Bubba Clinton Shouts Down BLM Hecklivists

Skeptic Ginger said:
Why is the crime bill being blamed and why aren't the Clintons both pointing out this data?
Click to expand...


Evidence is summarily dismissed by certain activist groups/movements whenever it contradicts their statements/narrative. (Indeed, for some, the mere act of pointing out contravening evidence gets labelled as harassment.)
 
Corsair 115 said:
Evidence is summarily dismissed by certain activist groups/movements whenever it contradicts their statements/narrative. (Indeed, for some, the mere act of pointing out contravening evidence gets labelled as harassment.)
Click to expand...

That, plus the fact she already admitted it was a failure after the blm activist told Hillary that she was not a super predator.

Of course, Hillary ain't know for her consistency of course.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

I say it's racist to think most blacks can't look at the data and understand the facts just because a small group of the BLM crowd doesn't.

The crime bill did not cause the School to Prison Pipeline. From the data on the graph in this thread, the crime bill did not cause the massive incarceration of minorities we see today. I think if you show people that data most of them will get it.

So just what is it I said that you think is racist?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I say it's racist to think most blacks can't look at the data and understand the facts just because a small group of the BLM crowd doesn't.

The crime bill did not cause the School to Prison Pipeline. From the data on the graph in this thread, the crime bill did not cause the massive incarceration of minorities we see today. I think if you show people that data most of them will get it.

So just what is it I said that you think is racist?
Click to expand...

My guess...the candidates may not realize it themselves, and Bill Clinton in particular may see it as a net positive part of his legacy.

After all, both candidates have been clumsy enough to draw multiple protests, and to get quite a few people to simply not want to vote for either of them. And the ...well, white media discussion of crime, and really of black people in general, is remarkably ignorant.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I responded to you because it seemed like a reasonable question to ask, and your post seemed like a reasonable place to bring up the fact that nobody has actually established that the protesters were Black Lives Matter members.

I think there is no question that his crime bill helped to reduce crime.
Click to expand...

That seems to be very open to question - in truth, sociologists have come to no consensus at all for what has reduced crime from the 1980s early 1990s high, as this article, among many others, has concluded.

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.
Click to expand...

and many black people asked for exactly this, which is a part of why the 1994 crime bill passed. But this doesn't mean that everyone was on board at the time, and it certainly doesn't mean that every voter agrees with it 22 years later.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Are you not going to read the first half of the sentence you highlighted, nor my clarification post?

Someone is showing their political bias here, and it isn't me.
 
tyr_13 said:
Are you not going to read the first half of the sentence you highlighted, nor my clarification post?

Someone is showing their political bias here, and it isn't me.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, so what is it you're claiming you meant? That the insurgent Tea Party, which has caused massive turmoil within the Republican caucus, tossed dozens of insufficiently conservative Republican congressmen out on their asses, and fought John Boehner's speakership tooth and claw (to the point that the crybaby decided to call it quits), has been kowtowed to by the Republican establishment? That's an even more ridiculous proposition than the one I gave you credit for.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I'm sorry, so what is it you're claiming you meant? That the insurgent Tea Party, which has caused massive turmoil within the Republican caucus, tossed dozens of insufficiently conservative Republican congressmen out on their asses, and fought John Boehner's speakership tooth and claw (to the point that the crybaby decided to call it quits), has been kowtowed to by the Republican establishment? That's an even more ridiculous proposition than the one I gave you credit for.
Click to expand...


Wait, what? Those things support my position. The Tea Party had essentially cowed the Republican party in that they are afraid to be critical of it for fear of the exact things you cite here happening. Questioning them leads to the Republicans ideological purity being questioned and even primaried out. It wasn't even for being 'insufficiently conservative' in many cases.

My point was that I don't want to see that happen to the Democrats with anything like BLM or some other group, where criticism or more minor disagreements lead to those very actions you cite.
 
tyr_13 said:
Wait, what? Those things support my position. The Tea Party had essentially cowed the Republican party in that they are afraid to be critical of it for fear of the exact things you cite here happening. Questioning them leads to the Republicans ideological purity being questioned and even primaried out. It wasn't even for being 'insufficiently conservative' in many cases.

My point was that I don't want to see that happen to the Democrats with anything like BLM or some other group, where criticism or more minor disagreements lead to those very actions you cite.
Click to expand...

If the GOP establishment had kowtowed to the Tea Party, everything would be all peaches and cream within the GOP. Surrender and submission results in harmony, not conflict. Kind of like the relations between the US and Japan after September 2, 1945 as opposed to before.
 
sunmaster14 said:
If the GOP establishment had kowtowed to the Tea Party, everything would be all peaches and cream within the GOP. Surrender and submission results in harmony, not conflict. Kind of like the relations between the US and Japan after September 2, 1945 as opposed to before.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're not reading what I'm writing or if I'm explaining it extremely poorly.

I have not said that the GOP kowtowed to the Tea Party. The results of them not were exactly the things I said I didn't want any group to be able to do to the Dems. Another result of them not was that they learned that they had better give the Tea Party a lot more influence, but that wasn't my point. They were cowed, but did not kowtow. I understand the distinction might be hard to grasp, but it's important to note that all the things you cite means the Tea Party did have a lot of power over the GOP. They couldn't have done those things if they didn't!
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
So if a White informs another White of the facts that's OK, but if they do it to a Black it's 'erasing Black experiences'? How racist of you. :(

You see, we have to protect Blacks from facts because it might offend their delicate sensibilities.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I'm sorry, so what is it you're claiming you meant? That the insurgent Tea Party, which has caused massive turmoil within the Republican caucus, tossed dozens of insufficiently conservative Republican congressmen out on their asses, and fought John Boehner's speakership tooth and claw (to the point that the crybaby decided to call it quits), has been kowtowed to by the Republican establishment? That's an even more ridiculous proposition than the one I gave you credit for.
Click to expand...


The word you're looking for is "pander".

The GOP has been pandering to an increasingly unhinged fringe group, ever since they embarked on the "Southern Strategy".

Even Goldwater didn't take long to realize how dangerous going down that path was going to be, but his warnings went unheeded.

Now the GOP is reaping the logical results of such a misguided policy.
 
sunmaster14 said:
If the GOP establishment had kowtowed to the Tea Party, everything would be all peaches and cream within the GOP. Surrender and submission results in harmony, not conflict. Kind of like the relations between the US and Japan after September 2, 1945 as opposed to before.
Click to expand...


What surrender? They are still trying the pandering strategy.

Unfortunately for the GOP they have created an amorphous monster over which they have less and less control. Accustomed to being told they will get what they want, with each increasingly demented position being taken up as a war cry by increasingly desperate pols they can't let go of the tiger.

And when they try, predictably, the tiger turns on them.

That's where they are now.

There may be kowtowing later. We'll see. It's probably too late for that to help, though.
 
Mumbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

NPR identified them as BLM protesters, and they talked with at least one of the protesters afterward:

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/47342...ed-exchange-with-black-lives-matter-protester

Clinton was making the point that there were African American groups at the time who favored the bill. It was not simply a matter of the white politicians doing this unilaterally. IT turns out that a majority of the congressional black caucus voted for it too:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/30/former-cbc-chair-who-voted-for-1994-crim
 
tyr_13 said:
I don't know if you're not reading what I'm writing or if I'm explaining it extremely poorly.

I have not said that the GOP kowtowed to the Tea Party. The results of them not were exactly the things I said I didn't want any group to be able to do to the Dems. Another result of them not was that they learned that they had better give the Tea Party a lot more influence, but that wasn't my point. They were cowed, but did not kowtow. I understand the distinction might be hard to grasp, but it's important to note that all the things you cite means the Tea Party did have a lot of power over the GOP. They couldn't have done those things if they didn't!
Click to expand...

Well, that's a somewhat more subtle point than was expressed in your original post. It's also one that misses the elephant in the room. It is not BLM which has the power to cause a civil war within the Democratic party. It is the movement behind Bernie Sanders. BLM are having an influence on local policing (mostly negative in my opinion) through disruptive protests, but they will not be able to affect elections (at least not in the way they want). The anti-corporatist, highly progressive left, however, can and will.
 
quadraginta said:
The word you're looking for is "pander".

The GOP has been pandering to an increasingly unhinged fringe group, ever since they embarked on the "Southern Strategy".

Even Goldwater didn't take long to realize how dangerous going down that path was going to be, but his warnings went unheeded.

Now the GOP is reaping the logical results of such a misguided policy.
Click to expand...

I know that's been the meme on the left for decades now. I disagree completely. I think the rise in the populist right is a reaction to the ineffectiveness of the GOP establishment in countering the left's invidious tactic of using ad hominem and the weapon of political correctness to constrain conservative argument.

David Brooks from the New York Times is the perfect example of an absolutely insufferable and sniveling intellectual coward from the GOP establishment who purports to speak for conservative principles. He uses all of his rhetorical skill to couch conservative principles in language that his leftist friends consider barely acceptable. That way he can still get invited to all of the best cocktail parties I guess.

If the GOP had a misguided policy, it was allowing itself to be cowed by the left.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I know that's been the meme on the left for decades now.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Rather more than a meme, I think.

It was a quite consciously and overtly planned and implemented strategy which they began in the '60s, and have pursued with increasing fervor ever since.

The GOP as a party has never made any bones about it. I don't understand why you're trying to cover for them.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I know that's been the meme on the left for decades now. I disagree completely. I think the rise in the populist right is a reaction to the ineffectiveness of the GOP establishment in countering the left's invidious tactic of using ad hominem and the weapon of political correctness to constrain conservative argument.
Click to expand...

If anything, the Atwater strategy strikes me as the most successful possible version of "political correctness". You pretty much end up talking about how minorities are "taking jobs unfairly", despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, instead of just yelling racial slurs. I'd also not that Trump seems to be, more or less, a return to pre-Atwater days, yelling about how he'd like to beat up black people for being rude, whining that Obama isn't really American, and claiming that Mexican immigrants are "rapists".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom