Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I'm all for saying hey be objective, but come on:

Over-incarceration and over policing - Clinton crime bill.

Financial regulation - Clinton repeal of Glass Steagall.

Too much foreign intervention - 90s-00s Iraq, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Yemen.

Too much money in politics - Hillary and Bill have raked in more personally and politically in more ways than anyone ever.

Divisive politics - well David Brock and Sid Blumenthal are maybe the two most noted names in political assassinations.

Integrity, accountability and transparency in government - Guess.

*** These are the themes of this election, the answer is obviously "More Clinton." If you want to discuss it, discuss it.

This is a false narrative: 

1.  She wasn't behind the crime bill, and she regrets the over incarceration parts. Her ideas now about this issue are what the majority of black Americans want to hear. 

2. She is proposing several controls for the big banks, but not a return to Glass-Steagal which is too simplistic. Krugman agrees with her. 

3. She isn't an isolationist, but has always been extremely reluctant to engage military force. 

4. She is part of the system. I say that the system of money in politics, while not without major problems, is overall been a positive one. 

5. Not really. 

6. False perception fueled by right wingers out to get her.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is a false narrative: 

1.  She wasn't behind the crime bill, and she regrets the over incarceration parts. Her ideas now about this issue are what the majority of black Americans want to hear. 

2. She is proposing several controls for the big banks, but not a return to Glass-Steagal which is too simplistic. Krugman agrees with her. 

3. She isn't an isolationist, but has always been extremely reluctant to engage military force. 

4. She is part of the system. I say that the system of money in politics, while not without major problems, is overall been a positive one. 

5. Not really. 

6. False perception fueled by right wingers out to get her.

Fine Tim, but they're real substantive issues worth discussing, not fear mongering.

 

[The Commish]

This is a false narrative: 

1.  She wasn't behind the crime bill, and she regrets the over incarceration parts. Her ideas now about this issue are what the majority of black Americans want to hear. 

2. She is proposing several controls for the big banks, but not a return to Glass-Steagal which is too simplistic. Krugman agrees with her. 

3. She isn't an isolationist, but has always been extremely reluctant to engage military force. 

4. She is part of the system. I say that the system of money in politics, while not without major problems, is overall been a positive one. 

5. Not really. 

6. False perception fueled by right wingers out to get her.

Show your work via her voting record to support #3 because Hillary herself disagrees with you.

 

[Sinn Fein]

This is a false narrative: 

1.  She wasn't behind the crime bill, and she regrets the over incarceration parts. Her ideas now about this issue are what the majority of black Americans want to hear. 

2. She is proposing several controls for the big banks, but not a return to Glass-Steagal which is too simplistic. Krugman agrees with her. 

3. She isn't an isolationist, but has always been extremely reluctant to engage military force. 

4. She is part of the system. I say that the system of money in politics, while not without major problems, is overall been a positive one. 

5. Not really. 

6. False perception fueled by right wingers out to get her.

1.  Why does she have regrets?  Not her bill was it?  If she has regrets, its because she supported it when it was convenient, and now regrets that support

2.  She is proposing to tell the banks to play nice.

3.  She is for regime change wherever she can stick her nose - Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Syria, et al

4.  The system of money in politics ensures that those with money get what they want.  Life is mostly a zero-sum game - if you get something, its at the expense of someone else.

5.  She is the single most divisive person in politics today.  That may not always be her fault - but it is her reality.

6.  She is the consummate politician - she has no integrity/transparency/accountability.  In that regard she is the same as most politicians who will say/do whatever it takes to get elected.  Bernie is the only candidate running for president where I can say I know he is in this to help others.  Everyone else is in it to help themselves or their donors.  That is the nature of politics. 

 

[Henry Ford]

This is a false narrative: 

1.  She wasn't behind the crime bill, and she regrets the over incarceration parts. Her ideas now about this issue are what the majority of black Americans want to hear. 

2. She is proposing several controls for the big banks, but not a return to Glass-Steagal which is too simplistic. Krugman agrees with her. 

3. She isn't an isolationist, but has always been extremely reluctant to engage military force. 

4. She is part of the system. I say that the system of money in politics, while not without major problems, is overall been a positive one. 

5. Not really. 

6. False perception fueled by right wingers out to get her.

I don't know what you mean by reluctance to use military force, but she has certainly heavily supported it repeatedly.  

I'm not saying military force isn't a viable tool, but she is certainly not a pacifist.

http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She wasn't behind the crime bill, and she regrets the over incarceration parts.

Then why does she have its architect campaigning for her and also defending it as a surrogate, and also promising to make him a prime member of her West Wing, a guy who will very possibly to likely be in her cabinet meetings? Arresting people and imprisoning them is the essence of the bill.

 

[Henry Ford]

This is a false narrative: 

1.  She wasn't behind the crime bill, and she regrets the over incarceration parts. Her ideas now about this issue are what the majority of black Americans want to hear. 

What do you mean by "she wasn't behind the crime bill"?

 

[timschochet]

What do you mean by "she wasn't behind the crime bill"?

She didn't write it. She certainly supported it, but she wasn't it's architect. 

 

[The Commish]

She wasn't behind the crime bill, and she regrets the over incarceration parts.

Then why does she have its architect campaigning for her and also defending it as a surrogate, and also promising to make him a prime member of her West Wing, a guy who will very possibly to likely be in her cabinet meetings? Arresting people and imprisoning them is the essence of the bill.

I'm calling shenanigans on this one SID....what are you trying to pull?!?!?!?!?!?!  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Then why does she have its architect campaigning for her and also defending it as a surrogate, and also promising to make him a prime member of her West Wing, a guy who will very possibly to likely be in her cabinet meetings? Arresting people and imprisoning them is the essence of the bill.

I don't even know who you're rambling on about here, but it doesn't matter. Nothing you said here contradicts Tim's post that she wasn't behind the crime bill (unlike Sanders she didn't even cast a vote for it) and is unhappy about the effect it had on incarceration rates, which is 100% accurate.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know what you mean by reluctance to use military force, but she has certainly heavily supported it repeatedly.  

I'm not saying military force isn't a viable tool, but she is certainly not a pacifist.

http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/

I'm glad she's not a pacifist. But I disagree that she is a "hawk" in the way that **** Cheney, for example, was a hawk. 

 

[Henry Ford]

She didn't write it. She certainly supported it, but she wasn't it's architect. 

Gotcha.  

She wholeheartedly supported it, though, and gave very impassioned speeches about its merits.  Including incarceration.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just a thought here - at the beginning of this thing (and I bumped BST's 2011 Sanders thread when Sanders announced...) I thought and I'm guessing everyone thought Sanders would be Hillary's foil. Hillary would look "moderate" and reasonable next to a guy who it was thought would present highly progressive views, and this was just what she needed to win the primary an then especially to position herself in the middle for the general. - However I think she has become his foil. Hillary is the perfect personification of almost every main theme he has and he has bounced each one off her perfectly, and he is an awesome expert in argument and dialectic having practiced it in the political wilderness for almost 5 decades now. Hillary is the consummate politician, highly disciplined but rote and calculated for the effect of every word and position.

 

[The Commish]

I don't know what you mean by reluctance to use military force, but she has certainly heavily supported it repeatedly.  

I'm not saying military force isn't a viable tool, but she is certainly not a pacifist.

http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/

I'm glad she's not a pacifist. But I disagree that she is a "hawk" in the way that **** Cheney, for example, was a hawk. 

Love the comparison shtick.  It's become an art form for you.  You can't take these positions without it I suppose, but doesn't it get exhausting?

"Son of SAM was a SOB but nothing like the Zodiac Killer"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't even know who you're rambling on about here, but it doesn't matter. Nothing you said here contradicts Tim's post that she wasn't behind the crime bill (unlike Sanders she didn't even cast a vote for it) and is unhappy about the effect it had on incarceration rates, which is 100% accurate.

Yes, she was First Lady planning state dinners and picking out menus and china. She had no involvement with promoting the crime bill enthusiastically.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm glad she's not a pacifist. But I disagree that she is a "hawk" in the way that **** Cheney, for example, was a hawk. 

Why? And why does one have to be **** Cheney level to be a hawk or military interventionist?

 

[timschochet]

Gotcha.  

She wholeheartedly supported it, though, and gave very impassioned speeches about its merits.  Including incarceration.  

Yes she did. And she regrets the last part now. 

 

[RCon]

Attention Hillary supporters: right wingers and left wingers are constantly saying she's evil, incompetent, and criminal. Surely there's a great deal of hyperbole involved, but at some point you've got to wonder where all this smoke keeps coming from.

No.   Simply b/c the right wing has engaged in nonstop character assassination does not mean that you have to believe that there's some truth to what they're saying.    The only thing I've seen that truly stunk was the cattle futures trading.    Plus, the barking onstage was pretty stupid.    And she should probably avoid comedy altogether.

The pardons were cool, then?

 

[The Commish]

Just a thought here - at the beginning of this thing (and I bumped BST's 2011 Sanders thread when Sanders announced...) I thought and I'm guessing everyone thought Sanders would be Hillary's foil. Hillary would look "moderate" and reasonable next to a guy who it was thought would present highly progressive views, and this was just what she needed to win the primary an then especially to position herself in the middle for the general. - However I think she has become his foil. Hillary is the perfect personification of almost every main theme he has and he has bounced each one off her perfectly, and he is an awesome expert in argument and dialectic having practiced it in the political wilderness for almost 5 decades now. Hillary is the consummate politician, highly disciplined but rote and calculated for the effect of every word and position.

History has a way of defining the present in things like this.  His consistent voting record for decades is the perfect contrast to establishment politicians trying to keep a job.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yes, she was First Lady planning state dinners and picking out menus and china. She had no involvement with promoting the crime bill enthusiastically.

I supported the RESTORE Act enthusiastically. Would you say that I'm behind it?  Of course not. I had even less to do with the actual process of making it law than, say, a congressman who voted for it.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't even know who you're rambling on about here, but it doesn't matter. Nothing you said here contradicts Tim's post that she wasn't behind the crime bill (unlike Sanders she didn't even cast a vote for it) and is unhappy about the effect it had on incarceration rates, which is 100% accurate.

21 years ago, Hillary Clinton as first lady spoke to a conference for female police officers where he pushed her husband's agenda in New York.

At the time, Clinton said the 1994 crime bill — which called for 100,000 more police officers, more prisons, and harsher sentencing for crimes, and enacted stricter gun laws — would "make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve."

"We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you're out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door," remarked the then-first lady.

Clinton also noted that the crime bill would help build more prisons.

"We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons,"

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/times-change-heres-hillary-clinton-in-1994-talking-up-tough#.jl080LO0L

 

[The Commish]

I'm glad she's not a pacifist. But I disagree that she is a "hawk" in the way that **** Cheney, for example, was a hawk. 

Why? And why does one have to be **** Cheney level to be a hawk or military interventionist?

Without the comparison, one is forced to look at Hillary in a vacuum and it's not a pretty sight.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I supported the RESTORE Act enthusiastically. Would you say that I'm behind it?  Of course not. I had even less to do with the actual process of making it law than, say, a congressman who voted for it.

You're not being asked to make policy. No one blames her as a person for supporting it, but Bill Clinton was indeed very much behind the act and Hilary was very much a policy surrogate for it. It's ludicrous to say oh hey the best person for this issue is one of the makers of it and one of the promoters of it. Let's get George Bush in as SOD to talk about how best to stay out of Iraq while we're at it. Bill Clinton will be in that White House, seems like a bizarre message to hear him out there arguing for it - persuasively - and also say he will be in there arguing against it. Scary thing about Bill is he sounds more persuasive than Hillary, probably because he believes what he is saying.

 

[timschochet]

Why? And why does one have to be **** Cheney level to be a hawk or military interventionist?

Because you presented an "either-or" by writing that she's not a pacifist. Personally I don't want a pacifist OR a hawk like Cheney. I want somebody who looks at each situation and makes judgments based on the details involved. I think we were right to support the rebels in Libya. I'm less sure about Syria, but it's a hard issue. I think Obama and Hillary were right in both cases not to commit ground forces (which John McCain, a hawk, insisted upon). Hillary is not perfect, but I trust her to continue to look at these situations realistically and make the best decisions for us and for the world. I do not trust Bernie to to do so, though he would be far preferable to Trump or Cruz. 

 

[RCon]

I supported the RESTORE Act enthusiastically. Would you say that I'm behind it?  Of course not. I had even less to do with the actual process of making it law than, say, a congressman who voted for it.

You're missing the point, though.  If you supported Bill X enthusiastically, and Bill X turns out to be a massive failure, isn't it fair game to question your judgment in supporting it, regardless of whether you were instrumental in making it law?

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes she did. And she regrets the last part now. 

Along with her Iraq war vote.  And her email decisions.  And the Super predator comment. And Benghazi.  And the disclosure of the Department of State cable that directed diplomats to spy on the U.N.  And saying she and Bill were "dead broke." And that racist Gandhi joke about him running a gas station.

We should start a list.

 

[RCon]

Gotcha.  

She wholeheartedly supported it, though, and gave very impassioned speeches about its merits.  Including incarceration.  

Yes she did. And she regrets the last part now. 

Oh well, as long as she regrets it now.  Why does that entitle her to a pass for her ####ty judgment at the time?

 

[shadrap]

You're missing the point, though.  If you supported Bill X enthusiastically, and Bill X turns out to be a massive failure, isn't it fair game to question your judgment in supporting it, regardless of whether you were instrumental in making it law?

yes

 

[TobiasFunke]

You're not being asked to make policy. No one blames her as a person for supporting it, but Bill Clinton was indeed very much behind the act and Hilary was very much a policy surrogate for it. It's ludicrous to say oh hey the best person for this issue is one of the makers of it and one of the promoters of it. Let's get George Bush in as SOD to talk about how best to stay out of Iraq while we're at it. Bill Clinton will be in that White House, seems like a bizarre message to hear him out there arguing for it - persuasively - and also say he will be in there arguing against it. Scary thing about Bill is he sounds more persuasive than Hillary, probably because he believes what he is saying.

You are changing your argument and word usage even as you try to defend it.  You've gone from Hilary being behind the legislation to her simply being a "policy surrogate" for Bill.

Either way, I'm not sure why it matters. Sanders also voted for the legislation. Clinton's role was nothing more than advocate, not legislator or executive. And Clinton has been up front about the negative impacts of increased incarceration rates. 

I just don't get this attack. This is a bill that had wide democratic and substantial bipartisan support that's 22 years old. It's from a different time. Many of the people who voted for it and supported it have shown regret over all or portions of it, including both Democratic candidates. There's plenty of meat on the bone when it comes to attacking her approach to Wall Street regulation, campaign finance and her hawkish inclinations when it comes to foreign policy ... and those are things Clinton continues to embrace. Why this?  Kind of seems like an awkward attempt to convince black people that they're wrong to like her so much.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You're missing the point, though.  If you supported Bill X enthusiastically, and Bill X turns out to be a massive failure, isn't it fair game to question your judgment in supporting it, regardless of whether you were instrumental in making it law?

I'd say you're missing the point since the argument was all about whether she was instrumental in making it law or not (whether she was "behind it" and what that means in the legislative context). Admittedly a nerdy conversation, but that's what it was.

But as to your question, sure, it's absolutely fair. But she's addressed it, has she not?  And in any event the judgment question would apply to Sanders as well, so I'm not sure where that leaves those of us who consider such concerns to be small potatoes when we're staring down the barrel of a Trump or Cruz presidency.

 

[RCon]

Along with her Iraq war vote.  And her email decisions.  And the Super predator comment. And Benghazi.  And the disclosure of the Department of State cable that directed diplomats to spy on the U.N.  And saying she and Bill were "dead broke." And that racist Gandhi joke about him running a gas station.

We should start a list.

Let's be honest.  She doesn't regret any of that.  She only regrets getting caught.

 

[IC FBGCav]

She didn't write it. She certainly supported it, but she wasn't it's architect. 

So is this where she showed her independent thinking?

 

[AnonymousBob]

Along with her Iraq war vote.  And her email decisions.  And the Super predator comment. And Benghazi.  And the disclosure of the Department of State cable that directed diplomats to spy on the U.N.  And saying she and Bill were "dead broke." And that racist Gandhi joke about him running a gas station.

We should start a list.

No ragrets

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You've gone from Hilary being behind the legislation to her simply being a "policy surrogate" for Bill.

Things got a bit muddled. I was saying Bill was an architect and he is a surrogate for her.

The point about Hillary being a surrogate for Bill is from the 90s, she was not an architect then but she definitely argued for the policy. She used the phrases 'super predator' and 'bring to heel' which is absolutely completely at odds with 'gosh I didn't want anyone to go to prison for too, too long...'

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Yes she did. And she regrets the last part now. 

When Hillary said we have to bring the little black animals to heel (paraphrasing here) was she not talking about putting them in prison and not letting them out?  She boasted about how Bill was getting the FBI to investigate them.  

The only she regrets is that there is video of her saying it in the first place.

 

[Guest]

Cattle Futures - which let's just face it, she was accepting laundered payments for something - reveals the Clinton Business model that has sadly sustained itself for 40 years.

1.  Assume control of the highest office 

2.  Be corrupt

3.  Surround yourself with extremely smart people who know how to game the system 

4. Have amazing knowledge of the law and surround yourself with the same 

5.  Have people willing to lie with you and for you all the way

6.  Deny with poise, attack and blame 

7.  Have your backup story in order

8.  Have zealots, especially in the press willing to side with you

9.  Reward your cronies and punish your enemies 

10.  Never stop looking for the next scam

...Because when statisticians say there is a trillions to one chance you're telling the truth, and you can still get the benefit of the doubt and press praising you for how unflappable you are in the face of being called out -- well you're onto a formula as realible as Coca-cola.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Cattle Futures - which let's just face it, she was accepting laundered payments for something - reveals the Clinton Business model that has sadly sustained itself for 40 years.

1.  Assume control of the highest office 

2.  Be corrupt

3.  Surround yourself with extremely smart people who know how to game the system 

4. Have amazing knowledge of the law and surround yourself with the same 

5.  Have people willing to lie with you and for you all the way

6.  Deny with poise, attack and blame 

7.  Have your backup story in order

8.  Have zealots, especially in the press willing to side with you

9.  Reward your cronies and punish your enemies 

10.  Never stop looking for the next scam

...Because when statisticians say there is a trillions to one chance you're telling the truth, and you can still get the benefit of the doubt and press praising you for how unflappable you are in the face of being called out -- well you're onto a formula as realible as Coca-cola.

During Mr. Clinton's tenure as Governor, Tyson benefited from several state decisions, including favorable environmental rulings, $9 million in state loans, and the placement of company executives on important state boards.

- NYT

- What people forget about this, and maybe what the Clintons wanted people to forget about, is that Tyson ran wild in AR during Bill's tenure. They caused toxic and environmental damage within the state, it hurt people and the environment.

 

[The Commish]

FWIW....when I read "behind the bill" I took it to mean it had her support and she encouraged it.  That seemed logical given the context just previous, but what the hell do I know.  I don't want to get in the middle of this fascinating semantics battle.  HF did the right thing by asking what Tim meant or those comments would be caught up in the  also....that should always be the first step with these discussions.

 

[TobiasFunke]

When Hillary said we have to bring the little black animals to heel (paraphrasing here) was she not talking about putting them in prison and not letting them out?  She boasted about how Bill was getting the FBI to investigate them.  

The only she regrets is that there is video of her saying it in the first place.

No, you're not.  You're saying some racist garbage that even Clinton didn't say, because you're presupposing that all "superpredators" are "black animals."  I'd dial that #### back a quite bit before you go throwing stones.

 

[Guest]

- NYT

- What people forget about this, and maybe what the Clintons wanted people to forget about, is that Tyson ran wild in AR during Bill's tenure. They caused toxic and environmental damage within the state, it hurt people and the environment.

They really did start off as career criminals. 

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

No, you're not.  You're saying some racist garbage that even Clinton didn't say, because you're presupposing that all "superpredators" are "black animals."  I'd dial that #### back a quite bit before you go throwing stones.

sorry, I forgot only Republicans use racial code words.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What's really going on here?

Progressives have noticed, 25 years later, that Bill Clinton is basically a moderate Republican with a thin liberal gloss. Same goes for Hillary.

Where can a Republican get what they have offered these days?

- Support of Wall Street.

- Deficit control.

- Triangulation on liberal causes like Jesse Jackson/Souljah/BLM.

- Scoop Jackson foreign policy.

- Belief in institutions foreign and domestic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They really did start off as career criminals. 

That stuff is standard in this part of the world. Do I have a hyper-idealistic view of the world where I would prefer that public officials not profit privately from their public work? Yes. But really what happens is some really lousy policy which hurts people because it's not done according to what is truly best.

 

[TobiasFunke]

sorry, I forgot only Republicans use racial code words.

Could you ID the racial code words you think can be fairly translated to mean "little black animals," please?

Here's a passage from a mediaite writeup of the confrontation with the BLM protestor and the 1996 speech behind it:

Part of that effort was to give a speech in 1996 (not 1994) in which she did, indeed, use the term “Superpredators,” but context is important here. This was one line in a speech about a broader agenda, in which the issue of crime was at the end of a long list, and in which she advocated community policing in literally the same breath. Here’s what she actually said:

[video clip]

Now, it’s true that the term “Superpredator” came to have racial connotations, but at the time, it was an accepted bit of pop criminology jargon, so while it wasn’t necessarily a good look for Hillary, she in fact did not “call black people Superpredators.” She didn’t even throw in any extra code-words like “urban” or “inner-city.” She was clearly attempting a narrow use of the term, and as ill-advised as that was, it wasn’t what she’s been accused of since. Her advocacy for the crime bill, which she was fairly obligated to do, has also been overblown. The two examples usually given are small parts of remarks about other issues that are clearly more of a priority to her.

Honestly, which do you think was worse: what Clinton actually said in 1996, or what you "paraphrased" it to mean in 2016?

 

[Henry Ford]

Could you ID the racial code words you think can be fairly translated to mean "little black animals," please?

Here's a passage from a mediaite writeup of the confrontation with the BLM protestor and the 1996 speech behind it:

Honestly, which do you think was worse: what Clinton actually said in 1996, or what you "paraphrased" it to mean in 2016?

I think the animal part comes from later in the speech when she says "we need to bring them to heel."

 

[Henry Ford]

By the way, there were a lot of ####ty parts to that bill, but anyone who was an adult in the mid-90s should remember that it also had some very strong bits, too, and crime was out of control.  And that the Republicans jettisoned a provision in the bill that would allow capital punishment convictions to be easier to appeal on grounds of racism.

 

[Guest]

That stuff is standard in this part of the world. Do I have a hyper-idealistic view of the world where I would prefer that public officials not profit privately from their public work? Yes. But really what happens is some really lousy policy which hurts people because it's not done according to what is truly best.

Came up in the debate before South Carolina,I believe:

[angry eyes and pointing] "What Senator Sanders isn't telling you, is that this was Arkansas in the late 70s. You couldn't get elected if you didn't take bribes and do coke off of a pageant queen's nethers. He would know that if he ever spent time in the South and if he cared about Southern voters."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the way, there were a lot of ####ty parts to that bill, but anyone who was an adult in the mid-90s should remember that it also had some very strong bits, too, and crime was out of control.  And that the Republicans jettisoned a provision in the bill that would allow capital punishment convictions to be easier to appeal on grounds of racism.

I can remember Marc Morial and Pennington here in NO taking credit for the decreasing crime, and the comeback was back then was that no they didn't really do anything but instead it was that the Clinton crime bill had put more officers on the street and increased sentencing provisions. Bill Clinton is still making the argument today that it helped and helps decrease crime and that it protects the most vulnerable first. It's weird to have this argument 20 years after a law has passed.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Could you ID the racial code words you think can be fairly translated to mean "little black animals," please?

Here's a passage from a mediaite writeup of the confrontation with the BLM protestor and the 1996 speech behind it:

Honestly, which do you think was worse: what Clinton actually said in 1996, or what you "paraphrased" it to mean in 2016?

Here is what she said in 1996

“They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘superpredators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Here is what she said this year about it to the Washington Post

"In that speech, I was talking about the impact violent crime and vicious drug cartels were having on communities across the country and the particular danger they posed to children and families.  Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today.

My life’s work has been about lifting up children and young people who’ve been let down by the system or by society.  Kids who never got the chance they deserved.  And unfortunately today, there are way too many of those kids, especially in African-American communities.  We haven’t done right by them.  We need to.  We need to end the school to prison pipeline and replace it with a cradle-to-college pipeline.

As an advocate, as First Lady, as Senator, I was a champion for children.  And my campaign for president is about breaking down the barriers that stand in the way of all kids, so every one of them can live up to their God-given potential."

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think the animal part comes from later in the speech when she says "we need to bring them to heel."

Well he included the "heel" stuff too but still felt the need to add the "animals" part. But no matter.  Where's the part where they're black?

Is it because they're in gangs?  Because I'm 100% sure that black people are not the only people in violent gangs by a longshot- not today and not in 1996- and frankly it seems kinda racist to assume they are.  Did Clinton say that only black people are in gangs? Did she even suggest it with some sort of code words for black people? If so, your criticism seems valid.  But if not, and that part was added to the "paraphrase," I'd love to hear why.