US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3814

On May 14 2016 08:00 kwizach wrote:

Yes.

On May 14 2016 08:08 SolaR- wrote:

What makes you feel so sure that Hillary was not using the term under the same context?

On May 14 2016 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:


lol, and I'm supposed to be the delusional one. You realize America turned white people's "super predators" into fetishsized nostalgia and celebrate it's "traffickers" with a national sport? More currently America is infantalizing white heroin users in the exact opposite way they treated black people (or "young black gang members") in regards to addiction, poverty, and the resulting crimes.

I swear this "you are trying to paint her statement as something to do in itself with skin color. It did not." stuff is textbook justification for racism too.

On May 14 2016 08:13 kwizach wrote:

I listened to her speech, and I know her track record on the relevant issues. If you're going to claim she used the term to convey a racist message, the burden of proof lies with you.


Yes, you are the delusional one. You've spent the entire primary coming up with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton and her campaign. If we were in 2002, you would probably be claiming she orchestrated 9/11 to get sympathy votes as a NY senator. Even if you wanted to, at this point you'd be incapable of looking at her without heavy bias -- and you don't even want to. She used the term "superpredators" to refer to criminal gang members as criminal gang members, not as black youth. You have zero evidence to claim otherwise, only your subjective and heavily biased interpretation.

On May 14 2016 08:22 oneofthem wrote:
eh i do think her usage of the term was pretty bad and reflected some implicit bias. but this is a continuing struggle and people can be better. her apology is sincere and it's far better than the excuses sanders comes up with for his past mistakes.

On May 14 2016 07:49 kwizach wrote:

You are trying to paint her statement as having something to do in itself with skin color. It did not. She was targeting gang members for being gang members, not for their skin color.

On May 14 2016 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:


What conspiracy theories?

You're clearly incapable of looking at her without a heavy bias and don't want to, so I don't know what your point would be there.

She used the term super predator to refer to young black youths who joined gangs (how else were many of them to survive?) who were victimized by their communities to justify making them victims of our prison industrial complex.

This incessant feigned ignorance is far beyond unbecoming at this point.



Which apology are you talking about, Plansix mentioned one but didn't provide it?

On May 14 2016 08:25 darthfoley wrote:


Lol. I thought you were defending the crime bill earlier with "black community leaders endorsed it!"

but now the crime bill and use of the word super-predator have no racial connotations. If you honestly think the infamous crime bill, which disproportionally affected poc, and the use of the term super-predator would be used discussing white "troubled" youth, you're just as bad as what you call GH.

zzzzzz you single-handedly make me less likely to support Hillary Clinton. Luckily there are other Clinton supporters on here that are less maddening (e.g. Plansix).

On May 14 2016 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
She used the term super predator to refer to young black youths who joined gangs (how else were many of them to survive?) who were victimized by their communities to justify making them victims of our prison industrial complex.

On May 14 2016 08:28 oneofthem wrote:

google.

and sanders on the same issue and the same group of people, "it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them."

seems worse than super-predator lol

In that speech, I was talking about the impact violent crime and vicious drug cartels were having on communities across the country and the particular danger they posed to children and families. Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today.

My life’s work has been about lifting up children and young people who’ve been let down by the system or by society. Kids who never got the chance they deserved. And unfortunately today, there are way too many of those kids, especially in African-American communities. We haven’t done right by them. We need to. We need to end the school to prison pipeline and replace it with a cradle-to-college pipeline.

As an advocate, as First Lady, as Senator, I was a champion for children. And my campaign for president is about breaking down the barriers that stand in the way of all kids, so every one of them can live up to their God-given potential.

On May 14 2016 08:13 kwizach wrote:

I listened to her speech, and I know her track record on the relevant issues. If you're going to claim she used the term to convey a racist message, the burden of proof lies with you.


Yes, you are the delusional one. You've spent the entire primary coming up with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton and her campaign. If we were in 2002, you would probably be claiming she orchestrated 9/11 to get sympathy votes as a NY senator. Even if you wanted to, at this point you'd be incapable of looking at her without heavy bias -- and you don't even want to. She used the term "superpredators" to refer to criminal gang members as criminal gang members, not as black youth. You have zero evidence to claim otherwise, only your subjective and heavily biased interpretation. I am not making a statement with regards to other users of the word, or how "America" is doing anything. I am discussing Hillary Clinton's only recorded use of the word "superpredator", in a speech which targeted gang members specifically, indiscriminate of skin color.

On May 14 2016 08:36 SolaR- wrote:

Well with that being said,I don't think you can have it both ways.

It's interesting to watch liberals jump hurdles to claim Hillary's statement is not racially fueled, while at the same time condemning Trump as a racist for his statement on how some illegal immigrants contribute to crime in America. They make it seem that he thinks of all Mexicans are criminals, but somehow Hillary's statement isn't tied to racism at all?

On May 14 2016 07:53 SolaR- wrote:
So what do you think of hillary's views on gay marriage? She seems to go on the political tide of what is popular at the time.

On May 14 2016 08:46 kwizach wrote:

Trump was calling "rapists" the people he referred to here: "When Mexico sends its people". He indiscriminately called "rapists" the people coming from Mexico, adding that there were "some" exceptions. That's why the xenophobic character of his statement is undeniable. In contrast, Clinton was referring to gang members committing criminal acts and condemning them for their actions, regardless of their skin color/origin.

On May 14 2016 08:59 SolaR- wrote:


Trump wasn't referring to all Mexicans as rapists. Just because he used the word Mexico and rapist in the same sentence doesn't mean he was referring to all Mexicans. You're not understanding the context of how he was saying it. He was stating that some of the Mexicans that are coming over here illegally are rapists. He was trying to claim that the Mexican government turns a blind-eye on their criminals escaping to America, to in turn fix problems in their own country. I don't believe Trump had any intention to imply that all Mexicans are rapists.

On May 14 2016 08:36 SolaR- wrote:


Well with that being said,I don't think you can have it both ways.

It's interesting to watch liberals jump hurdles to claim Hillary's statement is not racially fueled, while at the same time condemning Trump as a racist for his statement on how some illegal immigrants contribute to crime in America. Liberals make it seem that Trump thinks all Mexicans are criminals, but somehow Hillary's statement isn't tied to racism at all?

Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, has imposed a new set of controls on its products to ensure they are not used by US prisons to execute death row inmates, according to a New York Times report.

The move shuts off the last remaining legal source of the drugs used in lethal injections, throwing death penalty states into deeper disarray as they struggle to obtain drugs and carry out executions.

States have become increasingly secretive about the source of their lethal injection drugs as a way to subvert a European-led boycott that blocked trade of the supplies to US prison departments.

“Pfizer makes its products to enhance and save the lives of the patients we serve,” the company said in a strongly worded statement on Friday. The company added that it “strongly objects to the use of its products as lethal injections for capital punishment”.

In a statement on Friday, Maya Foa, a director at international human rights organization Reprieve, welcomed Pfizer’s actions, which she said cements “the pharmaceutical industry’s opposition to the misuse of medicines.”

“Over 25 global pharmaceutical companies have taken action to prevent the misuse of their medicines in executions; with Pfizer’s announcement, this will mean that all FDA-approved manufacturers of all execution drugs have spoken out against the misuse of medicines in lethal injections and taken steps to prevent it.”

Pfizer’s decision to tighten the controls on how its drugs are used follows its 2015 acquisition of drug manufacturer Hospira, which produces Midozolam, a drug which despite efforts by the company to prevent US corrections departments acquiring its products, has been used in some of the most controversial recent executions.

On May 14 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:


Is this what you're talking about?



Is your comment on Bernie supposed to be retaliation in kind from the perspective that the assertions about Hillary's comments aren't accurate or are you actually suggesting your excerpt accurately describes what his comments on the crime bill, more specifically the youth gang members Hillary was referencing were?

On May 14 2016 09:56 m4ini wrote:
I think people are not linking Hillaries apology because of one sentence that would make their whole argument fall apart.

And yes, i've read the apology.