch candidly replied. "I believe she was going to travel but I do not know exactly her location now."

https://news.grabien.com/story.php?id=364

Either Lynch is lying to the American people, or she does NOT not know where she is. Either is unacceptable, and these are the people who are calling for more gun laws.  They can NOT even keep track of a suspected accomplice of the radical islamic terrorist who just shot up the nightclub, let alone expect them to keep track of, or vet properly the millions of refugees from regions that hate us the most, coming into the United States. 

Not to mention Lynch was ordered to redact the report of the 911 call of Manteen and scrub any mention of ISIS. This administration has their own personal agenda and continues to distract, deflect, deny and try to cover up and hide what is real.  Did those democrats really think they could throw a sit in, throw a tantrum and Ryan would give into them yesterday.  Gosh I really think we are dealing with incompetent, incapable, immature spoiled children.  I can barely believe these men and women represent us.

Where is the emoticon for shaking my head!!!     

[nlhome]

So we know that the President personally ordered the FBI to remove him from the watch list? How?

And why would we think that law enforcement has to release all information right away in an ongoing investigation? Is it now expected that all police reports and FBI reports should be released on Facebook or Twitter immediately, before anything has been verified?

[bellamarie]

I think this president sends out his lackies immediately in front of the media and has them lie about things.  It is a pattern he has shown throughout each tragic event. He jumps the gun, then later facts slip out, we find out he knew all along, and it shows how he had them lie to the American people: Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, Robert Gibbs, Josh Earnest, even Loretta Lynch. 

[mogamom]

On-going investigations should receive time to follow through.  I didn't hear the president ordered the FBI to drop him from the watch list, but that the order came from the White House; someone in the Cabinet? HSA? But presumably the policy was approved by the president, I would think? 

[Dana]

If there weren't so many guns around, fewer people would get shot.  Its a no brainer.  As an example--look at that woman politician who got shot in England recently.  The guy had an antique weapon which he had restored which he had to muzzle load.  That's because it is so difficult to get a gun on the UK.  Just imagine the carnage if he had had an assault weapon.  Well, you don't need to imagine it really, just think of all the assault weapon carnages that happen with increasing regularity here.  People who say guns don't kill people and more guns would kill less people are beyond understanding.  There's no logic there.

[nlhome]

Well, I never heard that any order came from the White House to remove his name from this list - where did that information come from.

[bellamarie]

Again, criminals and terrorists will always find a way to get guns, or any other weapons of their chose.  Ban ALL guns and you will NOT see a decrease in crime.  Look at Chicago.

[kidsal]

Perhaps we should let gun owners only purchase gun clips with a certain amount of rounds -- give Bambi a chance!
In Wyoming many people believe the government will take away their guns,  This is not the 1700's.  I believe the gun owner is outgunned -- Black Hawk!

[mogamom]

NY already controls the number of rounds a gun can hold - 7.  It doesn't stop crime.  They look for Gun-Free Zones to attack for a reason!

Sorry - I don't keep articles for long.  Here's one that explains the watch list, but keep in mind that this man was background checked twice (2007 and 2013) for his security job (the security group he was with was also involved in transporting illegal aliens from the border to the interior) and the first gun shop he tried did notify the FBI and refused to sell him a gun:

“Once the F.B.I. closes an investigation, agents are required to remove the targets from terrorism watchlists. That rule is intended to prevent the United States from keeping secretive, open-ended watchlists based on suspicions that are ultimately unfounded.
In 2009, the Justice Department inspector general criticized the F.B.I. for not moving quickly enough to purge those lists.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/omar-mateen-fbi.html?_r=0

So, the administration does set the policy!

Also, note he did not use the assault weapon everyone wants to ban:

"Initial reports mistakenly described the rifle used by the attacker as the AR-15, a civilian version of Colt’s M-16 military assault rifle, with the full-automatic and burst fire options removed. According to the Daily Beast, however, Mateen used the .221 SIG Sauer rifle, and a 9mm Glock 17 handgun.

Both are semi-automatic weapons, meaning they fire only once per trigger pull, but have a mechanism that ejects the cartridge and loads another one. One of the earliest examples of a semi-automatic rifle is the M1 Garand, issued to the US Army in 1937."

Almost all guns today are semi-automatic.
Are we all really ready to give up our right to due process?

[marjifay]

"Anti-gun laws which castrate the rights of good people while doing nothing whatsoever to control bad people.

This is preposterous."

Whar I find preposterous is that 8 million people in this country own these awful weapons.

Marj

 

[BarbStAubrey]

How comfortable are you with the police having automatic weapons considering the react to situations unnecessarily using arms, killing 986 folks last year, more in one year than all the combined deaths from mass shootings since Columbine.

Given the police use of weapons how do you feel about living in a police state where the police have automatic weapons but average citizens legally cannot own an automatic weapon.

[marjifay]

I am not comfortable with ANYONE having assault type weapons. 

I don't live in a police state, and, unlike some gun-lovers, I don't
believe that  the federal government is just itching to turn our country into a police state and take guns from everyone.  I look forward hopefully to the day when no one will be able to legally own an assault weapon.

Marj 

[bellamarie]

Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

Planned Parenthood affiliates perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral based on the approximately 300,000 abortions they perform each year.[10]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/disentangling-the-data-on-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services-and-receipt-of-taxpayer-funding

If this administration is concerned about saving lives why are they going after guns, but continue to fund Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money?  I guess this is not a conversation they are willing or wanting to have.

[Dana]

I was surprised to learn, as a "new" American, that Hoover brought in the right of private citizens to have a gun in 1927.  I guess it was in the constitution but not so common prior to him.
Then sometime along the way the NRA managed to muscle in and exert their control over the minds of citizens and politicians.  What I can't understand is, how can the general public be so dumb that they don't get that the NRA is only in it for the money.