• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Sanders defends Killer Mike, Attacks Bill Clinton & Doesn't Want To Be Lectured On CR

Status
Not open for further replies.

nib95

Banned
Feb 26, 2007
34,612
2
0
Radicalism of this degree hasn't been majorly present in US elections in ages. From both the left and the right.

And I absolutely think there should be a level after which promises of change should be considered false advertizing. Democracy doesn't work like that. Change happens in degrees, not sharp turns. And the political systen should be responsible for educating people about this.

Radicalism is subjective. To some it won't be radical enough, to others it will be. Personally I feel like it's defeatist and unambitious sentiments not too dissimilar to your own, that have partially allowed the US to fall so far behind in the first place. So many people are so scared of the repercussions of asking for too much, that they continously end up settling for too little, or the same.

And of course change can happen in sharp turns, it's happened throughout history. Having that said, I don't think the changes proposed by Bernie are that dramatic in the first place, not when you consider the reality that were he in power, the actual policy changes brought to realisation would be paired back versions of those ambitions, such as is the case with any presidency. But you have to at least set the bar high in the first place.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Radicalism is subjective. To some it won't be radical enough, to others it will be. Personally I feel like it's defeatist and unambitious sentiments not too dissimilar to your own, that have partially allowed the US to fall so far behind in the first place. So many people are so scared of the repercussions of asking for too much, that they continously end up settling for too little or the same.

This is how I feel. There needs to be an impetus to really move forward (and get the American public to move forward with you) and it ain't 'baby steps'.

Of course, I'm just talking about the overall goal. How long it takes to get there is a different story, but the goal needs to be ambitious.


EDIT:

I'd also like to add that I've never seen a single successful motivational speaker motivate people with a message of incremental change. It's always, "you can be anything that you want to be!" And I'm sorry, but we need our president to be a motivational speaker as well so that our country (and particularly our young people) can be inspired and motivated to get involved in politics.
 

nib95

Banned
Feb 26, 2007
34,612
2
0
This is how I feel. There needs to be an impetus to really move forward (and get the American public to move forward with you) and it ain't 'baby steps'.

Of course, I'm just talking about the overall goal. How long it takes to get there is a different story, but the goal needs to be ambitious.

Absolutely agree. And I would also argue that throughout history, some of the biggest political successes (and failures) have been radical and dramatic in nature, usually off the back of prominent societal catalysts. I personally think the US is absolutely at a point and place where such a large scale shift could be capitalised, as wealth inequality is unprecedented, political corruption is rampant, race relations are failing, and another economic recession is looming. All it takes is for the right person to be in power at the right time.
 

dramatis

Member
May 28, 2008
9,580
0
0
It is frankly sad that in a thread about what Killer Mike said, more posts are spent bickering over the semantics of "Berniebros" and a scant few posts even attempt to discuss the application of the word "uterus" to talk about a woman. Even more amazing is how someone who mentioned that it is a problem has the issue summarily dismissed as optics. Meanwhile a bunch of people continue to be salty about the Berniebro term, because it is clearly the focal point of what Bernie Sanders is talking about and OH SO IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS compared to the implications of what Bernie and Killer Mike said for women.

Because 'uterus' is just an issue of poor optics, but 'Berniebros' is dismissive and a real problem.

Imagine if Trump went and called a black person 'nigger' and excused himself by saying another black person said it, so therefore it's okay. If a bunch of people supported that excuse and said Trump was taken out of context. If people were redirecting their discussion to critique people who are criticizing them, instead of focusing on the issue with what Trump did. Imagine if Trump were excused with simply "poor optics" and because he is supposedly comparatively better on race than the other candidates.

By no means is what women go through in their inequalities (barring black women) as ridiculous as what black people go through. But this thread is an echo chamber full of men that clearly have no interest in understanding or critiquing from a female perspective. Instead there is a sea of people with fussiness over their given label which, in this thread, ironically aptly describes them.

Bernie Sanders said:
"I don't go around, no one has ever heard me say, 'Hey guys, let's stand together, vote for a man.' I would never do that, never have."
Why yes, Bernie, nobody has to do that, because only all the presidents so far have been men. Such men have never had to answer questions like "what china patterns will you pick for the white house" or "what will be the role of your wife in your administration" or "how does being a grandfather affect you". They will never have someone comment that they're wearing a potato sack or that their outfit is too bright. They won't have someone say they are just mad because they're having their periods, or say that they're good for the office only if they're good looking.

Yeah, no one will ever have to band together to say they will vote for a man, because chances are, they already did. Because a man will never be questioned about his qualification for the office based on the body parts he was born with. He won't have the problem of people simply not voting for him because he's a man and therefore, according to their religions or beliefs or whatever, should be staying at home in the kitchen.
 

Calvero

Banned
Aug 28, 2013
6,541
0
0
Forest through the trees.

this is a nitpick, but this thread is full of this. it's "can't see the forest for the trees" not "through the trees"\

edit: already mentioned, though in a real dick way. ignore.

edit2: why can't we all get along :(
 
Jun 19, 2013
23,820
1
0
Imagine if Trump went and called a black person 'nigger' and excused himself by saying another black person said it, so therefore it's okay.

Shit like this is why some people get really frustrated.

Find a better example or another group of people to be your sharp stick
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
27,818
2
0
He won't have the problem of people simply not voting for him because he's a man

Well he kinda is.

I guess the question is... are more democrats not voting for bernie because he's not a woman... or are more democrats not voting for hilary because she's not a man?

I... honestly don't know!
 

royalan

Member
Jan 19, 2011
34,431
0
0
Philadelphia
www.yobrando.com
It is frankly sad that in a thread about what Killer Mike said, more posts are spent bickering over the semantics of "Berniebros" and a scant few posts even attempt to discuss the application of the word "uterus" to talk about a woman. Even more amazing is how someone who mentioned that it is a problem has the issue summarily dismissed as optics. Meanwhile a bunch of people continue to be salty about the Berniebro term, because it is clearly the focal point of what Bernie Sanders is talking about and OH SO IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS compared to the implications of what Bernie and Killer Mike said for women.

Because 'uterus' is just an issue of poor optics, but 'Berniebros' is dismissive and a real problem.

Imagine if Trump went and called a black person 'nigger' and excused himself by saying another black person said it, so therefore it's okay. If a bunch of people supported that excuse and said Trump was taken out of context. If people were redirecting their discussion to critique people who are criticizing them, instead of focusing on the issue with what Trump did. Imagine if Trump were excused with simply "poor optics" and because he is supposedly comparatively better on race than the other candidates.

By no means is what women go through in their inequalities (barring black women) as ridiculous as what black people go through. But this thread is an echo chamber full of men that clearly have no interest in understanding or critiquing from a female perspective. Instead there is a sea of people with fussiness over their given label which, in this thread, ironically aptly describes them.


Why yes, Bernie, nobody has to do that, because only all the presidents so far have been men. Such men have never had to answer questions like "what china patterns will you pick for the white house" or "what will be the role of your wife in your administration" or "how does being a grandfather affect you". They will never have someone comment that they're wearing a potato sack or that their outfit is too bright. They won't have someone say they are just mad because they're having their periods, or say that they're good for the office only if they're good looking.

Yeah, no one will ever have to band together to say they will vote for a man, because chances are, they already did. Because a man will never be questioned about his qualification for the office based on the body parts he was born with. He won't have the problem of people simply not voting for him because he's a man and therefore, according to their religions or beliefs or whatever, should be staying at home in the kitchen.

All that needs to be said. Amazing post.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
Aug 16, 2004
17,419
0
1,390
Why yes, Bernie, nobody has to do that, because only all the presidents so far have been men. Such men have never had to answer questions like "what china patterns will you pick for the white house" or "what will be the role of your wife in your administration" or "how does being a grandfather affect you". They will never have someone comment that they're wearing a potato sack or that their outfit is too bright. They won't have someone say they are just mad because they're having their periods, or say that they're good for the office only if they're good looking.
Most of this is valid, but a.) male candidates do get asked that, and b.) if your husband is a former president himself it's a little different anyway.
 

Hellwarden

Member
May 8, 2015
16,252
2
315
Bill Clinton is always deserving of more criticism. It's funny that his foes decided to attack his personal indiscretions rather than his harmful domestic decisions or his wildly arbitrary foreign policy record.

Not to mention Bill's tough on crime approach, such as supporting the infamous three strikes law, and expanding the war on drugs.

Bill Clinton is one of those presidents that I don't understand why any liberal would like.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
It is frankly sad that in a thread about what Killer Mike said, more posts are spent bickering over the semantics of "Berniebros" and a scant few posts even attempt to discuss the application of the word "uterus" to talk about a woman. Even more amazing is how someone who mentioned that it is a problem has the issue summarily dismissed as optics. Meanwhile a bunch of people continue to be salty about the Berniebro term, because it is clearly the focal point of what Bernie Sanders is talking about and OH SO IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS compared to the implications of what Bernie and Killer Mike said for women.

Because 'uterus' is just an issue of poor optics, but 'Berniebros' is dismissive and a real problem.

Imagine if Trump went and called a black person 'nigger' and excused himself by saying another black person said it, so therefore it's okay. If a bunch of people supported that excuse and said Trump was taken out of context. If people were redirecting their discussion to critique people who are criticizing them, instead of focusing on the issue with what Trump did. Imagine if Trump were excused with simply "poor optics" and because he is supposedly comparatively better on race than the other candidates.

By no means is what women go through in their inequalities (barring black women) as ridiculous as what black people go through. But this thread is an echo chamber full of men that clearly have no interest in understanding or critiquing from a female perspective. Instead there is a sea of people with fussiness over their given label which, in this thread, ironically aptly describes them.


Why yes, Bernie, nobody has to do that, because only all the presidents so far have been men. Such men have never had to answer questions like "what china patterns will you pick for the white house" or "what will be the role of your wife in your administration" or "how does being a grandfather affect you". They will never have someone comment that they're wearing a potato sack or that their outfit is too bright. They won't have someone say they are just mad because they're having their periods, or say that they're good for the office only if they're good looking.

Yeah, no one will ever have to band together to say they will vote for a man, because chances are, they already did. Because a man will never be questioned about his qualification for the office based on the body parts he was born with. He won't have the problem of people simply not voting for him because he's a man and therefore, according to their religions or beliefs or whatever, should be staying at home in the kitchen.


I have no interest in arguing with someone who justifies personally insulting an entire thread of posters just because they share a difference of opinion with them. There can be no meaningful discourse.

Have fun arguing with yourself.
 
Oct 9, 2013
5,513
0
0
It is frankly sad that in a thread about what Killer Mike said, more posts are spent bickering over the semantics of "Berniebros" and a scant few posts even attempt to discuss the application of the word "uterus" to talk about a woman. Even more amazing is how someone who mentioned that it is a problem has the issue summarily dismissed as optics. Meanwhile a bunch of people continue to be salty about the Berniebro term, because it is clearly the focal point of what Bernie Sanders is talking about and OH SO IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS compared to the implications of what Bernie and Killer Mike said for women.

Because 'uterus' is just an issue of poor optics, but 'Berniebros' is dismissive and a real problem.

Imagine if Trump went and called a black person 'nigger' and excused himself by saying another black person said it, so therefore it's okay. If a bunch of people supported that excuse and said Trump was taken out of context. If people were redirecting their discussion to critique people who are criticizing them, instead of focusing on the issue with what Trump did. Imagine if Trump were excused with simply "poor optics" and because he is supposedly comparatively better on race than the other candidates.

By no means is what women go through in their inequalities (barring black women) as ridiculous as what black people go through. But this thread is an echo chamber full of men that clearly have no interest in understanding or critiquing from a female perspective. Instead there is a sea of people with fussiness over their given label which, in this thread, ironically aptly describes them.


Why yes, Bernie, nobody has to do that, because only all the presidents so far have been men. Such men have never had to answer questions like "what china patterns will you pick for the white house" or "what will be the role of your wife in your administration" or "how does being a grandfather affect you". They will never have someone comment that they're wearing a potato sack or that their outfit is too bright. They won't have someone say they are just mad because they're having their periods, or say that they're good for the office only if they're good looking.

Yeah, no one will ever have to band together to say they will vote for a man, because chances are, they already did. Because a man will never be questioned about his qualification for the office based on the body parts he was born with. He won't have the problem of people simply not voting for him because he's a man and therefore, according to their religions or beliefs or whatever, should be staying at home in the kitchen.
I'm waiting for the comparison to blackface. Is that next? I honestly can't believe you think that comparison was good.

Also you realize if there were no women in politics before, there would be no choice but to vote for a man. It's not like people made a decision to vote on man #64 (#666 is my personal favorite) for President because he was a man. Both canidates before were men.
 

Mael

Member
Oct 23, 2009
23,428
0
0
France
Not to mention Bill's tough on crime approach, such as supporting the infamous three strikes law, and expanding the war on drugs.

Bill Clinton is one of those presidents that I don't understand why any liberal would like.

It's not too late to make a Google search, see the context in which these laws were passed.
Kinda like blaming the gaming industry for making the ERSB when the alternative was worse...
 

superdeluxe

Member
Apr 27, 2008
5,903
0
1,050
Jesus. The left is tearing itself apart. I get the feeling that if someone's candidate does not win the primary, they will either sit out or vote for the republicans.
 
Apr 30, 2009
35,156
0
0
Jesus. The left is tearing itself apart. I get the feeling that if someone's candidate does not win the primary, they will either sit out or vote for the republicans.

The internet!= real life in this situation. Recent polls suggest that Democrats love and will support both Bernie and Hillary in the general.
 

Chariot

Member
Jul 6, 2013
27,675
0
475
The internet!= real life in this situation. Recent polls suggest that Democrats love and will support both Bernie and Hillary in the general.
Aye. As I say. Even if not everyone would be for either Bernie or Hillary, most people will be sound enough to be against whoever the GOP is throwing in the ring. Especially if that one is Trump.
 

Chariot

Member
Jul 6, 2013
27,675
0
475
I get that, just disheartening to see it happen here or anywhere really.
I am sure hardcore Bernie supporters and hardcore Hillary supporters going at it in all possible places for various reasons, but here on NeoGAF it's strangely heavy, since a group of some went very aggressively condescending into telling Bernie Supporters here that they are just children dancing in the palm of the hand of reality. Not that we don't have some Bernie nutters here too though.

We'll see how the next weeks look like. One can hope that everyone got themselves together.
 

JesseEwiak

Member
May 9, 2013
5,839
0
0
It's not too late to make a Google search, see the context in which these laws were passed.
Kinda like blaming the gaming industry for making the ERSB when the alternative was worse...

Yup, in 1993, Times Square was still shorthand for "dirty place where hookers and weirdos hang around to steal your money," not "the place with all the chain restaurants."

There's a reason why every other film in the 80's was about a cop really taking it to coddled criminals, gangs being taken out by a single man who'd been taken too far, or say, a movie with NYC literally becoming a prison.
 

ApharmdX

Banned
Aug 20, 2014
3,812
0
0
Wow, if that's what you took from his comments...

Just, wow.

His comments were tone-deaf, inappropriate, and yet so familiar. Bill shouldn't have said what he did. It makes light of the experiences of black Americans, and how we've been set apart, and below, other Americans, simply for some superficial physical differences.

But nah, keep giving the Clintons a pass on racial issues. And be disappointed when you get President Hillary Clinton, or even General Election Presidential Candidate Clinton, who no longer needs the black vote to win a primary.
 

lednerg

Member
Feb 27, 2006
8,156
0
0
NJ
Killer Mike was quoting what the anti-discrimination advocate and feminist, Jane Elliott, had personally told him. If you don't like that it was a male doing the quoting, then that's on you. Turning his speech into some anti-female screed is about as disingenuous as it gets.

The part in question starts @ 4:57:

https://youtu.be/pXYBIEc9OTw?t=4m57s
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
3
0
36
Nowhere, PA
I'd also like to add that I've never seen a single successful motivational speaker motivate people with a message of incremental change. It's always, "you can be anything that you want to be!" And I'm sorry, but we need our president to be a motivational speaker as well so that our country (and particularly our young people) can be inspired and motivated to get involved in politics.

well i guess to start we'd need a candidate who was actually a good motivational speaker. Bernie is about as charismatic as a wet rag, for what I think it's worth. If he was an Obama-like speaker, I could maybe get behind the idea he'd be able to overcome the insane attacks that would head his way as nominee. But I don't think Bernie is talented enough to speak his way out of these big skeletons that would derail candidates 10x as charismatic as he. I've never seen a convincing stump speech he's given that demonstrates that sort of genuinely inspirational candidacy. He just promises "the right things" (putting aside not a single one of them he can actually pass, but whatevs), instead of actually saying those promises in a way that is particularly captivating. And as you believe motivation in politics must be big, sweeping aspirational stuff (again, putting aside how smart it is to make those claims knowing it cannot be done right now), likewise you need the right candidate to deliver that message.
 

Giant Panda

Member
Jan 17, 2012
3,202
0
0
Bill Clinton is correct with Sanders and the tea party comparison. They think it's all about ideological purity.
 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Jul 1, 2013
5,451
0
430
Lewisville, TX
Killer Mike was quoting what a feminist, Jane Elliott, had personally told him. If you don't like that it was a male doing the quoting, then that's on you. Turning his speech into some anti-female screed is about as disingenuous as it gets.

The part in question starts @ 4:57:

https://youtu.be/pXYBIEc9OTw?t=4m57s

But don't you know? Sanders and his supporters are racist and sexist, just as much as the republicans!

You know. I understand that the democratic base and establishment has used the tactics in the past, but pick when you use them, and done use them unjustly against people that completely support your causes.
 

ApharmdX

Banned
Aug 20, 2014
3,812
0
0
well i guess to start we'd need a candidate who was actually a good motivational speaker. Bernie is about as charismatic as a wet rag, for what I think it's worth. If he was an Obama-like speaker, I could maybe get behind the idea he'd be able to overcome the insane attacks that would head his way as nominee. But I don't think Bernie is talented enough to speak his way out of these big skeletons that would derail candidates 10x as charismatic as he.

This is an... odd post. Hillary isn't charismatic either. And she evokes a powerful negative response in a lot of the voting public. And she has her own looming skeletons.

I'm actually growing a bit nervous about either Clinton or Sanders facing Trump. I don't understand Trump's appeal but some people find him charismatic. Hillary is not charismatic, at all; I think Sanders is charming, like a lovable old Jewish uncle, but he is a single-issue candidate who often comes across poorly when speaking outside of that issue.
 

hawk2025

Member
Jan 20, 2013
15,488
0
0
But don't you know? Sanders and his supporters are racist and sexist, just as much as the republicans!

You know. I understand that the democratic base and establishment has used the tactics in the past, but pick when you use them, and done use them unjustly against people that completely support your causes.


You are complaining about a strawman in paragraph 2 right after building one in paragraph 1.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
Jun 6, 2004
33,439
2
0
USA
blog.gattsu25.com
Bill Clinton is correct with Sanders and the tea party comparison. They think it's all about ideological purity.
And Sanders is correct with his comments on Bill. Multiple people in a debate can be right.

And the tea-party is not the right comparison to make. I think libertarians are a better touch point as the tea-party IMO wasn't started with ideological purity in mind but rather frustrations centered around the idea that the country was falling out of control of an ethnic majority.
 

Rootbeer

Banned
Jan 9, 2012
16,203
12
785
That Bernie/Reddit bubble.

God damnit Mike. SWJ's? Really? REALLY?

Mike called himself a SJW at the latest Bernie rally. To thunderous cheers, btw.

But there is a difference between someone out there doing actual social justice work, and someone sitting at their computer getting offended anytime someone says something like what he is quoting as saying, and which can easily be so misinterpreted by those who are looking to be offended.

I believe that is what he was understanding by the wording of the tweet he RTed.

However, doesn't mean they were a good choice to be RTing if they have a bad reputation. He might not have known that. Folks need to be careful about where they are sourcing their RTs, it's easy to take something out of context when tweets are so short.

Again, just the whole "gotcha!" side of the political game and it gets tiring. I don't like it being done to the Hillary side either.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
3
0
36
Nowhere, PA
This is an... odd post. Hillary isn't charismatic either. And she evokes a powerful negative response in a lot of the voting public. And she has her own looming skeletons.

I'm actually growing a bit nervous about either Clinton or Sanders facing Trump. I don't understand Trump's appeal but some people find him charismatic. Hillary is not charismatic, at all; I think Sanders is charming, like a lovable old Jewish uncle, but he is a single-issue candidate who often comes across poorly when speaking outside of that issue.

When someone is arguing something about a candidate, it does not mean they think the opposite must be true for some other candidate. I've seen it happen a million times now in these political threads in both directions. If you criticize Hillary, it does not mean you think Bernie is the one to do that right. If you criticize Bernie, it does not mean you think Hillary is vastly superior in that category.

Hillary isn't particularly charismatic, but she definitely is far more inspirational by virtue of being who she is... which whether you like it or not (that is to say, whether it makes anyone comfortable that gender is used as a positive benefit of a candidacy), is set to be the first female nominee for President of any major party. It's something that, when combined with her proven experience deflecting Republican attacks, makes her a much more appealing candidate for the general. It does not, however, mean she's particularly more charismatic.
 

ApharmdX

Banned
Aug 20, 2014
3,812
0
0
When someone is arguing something about a candidate, it does not mean they think the opposite must be true for some other candidate. I've seen it happen a million times now in these political threads in both directions. If you criticize Hillary, it does not mean you think Bernie is the one to do that right. If you criticize Bernie, it does not mean you think Hillary is vastly superior in that category.

Ok, I get that.

Hillary isn't particularly charismatic, but she definitely is far more inspirational by virtue of being who she is... which whether you like it or not, is set to be the first female nominee for President of any major party. It's something that, when combined with her proven experience deflecting Republican attacks, makes her a much more appealing candidate for the general. It does not, however, mean she's particularly more charismatic.

I agree with you that Hillary as the first female nominee is inspirational. I also agree that she is experienced at deflecting GOP attacks, but wouldn't you say that at times she does so in a slippery way that actually costs her support, that increases her negatives? And her skeletons are concerning, in some ways more so than Bernie's. They are ethical issues, whereas Sanders skeletons are more ideological.

All I know for sure is that, whoever emerges from the Democratic primary, we need to get out and vote to keep Trump/Cruz/Rubio out of the White House. A year ago I'd have said President Clinton was a foregone conclusion. Now I think it's going to be a harder road that expected.
 

linsivvi

Member
Aug 8, 2006
18,662
0
0
Jesus. The left is tearing itself apart. I get the feeling that if someone's candidate does not win the primary, they will either sit out or vote for the republicans.

The right are saying the same thing as well.

It's just human nature.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
well i guess to start we'd need a candidate who was actually a good motivational speaker. Bernie is about as charismatic as a wet rag, for what I think it's worth. If he was an Obama-like speaker, I could maybe get behind the idea he'd be able to overcome the insane attacks that would head his way as nominee. But I don't think Bernie is talented enough to speak his way out of these big skeletons that would derail candidates 10x as charismatic as he. I've never seen a convincing stump speech he's given that demonstrates that sort of genuinely inspirational candidacy. He just promises "the right things" (putting aside not a single one of them he can actually pass, but whatevs), instead of actually saying those promises in a way that is particularly captivating. And as you believe motivation in politics must be big, sweeping aspirational stuff (again, putting aside how smart it is to make those claims knowing it cannot be done right now), likewise you need the right candidate to deliver that message.

You do realize that charisma is subjective, right? There is no objective standard.

I've had this argument in the poliGAF thread many months ago, but basically I feel that Bernie has a very natural charisma in the sense that he's like your old gramps who let's off a lot of steam but is very endearing and you get the sense that he actually cares about your well-being. When he advocates for you, you can see his sincerity, and that kind of appeal can be very inspiring.

Obama on the other hand speaks in a very pre-meditated and calculated way, which comes across as wholly manufactured. Now the cool thing about Obama is that he's extremely talented in making his act seem genuine enough to the general public, so it's never off-putting. Unfortunately, his persona sticks out like a sore thumb to me, so his 'charisma' has the opposite effect on me, and all I see is fake, fake, fake. Nevertheless, Obama's alright in my book.

Now Trump, that's a man with some charisma. He just commands attention whenever the camera is facing him. He motivates in a different kind of way; one that's a big self-aggrandizing, but it works for him.

Anyway, I suppose we agree in principle, but not with these particular candidates. Oh well, to each his own.
 

Hellwarden

Member
May 8, 2015
16,252
2
315
It's not too late to make a Google search, see the context in which these laws were passed.
Kinda like blaming the gaming industry for making the ERSB when the alternative was worse...

Don't try to defend the Clinton's support for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, especially by saying it's not as bad as it could have been.
 

JesseEwiak

Member
May 9, 2013
5,839
0
0
Don't try to defend the Clinton's support for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, especially by saying it's not as bad as it could have been.

In 1992, there was no majority constituency to being soft on crime. Zero. None. Outside of Berkeley and other uberliberal enclaves, people were scared as hell and unlike now, they actually had some reason to be. Now, the laws that were passed may have not been the right reaction, but people wanted something to be done and if Bill would've tried to pass something soft on crime, he would've been gone in 1996 quicker than you can say Willie Horton.
 

Hellwarden

Member
May 8, 2015
16,252
2
315
In 1992, there was no majority constituency to being soft on crime. Zero. None. Outside of Berkeley and other uberliberal enclaves, people were scared as hell and unlike now, they actually had some reason to be. Now, the laws that were passed may have not been the right reaction, but people wanted something to be done and if Bill would've tried to pass something soft on crime, he would've been gone in 1996 quicker than you can say Willie Horton.

So you're trying to say that excuses all the results of the bill.

Right.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Mar 16, 2007
61,123
0
0
Yup.

And it is the same with the rise of Trump.

People are just sick of the establishment and their inability to solve problems while they ramble on about "Change".
Bernie Sanders is part of the establishment
 

linsivvi

Member
Aug 8, 2006
18,662
0
0
In 1992, there was no majority constituency to being soft on crime. Zero. None. Outside of Berkeley and other uberliberal enclaves, people were scared as hell and unlike now, they actually had some reason to be. Now, the laws that were passed may have not been the right reaction, but people wanted something to be done and if Bill would've tried to pass something soft on crime, he would've been gone in 1996 quicker than you can say Willie Horton.

In 1992, Rush Limbaugh had a syndicated TV show, and that's how crazy the country was. At that time Bill getting reelected was like a pipe dream.

Kids these days don't know how ridiculously conservative it was back then.
 

Mael

Member
Oct 23, 2009
23,428
0
0
France
Don't try to defend the Clinton's support for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, especially by saying it's not as bad as it could have been.

This isn't what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the VCCLEA wasn't enacted to target and disenfranchise minorities.
It was a reaction to David Koresh's very public stupid idiocy and other high profile violent crimes.
This isn't something Clinton could have foreseen when he signed it into law or even when that Dem Congressman presented it in the 1rst place.
Heck Sanders voted FOR IT so clearly there was something worse putting your name on it.
 
Dec 27, 2010
3,786
0
0
38
Mississippi....
Bernie is going to pull a Bulworth soon.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.