crank wrote:

Teague wrote:

I'll do this one....

Sanders voted for a 1994 crime bill that he attacked Clinton for supporting.

In 1994, for example, he said that he would support it because it included the Violence Against Women Act, which helped crack down on domestic violence and rape. Sanders said:

I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act. We urgently need the $1.8 billion in this bill to combat the epidemic of violence against women on the streets and in the homes of America.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

Oh, sad day for you.

This is precisely why the article is such a pile a shit. Everything in it could be true, but because her quotes are almost all one and two words long, and her examples are without justification and of complex situations, reality is likely 180 degrees out of phase. Single and double word quotes are particularly open to gross distortions, and with the author being too much the weasel to cite anything,...

...it was clearly the hatchet job many have already exposed it to be, remember the timing, just before the NY vote. So much support for such drivel by supposed skeptics? This is telling.

Oldskeptic wrote:Anyway, better get used to it and grow some thicker skin because there's more on the way as more and more Bernie supporters wake up to the fact that Bernie is nothing more than an ideologue peddling empty promises and running one of the most negative campaigns since Nixon ran for reelection.

crank wrote:

GT2211 wrote:

Teague wrote:

GT2211 wrote:Teague has become a broken record. Repeating the same debunked talking points over and over

What debunked talking points?

I'm not going to go through all of them again. Let's start with

The Criminal Justice System her husband and her were responsible for

This is just absurd. Attributing the entire criminal justice system of the country to the 1st lady. The 94 crime bill had plenty of issues, but it had zilch to do with mass incarceration which peaked around the time the bill was passed.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10961362/c ... -crime-law

a) Mass incarceration was well on its way.
b) Most incarceration happens at the state and local levels over state laws. Not federal laws.

There was no noticeable sudden increase in any trends after the law was passed


Finally, you continue to ignore Sanders role in this. Like the fact that Sanders voted for the bill. And has continued to pat himself on the back for his vote and his tough on crime approach campaigning on it for Senate in 06.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061018180 ... crime.html

So when Bernie goes around saying this(which i agree with fwiw), he might want to look back at his own campaigns...

“For too long in this country politicians have used getting tough on crime as a wedge issue to win elections. It is clearly about time to start talking – as we have in this election – about the really disastrous effects of too many politicians trying to win too many elections by locking too many people up,” Sanders told a forum on criminal justice reform at Allen University.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... e-century/

Peaked at the time the bill passed? When did that bill pass? The peak in that graph is about 2010. And how is the crime bill supposed to immediately start ramping up the numbers? Sentencing can't be based on a law passed after you were caught. There would be lags. Trying to extract what effect it had is nearly impossible, did it influence states in what laws they passed, did it encourage further get-tough attitudes amongst cops, DAs, judges? I would ask, how could all those provisions not lead to increased incarcerations? If that were true, it implies the bill was ineffectual, made no difference, who believes that?

Thommo wrote:Nobody has a clear explanation of the phenomenon of the dramatic drops in violent crime, but it was observed throughout the western world, so can we stop playing party politics with it, please? Whatever the explanation is, it's not clear and it's probably not simple minded (unless it's lead poisoning after all).



That's a graph showing crime in Britain - rather unlikely to be a response to US policy, notice how the shape is similar to the US trend? That was observed in a large number of countries and has been one of the great academic mysteries of the 21st century. Whatever it was, it's way bigger than bickering between the Clinton and Sanders campaigns.

Oldskeptic wrote:It looks to me like more police and the arrest and locking up of more offenders of violent and other crimes such as selling drugs correlates very strongly with a precipitous drop and steady decline in violent crimes.

Oldskeptic wrote:Here's a graph of Canada's crime rates that illustrates this:



While total crime spikes around 1994 violent crime remains nearly flat.

GT2211 wrote:

crank wrote:
Peaked at the time the bill passed?

I guess you're right, that peak is not a good usage of terms. It started leveling off around the time the pill passed. It was rising sharply, then kinda plateaued.

When did that bill pass?

1994

The peak in that graph is about 2010. And how is the crime bill supposed to immediately start ramping up the numbers?

I think we would start to notice an increase in the trend/rate fairly shortly. The whole point of tough on crime bills are to accomplish two things a) provide more funds for police to catch criminals and b) stop slapping them on the wrist and releasing them back to the streets. So I think we should see an uptick in arrests in incarceration fairly soon.

Sentencing can't be based on a law passed after you were caught. There would be lags.

Well I agree and addressed above, but I think we disagree on just how long those lags are. And I think if you assume they are longer(I personally don't think they are that long), it helps my case more.

There would be lags. Trying to extract what effect it had is nearly impossible, did it influence states in what laws they passed, did it encourage further get-tough attitudes amongst cops, DAs, judges?

The article addresses, this and the answer is largely no.

I would ask, how could all those provisions not lead to increased incarcerations? If that were true, it implies the bill was ineffectual, made no difference, who believes that?
Who believes that? ME(and the author of the Vox article)! Which has been my point all along. Its not a bill that had particularly large significance. I'm not going to say it had zero effect. But if you are going to claim that Hillary was somehow responsible for mass incarceration, there needs to be evidence to support that claim.

Most of the policies that led to the incarcerations came in the 80's and 90's and/or the the state and local levels.

GT2211 wrote:

crank wrote:In my last post, I'm not trying to say the crime bill caused the mass incarceration, I agree there was a trend already underway, I'm saying to say it didn't make things worse can't be proven with that chart, and saying it didn't doesn't make much sense.

I agree it probably contributed, I just think its contribution was rather minor whereas Teague and others seem to be focusing on it if as it were the primary cause. And there seems to be an attempt to dissociate Sanders role in this legislation.

Shrunk wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:Here's a graph of Canada's crime rates that illustrates this:



While total crime spikes around 1994 violent crime remains nearly flat.

It's difficult to identify trends in violent crime in most industrialized nations, however, because the baseline level is almost negligible. The US being the notable exception.

Oldskeptic wrote:

crank wrote:

Teague wrote:

I'll do this one....

Sanders voted for a 1994 crime bill that he attacked Clinton for supporting.

In 1994, for example, he said that he would support it because it included the Violence Against Women Act, which helped crack down on domestic violence and rape. Sanders said:

I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act. We urgently need the $1.8 billion in this bill to combat the epidemic of violence against women on the streets and in the homes of America.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

Oh, sad day for you.

This is precisely why the article is such a pile a shit. Everything in it could be true, but because her quotes are almost all one and two words long, and her examples are without justification and of complex situations, reality is likely 180 degrees out of phase. Single and double word quotes are particularly open to gross distortions, and with the author being too much the weasel to cite anything,...

You might actually want to take a look at the article and notice all those places where a phrase is underlined. Those are called links and they lead to what are called sources and or citations.

...it was clearly the hatchet job many have already exposed it to be, remember the timing, just before the NY vote. So much support for such drivel by supposed skeptics? This is telling.

And while people like Abby Martin, TYT, RawStory, DailyKos, RT, DailyBeast... produce videos and articles accusing Clinton of everything from spending too much on a vacation to mass murder Alperstein's piece that is sourced and rather mild, compared to what is coming out of the Bernie camp, is pile of shit hatchet job?

All and all, the moaning and bitching and cries of foul play coming BernieBros about people now posting about why they no longer support Bernie is rather amusing. It reminds me of the school bully bursting into tears complaining when someone calls him a bad name.

Anyway, better get used to it and grow some thicker skin because there's more on the way as more and more Bernie supporters wake up to the fact that Bernie is nothing more than an ideologue peddling empty promises and running one of the most negative campaigns since Nixon ran for reelection.

There’s a lot of mention of the research you did for this piece. Would you mind editing your article to include links or other references to the research you cite? That there are more sourced references in the comments than in the article (zero in the article!) perhaps diminishes the strength of your position… “showing your work” might add weight to your argument.

Oldskeptic wrote:

crank wrote:

GT2211 wrote:

Teague wrote:

What debunked talking points?

I'm not going to go through all of them again. Let's start with

The Criminal Justice System her husband and her were responsible for

This is just absurd. Attributing the entire criminal justice system of the country to the 1st lady. The 94 crime bill had plenty of issues, but it had zilch to do with mass incarceration which peaked around the time the bill was passed.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10961362/c ... -crime-law

a) Mass incarceration was well on its way.
b) Most incarceration happens at the state and local levels over state laws. Not federal laws.

There was no noticeable sudden increase in any trends after the law was passed


Finally, you continue to ignore Sanders role in this. Like the fact that Sanders voted for the bill. And has continued to pat himself on the back for his vote and his tough on crime approach campaigning on it for Senate in 06.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061018180 ... crime.html

So when Bernie goes around saying this(which i agree with fwiw), he might want to look back at his own campaigns...

“For too long in this country politicians have used getting tough on crime as a wedge issue to win elections. It is clearly about time to start talking – as we have in this election – about the really disastrous effects of too many politicians trying to win too many elections by locking too many people up,” Sanders told a forum on criminal justice reform at Allen University.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... e-century/

Peaked at the time the bill passed? When did that bill pass? The peak in that graph is about 2010. And how is the crime bill supposed to immediately start ramping up the numbers? Sentencing can't be based on a law passed after you were caught. There would be lags. Trying to extract what effect it had is nearly impossible, did it influence states in what laws they passed, did it encourage further get-tough attitudes amongst cops, DAs, judges? I would ask, how could all those provisions not lead to increased incarcerations? If that were true, it implies the bill was ineffectual, made no difference, who believes that?

Something that needs to go with the graph above is this one:

It looks to me like more police and the arrest and locking up of more offenders of violent and other crimes such as selling drugs correlates very strongly with a precipitous drop and steady decline in violent crimes. Or maybe since the rate of incarceration was already on a consistent and steady increase (starting in 1975) when the crime bill was passed the crime bill really had little to do with the increase in incarcerations.

Whatever the other consequences of the crime bill have been it seems to have achieved its goal of reducing violent crime.

Shrunk wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:Here's a graph of Canada's crime rates that illustrates this:



While total crime spikes around 1994 violent crime remains nearly flat.

It's difficult to identify trends in violent crime in most industrialized nations, however, because the baseline level is almost negligible. The US being the notable exception.

Teague wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Teague wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Really? You mean when she was for gay rights only 3 years ago? She's for the environment but supported the keystone pipeline and Fracking - ok.

Considering those are currently different positions than all three GOP candidates, are you insane?

Yeah we'll see about that after November.

crank wrote:very classy

crank wrote:
You can post a llog table and I won't believe it, you are too likely to post lies, go the fuck away, you bore me

Oldskeptic wrote:
....Bernie is nothing more than an ideologue peddling empty promises and running one of the most negative campaigns since Nixon ran for reelection.

Pro-Hillary Trolls That Shut Down Pro-Bernie Facebook Groups Get Hilariously Rude Awakening

Facebook pages supporting Bernie Sanders were shut down at about the same time on Monday. Hillary Clinton supporters are bragging on Facebook about their efforts in having the pages removed. It’s not a pretty sight.

...

The groups have been reinstated and people are upset. The groups garnered a lot of members, collectively hosting more than a quarter of a million members.

Casey Champagne bragged about taking down the pages in the pro-Hillary Clinton group BROS 4 HILLARY – #GiveEmHill, a group which ironically is no longer there. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

<link>

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/04/26/ ... awakening/