Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kgnu_fan

(3,021 posts)
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:42 PM Feb 2016

Ashley Williams: I want Hilary to apologize to black people for mass incarceration policy.


ASHLEY WILLIAMS: ...<snip>... She apologized specifically for her word choice and the words that she chose to use, but I want her to apologize to black people for mass incarceration. I want her to apologize to black communities and other communities of color for supporting the policies. <snip>

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/26/whichhillary_blacklivesmatter_activist_demands_apology_from
61 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ashley Williams: I want Hilary to apologize to black people for mass incarceration policy. (Original Post) kgnu_fan Feb 2016 OP
Good luck with that Ashley. BillZBubb Feb 2016 #1
Yet, Bernie is the one that voted for it, not Hillary MaggieD Feb 2016 #2
Why should Sanders have voted against the Violence Against Women Act jeff47 Feb 2016 #7
I guess because it was a vote FOR mass incarceration MaggieD Feb 2016 #10
So you support reducing penalties for domestic violence, and you support assault weapons? jeff47 Feb 2016 #11
He voted FOR mass incarcertation MaggieD Feb 2016 #15
No, he voted FOR the VAWA and AWB. Bill Clinton and the Republicans bundled those jeff47 Feb 2016 #23
You seem to think he didn't vote FOR mass incarceration MaggieD Feb 2016 #24
Time to go back to copy-n-pasting my posts until you read them. jeff47 Feb 2016 #25
Tuned you Bernie peeps out months ago MaggieD Feb 2016 #26
If that were true, you wouldn't keep replying. jeff47 Feb 2016 #28
Sure I would - it's important for people to know he voted FOR mass incarceration MaggieD Feb 2016 #34
And you're still dodging. jeff47 Feb 2016 #37
Not dodging at all - he voted for mass incarceration MaggieD Feb 2016 #40
There's questions in the post you keep refusing to read. jeff47 Feb 2016 #41
I think instead of voting for mass incarceration (if he was against that) MaggieD Feb 2016 #42
Which leads directly to the questions you keep refusing to answer. jeff47 Feb 2016 #43
I'm not the one attacking anyone about the bill he voted for MaggieD Feb 2016 #44
Actually, you are. You're attacking Sanders for the bill. jeff47 Feb 2016 #45
No, I'm really not MaggieD Feb 2016 #46
So Clinton lied? jeff47 Feb 2016 #47
I think you keep cutting and pasting the same thing because.... MaggieD Feb 2016 #48
No, your point is incredibly brief and requires no thought to process. jeff47 Feb 2016 #49
The desperation from the Hillary camp is just funny. libtodeath Feb 2016 #38
No, we know he didn't. But nice try. The Clintons and most AAs are now learning this history, are sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #32
Here it is right here.... MaggieD Feb 2016 #39
IOW, he decided which issue was important and which was not... brooklynite Feb 2016 #29
He decided it was not worth voting against VAWA and the AWB. jeff47 Feb 2016 #33
So you wanted him to vote FOR Domestic Violence?? Okay, if that's your position. But I'm glad sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #16
You don't appear to understand monicaangela Feb 2016 #51
The first version of the Crime Bill that Bernie voted for DID NOT INCLUDE THE BAN EffieBlack Feb 2016 #55
And the final version that Sanders voted for DID INCLUDE THE BAN!! jeff47 Feb 2016 #58
It was written in a lose-lose way. noamnety Feb 2016 #27
Hillary supporter on Twitter called Ashely Williams a 'Rabid Child'. They really are showing their sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #3
When people show you who they really are, believe them. nt thereismore Feb 2016 #4
Painting with a broad brush I see... Agschmid Feb 2016 #9
No, this is not the old 'both sides do it' Corp Media thing at all. Both sides have NOT been doing sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #13
Hmm we saw a form of that here when the twitter exploded two nights ago nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #12
We are seeing the whole corrupt system being uncovered as the people lift the rocks and the sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #14
That is one way to put it nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #18
We knew it was manipulated. But this campaign has revealed more than they wanted us to know, and for sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #19
We knew, but most people, even posters here nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #20
It's like seeing the remains of FDR. Major Hogwash Feb 2016 #52
all the pants-loading because Sandernistas were DARING to contradict Huerta MisterP Feb 2016 #22
This is what just one person can do. Gregorian Feb 2016 #5
She's supposed to apologize for policy kennetha Feb 2016 #6
She had plenty of hand in making it. She lobbied Congress for it. jeff47 Feb 2016 #8
Then Hillary also supported it becaise of Against Women Act and the Assault Weapon Ban? lunamagica Feb 2016 #30
Yes, she also trumpeted those as successes. The difference is on the "tough on crime" parts. (nt) jeff47 Feb 2016 #31
As I recall, Hillary had, by her own words, a direct hand in the policies her husband pushed into sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #21
HRC needs to admit THE WHOLE THING WAS WRONG. Ken Burch Feb 2016 #17
How about Bernie? He voted for it, not her MaggieD Feb 2016 #36
She lobbied for it. That's worse. Ken Burch Feb 2016 #50
Bernie would push for an end to the "3 strikes" rule. Major Hogwash Feb 2016 #53
What happened to all the support for BLM? This OP should have hundreds of recs shouldn't it? sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #35
"Listen to me..." Hillary says as Ashley is dragged from the room! Bernie listened and Dustlawyer Feb 2016 #54
Ashley was a paying guest --- but she was a black, so Hilary did not have to listen to her. kgnu_fan Feb 2016 #57
The policy doesn't only affect black people and all black people aren't affected by the policy EffieBlack Feb 2016 #56
It's all about the numbers loyalsister Mar 2016 #61
Hillary has the black voters locked up. She doesn't need to do anything. nt JustABozoOnThisBus Feb 2016 #59
kick kgnu_fan Mar 2016 #60

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
1. Good luck with that Ashley.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:55 PM
Feb 2016

When it comes to criminal justice black lives don't matter to Hillary. It's not politically expedient. She gets more votes from being "tough" on criminals (POC, wink, wink!). Yet she still has her "firewall". It's win win for her.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
7. Why should Sanders have voted against the Violence Against Women Act
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:09 PM
Feb 2016

and the Assault Rifle Ban?

Same bill. So voting against the "tough on crime" policies would also be voting against those two. Why should Sanders have opposed them?

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
10. I guess because it was a vote FOR mass incarceration
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:15 PM
Feb 2016

Sorry, he voted for it. Sanders and his supporters have zero credibility on this issue.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
11. So you support reducing penalties for domestic violence, and you support assault weapons?
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:16 PM
Feb 2016

Isn't that a rather large reversal from your previous positions?

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
15. He voted FOR mass incarcertation
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:34 PM
Feb 2016

No getting around it. You can make all the excuses you want, but that is what he did.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
23. No, he voted FOR the VAWA and AWB. Bill Clinton and the Republicans bundled those
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:06 PM
Feb 2016

with these "tough on crime" provisions.

You seem to think this was a mistake - that it was more important to vote against these "tough on crime" provisions than to vote for both the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban. Why are those so unworthy?

Remember, your side are the ones claiming massive political savvy. Therefore, you can't pretend that these provisions were all in one bill. Your savvy means you know voting against the "tough on crime" parts is also voting against VAWA and AWB.

Opposing VAWA and AWB is a rather large change from your previous positions. Why do you oppose them now?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
25. Time to go back to copy-n-pasting my posts until you read them.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:30 PM
Feb 2016
No, he voted FOR the VAWA and AWB. Bill Clinton and the Republicans bundled those with these "tough on crime" provisions.

You seem to think this was a mistake - that it was more important to vote against these "tough on crime" provisions than to vote for both the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban. Why are those so unworthy?

Remember, your side are the ones claiming massive political savvy. Therefore, you can't pretend that these provisions were all in one bill. Your savvy means you know voting against the "tough on crime" parts is also voting against VAWA and AWB.

Opposing VAWA and AWB is a rather large change from your previous positions. Why do you oppose them now?
 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
26. Tuned you Bernie peeps out months ago
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:33 PM
Feb 2016

You smear her with zero evidence and excuse Bernie no matter what the fuck he did or does. Don't bother. The Bernie supporters stopped being worth listening to long ago, IMO.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
28. If that were true, you wouldn't keep replying.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:36 PM
Feb 2016

C'mon, you can come up with much better than that. Put a little effort into it.

Oh, and:

No, he voted FOR the VAWA and AWB. Bill Clinton and the Republicans bundled those with these "tough on crime" provisions.

You seem to think this was a mistake - that it was more important to vote against these "tough on crime" provisions than to vote for both the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban. Why are those so unworthy?

Remember, your side are the ones claiming massive political savvy. Therefore, you can't pretend that these provisions were all in one bill. Your savvy means you know voting against the "tough on crime" parts is also voting against VAWA and AWB.

Opposing VAWA and AWB is a rather large change from your previous positions. Why do you oppose them now?
 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
34. Sure I would - it's important for people to know he voted FOR mass incarceration
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:40 PM
Feb 2016

Let's remember, it is Bernie supporters who keep bringing it up to attack her, which is odd, since she did not vote for it, but he did.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
37. And you're still dodging.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:41 PM
Feb 2016
No, he voted FOR the VAWA and AWB. Bill Clinton and the Republicans bundled those with these "tough on crime" provisions.

You seem to think this was a mistake - that it was more important to vote against these "tough on crime" provisions than to vote for both the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban. Why are those so unworthy?

Remember, your side are the ones claiming massive political savvy. Therefore, you can't pretend that these provisions were all in one bill. Your savvy means you know voting against the "tough on crime" parts is also voting against VAWA and AWB.

Opposing VAWA and AWB is a rather large change from your previous positions. Why do you oppose them now?
 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
40. Not dodging at all - he voted for mass incarceration
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:47 PM
Feb 2016

And now you want to excuse him for it. Go ahead and excuse him. Doesn't change the fact that he voted for mass incarceration.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
41. There's questions in the post you keep refusing to read.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:53 PM
Feb 2016

Here, I'll helpfully copy it again.

No, he voted FOR the VAWA and AWB. Bill Clinton and the Republicans bundled those with these "tough on crime" provisions.

You seem to think this was a mistake - that it was more important to vote against these "tough on crime" provisions than to vote for both the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban. Why are those so unworthy?

Remember, your side are the ones claiming massive political savvy. Therefore, you can't pretend that these provisions were all in one bill. Your savvy means you know voting against the "tough on crime" parts is also voting against VAWA and AWB.

Opposing VAWA and AWB is a rather large change from your previous positions. Why do you oppose them now?
 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
42. I think instead of voting for mass incarceration (if he was against that)
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:58 PM
Feb 2016

he should have voted against it.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
43. Which leads directly to the questions you keep refusing to answer.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:59 PM
Feb 2016
No, he voted FOR the VAWA and AWB. Bill Clinton and the Republicans bundled those with these "tough on crime" provisions.

You seem to think this was a mistake - that it was more important to vote against these "tough on crime" provisions than to vote for both the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban. Why are those so unworthy?

Remember, your side are the ones claiming massive political savvy. Therefore, you can't pretend that these provisions were all in one bill. Your savvy means you know voting against the "tough on crime" parts is also voting against VAWA and AWB.

Opposing VAWA and AWB is a rather large change from your previous positions. Why do you oppose them now?
 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
44. I'm not the one attacking anyone about the bill he voted for
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:06 PM
Feb 2016

But the bare facts of it are YOU are attacking her for a bill she did not vote for, and that he did. I know you excuse him for it. But you're the one with the issue, not me.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
45. Actually, you are. You're attacking Sanders for the bill.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:09 PM
Feb 2016

I keep pointing out to you that there are other major provisions in that bill, and are trying to get you to explain why Sanders should have voted against those too.

No, he voted FOR the VAWA and AWB. Bill Clinton and the Republicans bundled those with these "tough on crime" provisions.

You seem to think this was a mistake - that it was more important to vote against these "tough on crime" provisions than to vote for both the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban. Why are those so unworthy?

Remember, your side are the ones claiming massive political savvy. Therefore, you can't pretend that these provisions were all in one bill. Your savvy means you know voting against the "tough on crime" parts is also voting against VAWA and AWB.

Opposing VAWA and AWB is a rather large change from your previous positions. Why do you oppose them now?


As for Clinton, she lobbied for the bill, the "superpredator" speech was about her work to get the bill passed, and she ran on passing those "tough on crime" provisions when she ran for Senate. In "Living History" she talks about how "Bill and I" got the bill passed.

So if you now want to claim Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the bill, or did not support it, you are calling Hillary Clinton a liar in her speech, one of her books, and her Senate campaign.
 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
46. No, I'm really not
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:11 PM
Feb 2016

I'm just saying his supporters seem stuck on smearing her for a bill she did not vote for, while excusing Bernie's vote for it. It's mostly about pointing out the folly of his supporters arguments.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
47. So Clinton lied?
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:14 PM
Feb 2016

Clinton lied in her book, her speech, and her Senate campaign? That's a rather startling admission from you.

It's mostly about pointing out the folly of his supporters arguments.

Why do you think I keep cutting-and-pasting the same post? There's some folly going on, but it ain't from the Sanders side.

So why should Sanders have voted against the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban? Do you now support the NRA or something?
 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
48. I think you keep cutting and pasting the same thing because....
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:15 PM
Feb 2016

... you're not listening to me. It is beyond foolish to try to smear her for something Bernie voted in favor of.

Thanks for asking.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
49. No, your point is incredibly brief and requires no thought to process.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:30 PM
Feb 2016

So I'm quite aware of it.

My point requires you to discuss the choice Sanders was actually presented: the bill had 3 major provisions. You keep talking about one, as if it was in a separate bill from the other two. It wasn't. Claiming that Sanders should have opposed the bill due to the "tough on crime" parts means you are claiming he should have voted against everything in the bill.

So why should Sanders have voted against the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban?

Then you started making the claim that Clinton lied in her speech, her book and her Senate campaign about her support for the bill, in that your emphasis on "she didn't vote for it" means she did not support it. So did Clinton support these "tough on crime" provisions, or did she lie?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
32. No, we know he didn't. But nice try. The Clintons and most AAs are now learning this history, are
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:39 PM
Feb 2016

responsible for that legislation and boasted about it. So try as you might there is no way you can change that nor can they.

AND they pushed it so cynically by including the violence against women segment so that anyone who voted against it would be accused of 'hating women', which you would be doing right now had Sanders voted FOR violence against women, which thankfully he did not.

brooklynite

(94,609 posts)
29. IOW, he decided which issue was important and which was not...
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:37 PM
Feb 2016

...apparently mass incarceration was...not.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
33. He decided it was not worth voting against VAWA and the AWB.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:40 PM
Feb 2016

Why do you suddenly want to support the NRA and domestic violence?

You don't? Hrm....almost like you'd have to make the same calculus in the same situation.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
16. So you wanted him to vote FOR Domestic Violence?? Okay, if that's your position. But I'm glad
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:34 PM
Feb 2016

that despite his opposition to that awful bill, he knew if he didn't try to stop them, violence against women would be acceptable in this country.

monicaangela

(1,508 posts)
51. You don't appear to understand
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:38 AM
Feb 2016

how legislation works in congress or how a bill can be loaded with good and bad policy. Vote against things you want, that may not have an opportunity to be addressed again in years, and you miss an opportunity. So voting for a bill does not mean you agree with everything that is in that bill.

Now then, lobbying for a bill, using policy to garner votes and power...that's a different story. Bernie didn't do that, and did voice his opposition to the crime section of the bill at the time.



Hillary Clinton on the other hand, who by the way was not in congress at the time but felt it necessary to lobby for this bill:

 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
55. The first version of the Crime Bill that Bernie voted for DID NOT INCLUDE THE BAN
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 11:01 AM
Feb 2016

In other words, his claim that he voted for the Crime Bill because it included an assault weapons ban is FALSE: The ban was later added in and Sanders voted for the Omnibus version that contained the ban. But he was in favor of the Crime Bill even without the assault weapons ban, so you and he need to stop peddling that falsehood.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
58. And the final version that Sanders voted for DID INCLUDE THE BAN!!
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 11:43 AM
Feb 2016

Clinton's really not getting much value for her very expensive talking points.

 

noamnety

(20,234 posts)
27. It was written in a lose-lose way.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:33 PM
Feb 2016

Anyone voting on it was set up to be accused of voting against either minorities or women. There was no "right" vote.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
3. Hillary supporter on Twitter called Ashely Williams a 'Rabid Child'. They really are showing their
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:58 PM
Feb 2016

true colors now.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
9. Painting with a broad brush I see...
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:15 PM
Feb 2016

There are bad people on both sides, you can't judge a candidate based on their supporters.

It just doesn't work.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
13. No, this is not the old 'both sides do it' Corp Media thing at all. Both sides have NOT been doing
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:30 PM
Feb 2016

it. Both sides have not hired Smearmonger David Brock, the old Right Wing hater of women who smeared Anita Hill and helped hand us Clarence Thomas.

Both sides are in no way comparable which becomes more clear every single day and thankfully we are seeing them expose themselves to the public as they did last night proving just how corrupted our system is.

Both sides don't have Twitter CEOs censoring the internet on their behalf, only ONE side has that 'privilege'.

So let's just dispense with the 'both sides do it' routine when the ONE side is caught red handed over and over again.

The may win this round by installing THEIR choice of candidate but I'm happy to say the people are making it more and more difficult for them and two years from now there will be another election and Bernie's Political Revolution will continue, because it has to.

No, no broadbrushing is necessary, they are revealing themselves to the whole world without any help from us. And it's shameful as each rock is turned over what we are finding.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
14. We are seeing the whole corrupt system being uncovered as the people lift the rocks and the
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:32 PM
Feb 2016

filth that has corroded our system is viewed in the light of day.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
18. That is one way to put it
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:37 PM
Feb 2016

just going over links for a poster here, on how this is manipulated. I think it is time for me to actually go into this in more depth. All the policy in the world will not help if it is manipulated.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
19. We knew it was manipulated. But this campaign has revealed more than they wanted us to know, and for
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:43 PM
Feb 2016

that alone, Bernie's campaign has accomplished the main goal, to expose the corrupting effects of money on our government and they can't put that back in the box. IT has also exposed the collaborators among whom were some surprises but we needed to know.

Why Sanders has emphasized all along that ONLY masses of ordinary people can do anything to change it, not a President or a member of Congress, but the people. And he gathers more support each day that people see more and more of the corruptiion and whether the let him win or not, this political movement will continue because it has to.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
52. It's like seeing the remains of FDR.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:46 AM
Feb 2016

Because Hillary and the DNC want to "retool" everything FDR ever did as President just as much as the Republicans want to completely eliminate it.



MisterP

(23,730 posts)
22. all the pants-loading because Sandernistas were DARING to contradict Huerta
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:59 PM
Feb 2016

is actually part and parcel of them expelling BLM/relegating them to a closet/forgiving an all-White audience hissing at them (anyone seen Society?)

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
5. This is what just one person can do.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:06 PM
Feb 2016

If we all stand up and voice the truth against lies and bullies, we'll shut them down.

I just realized that if you inflate yourself you can be deflated.

kennetha

(3,666 posts)
6. She's supposed to apologize for policy
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:08 PM
Feb 2016

that she had no hand in making? What, because she was alive and breathing during that time?

What about the people who actually voted for it? Like Bernie Sanders? And much of the black caucus -- many of whom are still around and in office?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
8. She had plenty of hand in making it. She lobbied Congress for it.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:12 PM
Feb 2016

After it passed, she trumpeted it as a success - that's what her "superpredator" speech was about.

What about the people who actually voted for it? Like Bernie Sanders? And much of the black caucus -- many of whom are still around and in office?

Why should they have voted against the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapon Ban?

Bill Clinton and the Republicans engineered a large bill that had many pieces. There was no option to vote against just the "tough on crime" provisions. And then Hillary Clinton helped lobby Congress to get it it passed, and treated the "tough on crime" provisions as a major success.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
21. As I recall, Hillary had, by her own words, a direct hand in the policies her husband pushed into
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:46 PM
Feb 2016

law. She was a 'partner' airc, 'two for one' and up to when those policies were revealed as the disasters they have been, she boasted about how 'she drummed up votes' using her powerful position as First Lady to do so.

Please do not underestimate, as our 'leaders' have done for so long, the intelligence of the American people especially those who have been the victims of policies that never should have crossed the desk of any Democrat.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
50. She lobbied for it. That's worse.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:28 AM
Feb 2016

There was no excuse for her to TRY to get that thing passed. We could have retaken the House in '96 by attacking the GOP for ending the VAWA, and then restored it.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
53. Bernie would push for an end to the "3 strikes" rule.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:50 AM
Feb 2016

While Hillary would reduce it to the "2 strikes rule" in order to pay back all of the money she has received from the private prison industry.

Dustlawyer

(10,495 posts)
54. "Listen to me..." Hillary says as Ashley is dragged from the room! Bernie listened and
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:58 AM
Feb 2016

changed to add racial justice to his platform. Where are the other people of color at this fundraiser? Hillary only cares when you give her a lot of money!

 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
56. The policy doesn't only affect black people and all black people aren't affected by the policy
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 11:04 AM
Feb 2016

So why should Hillary apologize to black people for the policy (aside from the fact that she didn't vote for it)?

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
61. It's all about the numbers
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 07:41 PM
Mar 2016

Most people of color and SOME white people have been affected by mass incarceration.

As of June 30, 2010, the U.S. incarceration rate was 732 per 100,000 residents. But when you break down the statistics you see that incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment. The graphs that follow illustrate that the young, the male, the Black and the Latino are disproportionately incarcerated. Put those factors together and you have almost 9% of Black men in their late 20s behind bars.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/articles/notequal.html


Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Ashley Williams: I want H...