#BLM activist disrupts Clinton speech for calling black gang members "super predators" in the 90s

[Coffee79]

Hillary being honest and getting called out for it. BLM are thugs and they fight on behalf of violent gangs who are predators by every definition of the word.

 

[Madmick]

Now? It didn't before?

Well, I supposed if we literally interpreted semantic branching, that is inevitable, but my interpretation of the whole #blacklivesmatter slogan in the beginning was that it intended to say, "Blackness itself isn't a crime deserving fatally hostile policing." I'm on board with that.

But I suppose it's my fault for misreading that. It would have been more clear to me if they had just been a bit more frank, i.e. #evenmurderousremorselessblackgangsterslivesmatters.

To which I would have simply opined, "I disagree." Because I don't care what happens to those guys, and anybody being honest realizes that neither do they, nor do even those guys themselves.

 

[Graves The Elder]

#followingthelawmatters

 

[Literally Bricked]

If that's what you got then you're misreading them. More black and latino people are arrested and incarcerated for their drug use, but the narrative that they do significantly more has been disproven by plenty of research. I just read a study that says whites actually use and abuse drugs MORE than black people.

Considering that the statistics were not consistent in that the data being presented for one group was not the same as for the second group and non-existent for a third group means you cannot get anything from the information being presented. The fact that you don't understand that is incomprehensible.

 

[ThinkGreen]

What a moron. Someone should have thrown her out the door ala Jazz from the fresh prince of bel-air:

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

I don't agree with her, but she protested in a reasonable fashion

 

[theBLADE1]

Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have taken large amounts of money from owners of private prisons. Also Clinton signed into law reforms that have jailed more African-Americans Yet somehow black voters feel she is on their side.

It's so incredibly sad that she will when the majority of the African-American vote. And it's literally only because they don't know who Bernie Sanders is.

 

[Frontschwein]

Bix nood

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have taken large amounts of money from owners of private prisons. Also Clinton signed into law reforms that have jailed more African-Americans Yet somehow black voters feel she is on their side.

It's so incredibly sad that she will when the majority of the African-American vote. And it's literally only because they don't know who Bernie Sanders is.

Doesn't help that his supporters make false and/or irrelevant claims and think they can insult blacks into voting for Bernie.

No candidate is entitled to anyone's vote--that goes for the poor, the rich, whites, blacks, whatever. Everyone should have to earn it. Republicans have taken the racist vote for granted so Trump is going out and grabbing it. If Bernie supporters want the black vote, they should make the case. And that means talking about what he will do in office if he wins, or at least what he'd try to do.

 

[theBLADE1]

Doesn't help that his supporters make false and/or irrelevant claims and think they can insult blacks into voting for Bernie.

I know Damn good and well you're not talking about me? And what were you saying about false and or irrelevant claims?

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/sl...illary-clintons-embrace-of-mass-incarceration

If anyone doubts that the mainstream media fails to tell the truth about our political system (and its true winners and losers), the spectacle of large majorities of black folks supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary races ought to be proof enough. I can't believe Hillary would be coasting into the primaries with her current margin of black support if most people knew how much damage the Clintons have done—the millions of families that were destroyed the last time they were in the White House thanks to their boastful embrace of the mass incarceration machine and their total capitulation to the right-wing narrative on race, crime, welfare and taxes. There's so much more to say on this topic and it's a shame that more people aren't saying it. I think it's time we have that conversation.

In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton vowed that he would never permit any Republican to be perceived as tougher on crime than he. True to his word, just weeks before the critical New Hampshire primary, Clinton chose to fly home to Arkansas to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally impaired black man who had so little conception of what was about to happen to him that he asked for the dessert from his last meal to be saved for him until the morning. After the execution, Clinton remarked, “I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say I’m soft on crime.”

Once elected, Clinton endorsed the idea of a federal “three strikes and you’re out” law, which he advocated in his 1994 State of the Union address to enthusiastic applause on both sides of the aisle. The $30 billion crime bill sent to President Clinton in August 1994 was hailed as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own. “The bill created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and expansion of state and local police forces. Far from resisting the emergence of the new caste system, Clinton escalated the drug war beyond what conservatives had imagined possible a decade earlier. As the Justice Policy Institute has observed, “the Clinton Administration’s ‘tough on crime’ policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history.”


Clinton eventually moved beyond crime and capitulated to the conservative racial agenda on welfare. This move, like his “get tough” rhetoric and policies, was part of a grand strategy articulated by the “new Democrats” to appeal to the elusive white swing voters. In so doing, Clinton—more than any other president—created the current racial undercaste. He signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which “ended welfare as we know it,” and replaced it with a block grant to states called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, as well as a permanent, lifetime ban on eligibility for welfare and food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense—including simple possession of marijuana.

Clinton did not stop there. Determined to prove how “tough” he could be on “them,” Clinton also made it easier for federally-assisted public housing projects to exclude anyone with a criminal history—an extraordinarily harsh step in the midst of a drug war aimed at racial and ethnic minorities. In his announcement of the “One Strike and You’re Out” Initiative, Clinton explained: “From now on, the rule for residents who commit crime and peddle drugs should be one strike and you’re out.” The new rule promised to be “the toughest admission and eviction policy that HUD has implemented.” Thus, for countless poor people, particularly racial minorities targeted by the drug war, public housing was no longer available, leaving many of them homeless—locked out not only of mainstream society, but their own homes.

The law and order perspective, first introduced during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement by rabid segregationists, had become nearly hegemonic two decades later.

Don't be like @SouthoftheAndes And start denying facts Jack. It's very unbecoming of you and I feel you're better than that.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

find it odd that they're focusing on some random statement she made while First Lady, and not, you know the actual programs and initiatives she tried and failed miserably at heading or sponsoring....

 

[Jack V Savage]

I know Damn good and well you're not talking about me? And what were you saying about false and or irrelevant claims?

See above. "Mass incarceration" isn't something that started with Clinton, is more of an issue at the state and local level (even if all federal prisoners were released, we'd still have incarceration levels that are way out of line with the rest of the developed world), and is even less of an issue with private prisons. Also, Hillary and Bill are not the same person.

Don't be like @SouthoftheAndes And start denying facts Jack. It's very unbecoming of you and I feel you're better than that.

I already provided historical background for all that. I agree that Clinton compromised on crime issues, but at the time, A) the choice was compromise there or lose, B) lots of progressives--including black progressives--genuinely and understandably thought that crime was a problem that could be solved in that way, and C) the crime bill really didn't have that much impact. I agree that welfare reform was a predictable mistake, though you're missing the other part of my point. Most voters are not rigid ideologues, and pointing to past heresies isn't a way to get support for the upcoming election. If the message is "black voters are dumb for not supporting our guy because they don't know that 20 years ago the other candidate supported something that had a bad impact on blacks in particular," rational voters aren't going to be sold. The message should be, "I'm going to do X, which will benefit you, and which the other candidate will not do," or something like that.

 

[klnOmega]

True, more of the mind-altering, life-destroying substances favored by whites are harder for impoverished people to come by enough to sustain a habit. I just thought it was worth mentioning.

Substance abuse is a problem all the time, but abuse of legal substance is irrelevant in a discussion about incarceration rates. Sure, grandma might be hooked Prozac, but as long as her doctor keeps writing the prescriptions, she isn't committing a crime.

Tyrone & West Street gang selling crack to highschoolers and doing drive-bys on The South Bridge Bangaz is illegal however, and they will go to jail. Now we can focus on why they get 6 years as opposed to Tommy selling pot to his college buddies, but personally I think the bigger issue is getting crime rates down first. Especially in the early 90's (when Hilary made that comment), when we were riding a massive violent crime wave. Criminals need to be punished, I don't care what their color is. We can't affirmitive action for the justice system and start turning a blind eye black criminals to get those incarceration rates down. If you don't want to go to jail, don't do the crime. We'll start and discuss the rest later.

 

[Forkfoot]

Substance abuse is a problem all the time, but abuse of legal substance is irrelevant in a discussion about incarceration rates.

I already acknowledged that. Not sure why you keep saying it. It was just an interesting aside.

 

[jefferz]

Why shouldn't violent gang members who are preying on their community be locked up? There's a lot of social/economic problems that need to be solved in some of these inner city communities to try and make sure that there isn't so much crime happening there in the future, but for the time being that doesn't mean that they should just leave dangerous pieces of crap on the street.

Unfortunately a lot of crime could be cut down if people didn't have the "don't snitch" attitude. It's easier to sit and bitch about how the cops aren't doing anything and complain it's all the white mans fault then it is to try to improve your community.

truth be told. Being called a super predator sounds kinda awesome.

Depends on who's calling you a super predator. If it's a judge, you're going to have a bad time.

 

[Bukowski82]

BLM getting on my last nerve.

 

[theBLADE1]

See above. "Mass incarceration" isn't something that started with Clinton, is more of an issue at the state and local level (even if all federal prisoners were released, we'd still have incarceration levels that are way out of line with the rest of the developed world), and is even less of an issue with private prisons. Also, Hillary and Bill are not the same person.

I never said it started with Clinton. I'm saying he signed into law Policies that disproportionately affected the black community and Hillary Clinton supported said policies all the way. And I could be wrong here but are you trying to say that private prisons/prison industrial complex isn't a problem. These powerful owners of prisons lobby with incredible amounts of money for the continuation of outdated drug laws and mandatory minimum sentencing's which also disproportionately affects the African-American community. It's a problem and there is no other way about it.

I already provided historical background for all that. I agree that Clinton compromised on crime issues, but at the time, A) the choice was compromise there or lose, B) lots of progressives--including black progressives--genuinely and understandably thought that crime was a problem that could be solved in that way, and C) the crime bill really didn't have that much impact. I agree that welfare reform was a predictable mistake, though you're missing the other part of my point. Most voters are not rigid ideologues, and pointing to past heresies isn't a way to get support for the upcoming election. If the message is "black voters are dumb for not supporting our guy because they don't know that 20 years ago the other candidate supported something that had a bad impact on blacks in particular," rational voters aren't going to be sold. The message should be, "I'm going to do X, which will benefit you, and which the other candidate will not do," or something like that.

Sorry but nothing you wrote gives Hillary or Bill and get out of jail free card(no pun intended). It's laughable for anyone to assume that the Clintons would do more for For the African-American community that a man like Bernie Sanders who has literally been arrested for his affiliations with the civil rights movement and he has marched with Dr. Martin Luther King. No one is saying black voters are dumb but it kind of sounds like your saying people like Dr. Cornell West and Michelle Alexander are dumb for believing what they do about the Clinton's specifically Hillary.

I notice a clear divide amongst black voters in my own personal life and online. They either like Hillary Clinton and don't know too much about Bernie, or they learn about him then all the sudden come to despise the Clinton's for the things they have done. I'm not saying all of course but that is definitely noticeable. So don't call them dumb ok.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

that's the biggest thing about sanders..... not sure the guy knows what a dog fight is, and he desperately needs it. I only care for his medicaid for all, otherwise, he'd be a trash candidate as far as I'm concerned. He got clowned by those BLM operatives, for no other reason than being a cuck.

Yeah, I support Sanders, but man was that pathetic. I wonder if he would have treated brash, obnoxious grandstanders who were white and advocating something unrelated to race the same way.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I never said it started with Clinton. I'm saying he signed into law Policies that disproportionately affected the black community and Hillary Clinton supported said policies all the way.

And I'm saying that exaggerating the effects of those policies or ignoring all context and acting like they are a permanent mark of evil is both stupid and ineffective.

And I could be wrong here but are you trying to say that private prisons/prison industrial complex isn't a problem.

It's not a significant contributor to any real problem. They are a reaction to excessive incarceration rather than a driver of it.

Sorry but nothing you wrote gives Hillary or Bill and get out of jail free card(no pun intended).

That wasn't the intention. The election that we're discussing is for 2016. If Bernie is running for president of 1996, maybe that would be relevant. Again, if you want votes, you have to earn them. If you just berate people for not voting for you, then you deserve what you get, which is defeat.

Yeah, I support Sanders, but man was that pathetic. I wonder if he would have treated brash, obnoxious grandstanders who were white and advocating something unrelated to race the same way.

To be truly comparable, they'd have to be representing a large group of people and advocating policy he agrees with. Say union reps. I think he would have treated them the same way.

 

[theBLADE1]

And I'm saying that exaggerating the effects of those policies or ignoring all context and acting like they are a permanent mark of evil is both stupid and ineffective.

That mixed with many other things the Clinton's have done are examples of their marks of evil. Not just this issue but many.

It's not a significant contributor to any real problem. They are a reaction to excessive incarceration rather than a driver of it.

I highly suggest you educate yourself on this issue.

That wasn't the intention. The election that we're discussing is for 2016. If Bernie is running for president of 1996, maybe that would be relevant. Again, if you want votes, you have to earn them. If you just berate people for not voting for you, then you deserve what you get, which is defeat.

It's absolutely necessary to bring up candidates pass judgments in order to effectively determine what kind of leader they will be on certain issues going forward. And Bernie Sanders is not berating anybody and neither am I. And it's also an unquestionable fact that Sanders has done more than Hillary Clinton ever could to earn the votes of African-Americans and he probably still won't get them.