Then you have no problem with Senator Sanders’ love of the defense industry?
Erin M. Nanasi

  1. His love of the defense industry? Do you mean the F-35? If so, he was in favor of it because part of the fleet would be stationed in Vermont bringing jobs. In 2014, he called it wasteful because of the technical/design problems which, of course, increased the amount spent on it.

A quote from the article below: “Some front doors of homes in the Burlington area are adorned with green ribbons, signifying support for the F-35. Sanders, like his colleagues in 45 states around the country, doesn’t want to risk the wrath of voters angry about job losses related to F-35 manufacturing, assembly, and training if the program were to be cut. And that’s where Lockheed Martin’s political savvy comes into play.” Full article:

Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton’s dealings with Lockheed Martin (the F-35 manufacturer), shall we?

“Lockheed is a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to speak at an event in 2010. Three days before the speech, Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved two weapons export deals in which Lockheed was listed as the prime contractor. Over the course of 2010, Lockheed was a contractor on 17 Pentagon-brokered deals that won approval from the State Department. Lockheed told IBTimes that its support for the Clinton Foundation started in 2010, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.” Full article:

Amount donated to Bernie Sanders for the F-35 being stationed in Vermont: $0

You might be talking about something else but you weren’t specific.

2. His fevered attempt to dump toxic waste in a tiny Texas town populated by Mexican immigrants.

The ‘toxic-waste included “items such as scrap metal and worker’s gloves…as well as medical gloves used in radiation treatments at hospitals” Quoted from this article =>

In his own words while debating the bill on the floor:

No reputable scientist or environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that groundwater will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment.

There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas, some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface, is a far better location for this waste.

This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality. Furthermore, even if this compact is not approved, it is likely that Texas, which has a great deal of low-level radioactive waste, and we should make the point that 80 percent of the waste is coming from Texas, 10 percent from Vermont, 10 percent from Maine, the reality is that Texas will go forward with or without this compact in building a facility to dispose of their low-level radioactive waste.

If they do not have the compact, which gives them the legal right to deny low-level radioactive waste from coming from anyplace else in the country, it seems to me they will be in worse environmental shape than they are right now. Right now, with the compact, they can deal with the constitutional issue of limiting the kinds of waste they get.

Full Article =>

What Hillary Clinton has done for the environment:

Fracking: She pushed for it around the world.

She set up a special department within the State Department to push for it:

Her stance on fracking:

“I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — No. 3 — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated.” Full Article:

3. Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill.

He answered that question in the (October 2015 CNN) debate. 
He was for most of the provisions of the Brady Bill, but he felt that it held a potential for abuse that would punish the wrong people. Source:

He is for the assault weapons ban, for increasing ownership restrictions to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, and for closing the gun show loophole. He’s also against high capacity bullets and against allowing people to carry concealed weapons across state lines. He’s for sensible gun legislation. He voted against allowing gun manufacturers being held liable for what someone does with their LEGAL product. If the product works as it’s supposed to (put bullets in, pull trigger, bullet comes out) and it’s a LEGAL product it’s just common sense that they can’t be held liable for what any person does with it. It’s a backdoor way of banning guns. Should we start holding knife makers and baseball bat manufacturers liable if their product is used to kill? As a gun owner, who thinks there SHOULD be more gun regulation, I am ok with his decision in this matter.

Here’s Bernie Sanders’ position on guns:

Remember this from Hillary Clinton?

.@BernieSanders prioritized gun manufacturers’ rights over the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook. (Tweet from @HillaryClinton 4/6/16)

Did you know Secretary Clinton approved a $4 million sale for Sandy Hook gun maker Remington? =>

4. Voted against Amber Alert.

He felt the provisions in the bill, which were added by Republicans, were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. One provision restricted the discretion of federal judges in crafting sentences for a range of crimes. Essentially, taking power away from the judiciary and giving it to the legislative branch.

Sanders was one of only 14 House members to vote against the bill, which passed the Senate 98–0, with U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. — a Sanders supporter — voting in favor.

The same day, Leahy issued a 33-page statement denouncing the Republican-led House for tacking provisions onto the bill that he feared would be ruled unconstitutional.

“After months and months of trying, we’ve finally gotten a green light for a national Amber Alert program,” Leahy said in his April 10, 2003, statement. “The problem has never been winning enough support to pass it. The problem has been that our bill has garnered such strong support that it has been abused as a sweetener for highly controversial add-ons.” Quote of Patrick Leahy found here =>

Also in the above article: “Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Sanders is a strong supporter of the Amber Alert program, and signed onto a 2004 letter to the House leadership requesting full funding for it.”

I am fine with Senator Sanders voting to uphold the Constitution.

5. Allowing guns on Amtrak.

The bill allowed law abiding licensed gun owners to bring firearms in their CHECKED BAGGAGE.

Quote from this article =>

“The 2009 bill tied Amtrak’s federal funding to the company allowing passengers to carry guns in their checked bags. The measure was included in a funding bill for the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development that President Obama signed into law.

Sanders was one of 68 senators who voted for the amendment containing the Amtrak gun provisions, joined by 27 Democrats and 40 Republicans.”

I’m not sure what I am supposed to dislike about this one.

tl;dr So basically…I AM fine with all of the issues/votes you brought up in your post.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.