2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAshley 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
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)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.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)Sorry, he voted for it. Sanders and his supporters have zero credibility on this issue.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Isn't that a rather large reversal from your previous positions?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)No getting around it. You can make all the excuses you want, but that is what he did.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)But you'd be wrong. He did.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)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)C'mon, you can come up with much better than that. Put a little effort into it.
Oh, and:
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)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)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)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)Here, I'll helpfully copy it again.
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)he should have voted against it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)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)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.
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)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)Clinton lied in her book, her speech, and her Senate campaign? That's a rather startling admission from you.
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)... 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)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?
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)His voting record. Omnibus Crime Bill -- he voted "yea"
brooklynite
(94,609 posts)...apparently mass incarceration was...not.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)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)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)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)Clinton's really not getting much value for her very expensive talking points.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)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)true colors now.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)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)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.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)curious
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)filth that has corroded our system is viewed in the light of day.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)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)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.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)are sill sleep walking to that disaster
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)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)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)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)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)After it passed, she trumpeted it as a success - that's what her "superpredator" speech was about.
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.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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)We never needed to out-Giuliani the GOP on crime.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)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)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.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)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!
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)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)Most people of color and SOME white people have been affected by mass incarceration.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/articles/notequal.html