2016 Democratic Thread

[greg775]

Bill Clinton was awesome today handling these rude protestors.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/bil...ters/index.html

 

I don't know how I can like Bill so much and totally despise his wife so much, but that's where I stand. You tell em Mr. Clinton!!!

[StrangeSox]

Both his crime bill and his response to the protesters were s***.

[Chisoxfn]

Bill Clinton was awesome today handling these rude protestors.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/bil...ters/index.html

 

I don't know how I can like Bill so much and totally despise his wife so much, but that's where I stand. You tell em Mr. Clinton!!!

I actually agree with you. I really enjoyed his sound clip. Made me forget how if he were running I'd be voting for him right now.

[Steve9347]

Bill Clinton was awesome today handling these rude protestors.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/bil...ters/index.html

 

I don't know how I can like Bill so much and totally despise his wife so much, but that's where I stand. You tell em Mr. Clinton!!!

probably an issue with women in power

[greg775]

I actually agree with you. I really enjoyed his sound clip. Made me forget how if he were running I'd be voting for him right now.

Me too. I'd vote for him over this current crop of candidates without a doubt. He's kind of like Trump in terms of cutting to the chase, but more reasonable. He didn't take any s*** from the protestors.

 

probably an issue with women in power

Not really. I'd vote for a woman but frankly she'd have to be the polar opposite of Hillary. Pretty much everything I despise in politics is Hillary Clinton. Bill however ... give 'em hell, Bill!!

Edited April 8, 2016 by greg775

[greg775]

I love how Bill won't apologize. Another good soundbite today. I also like the way he's taken on the Black Lives Matter group.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/politics/bil...tter/index.html

[Steve9347]

I also like the way he's taken on the Black Lives Matter group.

Well that's no surprise.

[StrangeSox]

"If you're against my bill that's helped expand mass incarceration of non-violent criminals, you support giving crack to 13 year olds and having them commit a murder!" --a good, coherent response to protesters.

[greg775]

"If you're against my bill that's helped expand mass incarceration of non-violent criminals, you support giving crack to 13 year olds and having them commit a murder!" --a good, coherent response to protesters.

Bill won't take any flak for what he said. It's already been given its stamp of approval by the media. What's so bad about Bill pointing out it's not cool for the fact a lot of black drug dealers/thugs, etc., are killing blacks. What happened at Missouri was criminal with some rich kid pretending to be on a hunger strike when he was a millionaire's kid stirring up trouble.

 

Kudos to Obama for his answer to protestors furious he picked a "white guy" for supreme court justice. Obama laughed and said, "yeah he's a white guy; he just happens to be a great jurist." Obama gets it. Some of the zealots do NOT get it. Obama and Bill Clinton have been doing some cool stuff lately. Hillary ... not so much. Trump not so much ... Cruz not so much ... Bernie not so much .... Kasich, so much! He's acceptable.

Edited April 8, 2016 by greg775

[Chisoxfn]

"If you're against my bill that's helped expand mass incarceration of non-violent criminals, you support giving crack to 13 year olds and having them commit a murder!" --a good, coherent response to protesters.

Go back and look at the violent crime statistics before and after that bill was passed. You can say there were some issues, but the statistics would say that it did plenty good in terms of reducing violent crime stats.

[cabiness42]

Go back and look at the violent crime statistics before and after that bill was passed. You can say there were some issues, but the statistics would say that it did plenty good in terms of reducing violent crime stats.

 

Bill can be both accurate in what he was saying and really dumb to have said it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[StrangeSox]

Go back and look at the violent crime statistics before and after that bill was passed. You can say there were some issues, but the statistics would say that it did plenty good in terms of reducing violent crime stats.

No, it really didn't.

 

Clinton himself has even renounced it in the past.

 

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. It's terrible.

[Chisoxfn]

Bill can be both accurate in what he was saying and really dumb to have said it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't believe his statements were dumb and I think he is not afraid to state that he thinks what they did was worth it and right. Why should I have any issue with him making that type of statement and being strong about it. It was rooted in his devote feelings and belief to something he thinks was an accomplishment, not a real issue, and he went at them point on. It is a reason a lot of people liked Bill when he was president (he was a pretty open shooter and wasn't afraid for speaking his mind from time to time).

 

This isn't Trump being a blowhard speaking his mind, this is speaking your mind about something you feel strongly about and I am sure he can articulate the various facts for why he still believes it was the right thing. All that said, I don't know that Hillary would have wanted Bill to do this (as it really isn't a major issue in her campaign as she is generating 80%+ in the African american vote despite the concern from the black lives matter movement).

[StrangeSox]

Bill can be both accurate in what he was saying and really dumb to have said it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

He wasn't being accurate, though. Saying that opposing mass incarceration means you might think people who give crack to 13 year olds and have them commit murder are good citizens is a really terrible argument. Saying that BLM defends murders and 'black on black' crime is not accurate.

[StrangeSox]

I don't believe his statements were dumb and I think he is not afraid to state that he thinks what they did was worth it and right. Why should I have any issue with him making that type of statement and being strong about it. It was rooted in his devote feelings and belief to something he thinks was an accomplishment, not a real issue, and he went at them point on. It is a reason a lot of people liked Bill when he was president (he was a pretty open shooter and wasn't afraid for speaking his mind from time to time).

 

This isn't Trump being a blowhard speaking his mind, this is speaking your mind about something you feel strongly about and I am sure he can articulate the various facts for why he still believes it was the right thing. All that said, I don't know that Hillary would have wanted Bill to do this (as it really isn't a major issue in her campaign as she is generating 80%+ in the African american vote despite the concern from the black lives matter movement).

 

Both Hillary and Bill have said that the 90's "tough on crime" stance and in particular the 1994 bill were a mistake, in hindsight. Hillary has campaigned against our incarceration rates. It's weird that he's choosing to defend it now.

 

Her support started out very high, but I think it's been slipping somewhat lately as the primary drags on.

[Chisoxfn]

No, it really didn't.

 

Clinton himself has even renounced it in the past.

 

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. It's terrible.

Nowhere did you show the actual statistics, just one article that mentions a study which indicated a modest correlation (which is still a correlation) between incarceration and crime rates. Let me actually show you the statistics since my post specifically highlighted that the stats back the fact that violent crime was reduced significantly over that time. I also admitted there were flaws to the legislation and I have previously posted about how staggering some of the incarceration statistics are. How much correlation exists between the reduction in crime rates and this major piece of legislation, I don't know, but the actual statistics are pretty staggering (I don't have perfect statistics that line up to precisely when the bill was put in place, but close enough). Is it just coincidence that crime rates took huge drops? If so, what would have driven such significant reductions? I'm kind of curious (not an expert but I don't have a plausible theory).

 

Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And this holds true for unreported crimes as well. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people.

[southsider2k5]

Both Hillary and Bill have said that the 90's "tough on crime" stance and in particular the 1994 bill were a mistake, in hindsight. Hillary has campaigned against our incarceration rates. It's weird that he's choosing to defend it now.

 

Her support started out very high, but I think it's been slipping somewhat lately as the primary drags on.

 

They have made a lot of "mistakes" over the years, but apparently now that is all better.

[Chisoxfn]

Both Hillary and Bill have said that the 90's "tough on crime" stance and in particular the 1994 bill were a mistake, in hindsight. Hillary has campaigned against our incarceration rates. It's weird that he's choosing to defend it now.

 

Her support started out very high, but I think it's been slipping somewhat lately as the primary drags on.

I believe Bill has said there were components of the bill that were mistakes, I don't know that he has flat out said the whole bill was a mistake. The world isn't a vaccuum and you can't always get everything perfect and 100% in line with what you want. Part of politics is negotiating to get to the best plausible outcome.

[StrangeSox]

Nowhere did you show the actual statistics, just one article that mentions a study which indicated a modest correlation (which is still a correlation) between incarceration and crime rates. Let me actually show you the statistics since my post specifically highlighted that the stats back the fact that violent crime was reduced significantly over that time. I also admitted there were flaws to the legislation and I have previously posted about how staggering some of the incarceration statistics are. How much correlation exists between the reduction in crime rates and this major piece of legislation, I don't know, but the actual statistics are pretty staggering (I don't have perfect statistics that line up to precisely when the bill was put in place, but close enough). Is it just coincidence that crime rates took huge drops? If so, what would have driven such significant reductions? I'm kind of curious (not an expert but I don't have a plausible theory).

 

Crime rates started falling prior to the passage and implementation of the 1994 crime bill. It peaked in 1991 if you go by the FBI's UCR stats.

 

What could have driven it? Lead. Seriously. We know the effects that lead poisoning can have on younger people--loss of intelligence, less control, more aggression--and the correlation between crime rates and lead exposure is really strong. That link is from a few years ago, and there's only been more research on it since then. It's obviously not the only factor, but it does seem like it could be a major one.

Edited April 8, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I believe Bill has said there were components of the bill that were mistakes, I don't know that he has flat out said the whole bill was a mistake. The world isn't a vaccuum and you can't always get everything perfect and 100% in line with what you want. Part of politics is negotiating to get to the best plausible outcome.

Specifically, the Clintons have been campaigning against incarceration rates and the "Three Strikes" rules were a major component of the 1994 bill and a major factor in the increasing incarceration rates. It also expanded the death penalty and defunded prisoner education programs! The Democrats in the 80's and 90's were trying to show the country that they could be "tough on crime," so a lot of bad laws like this got passed by Democrats.

[Chisoxfn]

Crime rates started falling prior to the passage and implementation of the 1994 crime bill. It peaked in about 1992 if you go by the FBI's UCR stats.

 

What could have driven it? Lead. Seriously. We know the effects that lead poisoning can have on younger people--loss of intelligence, less control, more aggression--and the correlation between crime rates and lead exposure is really strong. That link is from a few years ago, and there's only been more research on it since then. It's obviously not the only factor, but it does seem like it could be a major one.

I agree it started to decline a bit leading up to it, but there was still modest correlation. I don't know that I buy into the lead is why so many people committed violent crimes. But maybe I'm underselling that. I guess the struggle I have is without anything changing from a policy perspective, how exactly / why exactly would violent crime drastically be reduced. It isn't like the entire control turned wealthy or you went from some great depression to rolling times (two things which could explain at least some shift in crime rates) so I have a hard time driving what exactly resulted in rates dropping by that staggering of a percentage when everything stays the status quo. Essentially, I don't have enough evidence which would tell me to "ignore" the fact that the largest decrease in this shift occurred subsequent to a significant policy change related to crime.

 

I mean, do we honestly think that if you were beheaded for drinking impaired, people wouldn't think a little more before doing it or your hands would be chopped off for stealing, you wouldn't see a reduction in related crimes? Whether that is the right policy or not, is separate, but I just can't fathom that being the case.

[Chisoxfn]

Crime rates started falling prior to the passage and implementation of the 1994 crime bill. It peaked in 1991 if you go by the FBI's UCR stats.

 

What could have driven it? Lead. Seriously. We know the effects that lead poisoning can have on younger people--loss of intelligence, less control, more aggression--and the correlation between crime rates and lead exposure is really strong. That link is from a few years ago, and there's only been more research on it since then. It's obviously not the only factor, but it does seem like it could be a major one.

I got to say, that was a really interest read SS. Thanks for sharing that.

[StrangeSox]

I agree it started to decline a bit leading up to it, but there was still modest correlation. I don't know that I buy into the lead is why so many people committed violent crimes. But maybe I'm underselling that. I guess the struggle I have is without anything changing from a policy perspective, how exactly / why exactly would violent crime drastically be reduced. It isn't like the entire control turned wealthy or you went from some great depression to rolling times (two things which could explain at least some shift in crime rates) so I have a hard time driving what exactly resulted in rates dropping by that staggering of a percentage when everything stays the status quo. Essentially, I don't have enough evidence which would tell me to "ignore" the fact that the largest decrease in this shift occurred subsequent to a significant policy change related to crime.

 

I mean, do we honestly think that if you were beheaded for drinking impaired, people wouldn't think a little more before doing it or your hands would be chopped off for stealing, you wouldn't see a reduction in related crimes? Whether that is the right policy or not, is separate, but I just can't fathom that being the case.

 

There are lots of factors such as the aforementioned widespread lead poisoning correlation (stronger than any other theory offered), the ending of the 80's crack epidemic, "broken windows" policing, community policing (that was part of the crime bill too), economic changes, etc. What their isn't good evidence for is that mass incarceration has a strong or even positive effect on crime rates. Incarceration rates climbed at the same time crime rates climbed throughout the 70's and 80's.

 

This Atlantic article has a bit more in-depth study of the effects of the incarceration rate on the crime rate.

Edited April 8, 2016 by StrangeSox

[greg775]

Ho hum. Bernie wins again. Wyoming to Bernie.

I think it's despicable that thanks to political media coverage, this is turning into a racial thing and that's ultimately going to bury Bernie in upcoming east coast primaries/caucuses. Why in the hell is Hillary considered so great by African Americans compared to Bernie?? For gosh sakes, Bill just took on the entire Black Lives Matter movement forcibly. If that had been one of Bernie's relatives ... boom, he'd have been buried more by the media. You tell me why the media like Geraldo laugh at Bernie's chances in New York and other Eastern states because allegedly he is so bad for African American voters?? With this turning into a racial thing ... Bernie truly has no chance.

 

(As proof, the CNN article I read on Wyoming said "it follows Bernie's pattern of winning only rural WHITE states." WTF. I wish Bernie would present his case better to African Americans because it's not like Hillary will be that much better for African Americans than Bernie!! Chisoxfan? Weigh in on this?

Edited April 10, 2016 by greg775

[Quin]

Ho hum. Bernie wins again. Wyoming to Bernie.

I think it's despicable that thanks to political media coverage, this is turning into a racial thing and that's ultimately going to bury Bernie in upcoming east coast primaries/caucuses. Why in the hell is Hillary considered so great by African Americans compared to Bernie?? For gosh sakes, Bill just took on the entire Black Lives Matter movement forcibly. If that had been one of Bernie's relatives ... boom, he'd have been buried more by the media. You tell me why the media like Geraldo laugh at Bernie's chances in New York and other Eastern states because allegedly he is so bad for African American voters?? With this turning into a racial thing ... Bernie truly has no chance.

 

(As proof, the CNN article I read on Wyoming said "it follows Bernie's pattern of winning only rural WHITE states." WTF. I wish Bernie would present his case better to African Americans because it's not like Hillary will be that much better for African Americans than Bernie!! Chisoxfan? Weigh in on this?

 

Because Bernie is terrible at talking about anything except Wall Street.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...the-bern-213707