tells Daily News editorial board the bill also did good things.
Hillary Clinton on Saturday conceded her husbands 1994 crime bill had the unintended consequence of mass incarceration.
Speaking before the Daily News editorial board, Clinton said the bill did a lot of good things like adding more cops to the streets and creating a ban on assault weapons.
But she said it also led states to enact policies that resulted in more people, especially people of color, being imprisoned for nonviolent crimes.
That was not as apparent at the time, but part of being a responsible decision maker is to keep track of whats happening, she said. And now I think its clear there were some consequences that we do have to address.
Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign's push to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.
The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary's ride was made in France.
The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.
And she has used the same plane before, including on at least one trip for speeches that brought her $500,000 in fees.
Back in February 2008, the NY Times looked at data from the Center for Responsive Politics and found that Obama had contributed over $700,000 between 2005 and 2008 to the campaigns of super-delegates. Hillary Clinton contributed over $850,000 to super-delegates between 2002 and 2008. So they ran an editorial titled Superdelegates for sale:
While it might be untoward to suggest that campaign contributions over several years were calibrated to purchase superdelegates favor at the 2008 convention, there is a remarkable correlation between the money and the endorsements. The Center found that 82 percent of elected officials who had endorsed by Februrary 25th supported the candidate who had given them more money.
By far, the topic du jour was the environment: specifically, the alarming levels of lead that have crept into our nation's water supply and homes a problem highlighted by the recent contamination crisis in Flint itself.
When an audience member asked the candidates if they would support an effort to remove all lead service lines in the nation within the first 100 days in office, Clinton had a bold response:
"I want us to have an absolute commitment to getting rid of lead wherever it is, because it's not only in water systems. It's also in soil, and it's in lead paint that is found mostly in older homes."
She went on: "We will commit to a priority to change the water systems, and we will commit within five years to remove lead from everywhere."
This indeed is a responsible and noble endeavor, but is it economically feasible? Not so much, says Marc Edwards, a water quality expert and engineer at Virginia Tech who played a critical role in exposing the lead crisis in Flint (and, years earlier, in Washington, D.C.).
"Dont get me wrong. I want the lead sources removed as bad as anyone else," Edwards told Tech Insider via email, "but doing so will carry a very high price tag."
How high? On the order of trillions of dollars, according to Edwards.
With allegations of voter suppression in Arizona, as well as questions about the Clinton campaigns tactics in Iowa, Nevada, and other states, some historical context is needed. In 2008, The Atlantic published an article explaining dirty politics and voting irregularities titled Obama Manager Accuses Clintons of Widespread Dirty Politics:
David Plouffe, in a succinct statement appended to a released quotation from his boss, Barack Obama, said the Obama campaign was investigating more than 200 reporters of irregularities in Nevada.
We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaigns efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire weeks worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.
Plouffe asks Nevadans to call a toll-free number... and report any other problems.
Sound familiar? Every single one of the voting irregularities Plouffe complained about in 2008 have been experienced by the Bernie Sanders campaign.
History is repeating itself in 2016.
Nobody cares how well a politician does at the ballot box when he or she is running for an office unopposed. What matters is how a politician performs in contested primaries and general elections, as when it really matters like it will, for instance, this November you can be certain of a contested election.
With that said, lets make an important observation: Bernie Sanders has tied or beaten Hillary Clinton in a majority of the actively contested votes this election season.
You doubt it? Okay, let me explain.
So yesterday one of my post got hidden, the reason was generic...vile, disruptive,hurtful etc. I posted a link to (what I just now learned) was a right wing page that had a video of Clinton talking about how awful the last 8 years were.
This story was picked up later by USA today, NBC and other main stream media. Nothing in that post was vile, disruptive or hurtful or untrue. Why is it that the system does not allow an admin to check for the content of a post before sending it off to a jury?