Support NeoGAF

[Shining Sunshine]

I don't follow American politics, but what are the platforms of both people?

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Trust me, no one wonders why you say this shit.

If you're really deciding to willfully ignore the constant and repeated failures of a political party that has been dragged to the conservative side of the spectrum time and time again until a "Once in a Lifetime Candidate" as this very thread declared Obama ad nauseum to finally affect some positive change over the course of decades then I can't help you. Hillary has been a significant figurehead in that establishment who couldn't even get behind gay marriage until it was politically convenient in 2013 of all things.

"This shit" that people should be angry about is pseudo-centrism that has sold this country out and reinforced a horrific oligarchy that has bankrupted this country both morally and economically.

 

[Amory]

Are you suggesting Hilary Supporters will vote for Trump?

No, but I see republicans turning out in record numbers to avoid letting a socialist become the POTUS. I also think Bernie is an easy target for the media in a center-right country. And there aren't any guarantees that Hillary supporters would unanimously support Bernie, so though they wouldn't necessarily vote for Trump they might just stay home.

I hope Bernie does win the nomination, he's a change from the norm. But I think he's more beatable.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

If you're really deciding to willfully ignore the constant and repeated failures of a political party that has been dragged to the conservative side of the spectrum time and time again until a "Once in a Lifetime Candidate" as this very thread declared Obama ad nauseum to finally affect some positive change over the course of decades then I can't help you. Hillary has been a significant figurehead in that establishment who couldn't even get behind gay marriage until it was politically convenient in 2013 of all things.

"This shit" that people should be angry about is pseudo-centrism that has sold this country out and reinforced a horrific oligarchy that has bankrupted this country both morally and economically.

And somehow electing someone to the left of that once in a lifetime candidate isn't enough. Now we have to try and elect someone openly attaching themselves to a political ideology viewed unfavorably by a majority of the country, hoping they've grown up enough to see through the bullshit surrounding it.

All the while ignoring her record. Which aside from being hawkish (scary enough all alone), isn't that dissimilar to Bernies, but a hell of a lot more palatable to the rest of the country.

I've said it before, but there's been money in politics forever. There will be no matter who is elected. If Bernie happens to get the nom, he's going to sell his soul to get into the office. Taking money from the same people as Hillary, or lose.

Far from perfect, but the devil you know.

 

[danm999]

And people wonder why I make the argument Hillary is a Republican placating faux-leftist.

Because she has a sense of humour...?

 

[HylianTom]

And somehow electing someone to the left of that once in a lifetime candidate isn't enough. Now we have to try and elect someone openly attaching themselves to a political ideology viewed unfavorably by a majority of the country, hoping they've grown up enough to see through the bullshit surrounding it.

All the while ignoring her record. Which aside from being hawkish (scary enough all alone), isn't that dissimilar to Bernies, but a hell of a lot more palatable to the rest of the country.

I've said it before, but there's been money in politics forever. There will be no matter who is elected. If Bernie happens to get the nom, he's going to sell his soul to get into the office. Taking money from the same people as Hillary, or lose.

Far from perfect, but the devil you know.

And the funny thing:
if she wins and Citizens gets overturned, the electoral environment changes such that candidates like Bernie are much more viable. Removing/minimizing unlimited money as a factor in our campaigns would be paradigm-changing.

There's this claim of a desire to change the system fundamentally. And yet this "take-ball, go-home" behaviour is not consistent with such a claim.

 

[Knoxcore]

And people wonder why I make the argument Hillary is a Republican placating faux-leftist.

Man, your level of irrationality is through the roof.

 

[BertramCooper]

And people wonder why I make the argument Hillary is a Republican placating faux-leftist.

Pretty stupid argument you've got there, considering the nonstop vitriol the GOP has thrown at Hillary for nearly a quarter of a century.

"Republican placating" my ass.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

And the funny thing:
if she wins and Citizens gets overturned, the electoral environment changes such that candidates like Bernie are much more viable. Removing/minimizing unlimited money as a factor in our campaigns would be paradigm-changing.

There's this claim of a desire to change the system fundamentally. And yet this "take-ball, go-home" behaviour is not consistent with such a claim.

I mean, I can understand the skepticism.

I think, for the most part at least, that Citizens United was a seminal moment in American history. Something I don't expect to change in any significant measure.

We might get limitations from here, but that cat be out of the bag.

Bernie would be the more likely to try and make big changes, but I'm at a loss for what could be done in a sweeping way. Incremental changes at best.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

And people wonder why I make the argument Hillary is a Republican placating faux-leftist.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

 

[Indicate]

Sanders vs Trump 2016!

These are awesome by the way.

 

[Fenderputty]

Pretty stupid argument you've got there, considering the nonstop vitriol the GOP has thrown at Hillary for nearly a quarter of a century.

"Republican placating" my ass.

First you've read one of his posts? Lol

 

[WoodWERD]

I don't follow American politics, but what are the platforms of both people?

I got you bro:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
https://berniesanders.com/

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Pretty stupid argument you've got there, considering the nonstop vitriol the GOP has thrown at Hillary for nearly a quarter of a century.

And yet she's advocated conservative policies multiple times over the decades, and never disagreed with an American military excursion since she's had a voice.

"Republican placating" my ass.

Oh please. Republican leadership succeeded in driving the country so far right of center people are actually defending her record.

Because she has a sense of humour...?

Yet Republicans have never said a good thing about Jimmy Carter, whose record speaks for himself.

What he's most proud of, though, is that he didn't fire a single shot. Didn't kill a single person. Didn't lead his country into a war – legal or illegal. "We kept our country at peace. We never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet. But still we achieved our international goals. We brought peace to other people, including Egypt and Israel. We normalised relations with China, which had been non-existent for 30-something years. We brought peace between US and most of the countries in Latin America because of the Panama Canal Treaty. We formed a working relationship with the Soviet Union."

Instead y'all backing someone with decades of advocating for killing brown people overseas and locking up black people at home and pretending that's somehow progressive in any shape or form. Yet you call me stupid?

Hah.

 

[Stinkles]

I don't follow American politics, but what are the platforms of both people?

Hillary: don't do wars, don't make anything worse, don't rock the boat.

Bernie: Sweden things a bit.


Huckabee: Jesus rapture gay abortion.

Trump: build a wall tall enough to contain my ego and incompetence.

Bush: don't say Bush a lot.

Christie: pies and mafia

Cruz: I'm Hispanic

Paul: goldbugs isolationism sounds nice but BAM republican

 

[werks]

Wow. Are we talking about the same person that said this?

http://clinton4.nara.gov/media/text...he-ninth-annual-women-in-policing-awards.text

Right now the Congress, at this very moment, is
about to vote on a procedural matter that will make it
possible to vote on the crime bill. I have to tell you, as I
stand here, there is something wrong when a crime bill takes
six years to work its way through the Congress, and the
average criminal serves only four. There is something wrong
with our system.

The sad truth is that, unfortunately, there are those who would rather talk about fighting crime than actually give you the tools that you can use to fight crime.

There will be more police on the street, a hundred thousand more police officers,

three strikes and you're out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door

many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons.

These are not Bill Clintons words. These are Hillary Clinton's words. I'm not asking her to repudiate anything her husband did, I want answers for policies she championed.

Lets look at the results of what she championed.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/13/the...ime_politics_built_the_worlds_largest_prison/

Hillary Clinton wants to run for president as an economic populist, as a humane progressive interested in bolstering the fortunes of poor and middle class Americans. But before liberals enthusiastically sign up for Team Hillary, they should remember this: In the late 1990s, Bill Clinton played in instrumental role in creating the world’s largest prison system — one that has devastated our inner cities, made a mockery of American idealism abroad, and continues to inflict needless suffering on millions of people. And he did it with his wife’s support.

That liberals are now being asked to get excited for Hillary’s Clinton’s candidacy, announced on Sunday, almost requires the suspension of disbelief. That the best progressive alternative to Clinton is a long-shot from Vermont is a tragedy. This is not to say that President Hillary Clinton would pursue the same prison policies as her husband — the political headwinds on criminal justice reform have shifted considerably in the past two decades, and the Clintons, accordingly, have shifted with them. But past actions should matter, and what they show is that the Clinton Dynasty embraced and exacerbated one of the late 20th Century’s greatest public policy disasters.

The explosion of the prison system under Bill Clinton’s version of the “War on Drugs” is impossible to dispute. The total prison population rose by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure — or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute. “Under President Bill Clinton, the number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction doubled, and grew more than it did under the previous 12-years of Republican rule,combined,” states the JPI report (italics theirs). The federal incarceration rate in 1999, the last year of the Democrat’s term, was 42 per 100,000 — more than double the federal incarceration rate at the end of President Reagan’s term (17 per 100,000), and 61 percent higher than at the end of President George Bush’s term (25 per 100,000), according to JPI.

Just before the New Hampshire primary, Bill Clinton famously flew back to Arkansas to personally oversee the execution of a mentally impaired African-American inmate named Ricky Ray Rector. The “New Democrat” spoke on the campaign trail of being tougher on criminals than Republicans; and the symbolism of the Rector execution was followed by a series of Clinton “tough on crime” measures, including: a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes; new life-sentence rules for some three-time offenders; mandatory minimums for crack and crack cocaine possession; billions of dollars in funding for prisons; extra funding for states that severely punished convicts; limited judges’ discretion in determining criminal sentences; and so on. There is very strong evidence that these policies had a small impact on actual crime rates, totally out of proportion to their severity.

There is also very strong evidence that these policies contributed to the immiseration of vast numbers of black (and also white) Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder, according to the well-known conclusions of journalists, academics and other criminal justice experts. Federal funding for public housing fell by $17 billion (a 61 percent reduction) under Bill Clinton’s tenure; federal funding for corrections rose by $19 billion (an increase of 171 percent), according to Michelle Alexander’s seminal work, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” The federal government’s new priorities redirected nearly $1 billion in state spending for higher education to prison construction. Clinton put a permanent eligibility ban for welfare or food stamps on anyone convicted of a felony drug offense (including marijuana possession). He prohibited drug felons from public housing. Any liberal arts grad with an HBO account can tell you the consequences for poor, black American cities like Baltimore. As Alexander writes, “More than any other president, [Clinton] created the current racial undercaste.”

While it’s true that it was Bill who, as president, was ultimately responsible for these decision, Hillary was nonetheless a famously involved First Lady on political matters — a reputation she’s shown willingness to capitalize on in her new campaign. According to a 2013 Wall Street Journal report, Hillary has “signaled she would use the 1990s as a selling point if she jumps in the race, making the case that, as first lady, she was part of an era that found solutions to the same sorts of political difficulties that bedevil present-day Washington.” That legacy includes Bill Clinton’s “War on Drugs,” whether you like it or not.

As recently noted by Reason.com, Hillary actively lobbied for the aforementioned criminal justice reforms as First Lady and, as a New York senator, voted to expand grants that dramatically scaled up police involvement in anti-terror and homeland security efforts. She also said things like this, in support of a crime bill that would impose draconian new sentencing provisions:

“We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and you’re out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.”

It goes too far to say, as some do on the left, that the Clintons consciously exploited white fears of black America to build their political fortunes. Rates of crime in the 1990s were out of control, a genuine crisis in their own right (even if they had already begun to fall), and we shouldn’t forget or dismiss fears surrounding them as simple racial animus. More to the point, the Clintons were hardly alone in creating the vast prison system.

Even still, we shouldn’t lose sight of the massive failure of the criminal justice reforms of the late 20th Century. And do you know who now agrees with me on this point? Why, the Clintons themselves.

Here’s what Hillary said in December 2014, according to MSNBC:

“The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population … It is because we have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance. And I personally hope that these tragedies give us the opportunity to come together as a nation to find our balance again.”

Clinton’s language here deserves close scrutiny: Prison rates exploded, she says, not because of the policies of her husband, and not because of the bills she supported, but because of the shortcomings of an indiscernible “we.”

The evasiveness makes you want to turn off the news until the end of the campaign season. Now that the liberal zeitgeist demands it, the Clintons — the Clintons! — are trying to reinvent themselves as humane prison reformers? The same Clintons who used “tough on crime” rhetoric to such potent effect in the 1990s?

Count me unimpressed.

The clintons have enacted policy that imprisoned more blacks than any GOP president, they took money out of welfare and dumped it into prisons. They made sure petty criminals would never get a hand up in society.

The racist white liberal that gets talked about in every Bernie thread? You are fucking looking at them.

Now she's the champion for minorities? GTFO. She wont even repudiate her own words.

I hope no one in this thread is wondering why Clinton is the largest benefactor of the private prison lobby. Noone has done more for the private prison industry then clinton. The only black lives that mattered to her were black lives living in a orange jumpsuit.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Damn werks, beat me to it. That Salon piece especially.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Hillary: don't do wars, don't make anything worse, don't rock the boat.

Bernie: Sweden things a bit.

I think I like this description a lot.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I got you bro:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
https://berniesanders.com/

www.feelthebern.org is a comprehensive site on where Bernie stands on many issues. 30 volunteers over a month or so went through Bernie's stances and created that useful site.

 

[Measley]

It seems that people don't understand how the American government works.

Even IF Sanders wins, the conservatives in congress would cock-block anything he wants to achieve. The conservative media would go into hyperdrive mode (actually worse than what they did with Obama) and proclaim that Bernie Sanders is trying to turn America into China or Cuba, and ignite the Tea Party like never before. The liberals who voted him in would sit on their hands during the midterms (when they should actually be the most active), and conservatives would flood the congress in record numbers, and absolutely nothing would get done in government.

2020 election rolls around and liberals would be pissed off that Sanders got nothing done, say that Democrats sabotaged him, and sit home on election day. The country would then elect an ultra-conservative to the presidency, and we begin our decent into a plutocratic theocracy.

Or we can simply elect Clinton, who could actually get some conservative votes, get some shit done, and get re-elected in 2020.

 

[danm999]

Yet Republicans have never said a good thing about Jimmy Carter, whose record speaks for himself.

Even if I were to accept the premise here that Hillary is a DINO, I don't see how repeating a Jimmy Carter type would solve the problem you're talking about with the shift in US politics to the right.

Carter is in a large way responsible for that.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Or we can simply elect Clinton, who could actually get some conservative votes, get some shit done, and get re-elected in 2020.

HillaryWitch.gif

Apparently she practices magic. Simplistic thinking Measley. Today's Republicans are obstructionists. They wont work with anyone. We need a political revolution. Bernie is that leader.

 

[jtb]

HillaryWitch.gif

Apparently she practices magic. Simplistic thinking Measley. Today's Republicans are obstructionists. They wont work with anyone. We need a political revolution. Bernie is that leader.

And what exactly does this political revolution entail? How does it accomplish even a single one of Bernie's political goals?

 

[Jeevesmeister]

It seems that people don't understand how the American government works.

Except I do, and this premise is absolutely full of shit.

Even IF Sanders wins, the conservatives in congress would cock-block anything he wants to achieve. The conservative media would go into hyperdrive mode (actually worse than what they did with Obama) and proclaim that Bernie Sanders is trying to turn America into China or Cuba, and ignite the Tea Party like never before. The liberals who voted him in would sit on their hands during the midterms (when they should actually be the most active), and conservatives would flood the congress in record numbers, and absolutely nothing would get done in government.

Obama faced this same problem and actually achieved a great deal, even though the most racist machine in history rose up and opposed him while the Left sat on their laurels and did nothing. Let's list off just a few of those:

-Major health care reforms
-Passed a Stimulus bill
-Passed Wall Street reforms
-Ended the War in Iraq
-For the most part pulled out of Afghanistan
-Eliminated Osama bin Laden
-Salvaged the US Auto Industry
-Repealed DADT
-Revised torture policies
-Improved America's image abroad
-Boosted fuel efficiency standards
-The fucking Iran deal, holy shit
-Increased support for veterans
-Major credit card reforms
-2009 Fair Pay Act
-Fair Sentencing Act
-Renewable Energy investments
-Expanded Stem Cell Research
-Killed off the F-22

Most of which in his first term, actually. All of this against the very machine you claim would rise up and beat down Sanders.

2020 election rolls around and liberals would be pissed off that Sanders got nothing done, say that Democrats sabotaged him, and sit home on election day. The country would then elect an ultra-conservative to the presidency, and we begin our decent into a plutocratic theocracy.

Or we can simply elect Clinton, who could actually get some conservative votes, get some shit done, and get re-elected in 2020.

Obama got 2 terms while a good chunk of the Left was convinced he didn't go far enough.

Clinton's greatest achievement is a Republican wet dream in creating the world's largest prison system. Your hypothesis is largely full of shit, I'm sorry you don't seem to understand how government works.

Even if I were to accept the premise here that Hillary is a DINO, I don't see how repeating a Jimmy Carter type would solve the problem you're talking about with the shift in US politics to the right.

Carter is in a large way responsible for that.

No, America decided to shoot itself in the foot and buy into Ronnie Ray-gun's bullshit fantasties and myths that nearly got us into World War 3.

 

[Retromelon]

Sanders vs Trump 2016!



These are awesome by the way.

Tfw highest income inequality since the 20s

 

[werks]

In comparison to clintons new found outrage of our criminal justice system. Here is Bernie in 1991.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aZJ7f-3XGB4

 

[danm999]

Obama faced this same problem and actually achieved a great deal, even though the most racist machine in history rose up and opposed him while the Left sat on their laurels and did nothing. Let's list off just a few of those:

Obama had a Congressional majority in both Chambers in his first term. And a super majority for a few months.

There is no chance of that for whoever is elected in 2016.

No, America decided to shoot itself in the foot and buy into Ronnie Ray-gun's bullshit fantasties and myths that nearly got us into World War 3.

And Carter's perceived failures in foreign policy were a huge part of that.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Just to be clear, are people referring to: H.R. 3355 (103rd): Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and if so they're presumably aware that it was passed with Yea votes from 188 Democratic House representatives, including the current Minority Leader, 53 Democratic Senators, including the current Vice President and Secretary of State, and 1 independent member of the House, according to the govtrack site.

 

[werks]

Just to be clear, people are referring to: H.R. 3355 (103rd): Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and they're presumably aware that it was passed with Yea votes from 188 Democratic House representatives, 53 Democratic Senators, including the current Vice President and Secretary of State, and 1 independent member of the House, according to the govtrack site.

And just like the ACA is obama's legacy, the crime bill is Clinton and the first lady's legacy.

 

[HylianTom]

And what exactly does this political revolution entail? How does it accomplish even a single one of Bernie's political goals?

I and others have asked this multiple times. How to whip up enough for a House majority & 60 senators (can't use reconciliation on everything), get past the inevitable filibusters/poison pills/etc, nullify the influence of corporate lobbyists seeking to influence every step of the way, force the very likely Republican Speaker to hold floor votes (if, by some magic, any bills were to ever get out of a Republican House committee), etc etc.

Good luck getting a substantive answer.

 

[Measley]

Except I do, and this premise is absolutely full of shit.



Obama faced this same problem and actually achieved a great deal, even though the most racist machine in history rose up and opposed him while the Left sat on their laurels and did nothing. Let's list off just a few of those:

-Major health care reforms
-Passed a Stimulus bill
-Passed Wall Street reforms
-Ended the War in Iraq
-For the most part pulled out of Afghanistan
-Eliminated Osama bin Laden
-Salvaged the US Auto Industry
-Repealed DADT
-Revised torture policies
-Improved America's image abroad
-Boosted fuel efficiency standards
-The fucking Iran deal, holy shit
-Increased support for veterans
-Major credit card reforms
-2009 Fair Pay Act
-Fair Sentencing Act
-Renewable Energy investments
-Expanded Stem Cell Research
-Killed off the F-22

Most of which in his first term, actually. All of this against the very machine you claim would rise up and beat down Sanders.

Not quite. He achieved half of that with a democratic congress. He achieved a bit more with a democratic senate. He achieved the rest via executive order.

Keep in mind; Obama's policies weren't super liberal, at best they were center left. Bernie Sanders' policies are far left. Republicans AND Democrats are going to oppose him at every turn while the conservative media works in overdrive to call him a Maoist or some other outlandish shit.

My point is simply this; All that stuff Sanders is promising is fucking nonsense. He's not going to get any of that passed with our current congress. Further, our current congress isn't going to shift to blue until 2020 when the gerrymandering from 2011 drops off. Even if that happens, and Sanders somehow gets re-elected, conservative Dems aren't going to support a far leftist agenda.

If you want a far-left country, start bringing in far left congressmen and senators. Believing that a far-left president can turn the country far-left when the other two branches of government lean to the right (and slowly turning far-right) is silly talk.

Obama got 2 terms while a good chunk of the Left was convinced he didn't go far enough.

Clinton's greatest achievement is a Republican wet dream in creating the world's largest prison system. Your hypothesis is largely full of shit, I'm sorry you don't seem to understand how government works.

What's your point here? Obama and Clinton are nowhere near as far-left as Sanders, and part of the reason both men got two terms was because they were able to appeal to liberals, independents, moderates and even a few conservatives.

 

[gogosox82]

And the funny thing:
if she wins and Citizens gets overturned, the electoral environment changes such that candidates like Bernie are much more viable. Removing/minimizing unlimited money as a factor in our campaigns would be paradigm-changing.

There's this claim of a desire to change the system fundamentally. And yet this "take-ball, go-home" behaviour is not consistent with such a claim.

Citizen's United is not getting overturned. In order to overturn it, you'd have to do a constitutional amendment which just isn't going to happen with a republican held congress. Democrats can't even get something as simple as the disclose act passed and you want them to try and get an amendment passed? Yeah, not holding my breathe on that one.

I will agree with the "taking my ball and going home" mentality isn't going to help though.

 

[pigeon]

And just like the ACA is obama's legacy, the crime bill is Clinton and the first lady's legacy.

Well, and the legacy of the Congressional Black Caucus.

WASHINGTON -- With the switch of at least three votes, the Congressional Black Caucus made clear yesterday that it would come to President Clinton's rescue on the crime bill.

After a meeting at the White House with Mr. Clinton, three Black Caucus members who had voted against bringing the $33 billion measure up for final House vote last week announced that they had succumbed to his appeals to save not only the crime bill but perhaps his presidency.

"He was selling his presidency, the party and the fact that we will not get a better bill than this," said Rep. Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who found Mr. Clinton persuasive. "Every step forward in a positive way renews the confidence the people have in the president."...

Mr. Lewis, Mr. Rangel and Rep. Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat, announced yesterday that they would change their votes to allow the crime bill to come up for a debate but would oppose the measure itself in a separate vote later. Their opposition to the bill probably wouldn't be a problem for the White House, because the bill is expected to pass if a vote to consider it is permitted. Most lawmakers don't want to be seen as voting against a crime bill, even though they might be comfortable blocking it on a procedural motion.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-08-18/news/1994230118_1_black-caucus-crime-bill-clinton

I'm not just trying to play gotcha politics here. I think that the 1994 crime bill is undeniably racist. (Mother Jones makes the opposite argument: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ed-white-supremacist-violence-against-black-c) But it's probably worth understanding the context -- and that law enforcement in America is universally institutionally racist.

 

[HylianTom]

Citizen's United is not getting overturned. In order to overturn it, you'd have to do a constitutional amendment which just isn't going to happen with a republican held congress. Democrats can't even get something as simple as the disclose act passed and you want them to try and get an amendment passed? Yeah, not holding my breathe on that one.

I will agree with the "taking my ball and going home" mentality isn't going to help though.

The Supreme Court does have the power to overturn their prior rulings (LIST). An amendment isn't happening in this environment, I agree, so the next best chance would be to set-up a test case and appeal it all the way up once the court's composition is friendlier.

 

[Measley]

HillaryWitch.gif

Apparently she practices magic. Simplistic thinking Measley. Today's Republicans are obstructionists. They wont work with anyone. We need a political revolution. Bernie is that leader.

The problem is that many members of the democratic party would oppose Sanders as well, since he isn't a democrat, knocked off their girl Hillary, and he's an avowed socialist.

In short, that political revolution isn't happening, even if he wins the presidency.

 

[Cyan]

Just to be clear, are people referring to: H.R. 3355 (103rd): Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and if so they're presumably aware that it was passed with Yea votes from 188 Democratic House representatives, including the current Minority Leader, 53 Democratic Senators, including the current Vice President and Secretary of State, and 1 independent member of the House, according to the govtrack site.

whomp whomp

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Let's just say between 1980 and 2008 America fucked up.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Obama had a Congressional majority in both Chambers in his first term. And a super majority for a few months.

There is no chance of that for whoever is elected in 2016.

We are too far out from having any idea how the Congressional elections might go and they're too close to call. To pretend otherwise is foolhardy.

Not quite. He achieved half of that with a democratic congress. He achieved a bit more with a democratic senate. He achieved the rest via executive order.

Again, this was because of Obama's success in rallying Democratic voters to actually get up and vote and forward a brand of Hope & Change.

Keep in mind; Obama's policies weren't super liberal, at best they were center left. Bernie Sanders' policies are far left. Republicans AND Democrats are going to oppose him at every turn while the conservative media works in overdrive to call him a Maoist or some other outlandish shit.

This was after 8 years of the bullshit that was Bush, Obama largely gets a pass in that he was left a complete mess that was decades in the making since Reagan. The Democratic Party will be forced to shift Left in turn with Bernie and it's about damned time, frankly.

If you want a far-left country, start bringing in far left congressmen and senators. Believing that a far-left president can turn the country far-left when the other two branches of government lean to the right (and slowly turning far-right) is silly talk.

There is still plenty of time for people to get involved in local and state elections, which is a core piece of this.

What's your point here? Obama and Clinton are nowhere near as far-left as Sanders, and part of the reason both men got two terms was because they were able to appeal to liberals, independents, moderates and even a few conservatives.

Obama is actually Leftist to a degree and given the mess that was 8 years of Bush fuckups and Democratic incompetence. Hillary is the figurehead of a party that has struggled to get a damn thing accomplished without a Once In a Lifetime Candidate like Obama at the helm, and with him stepping down its time to get the Democratic party taking the initiative to push this country back towards something sane, instead of pissing away 2016 to a largely conservative, hawkish disappointment and thinking it might get better in another 4 years.

The problem is that many members of the democratic party would oppose Sanders as well, since he isn't a democrat, knocked off their girl Hillary, and he's an avowed socialist.

In short, that political revolution isn't happening, even if he wins the presidency.

They will get in line, much like the Republicans have been forced to go off into cuckoo land to satiate the Tea Party movement.

 

[DarkFlow]

First you've read one of his posts? Lol

He's Bulbo without the charm. Then again Bulbo is banned...

 

[Ayt]

The clintons have enacted policy that imprisoned more blacks than any GOP president, they took money out of welfare and dumped it into prisons. They made sure petty criminals would never get a hand up in society.

The racist white liberal that gets talked about in every Bernie thread? You are fucking looking at them.

Now she's the champion for minorities? GTFO. She wont even repudiate her own words.

I hope no one in this thread is wondering why Clinton is the largest benefactor of the private prison lobby. Noone has done more for the private prison industry then clinton. The only black lives that mattered to her were black lives living in a orange jumpsuit.

And on the other hand, Sanders fighting for civil rights since the 1960's has been turned into a punch line against him as if that makes any fucking sense at all. I'm not even a Sanders supporter and it makes my brain hemorrhage.

 

[danm999]

We are too far out from having any idea how the Congressional elections might go and they're too close to call. To pretend otherwise is foolhardy.

Democrats barely have a shot at the Senate in 2016, let alone the House which is gerrymandered to all fuck.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

And on the other hand, Sanders fighting for civil rights since the 1960's has been turned into a punch line against him as if that makes any fucking sense at all. I'm not even a Sanders supporter and it makes my brain hemorrhage.

The rise of corporate social media controlled discourse platforms corrupting social justice rhetoric to the absolute worst ends possible has forced a lot of people to try and deal with the fact the most progressive candidate this election season is an old white guy. Sad to say they're dealing with it quite poorly.

To quote Douglas of The South Lawn again:

Bernie Sanders has already shown that Black Lives Matter through one of the most sterling Congressional records on racial issues of anyone in Congress, and through his platform, which would begin us on the path towards liberation. I say begin because it will be a long process to achieve this. The job of the police is to discipline those who dissent from the neoliberal and paternalistic socioeconomic order and to protect the private property of the capitalist class. So in order to end the oppression we have to think about this from a holistic standpoint. Folks in Black Lives Matter are not doing that right now, as evidenced by the notion put forth by Marissa Johnson that people rallying for an expansion of the welfare state that is, again, supported by Black people by a 9-to-1 margin are somehow “white supremacists”. That is completely divorced from reality.

Economic issues are not white issues; they are Black issues more than anybody else’s issues. And as The Black Panther once reminded those within the Party in their heyday, white progressives ain’t your enemy: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/1968/paper-panthers.htm

 

[werks]

whomp whomp

You are right. I don't know why Bernie voted for it when he clearly spoke against it In this video

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aZJ7f-3XGB4

The crux of the matter is that it was still Clinton's bill that he and the first lady strongly championed. Hillary owns that bill and it is disappointing that Bernie voted aye on the bill in the end after speaking so strongly against it. The crime bill is no more Bernie's legacy that the Iraq war being Hillary's legacy. The clinton's own the crime bill as much as bush owns the Iraq war.

Bernie has always been the pragmatist in congress, and unlike the story being spun here, will settle for the lesser evil if necessary. Asking him why he voted for the bill after opposing it all year in congress is a legitimate question. And the answer most likely is that it was better than the GOP alternative.

You can try to paint Bernie and Hillary in the same corner for based on the vote, but the video clearly shows that he was ideologically opposed to "tough on crime". He might have chosen the lesser of the two evils but the Clintons created the evil and championed it.

 

[And_Gignac]

Wow. Are we talking about the same person that said this?

http://clinton4.nara.gov/media/text...he-ninth-annual-women-in-policing-awards.text






These are not Bill Clintons words. These are Hillary Clinton's words. I'm not asking her to repudiate anything her husband did, I want answers for policies she championed.

Lets look at the results of what she championed.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/13/the...ime_politics_built_the_worlds_largest_prison/



The clintons have enacted policy that imprisoned more blacks than any GOP president, they took money out of welfare and dumped it into prisons. They made sure petty criminals would never get a hand up in society.

The racist white liberal that gets talked about in every Bernie thread? You are fucking looking at them.

Now she's the champion for minorities? GTFO. She wont even repudiate her own words.

I hope no one in this thread is wondering why Clinton is the largest benefactor of the private prison lobby. Noone has done more for the private prison industry then clinton. The only black lives that mattered to her were black lives living in a orange jumpsuit.

"She cant get accountable for the consequences of her political decisions because pragmatism! supreme court! donors!".

 

[Thunder Monkey]

You are right. I don't know why Bernie voted for it when he clearly spoke against it In this video

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aZJ7f-3XGB4

The crux of the matter is that it was still clintons bill that he and his wife strong armed through congress. Hillary owns that bill for being a strong champion of it and it is disappointing that Bernie voted aye on the bill in the end after speaking so strongly against it. The crime bill is no more Bernie's legacy that the Iraq war being Hillary's legacy. The clintons own the crime bill as much as bush owns the Iraq war.

You see... this is why bringing up stuff like this is a dangerous game to play.

No ones hands are ever clean, after being in politics for any length of time. And even the champions are wrong occasionally. That doesn't mean they can't change as time progresses, and the reality of any legislation unfolds.

You'd almost think they're making it up as they go.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

How can you highlight differences between Sanders and Clinton when he voted for the bill? I mean, what the hell man. Because his words were different? Talk is cheap.

 

[werks]

How can you highlight differences between Sanders and Clinton when he voted for the bill? I mean, what the hell man. Because his words were different? Talk is cheap.

Bernie has been a pragmatist his whole career. Yes he voted for the bill in the end, but the Clintons created and campaigned on the bill. If GW Bush was running against Hillary, Bush would be held a hell of a lot more accountable for the Iraq war.

 

[Fenderputty]

whomp whomp

Ohh my.

How can you highlight differences between Sanders and Clinton when he voted for the bill? I mean, what the hell man. Because his words were different? Talk is cheap.

Well after that post what's he gonna do lol

 

[werks]

You see... this is why bringing up stuff like this is a dangerous game to play.

No ones hands are ever clean, after being in politics for any length of time. And even the champions are wrong occasionally. That doesn't mean they can't change as time progresses, and the reality of any legislation unfolds.

You'd almost think they're making it up as they go.

No it's not, Hillary needs to at least repudiate her words for the bill that she promoted if she is going to be the champion of minority rights. Letting Bill Clinton come out against it while she remain silent doesn't cut it. We already have Bernie's word from 1991.

 

[gogosox82]

The Supreme Court does have the power to overturn their prior rulings (LIST). An amendment isn't happening in this environment, I agree, so the next best chance would be to set-up a test case and appeal it all the way up once the court's composition is friendlier.

I couldn't see replacing more than two and if Ginsberg and Beyer retire it would still be split. Now if Ginsberg and Kennedy retire that would help but I don't think Kennedy is going to retire. Its feels like a fools errand to wait until justices decide they want to retire (which may or may not happen) for overturn this ruling and what happens in the meantime. There's also a strong possibility that republicans will win the senate in 2016 and then you will have to fight to get the justice appointed and democrats just do not fight for their justices like republicans do for whatever reason.

Snip

How is Sanders "far left"? Outside of the free trade deals (which is becoming more of an issue in the party) everything he says are what the democrats believe in and talk about. Majority of the stuff he says is on the democratic party platform so I fail to see how he is "far left" unless this is another "he's a socialist" attack.