now browsing by category
I’ve realized, since the 2016 election, that one and only one thing is unforgivable among Dems (and no, it’s not fucking around with emails or cheating or lying or colluding or anything like that): Being a Trump voter. Being a Trump voter will earn you condemnation, threats of anthrax in the mail, in fact, by an Iowa school teacher (no, not kidding), the loss of 600 Facebook friends who thought you, a big-mouth progressive, were one of them (“them” being party-line-toers). But for a lot of us, there’s a little more to this story.
Once upon a time, the primary was over, and Bernie, beloved to a lot of us, had been fucked over by the DNC and Clinton and their crew. Pouring sweat and looking miserable, Bernie campaigned for Clinton. We then learned more about the DNC’s collusion against Bernie. Wikileaks clued us in on exactly how far the Dem establishment was willing to go to see Clinton anointed. We learned how the Dems/DNC belittled and mocked Bernie – and his supporters. It’s like it were yesterday.
Revenge is a dish best served cold, they say. Or, best served during an election cycle. Severely disgusted with the Dem establishment, hating Clinton – forever hating Clinton – I, a lifelong Dem, Demexited. Registered independent. Voted for Donald Trump. A revenge vote? Bet your sweet ass. A lot of progressives, like myself, claimed they voted for Stein or wrote in Bernie. Maybe they did. But what the hell good is a revenge vote if it’s a secret? I never denied my Trump vote; still don’t. It was necessary, for me. One I regret? Not yet. My Trump vote was my Democratic Party swan song; I said goodbye, and yeah, got even. Never looked back. The 600 lost Facebook “friends” was a small price to pay for personal integrity.
I have this running argument on Facebook with a guy, let’s call him Charlie (well, it is, in fact, his name). No matter what I post, he reminds me I voted for Trump. I patiently remind him that I was there when it happened. He tries to get me to admit I made a mistake by voting for Trump over Clinton. I will never in this lifetime do that. He tries to make me responsible for every bad decision or ill-thought-out Tweet of Trump’s because I’m a “Trump supporter.” He seems determined to convince me that all was going swimmingly in this country until November 2016, and I ruined it (sure, with my single vote in Kentucky, where Trump won by, what, 40%?). You know, here’s the thing a lot of Dems choose to ignore: They may think President Trump is the devil, but the worst devil of all was always Hillary Clinton. I never wore a MAGA hat, but I’d have bought out a MAGA store and draped myself in MAGA paraphernalia before I’d have worn something that said “Stronger Together.”
And since the 2016 election, I realized what the Dems’ biggest problem is: To them, it’s all or nothing. You’re with them 100% or against them. You’re a “pure” Dem or you’re impure. No 40/60 split, no “yeah, I agree sometimes.” 100%. If you’re not with them 100%, you’re – well, something else. In the case of a bunch of my social media friends, I’m now a “Trump supporter,” although in their heart of hearts they know I’m one of the strongest progressives ever. (Come on, what conservative supported Bernie “Socialist” Sanders?) What Dems and their loyal party-line-toers have blindly refused to acknowledge is that people like me can make a voting choice for calculated reasons, but maintain the progressive values they always had – in fact, I made the voting choice I made because of my progressive values. Clinton was never a progressive. She was bad news. She was the one person – the one candidate – who could have driven someone as progressive as I am, and have always been, to vote for Donald Trump and not regret it. The regret I have now is that, at one time, I was one of those progressive knee-jerk reactors who demanded purity from others. Won’t make that mistake again. Reasons, folks – -people have reasons for what they do.
Dems need to get off this progressive purity thing, because the harsh truth is that none of them – none of them who rammed Clinton down our throats and thought their sordid treatment of Bernie was okay – have a scintilla of progressive purity. Paying lip service to the policies that sound good to voters isn’t progressive purity. The Dem establishment, and their loyal soldiers in the field, are busy squandering any chance they have to claw their way back to some semblance of a party. They continually rehash 2016, play the blame game – and people like me, unashamed Demexiters and unashamed Trump voters, are low hanging fruit for their ire, bitterness and anger. What my social media pal Charlie (who for whatever reason frequents my wall, still) wants is for me to say I made a mistake, wish I hadn’t voted for Trump. He’s enraged that I admit it, own it, and am defiant in my righteousness.
The Dem Party will never get me back, but if they ever want to get my vote back – I am, after all, now a registered independent – they need to do better. Much better. And I see no sign of that happening. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem to me like insulting and alienating a whole segment of people who voted for Trump out of hatred for Hillary and the Democratic establishment and disgust at their treatment of Bernie is a good step in that direction.
Related articles across the web
Gotta give it to whoever this MSNBC guy is (rarely watch it) – he was trying valiantly to get Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, to say that Bernie would lose his path to the nomination long before the convention. But it’s official – Bernie Sanders is taking it all the way to the convention. Pledged delegates, popular vote – sure, they matter, but what should matter more to the DNC at the convention is which candidate can beat the Republican nominee. Bernie Sanders in polls everywhere comes out ahead of any Republican; Bernie Sanders is tied or ahead of Clinton in national polls; and Bernie Sanders has the ability to bring in millions of young, engaged voters, along with seasoned, political watchers like me, that at this moment will never support Hillary Clinton.
Watch Weaver explain Bernie’s path:
Jeff Weaver, Sanders campaign manager, shows Steve Kornacki exactly where the campaign sees a path to winning the Democratic nomination, and how they hope to convert Democratic super-delegates to their side ahead of the party’s national convention.
You know, one time I didn’t want my parents to see my not-exactly-applying-myself report card. So I said the dog ate it. No, actually, my friend had it. Hmm, now that I think about it, I think I accidentally burned it. There was no way I was going to let my school principal father lay eyes on that thing. Wasn’t happening. I think I might have been grounded til I was 25, not sure, but in the end I never produced it. Lying seemed better (I was a little kid, and in retrospect, I should have just bit the bullet and fessed up – but who knew). When I hear Hillary Clinton’s multiple excuses for not releasing those Wall Street speech transcripts I think of that time in my childhood. I know why I didn’t want my folks to see that report card: It had F’s on it. And for the same reason, Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches are filled with what the American public will consider political “F-‘s.” I’ll lay odds that my dismal report card in 5th grade, with all its F’s, would look better than the contents of Clinton’s Wall Street speeches would look to the voting public.
So that’s why she won’t release them, and that’s why we hear repeated versions of “the dog ate my homework.” I mean, come on, we all knew that she wouldn’t release them when Bernie released his tax returns. He did that today and she jetted off to a fundraiser. (Maybe George Clooney is holding them in his safe and she went to retrieve them so as to keep her word; anything is possible.) No, the clear, unequivocal message from Clinton last night and for the past months is (and I paraphrase), “I’ll release them when monkeys fly out of my ass.”
Clinton’s campaign is sweating bullets trying to do damage control around this issue. Her spokeswoman, Karen Finney, told Erica Hill on MSNBC that calls for Clinton to release her transcripts is “very offensive,” because after all, kids are sick or can’t afford college or some shit, and given all the shit on shit out there, the release of the transcripts is “not something you care about.”
Well again, Sen. Sanders is, you know, trying to use this to make an allegation to which he has absolutely no response when asked where is the proof . . . So, you know, I think a lot of voters also find that very offensive . . . This is what the Sanders campaign wants, right? The insinuation that there is something nefarious . . . .
Really, this is their damage control, saying that Bernie has no proof that her policy decisions have been and will be influenced by the big money flowing her way and that voters don’t care? Grant you, Bernie could have gone harder on her during the debate – probably should have. But if they want proof that Clinton is more than a little influenced by those cozy relationships- well, we have that. More importantly, though, Finney is dead wrong: Voters want to know, too, what Clinton whispered in Wall Street’s ear. Bernie Sanders is not the only one who wants Clinton to disclose what she told Wall Street – an institution that nearly destroyed this country and is continuing its shenanigans today – behind closed doors. Kirsten Gillibrand, Clinton’s replacement as a New York Senator, suggested that tax returns are a better way to judge each candidate; well, Bernie released his today, so judge away. Another Clinton mouthpiece, Kristina Schake (in the picture below), told MSNBC’s José Díaz-Balart today that “Sen. Sanders has been attacking Hillary on this for quite some time, but there is a basic standard for transparency in campaigns, and that’s that you release your taxes. He’s been attacking her on transcripts, but he himself has not released his taxes. As she said last night, she just wants to be held to the same standard as everyone else, and she’d like him to be, too.” (Next thing the Clinton camp will be saying is we want the transcripts released because she’s a woman.) MSNBC’s Diaz-Balart, of course, let Schake off the hook easily when she issued her lame response, but I imagine that, since Bernie Sanders released his 2014 returns today – and they are, as Politico noted, as boring as he predicted – they’ll drop that line quick fast and in a hurry.
But no matter what the Clinton camp peddles in its highly unsuccessful quest to end this thing, the issue is very simple. For Clinton to be held to the same standard as Bernie Sanders – her only opponent right now – she’d release the transcripts. Clinton slammed him for not releasing his taxes, and used that at last night’s debate as the reason for her refusal to release her transcripts; now he’s released his taxes. She said she’d release hers when all the other candidates did; well, the Republican candidates aren’t running on tough-on-Wall-Street platforms, and besides, she’s not running against them. Her only opponent, Bernie Sanders, has no Wall Street speeches and is utterly transparent and clear about his message to Wall Street, as well as his willingness to release his speeches:
I’m going to release all the transcripts [of speeches] I gave to Wall Street . . . Not for $225,000 . . . Not for $2,000, not for two cents — because there were no speeches.
She has two choices: Release the transcripts or just admit that she’ll coddle Wall Street if elected President. There’s no in-between.
Her stark refusal to be transparent to the American public is as obvious as it is unwise. She’s sustaining a lot of political damage with her refusal to release her screeds; her trustworthy ratings – which weren’t so hot to begin with – are in the tank. It’s clear, from both simple common sense and what attendees have said about those speeches, that what’s in the transcripts is even worse than the blows she’s taking – such as Twitter-trending #ReleaseTheTranscripts, and even politicos like David Axelrod and Martin O’Malley zinging her – for refusing to release them. As Rosette Newcomb from USUncut noted, the release of the Wall Street transcripts could, in fact, end Clinton’s campaign:
Should the content of these speeches become public, and should the accounts of attendees who described the speeches prove to be accurate, Democratic primary voters would suddenly know three things about Clinton they didn’t know before:
— Clinton will have proven herself to be susceptible to the influence of money from the financial sector, proving Bernie Sanders right.
— Clinton was lying about the content of her speeches, counting on the transcripts never being viewed by the public.
— Clinton’s promises to reform Wall Street will be proven to be empty campaign promises meant to be made while seeking votes and broken once a general election victory is secured.
We’ll never see those transcripts unless they’re leaked by Anonymous or some whistleblower. She’s got too much to protect and even more to hide. Millions of us already don’t trust her, but it seems apparent that her ardent supporters don’t care about her dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness. Me, I say let her keep twisting in the wind. In this election cycle, it’s no secret that integrity, good character, authenticity and honesty – Bernie Sanders’ trademarks – still matters.
Related articles across the web
Online polls show Bernie won debate in landslide, which means the media will hand the win to Clinton
Well, the Brooklyn debate went as planned: Sanders started berning about halfway through, and Clinton was off her game for the duration after Dana Bash asked about her Wall Street speech transcripts. At the end of the night, Bernie had Clinton back on her heels: She didn’t fare well against him on Wall Street and who would better regulate it, she tanked on fracking, maintained steadily pursed lips during the discussion of Libya and Syria and her hawkish interventionism bent, was clearly defensive when he challenged her on her new claim to be all in on $15 an hour minimum wage, and couldn’t for the life of her answer a straight question about her even newer claim to kinda maybe sorta be in favor of lifting the cap on Social Security and expanding it for 58 years. She clearly didn’t see his polished foreign policy responses coming, and obviously underestimated his willingness to go for the jugular when she lied. It’s not a good look for Clinton when she’s backed into a corner, pissed, and defensive. Her sharp, “It’s not a laughing matter” to Bernie made me (and probably a lot of others) automatically cry out, “Yes mom.”
84% of those polled by Time said Bernie Sanders won. 84% of those polled by Heavy.com said Bernie Sanders won. The poll conducted by Telegraph.co.uk had Bernie with 3.3K and Clinton with 443 votes. NJ.com online poll has Bernie at 91% and Clinton at 17%. Which mean CNN – the Clinton News Network – and the pundit class will definitively say she nailed it (based on the HuffPo headlines, it’s started already).
Clinton started out pretty strong, actually – I mean, yeah, I throw up in my mouth a little writing this, but it’s true. For a minute I was a little nervous. Then (thank you Dana Bash!) came the Wall Street speech transcript question (why won’t you release them if there’s nothing in them that’s, you know, bad?), and Clinton sang the same old tune of “when everybody else does,” got defensive, couldn’t get out of the corner, and from then on she pretty much got pummeled. Bernie Sanders is who he is: He stays on message, he has core issues that he’s passionate and knowledgeable about, he’s the guy on a mission. She’s the party pooper who says the kids can only have a tiny slice of cake and no pop because of all the sugar, the one who has the most amazing gift of dancing the sidestep, but who, tonight, was called out pretty much every time on her outright lies and misrepresentations by the CNN crew and by Bernie. He didn’t cave on his position on Sandy Hook parents’ lawsuit, which is an unpopular position; he didn’t cave on his position on Israel and Palestine; he didn’t unilaterally agree to endorse President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee if elected. Bernie doesn’t know how to sweet-talk political style. It is what it is, and millions of us find it utterly refreshing.
Of course, when things got a little hot Clinton threw Bill under the bus on the ’94 crime bill (yeah, maybe I was for it for a minute, but after all, he was the President of the United States!), then threw President Obama under the bus on Libya (yeah, maybe I had a little hand in the regime change thingy, but he was the President of the United States and made the final decision). I had an idle thought that maybe Bernie should let her walk off stage first, because who knows what she was hiding under that white coat thing she was wearing, and that place between Bernie’s shoulder blades, at the end of the night, must have looked pretty tempting. No, this woman would throw her husband, the President, her daughter, grandchild, mother and anyone else under the bus and worry about the tire marks later to win this thing. And you think she’s going to support YOU?
Clinton is about “I,” and Bernie can’t stop saying “we.” When the political winds shift, so do her policy positions. Has she been back to Flint since she lost Michigan? If she really supported Verizon workers she’d give Verizon back it’s big Super PAC money. Come on, if you’re only promising half a loaf during a primary season, you ain’t doing shit once you’re elected.
This is so so seriously a no-brainer. If Clinton wants party unity, I have a great idea: SHE can drop out.
Related articles across the web
Time’s headline blared, “Bernie Sanders Wins Time 100 Reader Poll: He gets more than three times as many votes as Hillary Clinton.” As Time reported,
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has won the TIME 100 reader poll, topping not only his rival Hillary Clinton but also a host of world leaders and cultural figures for who TIME readers think should appear on our annual list of the most influential people in the world . . . Sanders finished with 3.3% of the total “yes” votes when the poll closed at midnight on Thursday . . . Clinton, Sanders’ opponent for the Democratic nomination, finished with 1% of the yes votes.
Bernie beat both President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift, to name a few. On a lark, I Googled this tonight: “Bernie Sanders wins Time 100 Reader Poll.” The Revelist, RT and the Indian Express were highly interested in this victory, and reported on it. HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, or any of the other mainstream media sites – not so much.
They wonder why we are revolting. They wonder why we’re disgusted and fed up with the Democratic establishment and the mainstream media. They wonder why Bernie Sanders is drawing crowds of 27,000-plus to his rallies while Clinton struggles to draw 1,000. They wonder why.
The Democrat establishment and mainstream media boosted a copy of the Republican Playbook (and, for that matter, Clinton’s 2008 playbook against then-candidate Obama) and they’re running it step by step: Disregard the opponent, discredit the opponent, pretend the good doesn’t exist and make shit up to make him look bad, and never, ever let them see you praising him. The way the Republicans have treated President Obama for the past eight years is exactly the way the Clinton Camp and the DNC and the mainstream media is treating Bernie Sanders today. The Clinton Camp has gone so far as to run ads against Trump, as though she’s already the nominee and he’s her opponent. Focusing on the policy issues is fine and dandy (after all, that’s what journalists are supposed to do), but for the media to actively undermine Bernie Sanders time and again is enough to make us all become anarchists. The pundits comment on his huge rallies with the gloom-and-doom scenario that it’s “game over” for him and this is just his swan song; Clinton holds an event for 20 people and it gets top billing. Her best day has been a crowd of around 1,000, and the current sour-grapes theme coming out of mainstream media seems to be that Clinton could have huge rallies if she wanted to, but she just prefers them smaller.
We’re still in a primary and the successes of Bernie Sanders should matter to CNN as much as it does to CommonDreams.org, Smokinghotpoliticaljunkies.com, UsUncut.com, and to us here at the Meltdown. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Sanders taking a slight lead over Clinton nationally; his rally in New York was insanely crazy huge; his millions of supporters gather to hear him speak, full of energy, optimism and faith; Bernie’s favorable ratings are net positive, while Clinton’s are net negative. And yet the media not only ignores him, it goes one further, propping up the Clinton camp by jumping on every non-story her campaign gins up and running with it.
The revolution may not be televised, but thanks to millions of bloggers, ralliers and passionate activists, it’s gonna happen anyway.
Bernie Sanders quickly condemned on Thursday a comment made one of his surrogates who referred to “corporate democratic whores” while warming up the crowd at a rally in New York City. Dr. Paul Song, a physician and health care activist, made the remark before Sanders spoke at the event that drew an estimated 27,000 supporters to Washington Square Park on Wednesday night.
Wednesday on “The Alan Colmes Show,” Alan spoke with former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, who has been one of the most vocal members of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Turner, who was heading to the massive rally for Sen. Sanders being held in New York’s Washington Square Park a
I am going to cut to the chase, HillBilly lied. She is desperate to win and will do and/or say anything to win love and adoration from the state of New York. ANYTHING
Below is a chronological time line provided by The Washing Post which reflects HillBillys consistent inability to tell the truth.
“[Sanders] frequently says, ‘We’re a small, rural state, we have no gun laws.’ Here’s what I want you to know. Most of the guns that are used in crimes and violence and killings in New York come from out of state. And the state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont. So this is not, ‘Oh I live in a rural state we don’t have any of these problems.’ This is, you know what, it’s easy to cross borders. Criminals, domestic abusers, traffickers, people who are dangerously ill, they cross borders too. And sometimes they do it to get the guns they use.”
— Hillary Clinton, panel on gun violence, April 11, 2016
This Clinton campaign attack on Bernie Sanders’s gun record has been a week in the making.
Then, on April 5, her campaign manager Robby Mook made a similar but generalized point in a CNN interview: “I don’t think Senator Sanders has been sincere here in New York which is facing serious problems with guns being trafficked from Vermont and other states.” Mook listed Vermont as one of the states where guns tied to crime in New York originated, but did not directly blame Vermont.
FYI, I do not trust The Washington Post because of their undying love and fascination for all things HillBilly so I did some research to confirm their accuracy and much to my surprise they actually stuck to the truth but I would not count on it lasting too long.
Okay, now for the facts . . .
According to The Washington Post, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracks the movement of guns tied to crime through a process called “tracing.” ATF tracks the point where the gun was manufactured or imported, to the point of its first retail purchaser.
Tracing allows law enforcement to see how far a gun was transported from its point of first retail sale. They can use tracing data to find licensed and unlicensed sellers who may be trafficking guns, and to find potential suspects and witnesses in criminal investigations. Tracing can indicate how serious the illegal gun problem is in a community, the ATF says.
Clinton’s campaign pointed to a New York Times analysis of nine years of gun tracing data. New York and New Jersey have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but more than two-third of crime guns had come from out of state.
Law enforcement agencies tie the movement of guns into New York and New Jersey to the “Iron Pipeline,” which is Interstate 95 and connector highways. The idea is that guns are being trafficked from southern states with less restrictive gun laws, generally via cars, and then are used in crime in northern states that have stricter gun laws. (Related: We have fact-checked whetherstates with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest deaths, which found that despite Vermont’s relatively lax gun laws, it had the second lowest death rate from guns when suicides are excluded.)
There were 7,686 guns recovered and traced in New York in 2014, ATF data show. The source state was identified in 4,585 of the traces, and 30 percent (1,397) were from within the state.
In 2013 and 2014, the states where the most number of out-of-state crime guns originated were Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida and Georgia. But 1 percent of crime guns whose sources were identified in 2014 originated from Vermont: 55 of 4,585.
Crime guns in New York from Vermont is a recent trend. From 2006 to 2012, Vermont was not listed as a top 15 state for crime guns in New York from Vermont, ATF data showed.
Source state Number of guns (2013) per 100,000 (2013) Number of guns (2014) per 100,000 (2014) New York 1499 7.61 1397 7.07 Virginia 423 5.11 395 4.74 Pennsylvania 342 2.68 371 2.90 Florida 337 1.72 292 1.47 Georgia 331 3.31 386 3.82 North Carolina 327 3.32 279 2.81 South Carolina 294 6.16 256 5.30 Ohio 161 1.39 152 1.31 Alabama 117 2.42 91 1.88 Texas 106 0.40 103 0.38 West Virginia 65 3.51 66 3.57 California 62 0.16 49 0.13 Vermont 61 9.73 55 8.78 Tennessee 57 0.88 57 0.87 Connecticut 48 1.33 59 1.64
The Clinton campaign said that controlling for population is a “critically important number, as it shows just how dangerous Vermont’s laws are relative to other states. If Vermont had the population of California, it would source roughly 3,800 crime guns each year to New York — far more than the top 15 total source states for New York crime guns combined.”
Clinton’s answer was in response to Sanders’s claim about Vermont being a small, rural state with no gun laws, the campaign said. The campaign said it chose to look at the per capita rate because it shows that despite the small population in Vermont, the pro-gun laws and the state’s background check system are “so bad that more guns per people living there are ending up in crime scenes in New York.”
We have often warned readers to look for percentage of the population, rather than the raw numbers, to spot criminal justice trends. But this is an area where experts say raw numbers matter.
Using the number of people in the source state is a problematic denominator, because gun trafficking deals with the behavior of gun dealers and the type and enforcement of state laws, according to criminal justice researchers we interviewed. Crime guns tend to originate from a small number of bad actors, and trace data are used to focus enforcement efforts to find those bad actors in a certain state. ATF calculates gun trafficking data by raw figures, not per capita.
“It doesn’t matter how many people live there. The issue is, how many gun dealers are there that are contributing to violence in New York,” said John Roman, senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Roman, who has worked with New York officials over gun violence and gun laws, said concerns over guns trafficked from Vermont were not brought up in those discussions over many years.
“I literally have never heard of Vermont coming up in this conversation. Literally never,” Roman said. “These conversations are always about law enforcement in places like New York being worried about Southern states with easy access to weaponry.”
Candace McCoy, professor at City University of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said per capita calculations are used to determine how likely a person in the population is to be threatened by a particular risk, such as the likelihood of a person being a victim of a violent crime.
“Here, the question is: if we want to cut off the supply line of guns into New York, what supply line is largest? That would not be Vermont,” McCoy said. For gun trafficking, it is “Iron Pipeline from the Southern states, garden hose from Vermont. It would be great to cut off both of them, but given the choice I would go with the pipeline.”
The campaign pointed to reports of gun trafficking problems in Vermont. Vermont Public Radio interviewed the ATF agent in charge of Vermont, and reported the state is “a fertile market, but it’s also an easy place to pick up a weapon. … The guns are frequently traded directly for drugs, court records show, and often end up in metropolitan areas like Springfield, Mass., Boston, or New York City.” Other news coverage and reports by gun-control groupscited per capita rates, and noted other issues with crime that contribute to the flow of guns out of the state. For one, the heroin epidemic in Vermont has contributed to gun trafficking, according to In These Times.
We don’t dispute that there are guns tied to crime in New York that originated from Vermont. Every state had at least some dozen traced guns originating from it in 2014. But it’s important to keep these numbers in context.
In 2014, guns from 10 states comprised 56 percent of all traced guns, ATF data show. The top 10 source states, in order from highest to lowest, were: California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arizona and Indiana.
Vermont ranked 49th behind Hawaii in raw figures among all source states in 2014, ATF data show. As a percentage of population, Vermont ranked 40th among all source states, at 31 guns per 100,000 people.
The Pinocchio Test
Vermont does provide the highest per capita number of guns tied to crimes in New York. This point resonated with audience members, who gasped when she told them this factoid. But as much as the Clinton campaign may want to blame Sanders or his home state for the guns in New York, this is a misleading data point.
The per capita calculation is skewed by Vermont’s small population (55 guns out of 626,562 people, or 8.78 guns per 100,000 people). When it comes to gun trafficking between states, the raw numbers indicate the actual volume of guns flowing out of a state, and the prevalence of dealers who may be selling guns that are tied to crime. If you take out the 55 Vermont-originated guns from all crime guns that came from outside of New York, the number of crime guns in 2014 would decrease to 2,556 from 2,611. That’s how much impact the flow of crime guns from Vermont has on the volume of crime guns in New York.
The number of crime guns in New York from Vermont is so small that it could even be attributed to one or two bad actors. Using the per capita measure of trafficked guns originating from Vermont is as pointless as counting guns trafficked per 100,000 head of cattle.
We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios. Clinton has carefully crafted her talking point to find the particular government data that support her point, which gives a wildly different view than how trafficking flows are tracked. We do not find the per capita measure as a fair assessment of gun flows from Vermont into New York. The difference between this point using per capita calculation and the raw number (1 percent of crime guns with source states identified in 2014 came from Vermont) is so stark that it creates a significantly misleading impression to the public. Those factors tip to Three Pinocchios.
Hillary Clinton’s claim that the ‘highest per capita number’ of crime guns in New York come from Vermont
“[Sanders] frequently says, ‘We’re a small, rural state, we have no gun laws.’ Here’s what I want you to know. Most of the guns that are used in crimes and violence and killings in New York come from out of state.
First you have the audacity to complain about the “tone” of Bernie’s campaign only to turn around and totally loose it when confronted by Greenpeace with actual facts. Now you are complaining because the three dates you suggested for the proposed New York Debate includes the evening of a NCAA championship game when Syracuse, which in case you forgot, is a New York team.
Get. Over. Yourself.
It is not Bernie’s fault you assumed the nomination was yours and because of your arrogance planned accordingly. It is that very thing, arrogance and a few doses of dishonesty that caused your ship to sink in the past. I also find it somewhat amusing that you fully expected him to drop out when you did the very thing he is doing during the 2008 campaign which is stay in it to win it until June.
The people of New York and America deserve to see and hear a debate on the important issues facing the state and country.