NineOneFour wrote:

crank wrote:very classy

This from a guy who used to have an avatar that said "fuck the skull of Jesus"?

crank wrote:Comparing any of the candidates to Nixon and his CREEP are overblown. Those guys were seriously CREEPY, what an apt name, did they mean it that way? Probably. Don't forget what Watergate was, they were breaking into a psychiatrist office to steal documents in order to, well, 'dox' someone by exposing their psychiatric reports. There was more ugly BS, some worse than this. Another one I remember was ordering the IRS to basically fuck over enemies. The new guys haven't gotten that crazy, yet.

I don't know what's worse, Swiftboating or Watergate, the Swiftboating seems slimier to me, but less criminal.

Edit: The IRS thing wasn't carried out, it was a Nixon idea that his people didn't let him have carried out, if I remember it right.

Thommo wrote:

Teague wrote:I responded to the hatchet job made against Sanders in that piece by providing a reason for one of the things he did. Then you stuck your oar in for some reason. If someone wants to put up the reasons Clinton voted for it and can quote her then let's see it and compare - oh, they didn't do that in that shitty piece of journalism now, did they.

For some reason? You quoted me. Jesus.

Look, you can sit here and use epithets against the piece till the cows come home, but when you make demands like "If someone wants to put up the reasons Clinton voted for it and can quote her then let's see it and compare - oh, they didn't do that in that shitty piece of journalism now, did they." whilst sitting faced with a screen that contains the text of the article which very clearly points out she did not vote for the legislation (the first lady does not have a congressional vote after all) it just makes your argument look profoundly ill-thought out.

Shrunk wrote:

Teague wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Teague 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.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the Republican party is going to reverse its position on those issue come the election? I don't think you are. But then, what?

“It became clear that one of our staffers accessed some modeling data from another campaign,” Sanders’ campaign spokesperson told The New York Times. “That behavior is unacceptable and that staffer was immediately fired.”

Scot Dutchy wrote:

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.

Well he is declared holy by Teague and can do no wrong.

Teague wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Teague wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

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

Yeah we'll see about that after November.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the Republican party is going to reverse its position on those issue come the election? I don't think you are. But then, what?

I'm talking about Clinton. What she says and what she actually believes and what she'll do will come out after November.

GT2211 wrote:Ugh, Teague, you simply aren't being intellectually honest here.

You claimed Clinton was responsible for mass incarceration, I posted evidence that contradicted your claim suggesting that whatever role the 94 bill played, it was minor.

You have now moved the goal posts to:

Teague wrote:

And that helped the Black community did it - what the Clinton's did to bring them to heel? I already addressed the other point above about his vote on that.

Now did it improve them? idk. I would lean towards no. I don't think it caused much harm neither. Though it was a bill that was pushed by many in the black community and the CBC in response to the high violence rates in their communities that started to decline shortly after(note I don't credit the 94 bill for this)





As for addressing Bernie... did you address it by noting the hypocrisy of Bernie's criticism of politicians campaigning as tough on crime while doing so himself? Or his flip flopping on the issue? Or his attempt to rewrite history?

Or did you attempt to handwave it away by saying 'sure he voted on it and touted his tough on crime record during his campaigns, but he didn't really support it'?

Oldskeptic wrote:

Teague wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

It's basically a massive Gish-Gallop. Duane Gish would be proud.

Never the less all of Gish's accusations and arguments have been countered. I've yet to see even a slight attempt here to counter any of Alperstein's "accusations".

But thank you for the Gish Gallop comparison here because it applies to the Sanders camp and its accusations towards Hillary far more than it could ever apply to Clinton's.

I find it amusing that no one in the Bernie camp here is willing to counter any of Alperstein's accusations and opinions. You'd all rather just complain that there are to many to counter.

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.

Bullshit! Sanders also claims that he voted for the bill because it included the assault weapons ban, but he also voted for an earlier version that did not include the assault weapons ban or the violence against women act.

Something interesting in Bernie's excuses like this is the inconsistency. Bernie claims that he only voted for the crime bill because it had the assault weapons ban and the violence against women acts knowing full well (according to his comments at the time) that it increased death penalty offenses, and would increase sentencing for certain crimes, and would increase prison populations.

He also claims to have voted for the auto industry bailout, because without it 4,000,000 people could loose their jobs.

So far this is true, but that bill failed to pass congress. When the auto industry bailout was bundled into the the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Program release of funds and Bernie had another chance to vote for saving the jobs of 4,000,000 people he voted against it.

In the first case, according to Bernie, he was able to sacrifice his principle for what good it could do for gun safety and protection of women from violence. But in the case of the auto industry bailout he stood on principle and was willing to let 4,000,000 people become unemployed.

The auto industry/TARP vote just seems like spite to me. Bernie hates "Wall Street" and "Big Banks" so much that he was willing to sacrifice the well being of 4,000,000 middle class Americans and their families by voting no. And in the case of the 1994 crime bill he was willing to sacrifice the lives and well being of possibly millions of young less fortunate people.

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.

Teague wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

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.

Well he is declared holy by Teague and can do no wrong.

Of course, you will be able to find the post where I declared him holy won't you. No, of course you won't because just like every post you make, you're full of vapidity and are unable to recognise a decent politician when you see one.

I might "seem" to be focusing on it as a primary cause whereas what I'm actually doing is drawing a character trait of Clinton and any disassociation with Sander's is more nonsense. I've already quoted him about his decision - perhaps you would like to discuss that or are we just point scoring here. "Oh look everyone Sanders also voted for that Bill!!!" Yeah, and what other stuff are in those bills that have many things in them, some good, some bad that required thought and judgement into it or is everyone trying to convince themselves now that Sander's record is as bad as Clinton's because they know they're stuck with her now?

Shrunk wrote:

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.

Much like the reduction in number of pirates correlates with increase in global warning. A closer look at the numbers suggests incarceration had, at best, a minor role in the decline:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... me/385364/

Oldskeptic wrote:

crank wrote:Comparing any of the candidates to Nixon and his CREEP are overblown. Those guys were seriously CREEPY, what an apt name, did they mean it that way? Probably. Don't forget what Watergate was, they were breaking into a psychiatrist office to steal documents in order to, well, 'dox' someone by exposing their psychiatric reports. There was more ugly BS, some worse than this. Another one I remember was ordering the IRS to basically fuck over enemies. The new guys haven't gotten that crazy, yet.

I don't know what's worse, Swiftboating or Watergate, the Swiftboating seems slimier to me, but less criminal.

Edit: The IRS thing wasn't carried out, it was a Nixon idea that his people didn't let him have carried out, if I remember it right.

Watergate began with the break in of the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building, with Nixon's guys trying to steal files. Bernie's guys just used computers for that sort of thing.

crank wrote:Brings back old times. Now, who thinks this isn't classy?

proudfootz wrote:

Teague wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Teague wrote:

Yeah we'll see about that after November.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the Republican party is going to reverse its position on those issue come the election? I don't think you are. But then, what?

I'm talking about Clinton. What she says and what she actually believes and what she'll do will come out after November.

If Clinton is good enough for the Koch brothers, she should be good enough for the rest of us.

Right?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Teague wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

GT2211 wrote:
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.

Well he is declared holy by Teague and can do no wrong.

Of course, you will be able to find the post where I declared him holy won't you. No, of course you won't because just like every post you make, you're full of vapidity and are unable to recognise a decent politician when you see one.

I might "seem" to be focusing on it as a primary cause whereas what I'm actually doing is drawing a character trait of Clinton and any disassociation with Sander's is more nonsense. I've already quoted him about his decision - perhaps you would like to discuss that or are we just point scoring here. "Oh look everyone Sanders also voted for that Bill!!!" Yeah, and what other stuff are in those bills that have many things in them, some good, some bad that required thought and judgement into it or is everyone trying to convince themselves now that Sander's record is as bad as Clinton's because they know they're stuck with her now?

Sanders is a politician but you are unable to recognise that. For the rest once again nonsense.