^^
I had heard that the NYPD reported that, apparently not true BC I couldn't find a source.

4/14/2016 11:34:04 AM

reddit seems to indicate 1M plus showed up based on some of the comments I've seen. LOL

4/14/2016 11:41:45 AM

Quote :

"I don't love Bernie nearly as much as you seem to hate him"

Nobody on this board does either.

4/14/2016 11:43:05 AM

lol ok mentally unstable

i don't hate bernie. I think he's a good guy. I think some of his ideas are good and I think some of what he is doing for the national discussion is good. if he's the candidate that ends up with the nomination, I will support him 100% in his effort to become president.

but I also happen to think he's the lesser of the two current democratic candidates for president. i am fully aware that is it a sisyphean task to point out negatives about his platform to his supporters. but that doesn't mean I won't stop making the points I believe are true.

I'm also not in the bag for Hillary. I don't think she's perfect and I don't think every one of her platforms is the best thing ever. when someone points out a negative about her, I can accept the criticism and move on.

i do, however, think it's idiotic that bernie supporters seem to think that her changing her idea on things like the criminal justice system or gay marriage is a negative. for fucks sake people, that's what we want, isn't it? for people to change their views? it's mind numbing the amount of shit that she's gotten from bernie supporters for actually having an evolving social conscious

the fact that my negative commentary is translated to "hate" is not my problem. you guys need simple labels to make yourselves feel better. and that's fine. it's also what's at the root of the dysfunction in DC. the need to bucket any idea in to an extreme is why we're at this shitty juncture where a Ted Cruz is the more likable of the 2 republican frontrunners.

but hey, you need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy."

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 12:09:35 PM

to be clear, I hate Sanders supporters, not Sanders himself. You people are what's wrong with America.

4/14/2016 12:15:24 PM

Quote :

"i do, however, think it's idiotic that bernie supporters seem to think that her changing her idea on things like the criminal justice system or gay marriage is a negative. for fucks sake people, that's what we want, isn't it? for people to change their views?"

Except you have repeatedly "shitted on" Bernie for his changing views on guns you hypocritical troll.

Quote :

"the fact that my negative commentary is translated to "hate" is not my problem"

If you were able to offer commentary (and that's a generous description) without taking such joy in "shitting on Bernie" perhaps people wouldn't single you out. You could try civility for once, but I realize that's not as much fun for you.

4/14/2016 12:24:39 PM

^^^
that's a nice sentiment but it's not how you actually operate. in actuality, you take minor things and blow them up to bizarre proportions, or distort things in any way possible to paint Bernie/his supporters as sexist, racist, et c. to the point where someone looking in from the outside questioned your mental stability. maybe you should take a step back with the rhetoric

y'all act like all sanders supporters are Earl, when actually most on this board are pretty damn reasonable

as far as the "changing views" thing, I fully support it. The problem is when she's called a "champion" when she didn't believe in gay rights less than a decade ago. The bigger issue is when "flips" while continuing to take money from the industries she's supposedly flipped on

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 12:26:07 PM

^^flip flopping on gay marriage and crime for political convenience is "progressive"

flip flopping on guns that get into the hands of psychopathic pieces of shit for political convenience, is not. quite regressive, actually.

^ actually, most Sanders supporters I've encountered are exactly like Earl in real life. I've had to unfollow like 50 friends on FB because of their bat shit, hive mind, reddit BS posts. Worse than any of the Trump fans that have showed up in my feed for sure.

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 12:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 12:28:15 PM

^that sounds like more of a reflection of your Facebook friend choices to me. I have one delusional supporter on my feed. Most are not.

4/14/2016 12:32:11 PM

i haven't been able to figure out what anyone did on this forum that made golielax so angry. disagree with him? why is this so personal to him?

4/14/2016 12:49:26 PM

Honestly he sounds like one of those guys who spends a lot of time in comments sections of news stories and FB groups, and then brings that tone here.

4/14/2016 12:52:51 PM

People got sent home so perhaps 27k were there when he talked. You guys are relying on the media who was barely covering the event but i was actually out there around 5 and all of the roads leading to the square around the park as well as the square were full of people. Police broke up the crowds so traffic could flow. Bernie only had permit for the park and not for shutting down the roads. Obamas landmark event 8 years ago at the same place brought 24k and it was unlike anything anyone had ever seen. No one could have been prepared for this. Not even the police. I left around 7pm when they said no one else was getting in and you had to disperse. I had to wait for the 2nd train to leave 7 blocks away because the first train was full of people alsonleaving. The people who got in arrived early in the morning.

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 12:58 PM. Reason : D]

4/14/2016 12:55:51 PM

Should have booked a larger venue, eh?

4/14/2016 12:57:58 PM

I don't doubt there were a lot more than 27k trying to get in, but you cant just throw out a random number

4/14/2016 1:00:28 PM

the kenan stadium guys counted

4/14/2016 1:06:18 PM

Firefighters told us that there were 50k+ there around noon and how far the crowd had grown throught the day so its not random. I dont doubt that only 27k were actually in the physical boundaries of the park though.

4/14/2016 1:13:49 PM

Quote :

"i haven't been able to figure out what anyone did on this forum that made golielax so angry. disagree with him? why is this so personal to him?"

That's what I'm wondering, he seems very angry and is taking this very personal and it's weird.

It's also weird, as previously mentioned, that he seems to group all "bernie-babies", or anyone who disagrees or questions any of his opinions, into one collective enemy of "you people".

4/14/2016 1:34:43 PM

Quote :

"Except you have repeatedly "shitted on" Bernie for his changing views on guns you hypocritical troll."

he hasn't changed his views on background checks. he still thinks that they should be instant. which i think is insanely irrational and unobtainable and why I shit on him for those views. so again, kindly go fuck yourself for being wrong about me

you guys can enjoy your circle jerk of ad hominem attacks on me

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 2:29:02 PM

I'm not circle jerking, just genuinely trying to figure out what your deal is.

4/14/2016 2:35:54 PM

he was against a waiting period because he saw it as federal overreach. also it's not proven that a waiting period reducds gun violence. you're latching onto this instant background check thing as if this position makes him a gun nut. again, blowing a minor thing out of proportion.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/27/van-wanggaard/no-evidence-waiting-period-handgun-purchases-reduc/

4/14/2016 2:38:41 PM

^ you need to learn the difference between a "waiting period" and "longer time to complete background checks"

from that same article

Quote :

"Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research, told us there is research linking more thorough background checks -- which take longer than an instant FBI check -- with reduced homicide rates. The more thorough checks are more likely to turn up reasons why a person cannot legally purchase a gun. But Webster said he is not aware of research that shows waiting periods reduce violence."

i mean shit man don't make it so easy for me


anyway, i don't have a deal. the actual "deal" is bernie supporters being unable to handle completely legitimate criticism (or as I put it, shitting on) of Bernie.

i mean ffs someone wanted a mod to ban me because i was posting anti-bernie stuff in a bernie thread. foh

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 2:39:14 PM

when has he voted against stronger background checks? as far as I'm aware, he's only voted against waiting periods.

4/14/2016 2:42:58 PM

Quote :

"i mean shit man don't make it so easy for me"

i mean, this is what i'm talking about. it seems like someone is legitimately trying to have a conversation with you, but you can't refrain from coming across as an arrogant hack. and then you complain about ad hominem attacks, when many of your posts contain them.

4/14/2016 2:48:50 PM

he's not even right. The Brady Bill used instant background checks. Sanders voted against it because of the pointless waiting period.

Quote :

" i mean ffs someone wanted a mod to ban me because i was posting anti-bernie stuff in a bernie thread. foh"

No, I think you should be banned from this thread because you post manipulative disinformation while attacking people on a regular basis.

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 2:53:59 PM

^^hilarious, you call me mentally unstable on one page and then demand I have some civil discourse on the next.

^no, i'm not wrong. again, you're failing to comprehend the difference between a "waiting period" and a "time to complete a background check"

Quote :

"Sanders, then in the U.S. House of Representatives, voted against the Brady Bill five times -- including a version that reinstated a five-day time limit for background checks. In November 1993, Sanders voted for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead. The problem was technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time. As a result, according to the Washington Post Fact-Checker, supporters of the Brady bill were forced to negotiate a compromise. What first was proposed as 10 days for the government to conduct the check ultimately was whittled to three days. The final compromise version of the Brady bill was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. It prohibited the transfer of a gun to an unlicensed individual, unless three business days have lapsed and the system has not notified the transferor that it would violate the law. Sanders voted against the final bill."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/17/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-bernie-sander/

today's "instant" background check still gets 3 days to be completed before the sale is forced OK. bernie has consistently voted for an "instant" check that is actually "instant" - something that was and still is an impossibility

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 3:01:19 PM

Quote :

"^^hilarious, you call me mentally unstable on one page and then demand I have some civil discourse on the next. "

What? I said you sometimes come across as mentally unstable. And I explained that your refusal to have civil discourse is a reason why you come across as mentally unstable (and I didn't "demand" anything). I'm not sure why you find that hilarious, and the fact that you do seems to be further proof that you might have some mental issues.

4/14/2016 3:09:42 PM

lol k

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 3:13:47 PM

Still wrong. The three day waiting period is not mandatory. 92% of checks are completed over the phone, according to Wikipedia. It is not a "cooling off" period, it's simply to give them time to complete the check if it takes longer, for whatever reason. And if it isn't completed in time, the Brady Bill allows that person to buy a gun regardless. That's fucked, imo.

Bernie voted against it because of the mandatory five day waiting period.

4/14/2016 3:16:53 PM

i don't understand how you can read the 2nd bolded part of what I quoted above and argue against what I'm saying. bernie voted against the exact scenario that you think is fucked. that fucked part is what is now known as the charleston loophole. and that is what has been and will be the root cause of my criticism of him on gun control

I have never said it is mandatory to make them wait 3 days. it is mandatory for the FBI to have 3 days to complete the check.

maybe we're talking in circles here

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 3:21:27 PM

the fact that he opposes a mandatory waiting period doesn't mean he thinks someone should be able to buy a gun if a background check takes longer to complete.

4/14/2016 3:29:08 PM

The Brady Bill created the loophole. Even with a mandatory five day wait, what makes you think people won't slip through the cracks?

It should be an instant background check, no mandatory wait, without the option to proceed with the sale if a certain amount of time passes.

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 3:58 PM. Reason : yep, and there's even proof: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/clintons-charleston-loophole-claim/]

4/14/2016 3:49:09 PM

Quote :

"y'all act like all sanders supporters are Earl, when actually most on this board are pretty damn reasonable "

First of all you guys have North Carolina perspective which really skews the lense through which you view the world. Bernie didn't campaign down there so there are not many informed and passionate bernie supporters. You are shocked when you run into core bernie supporters on the internet because its something you haven't had the chance to experience much in person. You also have a lot more moderates down there because it is a conservative region which further skews your idea of "normal". When normal is thinking trans are out to get your kids, then thinking trans are not out to get your kids causes you to identify as a "liberal".

Quote :

" I have one delusional supporter on my feed. Most are not."

What do you mean by delusional because clinton supporters think the idea that the race is not over is "delusional" when technically, no, the race is not over. Thats a fact.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think delusional is the word you are looking for. We know that bernie is unlikely to win the nomination but that is actually what fuels our passion. If we thought he was going to win (delusional), we wouldn't have the sense of urgency to spread the word about the things going on in this nomination process.

Quote :

"I've had to unfollow like 50 friends on FB because of their bat shit, hive mind, reddit BS posts. Worse than any of the Trump fans that have showed up in my feed for sure."

What exactly is it that is worse than racism and xenophobia. You haven't actually stated anything of substance.

Quote :

"Should have booked a larger venue, eh?"

There is no bigger venue in the area and even then, not even the Sanders campaign expected this movement to Dwarf Obama's in 08.

Quote :

"i am fully aware that is it a sisyphean task to point out negatives about his platform to his supporters. but that doesn't mean I won't stop making the points I believe are true"

no its not. i disagree with him on guns and isis but a few bad policies doesn't mean i want to let the country be controlled by corporations.

Quote :

"i do, however, think it's idiotic that bernie supporters seem to think that her changing her idea on things like the criminal justice system or gay marriage is a negative."

You've got it misunderstood. Its not the idea that she changed that is the negative, its the idea that she didn't actually change but had the same views all along that is the negative. This type of event isn't the actual negative but it reveals a character flaw. The idea, that she would stand for gay marriage but not support politically until it was absolutely beneficial to her. If she did indeed change then good for her, but we just don't trust her and there are many reasons not to.

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 4:43 PM. Reason : k]

4/14/2016 4:31:10 PM

Quote :

"First of all you guys have North Carolina perspective"

um, no. I haven't lived in NC in over a decade and lots of other posters don't live in NC these days either. That's a bullshit excuse.

Quote :

"What exactly is it that is worse than racism and xenophobia. You haven't actually stated anything of substance. "

incessant posting of biased links or misleading graphics.

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 4:44:43 PM

Quote :

"doesn't mean he thinks someone should be able to buy a gun if a background check takes longer to complete."

I don't get how you can say this. His voting record explicitly and inarguably says differently. When push came to shove, he voted against longer periods for the feds to verify eligibility to purchase firearms.

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2016 4:51:21 PM

no, he wants an instant check, and there is no technological reason why that's not something we couldn't build

4/14/2016 5:02:16 PM

^^
You're still missing the point. The loophole is that, after three days, whether or not the background check is complete, the person is legally allowed to purchase a gun.

The initial form of the bill included this loophole, but with a five day wait instead of three.

The question is, did reducing the wait by two days allow Roof to buy a firearm?

According to the FBI, the mix-up was not discovered until two months after he purchased it. So no, it wouldn't have. The Brady Bill itself is to blame, not Sanders.

4/14/2016 5:16:33 PM

Quote :

"not even the Sanders campaign expected this movement to Dwarf Obama's in 08."

lol good one Earl

4/14/2016 5:26:10 PM

Quote :

"This is why you see many companies not bringing cash back to the US, why there are so many "inversion" mergers, and why corporations regularly pay big bucks in legal and accounting fees to save even more money on their taxes. Maybe if we had a friendlier tax rate we might actually get [them] To pay some taxes here instead of paying them elsewhere. The solution is not even higher corporate tax rates."

So the solution would be to reduce our corporate tax rates so that they're lower than the taxes that corporations pay in off-shore tax havens (including legal and accounting fees)?

Here are two additional links:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/us-corporations-14-trillion-hidden-tax-havens-oxfam

https://action.oxfamamerica.org/stoptaxdodging/data-table/

[Edited on April 14, 2016 at 6:56 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2016 6:53:32 PM

It would be to make them at least commensurate or close so that there is no longer a clear incentive to structure things in such a way as to make it beneficial to pay taxes here vs. in say, Ireland or even Canada. I mean, for fucks sake, Canada has a lower corporate tax rate than we do. That's why when Burger King and Tim Horton's merged they became a Canadian company and not an American one.

I don't think most people actually realize how high our corporate tax rate is compared to the rest of the world, including the rest of the industrialized world. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. What's better, 25% of 100 or 0% of 500?

4/15/2016 8:46:43 AM

Quote :

"there is no technological reason why that's not something we couldn't build"

there is no technological reason, no.

however, there are massive logistical reasons that we can't

4/15/2016 9:02:47 AM

which apparently we should never start working on

4/15/2016 9:11:45 AM

4/15/2016 1:12:33 PM

Background checks are instant in 92% of cases, and they should not be waived in cases that take longer.

Bernie voted against that loophole, which the Brady Bill included since the beginning.

[Edited on April 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2016 1:16:32 PM

This is awesome.

keep it up, goalielax

4/15/2016 4:51:40 PM

Sure, because this is chit chat

4/15/2016 5:11:55 PM

Quote :

" incessant posting of biased links or misleading graphics. "

You call anything that goes against what the corporate media feeds you biased and misleading but fail to see the bias of corporate media. In reality, all sources are biased. Would you consider the delegate count graphics that include superdelegates to be misleading? Those are the ones the corporate media has been feeding down our throats.

4/15/2016 8:29:58 PM

bernie/francis best bros 2016

4/16/2016 11:34:46 AM

I love how all the liberals suddenly see how biased the mainstream media is (only because it blatantly favors HillDog over Santa Clause).

4/16/2016 2:16:04 PM

that establishes an untrue premise that liberals didn't already know that the media is biased

4/16/2016 2:41:50 PM

the campaign set a goal of 2 million calls this weekend. 1.3 million made yesterday.

http://www.berniepb.com

4/17/2016 12:38:29 PM