Vermont's Independent Voice
Browse News
Browse Arts + Culture
Browse Food + Drink
Browse Cannabis
Browse Music
Browse On Screen
Browse Events
Browse Classifieds
Browse Personals
vermontborn
Member since Jun 8, 2016
Recent Comments
Re: “Walters: Sanders Alums Back Purity Test for Senate Dems”
Why resist David Shulkin's nomination? He was the one holdover from Obama's administration. That both our Senators have not negated all of Trump's nominations bears testimony of their voting their conscience on what they believe is best for Vermont and the United States. I am wary of all or nothing groups. Is your intent to promote a cause or ideal or is your intent to behave like zealots promoting nothing more than discord?
Posted by
vermontborn
on 02/18/2017 at 10:32 AM
Re: “Clinton Claims Nomination, Sanders Vows to Fight On”
"Fewer pledged delegates and fewer popular votes". Let's not forget that 39% of voters (PEW Research Center 2014) affiliate themselves as Independents - a segment of Americans that were not allowed to participate in some of the state primaries (e.g. New York). With Millenials (18-33 YOA), the percentage increases to 48%. When saying that Hillary has more popular votes, one is disregarding those whose vote was not eligible to be cast. Sanders is identifying with those individuals. Sanders is pushing it to represent those Americans. Not to mention the role the media has played in labeling Hillary as the Democratic candidate by including super delegates in their numbers without differentiating them from the popular vote. What effect did this have on bringing voters to the polls?
Posted by
vermontborn
on 06/08/2016 at 2:49 PM
Re: “Survey: A Majority of the Vermont Senate Supports Universal Background Checks”
What will be included in a background check? I assume it would be limited to what is reported. So, would the Florida shooter have had his previous mental health issues and questionable statements and behaviors identified as there were no previous arrests? I would like to know what information/who is required to report information that would be covered by the check - is it broad enough? If not, can it be made to be?