HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Ashley Williams: I want H...

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 02:42 PM

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


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

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/26/whichhillary_blacklivesmatter_activist_demands_apology_from

61 replies, 2545 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ashley Williams: I want Hilary to apologize to black people for mass incarceration policy. (Original post)
kgnu_fan Feb 2016 OP
BillZBubb Feb 2016 #1
MaggieD Feb 2016 #2
jeff47 Feb 2016 #7
MaggieD Feb 2016 #10
jeff47 Feb 2016 #11
MaggieD Feb 2016 #15
jeff47 Feb 2016 #23
MaggieD Feb 2016 #24
jeff47 Feb 2016 #25
MaggieD Feb 2016 #26
jeff47 Feb 2016 #28
MaggieD Feb 2016 #34
jeff47 Feb 2016 #37
MaggieD Feb 2016 #40
jeff47 Feb 2016 #41
MaggieD Feb 2016 #42
jeff47 Feb 2016 #43
MaggieD Feb 2016 #44
jeff47 Feb 2016 #45
MaggieD Feb 2016 #46
jeff47 Feb 2016 #47
MaggieD Feb 2016 #48
jeff47 Feb 2016 #49
libtodeath Feb 2016 #38
sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #32
MaggieD Feb 2016 #39
brooklynite Feb 2016 #29
jeff47 Feb 2016 #33
sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #16
monicaangela Feb 2016 #51
EffieBlack Feb 2016 #55
jeff47 Feb 2016 #58
noamnety Feb 2016 #27
sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #3
thereismore Feb 2016 #4
Agschmid Feb 2016 #9
sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #13
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #12
sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #14
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #18
sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #19
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #20
Major Hogwash Feb 2016 #52
MisterP Feb 2016 #22
Gregorian Feb 2016 #5
kennetha Feb 2016 #6
jeff47 Feb 2016 #8
lunamagica Feb 2016 #30
jeff47 Feb 2016 #31
sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #21
Ken Burch Feb 2016 #17
MaggieD Feb 2016 #36
Ken Burch Feb 2016 #50
Major Hogwash Feb 2016 #53
sabrina 1 Feb 2016 #35
Dustlawyer Feb 2016 #54
kgnu_fan Feb 2016 #57
EffieBlack Feb 2016 #56
loyalsister Mar 2016 #61
JustABozoOnThisBus Feb 2016 #59
kgnu_fan Mar 2016 #60

Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 02:55 PM

1. Good luck with that Ashley.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 02:57 PM

2. Yet, Bernie is the one that voted for it, not Hillary

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:09 PM

7. Why should Sanders have voted against the Violence Against Women Act

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:15 PM

10. I guess because it was a vote FOR mass incarceration

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:16 PM

11. So you support reducing penalties for domestic violence, and you support assault weapons?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:34 PM

15. He voted FOR mass incarcertation

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:06 PM

23. No, he voted FOR the VAWA and AWB. Bill Clinton and the Republicans bundled those

with these "tough on crime" provisions.

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:27 PM

24. You seem to think he didn't vote FOR mass incarceration

 

But you'd be wrong. He did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:30 PM

25. Time to go back to copy-n-pasting my posts until you read them.

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

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:33 PM

26. Tuned you Bernie peeps out months ago

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:36 PM

28. If that were true, you wouldn't keep replying.

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:40 PM

34. Sure I would - it's important for people to know he voted FOR mass incarceration

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:41 PM

37. And you're still dodging.

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

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:47 PM

40. Not dodging at all - he voted for mass incarceration

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:53 PM

41. There's questions in the post you keep refusing to read.

Here, I'll helpfully copy it again.

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

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:58 PM

42. I think instead of voting for mass incarceration (if he was against that)

 

he should have voted against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:59 PM

43. Which leads directly to the questions you keep refusing to answer.

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

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:06 PM

44. I'm not the one attacking anyone about the bill he voted for

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #44)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:09 PM

45. Actually, you are. You're attacking Sanders for the bill.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:11 PM

46. No, I'm really not

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:14 PM

47. So Clinton lied?

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

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #47)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:15 PM

48. I think you keep cutting and pasting the same thing because....

 

... 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #48)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:30 PM

49. No, your point is incredibly brief and requires no thought to process.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:42 PM

38. The desperation from the Hillary camp is just funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:39 PM

32. No, we know he didn't. But nice try. The Clintons and most AAs are now learning this history, are

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:43 PM

39. Here it is right here....

 

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/20/crime#.VtDGxsv2aUl

His voting record. Omnibus Crime Bill -- he voted "yea"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:37 PM

29. IOW, he decided which issue was important and which was not...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:40 PM

33. He decided it was not worth voting against VAWA and the AWB.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:34 PM

16. So you wanted him to vote FOR Domestic Violence?? Okay, if that's your position. But I'm glad

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:38 AM

51. You don't appear to understand

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:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:01 AM

55. The first version of the Crime Bill that Bernie voted for DID NOT INCLUDE THE BAN

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #55)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:43 AM

58. And the final version that Sanders voted for DID INCLUDE THE BAN!!

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:33 PM

27. It was written in a lose-lose way.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 02:58 PM

3. Hillary supporter on Twitter called Ashely Williams a 'Rabid Child'. They really are showing their

true colors now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 02:59 PM

4. When people show you who they really are, believe them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:15 PM

9. Painting with a broad brush I see...

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

It just doesn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:30 PM

13. No, this is not the old 'both sides do it' Corp Media thing at all. Both sides have NOT been doing

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:19 PM

12. Hmm we saw a form of that here when the twitter exploded two nights ago

 

curious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:32 PM

14. We are seeing the whole corrupt system being uncovered as the people lift the rocks and the

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:37 PM

18. That is one way to put it

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:43 PM

19. We knew it was manipulated. But this campaign has revealed more than they wanted us to know, and for

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:45 PM

20. We knew, but most people, even posters here

 

are sill sleep walking to that disaster

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:46 AM

52. It's like seeing the remains of FDR.

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:59 PM

22. all the pants-loading because Sandernistas were DARING to contradict Huerta

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?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:06 PM

5. This is what just one person can do.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:08 PM

6. She's supposed to apologize for policy

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:12 PM

8. She had plenty of hand in making it. She lobbied Congress for it.

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

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

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:37 PM

30. Then Hillary also supported it becaise of Against Women Act and the Assault Weapon Ban?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunamagica (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:38 PM

31. Yes, she also trumpeted those as successes. The difference is on the "tough on crime" parts. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:46 PM

21. As I recall, Hillary had, by her own words, a direct hand in the policies her husband pushed into

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:36 PM

17. HRC needs to admit THE WHOLE THING WAS WRONG.

 

We never needed to out-Giuliani the GOP on crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:41 PM

36. How about Bernie? He voted for it, not her

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:28 AM

50. She lobbied for it. That's worse.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #50)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:50 AM

53. Bernie would push for an end to the "3 strikes" rule.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:40 PM

35. What happened to all the support for BLM? This OP should have hundreds of recs shouldn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:58 AM

54. "Listen to me..." Hillary says as Ashley is dragged from the room! Bernie listened and

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:31 AM

57. Ashley was a paying guest --- but she was a black, so Hilary did not have to listen to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:04 AM

56. The policy doesn't only affect black people and all black people aren't affected by the policy

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #56)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 06:41 PM

61. It's all about the numbers

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

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

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:53 AM

59. Hillary has the black voters locked up. She doesn't need to do anything. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 06:21 PM

60. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread