Bubba Clinton Shouts Down BLM Hecklivists

[sunmaster14]

No he most certainly did not

Bill Clinton's shameless answer to Black Lives Matter protesters

You're my number one number 16.5, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Bill's point, and it is correct in my opinion, is that his crime policies have been beneficial to the black community, especially in relation to Obama's policies. Crime went down in black communities, and I think it was in large part due to the crackdown on crime and harsher sentencing for criminals. Now we're seeing the effects of 180 degree different policies, and the effects, are, well, 180 degrees different. If it is true (and I think it is) that the vast majority of people in black communities are not criminals, then it is also true that the vast majority of people in black communities benefit from more law and order and less crime. Bill's policies did that. The high incarceration of blacks is a negative side effect of that, but perhaps a necessary one. At least until some currently intractable social pathologies become tractable.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're my number one number 16.5, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Bill's point, and it is correct in my opinion, is that his crime policies have been beneficial to the black community, especially in relation to Obama's policies. Crime went down in black communities, and I think it was in large part due to the crackdown on crime and harsher sentencing for criminals. Now we're seeing the effects of 180 degree different policies, and the effects, are, well, 180 degrees different. If it is true (and I think it is) that the vast majority of people in black communities are not criminals, then it is also true that the vast majority of people in black communities benefit from more law and order and less crime. Bill's policies did that. The high incarceration of blacks is a negative side effect of that, but perhaps a necessary one. At least until some currently intractable social pathologies become tractable.

I was just rebutting tricky' claim that he Tried to engage them, and doesn't mind people making points.

He exhibited the finger wagging disdain that the Clintons are famous for.

 

[Mumbles]

Hopefully not. While that was great political theater, it was actually pretty horrible. Bill sucking up to conservative whites while whitesplaining to "you people". I read Double Down about the 2012 election not too long ago and there was a couple mentions about how folks wanted Obama to have a "Sister Souljah" moment to give him some moderate credit.

One of the problems here is that, while older black people remember the 1994 crime bill, *and* the horrible atmosphere that allowed it to pass, the younger voters, especially, do not, and are not at all interested in hearing - although they definitely remember 2008 Bill Clinton's disparaging attitude towards Obama, and they don't care for it at all.

The other is that, really, the best that Hillary and Sanders can say on this subject is that they aren't the GOP, but that's less going over a low bar, and more not grabbing the bar, sharpening the end, and stabbing black people in the face with it.

And the DNC is going to wonder where the Black vote went soon.

Well...truth is, people aren't trying to die under Trump or Cruz, so...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Why is the crime bill being blamed

It wasn't a perfect bill (how many are?) so there were things in it that deserved criticism. But the real reason is that people love to blame something - anything (but themselves) - for the messes they get into. And it's good press. Outrage sells, facts don't.

The fact is that incarceration rates peaked before the crime bill had effect, so any suggestion that it was the cause is just plain wrong. But facts are meaningless. You can prove anything even remotely true with facts.

and why aren't the Clintons both pointing out this data?

Bill did,

"Because of that bill, we have a 25-year low in crime, a 33-year low in murder rate."

But you can't defend the indefensible with mere facts. Clinton's crime bill was the most horrible thing ever because... well, because it just was!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well I don't deny too many blacks end up in the school to prison pipeline but I'm not sure what role the Crime Bill in question contributed. If I were Hillary I'd be looking closely at these issues before the debate coming up and before her interview with the NY Post coming up.

 

[Mumbles]

It wasn't a perfect bill (how many are?) so there were things in it that deserved criticism. But the real reason is that people love to blame something - anything (but themselves) - for the messes they get into. And it's good press. Outrage sells, facts don't.

The fact is that incarceration rates peaked before the crime bill had effect, so any suggestion that it was the cause is just plain wrong. But facts are meaningless. You can prove anything even remotely true with facts.

There's also the issue of much of the punitive measures being put into place at the state and local, rather than federal, level. The role of any president tends to be oversold by just about every major group.

 

[applecorped]

Well, feel free to make up your own explanation then.

Oh, she will.

 

[newyorkguy]

One criticism of BLM that I have read black Americans making -- including some in the movement -- is that the protesters are at times too unrealistic and that's not necessarily going to help black people. DeRay McKesson has emerged from the movement to run for mayor in hometown Baltimore. Some in the BLM have criticized his decision.

Marissa Jenae Johnson, co-founder of the Seattle chapter of Black Lives Matter [said], “McKesson’s entry into political office does not signal the success of BLM, but the deep desire and motivation of the state to suppress it.” News link to quote

Some blacks ask the obvious question: Does that mean elected positions should be entirely non-black? Black people refusing to be part of the system that oppresses them? But would that really serve black communities at this point in time? Realistically, don't mayors also help form and guide police policies, have strong input into where and how cities spend their resources? Aren't those areas where a city with a large black population could benefit from having blacks in leadership roles? Should blacks sacrifice that for what, ideological purity?

The Black Lives Matter movement has many voices. It's not a kind of centralized organization with a hierarchy that determines policy. It's horizontal -people are free to choose what they believe, what tactics should be used. At times that causes friction...for everyone.

 

[tyr_13]

One criticism of BLM that I have read black Americans making -- including some in the movement -- is that the protesters are at times too unrealistic and that's not necessarily going to help black people. DeRay McKesson has emerged from the movement to run for mayor in hometown Baltimore. Some in the BLM have criticized his decision.

Some blacks ask the obvious question: Does that mean elected positions should be entirely non-black? Black people refusing to be part of the system that oppresses them? But would that really serve black communities at this point in time? Realistically, don't mayors also help form and guide police policies, have strong input into where and how cities spend their resources? Aren't those areas where a city with a large black population could benefit from having blacks in leadership roles? Should blacks sacrifice that for what, ideological purity?

The Black Lives Matter movement has many voices. It's not a kind of centralized organization with a hierarchy that determines policy. It's horizontal -people are free to choose what they believe, what tactics should be used. At times that causes friction...for everyone.

Exactly right. BLM isn't a monolithic group who all think the same even on the core subject. They aren't even all black. Just because these were BLM protestors doesn't mean most black people are just going to agree with them. I don't like reflexive ideology based support, and really hope BLM or any other group does not become the Tea party of the left.

I doubt this will hurt Hillary much. The protestors were, in this case, mistaken.

 

[sunmaster14]

Exactly right. BLM isn't a monolithic group who all think the same even on the core subject. They aren't even all black. Just because these were BLM protestors doesn't mean most black people are just going to agree with them. I don't like reflexive ideology based support, and really hope BLM or any other group does not become the Tea party of the left.

I doubt this will hurt Hillary much. The protestors were, in this case, mistaken.

Yes, it's a good thing that BLM isn't a monolithic group like the Tea Party which comprises tens of millions of people.

 

[newyorkguy]

...I doubt this will hurt Hillary much. The protestors were, in this case, mistaken.

I agree. I think we're past the point when a major candidate disagreeing with a black group means losing support among most black Americans. There's room for more than one opinion.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, it's a good thing that BLM isn't a monolithic group like the Tea Party which comprises tens of millions of people.

Not what I said. Please read the first half of the sentence you highlighted.

I don't want any group that aligns with the Democrats to be able to count of reflexive support simply because they are 'ideologically' aligned. I don't want any group above criticism being leveled at them by the 'in' group, the way the Tea Party was for basically all of the GOP for a few years there.

 

[angrysoba]

Surprised not to see a thread on this, but it is definitely trending:



Bubba came back with a pretty strong response:



Clinton went on to tout the results of the 1994 crime bill:



That's skirting awfully close to the much-derided (by liberals) observation that if Black Lives Matter, why don't the activists focus on black-on-black crime (which kills far more blacks than police officers do), and the Big Dog istaking some heat for it:



Politically, of course, Clinton's response was problematic. The correct thing for Democratic politicians to do when BLM activists harass them is to assume the position, acknowledge their wrongdoing and resolve never to make the same mistake again.

For Hillary, Bubba's response is potentially a disaster in the making. Black voters have been supporting her in overwhelming numbers, and this incident will almost certainly have some of them wondering if it's time to feel the Bern.

It's the definition of the gaffe.

 

[theprestige]

Why is the crime bill being blamed and why aren't the Clintons both pointing out this data?

What makes you think whitesplaining is the right way to go with this?

 

[Mumbles]

Yes, it's a good thing that BLM isn't a monolithic group like the Tea Party which comprises tens of millions of people.

Have any of the protestors there even identified as "Black Lives Matter" members? People have made that mistake enough times (Misidentifying, among others, Organizing for Trayvon Martin, #HandsUpUnited, individuals that are openly hostile to "BLM", various student groups, and people at debates that predate the formation of Black Lives Matter) that it's worth asking the question.

Aside from that, a lot of the problem is Clinton's "you don't care about black on black crime" response, which has been answered enough times now that stating it is a strong sign that you aren't interested in the matter at all. It's a serious mistake on Bill Clinton's part, since a lot of people picked it up as a signal to bigoted white voters, since he *should* know far better than to say it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What makes you think whitesplaining is the right way to go with this?

What makes you think pointing out the factual data is whitesplaining? You think the majority of blacks can't understand the facts because one small group of them don't?

 

[theprestige]

What makes you think pointing out the factual data is whitesplaining? You think the majority of blacks can't understand the facts because one small group of them don't?

You call it pointing out the factual data. I call it whites not checking their privilege, and erasing black experiences in order to push their white narrative on minorities.

It's not about blacks not understanding (and it's incredibly racist for you to suggest that). It's about blacks being told what to think by whites.

But look at me, mansplaining things to you. I'll be silent now, so you are free to reach your own conclusions via your own agency.

 

[sunmaster14]

Have any of the protestors there even identified as "Black Lives Matter" members? People have made that mistake enough times (Misidentifying, among others, Organizing for Trayvon Martin, #HandsUpUnited, individuals that are openly hostile to "BLM", various student groups, and people at debates that predate the formation of Black Lives Matter) that it's worth asking the question.

I'm not sure why you're responding to my post with this. I was just pointing out the absurdity of tyr_13's implication that BLM is ideologically diverse, whereas the Tea Party - another disparate group, at least 10 times as popular, and which has successfully elected politicians to Congress from over half the states in the country, is somehow monolithic. He only managed to provide evidence of his own political bias.

Aside from that, a lot of the problem is Clinton's "you don't care about black on black crime" response, which has been answered enough times now that stating it is a strong sign that you aren't interested in the matter at all. It's a serious mistake on Bill Clinton's part, since a lot of people picked it up as a signal to bigoted white voters, since he *should* know far better than to say it.

In Bill Clinton's defense, he was being criticized for his 1994 crime bill, which has little directly to do with the original focus of BLM (which, I think, is the alleged racial bias in policing). I saw only a small snippet of the video, but it seemed that the point of the hecklers was that his crime bill led to mass incarceration of blacks through increased funding for police and harsh sentencing laws. His rebuttal was that mass incarceration had a beneficial effect in that it reduced violent crime (all crime actually) and made the lives of law-abiding black people much better.

I think there is no question that his crime bill helped to reduce crime. Time and again, the evidence shows that longer sentences for criminals and more aggressive policing reduces crime. Whether that trade-off is worth it is a political question. Personally, I wouldn't want more aggressive policing or harsher sentencing in my neighborhood, but that's because my neighborhood is safe. I think if I lived in a crime-ridden neighborhood, I would welcome a more draconian enforcement of the laws.

 

[sunmaster14]

You call it pointing out the factual data. I call it whites not checking their privilege, and erasing black experiences in order to push their white narrative on minorities.

It's not about blacks not understanding (and it's incredibly racist for you to suggest that). It's about blacks being told what to think by whites.

But look at me, mansplaining things to you. I'll be silent now, so you are free to reach your own conclusions via your own agency.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, it's a good thing that BLM isn't a monolithic group like the Tea Party which comprises tens of millions of people.

Is the Tea Party a monolithic group?