|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work.
If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing.
[quote]
Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something.
Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it.
|
On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008".
Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis?
|
On February 26 2016 04:53 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine."
If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online. Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote "We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat. Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis?
lol this is getting ridiculous.
|
“I love the poorly educated.” — Donald Trump
Before any votes were cast, when Donald Trump was the theoretical front-runner, the optimists preached patience. Just wait, they said. This will blow over. He’s a clown, a huckster, a TV personality. There’s no way he can win. It’s just not possible.
Well, it’s not only possible – it’s likely.
Trump won again in Nevada on Tuesday night, by a massive margin, and he may well sweep the Super Tuesday states. If that happens, and it’s the most probable outcome at this point, the race is effectively over. Trump will have won the nomination of one our two major parties, and he’ll have done it with extraordinary ease.
I hate to have to say it, but the conclusion stares us in the face: We’re a stupid country, full of loud, illiterate and credulous people. Trump has marched straight to the nomination without offering anything like a platform or a plan. With a vocabulary of roughly a dozen words – wall, Mexicans, low-energy, loser, Muslims, stupid, China, negotiate, deals, America, great, again – he’s bamboozled millions of Americans. And it’s not just splenetic conservatives supporting Trump or your garden-variety bigots (although that’s the center of his coalition), it’s also independents, pro-choice Republicans, and a subset of Reagan Democrats.
This says something profoundly uncomfortable about our country and our process. A majority of Americans appear wholly uninterested in the actual business of government; they don’t understand it and don’t want to. They have vague feelings about undefined issues and they surrender their votes on emotional grounds to whoever approximates their rage. This has always been true to some extent, but Trump is a rubicon-crossing moment for the nation.
Trump’s wager was simple: Pretend to be stupid and angry because that’s what stupid and angry people like. He’s held up a mirror to the country, shown us how blind and apish we are. He knew how undiscerning the populace would be, how little they cared about details and facts. In Nevada, for instance, 70 percent of Trump voters said they preferred an “anti-establishment” candidate to one with any “experience in politics.” Essentially, that means they don’t care if he understands how government works or if he has the requisite skills to do the job. It’s a protest vote, born of rage, not deliberation.
In no other domain of life would this make any sense at all. If your attorney drops the ball, you don’t hire a plumber to replace him. And yet millions of Trumpites say they don’t care if Trump has ever worked at any level of government or if he knows anything about foreign policy or the law or the Constitution. It’s enough that he greets them at their level, panders to their lowest instincts.
He even brazenly condescends to his supporters, as the opening quote illustrates, and they fail to notice it. Trump, a billionaire trust fund baby who inherited $40 million from his father, has convinced hordes of working-class white people that he’s just like them, that he feels their pain and knows their struggle. He’s made marks of them all.
Source
|
On February 26 2016 04:55 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:53 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them?
Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. On February 26 2016 03:42 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Do you even see a thing hillary did when she was with bill clinton in the white house? When she was first lady she said and I quote
"We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' "No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why then ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
If you want to call that progressive go right ahead. Her entire governmental legacy is as a conservative democrat.
Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis? lol this is getting ridiculous.
We only accept the most pure into the service of the Undying Emperor. All the rest must be purged through fire as heretics.
|
On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences.
But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it.
Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech.
|
On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences.
But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it.
Because of his long held positions and his sincerity. When he says things like "I've always had a problem with stronger people picking on weaker people" (paraphrasing) we can tell he means it. So even if it wasn't totally unfair to paint it as him supporting the bill like Hillary did, if they are both telling me it was a mistake and they are sorry for what they said/did I only believe one of them and you and Hillary have made it abundantly clear why that's the only sensible choice.
|
On February 26 2016 04:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +“I love the poorly educated.” — Donald Trump
Before any votes were cast, when Donald Trump was the theoretical front-runner, the optimists preached patience. Just wait, they said. This will blow over. He’s a clown, a huckster, a TV personality. There’s no way he can win. It’s just not possible.
Well, it’s not only possible – it’s likely.
Trump won again in Nevada on Tuesday night, by a massive margin, and he may well sweep the Super Tuesday states. If that happens, and it’s the most probable outcome at this point, the race is effectively over. Trump will have won the nomination of one our two major parties, and he’ll have done it with extraordinary ease.
I hate to have to say it, but the conclusion stares us in the face: We’re a stupid country, full of loud, illiterate and credulous people. Trump has marched straight to the nomination without offering anything like a platform or a plan. With a vocabulary of roughly a dozen words – wall, Mexicans, low-energy, loser, Muslims, stupid, China, negotiate, deals, America, great, again – he’s bamboozled millions of Americans. And it’s not just splenetic conservatives supporting Trump or your garden-variety bigots (although that’s the center of his coalition), it’s also independents, pro-choice Republicans, and a subset of Reagan Democrats.
This says something profoundly uncomfortable about our country and our process. A majority of Americans appear wholly uninterested in the actual business of government; they don’t understand it and don’t want to. They have vague feelings about undefined issues and they surrender their votes on emotional grounds to whoever approximates their rage. This has always been true to some extent, but Trump is a rubicon-crossing moment for the nation.
Trump’s wager was simple: Pretend to be stupid and angry because that’s what stupid and angry people like. He’s held up a mirror to the country, shown us how blind and apish we are. He knew how undiscerning the populace would be, how little they cared about details and facts. In Nevada, for instance, 70 percent of Trump voters said they preferred an “anti-establishment” candidate to one with any “experience in politics.” Essentially, that means they don’t care if he understands how government works or if he has the requisite skills to do the job. It’s a protest vote, born of rage, not deliberation.
In no other domain of life would this make any sense at all. If your attorney drops the ball, you don’t hire a plumber to replace him. And yet millions of Trumpites say they don’t care if Trump has ever worked at any level of government or if he knows anything about foreign policy or the law or the Constitution. It’s enough that he greets them at their level, panders to their lowest instincts.
He even brazenly condescends to his supporters, as the opening quote illustrates, and they fail to notice it. Trump, a billionaire trust fund baby who inherited $40 million from his father, has convinced hordes of working-class white people that he’s just like them, that he feels their pain and knows their struggle. He’s made marks of them all. Source
I guessed HuffPost, but Salon fits perfectly well.
|
On February 26 2016 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to.
I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Because of his long held positions and his sincerity. When he says things like "I've always had a problem with stronger people picking on weaker people" (paraphrasing) we can tell he means it. So even if it wasn't totally unfair to paint it as him supporting the bill like Hillary did, if they are both telling me it was a mistake and they are sorry for what they said/did I only believe one of them and you and Hillary have made it abundantly clear why that's the only sensible choice.
I think this may have been lost in the deluge of posts:
And Hillary, as I mentioned before we went down this entire discussion, has a long record about standing up for civil rights. You know, the college organizing, lawyering against discrimination in the south and all that other stuff I mentioned. If you say she's been faking it since law school, then I'm gonna go ahead and say sure I'm cool with that.
|
On February 26 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:55 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 04:53 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work.
If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing.
[quote]
Read the previous pages of the thread. Most of us were too young to remember, but crime was fucking awful and that statement was very true. You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences. But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis? lol this is getting ridiculous. We only accept the most pure into the service of the Undying Emperor. All the rest must be purged through fire as heretics.
Yes, one can't reasonable expect a person not to support a war. Truly to high of a standard.
|
Superpredators were a legitimate concern in the past. We know it's now bunked science but who could have known at the time.
As the police and prosecutors in Brooklyn tell it, Kahton Anderson boarded a bus on March 20, a .357 revolver at his side. For whatever reason — some gang grudge, apparently — he pulled out the gun and fired at his intended target. Only his aim was rotten. The bullet struck and killed a passenger who was minding his own business several rows ahead: Angel Rojas, a working stiff holding down two jobs to feed his family of four.
Not surprisingly, the shooter was charged with second-degree murder. Not insignificantly, prosecutors said he would be tried as an adult. Kahton is all of 14.
That very young people sometimes commit dreadful crimes is no revelation. Nor is the fact that gang members are to blame for a disproportionate amount of youth violence in American cities. But it is worth noting that in Kahton’s situation, no one in authority or in the news media invoked a certain word from the past with galvanic potential. That word is “superpredator.”
Had this Brooklyn killing taken place 20 years ago, odds are that some people would have seized on it as more evidence that America was being overwhelmed by waves of “superpredators,” feral youths devoid of impulse control or remorse.
Their numbers were predicted as ready to explode cataclysmically. Social scientists like James A. Fox, a criminologist, warned of “a blood bath of violence” that could soon wash over the land. That fear, verging on panic, is the subject of this week’s segment of Retro Report, a series of video documentaries that examine major news stories from years ago and explore what has happened since.
What happened with the superpredator jeremiads is that they proved to be nonsense. They were based on a notion that there would be hordes upon hordes of depraved teenagers resorting to unspeakable brutality, not tethered by conscience. No one in the mid-1990s promoted this theory with greater zeal, or with broader acceptance, than John J. DiIulio Jr., then a political scientist at Princeton. Chaos was upon us, Mr. DiIulio proclaimed back then in scholarly articles and television interviews. The demographics, he said, were inexorable. Politicians from both major parties, though more so on the right, picked up the cry. Many news organizations pounced on these sensational predictions and ran with them like a punt returner finding daylight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/us/politics/killing-on-bus-recalls-superpredator-threat-of-90s.html
|
On February 26 2016 05:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to.
I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech.
She specifically said violent criminals, I looked up the quote. Violence criminals in gangs. Not black kids who happen to be doing drugs. Or just black kids. She is talking about bringing people who committed acts of violence to heel.
You can’t take a quote about one thing and then apply it to the end result of the thing nearly 20 years later and claim she somehow was talking about the end result.
|
On February 26 2016 05:07 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:55 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 04:53 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
You're terrible for saying that. Literally justifying the entire drug war and the mass incarceration of black people because "crime was really bad back then and that statement was true". By that argument the drug war is a smashing success and we should keep going and jail more people for broken window offences.
But by all means if thats what you believe at least just say it. I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to. I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis? lol this is getting ridiculous. We only accept the most pure into the service of the Undying Emperor. All the rest must be purged through fire as heretics. Yes, one can't reasonable expect a person not to support a war. Truly to high of a standard.
I can respond to hyperbole with hyperbole. I don’t really know what you expected beyond people mocking you.
|
On February 26 2016 05:03 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Because of his long held positions and his sincerity. When he says things like "I've always had a problem with stronger people picking on weaker people" (paraphrasing) we can tell he means it. So even if it wasn't totally unfair to paint it as him supporting the bill like Hillary did, if they are both telling me it was a mistake and they are sorry for what they said/did I only believe one of them and you and Hillary have made it abundantly clear why that's the only sensible choice. I think this may have been lost in the deluge of posts: And Hillary, as I mentioned before we went down this entire discussion, has a long record about standing up for civil rights. You know, the college organizing, lawyering against discrimination in the south and all that other stuff I mentioned. If you say she's been faking it since law school, then I'm gonna go ahead and say sure I'm cool with that.
Yeah she was just undermining the shit out of it the whole time offering to scab after passing a protest line (opposite of what Bernie would have done), and building a resume. And no I didn't miss it.
|
On February 26 2016 05:03 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Because of his long held positions and his sincerity. When he says things like "I've always had a problem with stronger people picking on weaker people" (paraphrasing) we can tell he means it. So even if it wasn't totally unfair to paint it as him supporting the bill like Hillary did, if they are both telling me it was a mistake and they are sorry for what they said/did I only believe one of them and you and Hillary have made it abundantly clear why that's the only sensible choice. I think this may have been lost in the deluge of posts: And Hillary, as I mentioned before we went down this entire discussion, has a long record about standing up for civil rights. You know, the college organizing, lawyering against discrimination in the south and all that other stuff I mentioned. If you say she's been faking it since law school, then I'm gonna go ahead and say sure I'm cool with that.
I love the comments for that article. So many Bernie supporters calling the author a "paid Hillary chill". It's #ronpaul2012 all over again. Either you're supporting our candidate, or you're the establishment's devilish spawn, corrupted and evil to the bone. There's no room for nuance or critical thinking.
|
On February 26 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech. She specifically said violent criminals, I looked up the quote. Violence criminals in gangs. Not black kids who happen to be doing drugs. Or just black kids. She is talking about bringing people who committed acts of violence to heel. You can’t take a quote about one thing and then apply it to the end result of the thing nearly 20 years later and claim she somehow was talking about the end result.
You should know as well as anyone that "gangs" meant "not white people". She wasn't talking about Hell's Angels.
|
On February 26 2016 04:04 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 04:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:01 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:57 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:49 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:28 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair.
The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse.
The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake.
I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary. Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I've come out against the DNC's favoritism with regards to debates and a lot of shit that's been pulled. Still, I've made the calculation you've described and decided it's something I can live with. I agree there are problems, but to me they are a sign of not a fundamentally flawed and unsaveable system, but one that needs a lot of work. If anything, I think the Bernie side is more guilty of whitewashing, deflecting and dismissing. Considering Bernie has actively fired people in his camp for bs, I respectfully disagree. Sure, and I can appreciate that and it puts some weight on his side of the scales. Not enough though. Let's separate for a moment Hillary's campaign (which she controls) and the DNC (which she doesn't though they do coordinate). Within Hillary's campaign is David Brock. Given his history, his statement about Bernie was pretty tame, he is an attack dog on a leash. That is him barking. He'll be let off the leash for the general to, as I said before, tear the Donald a new one. He's a nasty individual, but he's a tool that has his uses and I accept that. Outside is the DNC, which shows favoritism to Hillary-- it's too much, though their long association does provide some basis for their support. However, for her to surrender the advantages seems, well, stupid. It's like turning away money from supporters (which she's actually done oddly enough, donations from the prison lobby went to some women's prison foundation IIRC but I digress). In retrospect, I think the debate issue is a little moot- these town halls are getting pretty boring and maybe there are enough events after all. I actually cannot do that as I don't believe for a second that Hillary's campaign does not have significant influence over the DNC and their actions in relation to their campaign. Am I crazy? Alright, let's get to the core of the matter: what significant advantages do you think the DNC has provided Hillary over Bernie? Superdelegates, debate schedule, media manipulation, endorsements, soliciting campaign donations are the big ones that pop to mind.
Both superdelegates and endorsements come from people. Hillary doesn't control them. She has just got their favor, because her politics resonates mote with them than Bernie's does. Superdelegates may very well change their mind in order to not stand in the way of the "will of the people", but right now they're voting for her because she has done the most for the DNC.
I think it's also strange to expect the DNC to extend all the same courtesies to an outsider who has recently decided to run as a Democrat as to someone who has fought for the party, as a member of it for the last 20 years or so. Just be glad the DNC is not the GOP, actively working against its outsider (Trump). The DNC is treating Bernie in a very civil manner for him being an independent who thinks it's now convenient to throw in with the democrats.
|
On February 26 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech. She specifically said violent criminals, I looked up the quote. Violence criminals in gangs. Not black kids who happen to be doing drugs. Or just black kids. She is talking about bringing people who committed acts of violence to heel. You can’t take a quote about one thing and then apply it to the end result of the thing nearly 20 years later and claim she somehow was talking about the end result.
Indeed, we shouldn't take statements politicians make about people doing illegal things and conflate them with racism.
|
On February 26 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:07 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:55 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 04:53 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
I take it you didn't read. Therefore, I won't bother responding since there s nothing to respond to.
I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis? lol this is getting ridiculous. We only accept the most pure into the service of the Undying Emperor. All the rest must be purged through fire as heretics. Yes, one can't reasonable expect a person not to support a war. Truly to high of a standard. I can respond to hyperbole with hyperbole. I don’t really know what you expected beyond people mocking you.
Hundred of thousands of iraqis died due to the iraq war. Clinton supported the iraq war. Where is the hyperbole?
|
On February 26 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more:
1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description.
2. This affected minorities.
3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem
4. The crime bill was legislated and signed
5a. Crime went down
5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people
No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech. She specifically said violent criminals, I looked up the quote. Violence criminals in gangs. Not black kids who happen to be doing drugs. Or just black kids. She is talking about bringing people who committed acts of violence to heel. You can’t take a quote about one thing and then apply it to the end result of the thing nearly 20 years later and claim she somehow was talking about the end result. You should know as well as anyone that "gangs" meant "not white people". She wasn't talking about Hell's Angels.
On February 26 2016 05:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more:
1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description.
2. This affected minorities.
3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem
4. The crime bill was legislated and signed
5a. Crime went down
5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people
No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Because of his long held positions and his sincerity. When he says things like "I've always had a problem with stronger people picking on weaker people" (paraphrasing) we can tell he means it. So even if it wasn't totally unfair to paint it as him supporting the bill like Hillary did, if they are both telling me it was a mistake and they are sorry for what they said/did I only believe one of them and you and Hillary have made it abundantly clear why that's the only sensible choice. I think this may have been lost in the deluge of posts: And Hillary, as I mentioned before we went down this entire discussion, has a long record about standing up for civil rights. You know, the college organizing, lawyering against discrimination in the south and all that other stuff I mentioned. If you say she's been faking it since law school, then I'm gonna go ahead and say sure I'm cool with that. I love the comments for that article. So many Bernie supporters calling the author a "paid Hillary chill". It's #ronpaul2012 all over again. Either you're supporting our candidate, or you're the establishment's devilish spawn, corrupted and evil to the bone.
Isn't Trump proving Ron right though (obviously you're exaggerating)? but the media couldn't resist the ratings and he had a regular morning appearance on a 24 hour network plus the internet is much different.
This is one reason why people were so wrong to write Bernie off as another Paul too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
