Tennis Forum banner

7321 - 7340 of 7448 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,921 Posts
You are starting to sound like your hero Donald Trump too. (No... I don't mean that as a compliment.)
Why are continuing to argue with that troll.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
Biden’s “Breakfast Club” Comment About Black Voters Was Off. So Were These Five Claims About the Crime Bill.

Joe Biden speaks on "The Breakfast Club" with host Charlamagne tha God.screenshot
For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden went viral in a bad way Friday morning, when, at the end of a radio interview with The Breakfast Club, he told host Charlamagne tha God that “you ain’t Black” if you “have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump.”
Progressive activists quickly slammed the former vice president for trying to act like an arbiter on Blackness, while the Trump campaign and the president’s supporters cynically seized the comment, even selling T-shirts featuring it. Later in the day, Biden apologized. “I’ve never, never, ever taken the African American community for granted,” he said on a call with members of the US Black Chambers Inc., an organization promoting Black-owned businesses. He added that he “shouldn’t have been such a wise guy.”
But that comment wasn’t the only problematic part of his appearance on The Breakfast Club. Biden also made several misleading or downright false statements about his role authoring the 1994 crime bill and the impact it had on mass incarceration. The much-derided law contained a host of measures to prevent crime—including “three strikes” mandatory life sentences, extra funding for policing and prisons, an assault weapons ban, and the Violence Against Women Act—and is often pointed to as a factor that fueled the disproportionate imprisonment of Black and brown people in the United States.




During the interview, Charlamagne asked Biden about this criticism head on, pushing him on why he has been reluctant to admit that the law “was damaging to the Black community.” The host noted that Hillary Clinton went on the radio show during her presidential run and acknowledged the bill contained mistakes. Biden, though, doubled down. “She’s wrong,” he said. “It wasn’t the crime bill. It was the drug legislation. It was the institution of mandatory minimums, which I opposed.”
Eh. That assertion is only sort-of true. Here, we fact-check five of his claims to set the record straight.
1. “The crime bill didn’t increase mass incarceration. Other things increased mass incarceration.”

During his campaign, Biden has repeatedly argued that mass incarceration began before the 1994 crime bill passed. On The Breakfast Club, he reiterated that states lock up the vast majority of incarcerated people in this country, not the federal government. This is all true, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. And it’s not correct to say the 1994 bill played no part in fueling mass incarceration.
As Biden suggests, incarceration rates grew enormously before his bill passed—by 400 percent from 1970 to 1994, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. But they continued to climb afterward, too, doubling between 1994 and 2009. States did enact tough-on-crime laws and incarcerated many more people than the federal government did during that time. But Biden’s bill encouraged them to do so. As the Brennan Center’s Lauren Brooke-Eisen points out, the 1994 crime bill offered states $12.5 billion to construct prisons if they passed “truth in sentencing” laws, which required incarcerated people to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. “By dangling bonus dollars,” she wrote, the law “encouraged states to remain on their tough-on-crime course.” As Vanita Gupta, who led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under President Barack Obama, put it to the New York Times, the bill “created and calcified massive incentives for local jurisdictions to engage in draconian criminal justice practices that had a pretty significant impact in building up the national prison population.”

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTERS
Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.
Email

2. “I opposed that ‘three strikes and you’re out.'”
This, too, is only sort-of true. As the Annenberg Public Policy Center explains, there’s evidence that Biden did not support the three-strikes provision that made it into the final 1994 bill, because he worried it could put someone in prison for life for a relatively minor crime. In fact, Biden described the provision as “wacko” in 1994. But before the bill passed, he also went on the Today show and said he did support a three-strikes provision that would incarcerate people for life who committed “serious felonies…that are violent.” “We should take those predators off the street,” he said.
3. “I opposed…any mandatory sentences.”

The reality here is more complicated than he made it seem. Biden may have spoken out against mandatory minimum sentences by the time the 1994 crime bill passed, but he was instrumental in pushing for them in the years before. As early as 1977, Biden advocated mandatory minimums that would force judges to send people to prison for a certain length of time, according to a New York Times investigation. Then in 1984, he spearheaded the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which “added significant mandatory minimums for many federal crimes and abolished federal parole,” as the Brennan Center points out. (On The Breakfast Club, Biden argued that his intention with that bill was to erase disparities in sentencing lengths for Black and white people, “so nobody based on their color could go to jail longer than anybody else for the same crime.”) In 1986, he co-sponsored the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which set mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses that were significantly harsher than sentences for powder cocaine offenses and disproportionately targeted Black Americans.
By 1993, Biden was starting to change his tune on sentencing. “I think we’ve had all the mandatory minimums that we need,” he noted during an event hosted by the US Sentencing Commission. He said some of the mandatory minimum sentences he helped pass previously were “not positive” and were “counterproductive,” according to the New York Times. While the 1994 crime bill did contain more mandatory minimums, it also included a “safety valve” provision that Biden backed, allowing judges to waive these sentences for certain types of offenders.
In 2008, Biden said the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine sentences was “arbitrary, unnecessary, and unjust,” and admitted that laws he helped pass were “part of the problem that I have been trying to solve since then.” In 2010, when Biden was vice president, the Fair Sentencing Act reduced the crack sentencing disparity.

4. “On balance the whole bill…it did in fact bring down violent crime.”
Crime was actually already dropping before the bill passed, by 10 percent in the three years before. Then, from 1994 to 2000, it fell another 23 percent, with violent crime dropping by almost a third.
But criminologists aren’t sure what exactly led to this change and if it can be attributed to the ’94 law. Brooke-Eisen of the Brennan Center argues the crime bill likely helped reduce crime to some extent—”not by locking people up, but by putting more cops on the street,” she writes. The bill “provided funding for 100,000 new police officers and $14 billion in grants for community-oriented policing, for example.” But she adds that “social and economic factors—like an aging population and decreased alcohol consumption—played a role in the crime decline as well.” John Worrall, a criminologist at the University of Texas at Dallas, told the Annenberg Public Policy Center that “the jury is very much still out” on what caused the drop in crime after the bill passed. “Criminologists and economists are in no agreement,” he said, citing theories ranging from economic and demographic changes to tougher sentencing.
5. “The one thing I opposed in that bill was people wanting to give money to state prisons to build more prisons. I opposed it.”

This is just false. Biden was clear in 1994 that he supported offering billions of dollars in funding to build state prisons. “We have not built new prisons to keep up with the increase in violent crime in America,” he said at a June 1994 committee hearing, according to CNN. And the bill, he said, “is partially our attempt to help the states and localities try.” At the time, he did say that Republicans were going overboard by proposing $10 billion in funding for state prisons. But he said $6 billion was an acceptable amount.
And that funding, of course, came with a catch. In order to get it, states had to pass those “truth in sentencing” laws mentioned above. Within three years, 27 states and DC had done so, paving the way to drastically expand their prison populations.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,665 Posts
If only this were true:


🤣🤣🤣🤣
176351
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,665 Posts
You are actually being critical about Joe Biden being angry? When you are supporting that combustible train wreck of uncontrolled hostility that is Donald Trump? What is wrong with you? Are you in some sort of alternate universe?
He's probably one of these fools.

176352
 

·
All I want for Christmas is EU
Joined
·
33,816 Posts
Of course it's you. Though no, you are not losing it. You never had it.
Repeat that all you want. Our correspondence is on record for anyone to refer to and they can all make their own evaluations based on that. I have nothing more to add (or subtract) from what I have said previously.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,993 Posts
fpsychdoc

Biden’s “Breakfast Club” Comment About Black Voters Was Off. So Were These Five Claims About the Crime Bill.

There has been a great deal of discussion about Biden on another forum with many righties saying his words were "proof" of racism. Then it is pointed out that he apologized whereas tRUMP did not do so for saying Mexicans were rapists and that Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries were "shithole" nations. It will be interesting to see how discussion of this issue evolves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Ah you Trump haters are certainly consistent if nothing else. Filling these pages daily with toxic venom of hate regurgitating the MSM recounting of the various real or even unreal sins of Pres Trump. All the while you ignore or even show no interest in what has come to light recently of the undeniable corrupt and venial actions of Obama officials in trying their damnest to sabotage the Trump administration. At least the outgoing Clinton WH staffers only destroyed White House computers as a prank against the incoming Bush administration. But I guess the Obama administration are a different kettle of fish in going the extra mile in trying to destroy a duly elected President..

You gleefully recount every perceived error in the Federal Government’s handling of the covid-19 crisis and attribute it solely to Pres Trump. Yes I know your justification is that the buck stops here. All the while you ignore or show no interest in the decisions of blue state governors that actually have cost lives, like Gov Cuomo for example who mandated nursing homes to accept patients having tested positive for covid-19. And how about the PA health administrator who got her 95 year old mother out of a nursing home before issuing a similar order for nursing homes to take in positive tested covid-19 patients. What that official did might not have been illegal but it surely is callously hypocritical if not immoral. But hey, being a Dem, she presumably hates Trump and that absolves her of sin in the eyes of you Trump haters.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,993 Posts
tRUMP toons for today:















delusional right wingers used to condemn Obamacare on a daily basis - yet, tRUMP has not given the medical insurance reform he pledged & we never hear so much as one word of criticism for his failure to do so
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
There has been a great deal of discussion about Biden on another forum with many righties saying his words were "proof" of racism. Then it is pointed out that he apologized whereas tRUMP did not do so for saying Mexicans were rapists and that Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries were "shithole" nations. It will be interesting to see how discussion of this issue evolves.
See, everything is relativised to Trump.

Biden is a racist forced to apologise to save face
Trump is a racist who does not apologise.

Now y'all can sleep soundly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,921 Posts
Amazing. Biden being a flagrant racist and everyone pretending it didn't happen.

Now you see why he needs to be locked in a basement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,921 Posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,428 Posts
Ah you Trump haters are certainly consistent if nothing else. Filling these pages daily with toxic venom of hate regurgitating the MSM recounting of the various real or even unreal sins of Pres Trump. All the while you ignore or even show no interest in what has come to light recently of the undeniable corrupt and venial actions of Obama officials in trying their damnest to sabotage the Trump administration. At least the outgoing Clinton WH staffers only destroyed White House computers as a prank against the incoming Bush administration. But I guess the Obama administration are a different kettle of fish in going the extra mile in trying to destroy a duly elected President..
Of course nobody cares - it's like I said to another poster about Joe Biden's latest comments likely being ignored - people have slightly more important things to worry about.
I understand why people would would rather deal with conspiracies than reality. You see it on the left as well as the right. "Sleepy" Joe Biden ran a primary campaign with poor fundraising, minimal infrastructure, comedy slogans, a history of "interesting" statements and behaviour and no exciting policy positions I'm aware of. So when he won many of Bernie's supporters chalked it up to an Establishment Conspiracy Which is obviously a much more comfortable thought than the idea Bernie's campaign was the biggest miss at an open goal in the history of American socialism. Yep circle the wagons folks. let's not engage in too much critical thinking. And Obama conspiracies are of course the comfort blanket for Fox News. They also have absolutely no relevance to the problems people currently face.And this bizarre obsession with Obama could present further problems. The latest attempt by the administration and GOP state attorneys to cripple the Affordable Care Act could be heard before the Supreme Court in November, which would be great timing - if you're a Democrat . If The GOP has any thoughts about actually winning the next election maybe they should start thinking about their alternatives to the ACA while messing with the coverage of 22 million plus Americans during a global pandemic. But as I say I understand why people would rather focus on conspiracies than reality.It really is much much easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,627 Posts
Of course nobody cares - it's like I said to another poster about Joe Biden's latest comments likely being ignored - people have slightly more important things to worry about.
I understand why people would would rather deal with conspiracies than reality. You see it on the left as well as the right. "Sleepy" Joe Biden ran a primary campaign with poor fundraising, minimal infrastructure, comedy slogans, a history of "interesting" statements and behaviour and no exciting policy positions I'm aware of. So when he won many of Bernie's supporters chalked it up to an Establishment Conspiracy Which is obviously a much more comfortable thought than the idea Bernie's campaign was the biggest miss at an open goal in the history of American socialism. Yep circle the wagons folks. let's not engage in too much critical thinking. And Obama conspiracies are of course the comfort blanket for Fox News. They also have absolutely no relevance to the problems people currently face.And this bizarre obsession with Obama could present further problems. The latest attempt by the administration and GOP state attorneys to cripple the Affordable Care Act could be heard before the Supreme Court in November, which would be great timing - if you're a Democrat . If The GOP has any thoughts about actually winning the next election maybe they should start thinking about their alternatives to the ACA while messing with the coverage of 22 million plus Americans during a global pandemic. But as I say I understand why people would rather focus on conspiracies than reality.It really is much much easier.
There's been a lot of critical thinking. And part of it is a reevaluation of the power of establishment media--what you would call "establishment conspiracy." Which was very much against Sanders. Has MSM invited anyone on just to say that Biden makes their skin crawl or that Putin is picking his candidate, yet? No? Anyway, they still appear to have massive pull with the majority of voters over 50 years of age. It would be stupid to pretend that that pull doesn't exist.


Not remotely the only reason for the loss, but an important one. Another is that Sanders wouldn't call out Biden on his long history of made-up accomplishments. Biden has a unique ability to lie to people's faces. But Sanders was too worried about offending his DC friends and stood by and hoped the press would do their jobs.


And the thing about plagiarising another politician's stump speech is that he plagiarised the part about that candidate's life story, which was not close to Biden's. Really takes some amazing chutzpah. But it was a good story that would help him out on the trail, so he told it anyway. And then, in this campaign, he went back to lying about this "history" of civil rights activism in front of largely black audiences. Even tho he stated in his autobiography that he wasn't involved in the civil rights movement.

Had Sanders done any of this it would be all you heard about in the MSM for weeks. He didn't so you got weeks of fretting over "Bernie Bros" on twitter instead. Turns out random twitter posts are very, very important in a primary. At least this time. But for Biden, a little story here or there, mostly explaining why it's not really important what Biden says, then they can pretend it didn't happen. And, again, a lot of that was Sanders's fault for fighting like he was in a sparring match and not a street-fight. Had he pressed the issue in debates and his own stump speech then that would've forced the MSM to cover Biden's history in some copacity. Even just to defend him they would have to talk about it. But Sanders tied one hand behind his back and hoped the ref would look out for him. If the ref's kicking you in the balls there's no point complaining to him about the score. Ultimately Sanders wasn't willing to play to win. He was more concerned with his senate career and maintaining those relationships.

But, Biden would always have been hard to beat. He was the VP of the last Dem president, that alone made him nearly a shoo-in in the primary. V.P.s have won their party's nomination since 1950. Biden didn't even staff offices in several states he won. And he didn't need to. Once the party leaders decided who their pick was and closed ranks, the race was over. And while the great majority of Dem voters support things like M4A by a very wide margin, they still voted for someone who promises to veto it should it reach his desk. It's very hard to overcome that level of voter inertia.

There's a lot to think about after this primary, including how much electoral politics should be a focus. I mean, while Sanders was in the lead we had a spat of discussions about how it was really the party insiders who should decide the nominee anyway. So that will have to be taken under consideration as well. But what the Left won't do is spend the next 4 years focused on how our loss was all Russia's fault.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
There's been a lot of critical thinking. And part of it is a reevaluation of the power of establishment media--what you would call "establishment conspiracy." Which was very much against Sanders. Has MSM invited anyone on just to say that Biden makes their skin crawl or that Putin is picking his candidate, yet? No? Anyway, they still appear to have massive pull with the majority of voters over 50 years of age. It would be stupid to pretend that that pull doesn't exist.


Not remotely the only reason for the loss, but an important one. Another is that Sanders wouldn't call out Biden on his long history of made-up accomplishments. Biden has a unique ability to lie to people's faces. But Sanders was too worried about offending his DC friends and stood by and hoped the press would do their jobs.


And the thing about plagiarising another politician's stump speech is that he plagiarised the part about that candidate's life story, which was not close to Biden's. Really takes some amazing chutzpah. But it was a good story that would help him out on the trail, so he told it anyway. And then, in this campaign, he went back to lying about this "history" of civil rights activism in front of largely black audiences. Even tho he stated in his autobiography that he wasn't involved in the civil rights movement.

Had Sanders done any of this it would be all you heard about in the MSM for weeks. He didn't so you got weeks of fretting over "Bernie Bros" on twitter instead. Turns out random twitter posts are very, very important in a primary. At least this time. But for Biden, a little story here or there, mostly explaining why it's not really important what Biden says, then they can pretend it didn't happen. And, again, a lot of that was Sanders's fault for fighting like he was in a sparring match and not a street-fight. Had he pressed the issue in debates and his own stump speech then that would've forced the MSM to cover Biden's history in some copacity. Even just to defend him they would have to talk about it. But Sanders tied one hand behind his back and hoped the ref would look out for him. If the ref's kicking you in the balls there's no point complaining to him about the score. Ultimately Sanders wasn't willing to play to win. He was more concerned with his senate career and maintaining those relationships.

But, Biden would always have been hard to beat. He was the VP of the last Dem president, that alone made him nearly a shoo-in in the primary. V.P.s have won their party's nomination since 1950. Biden didn't even staff offices in several states he won. And he didn't need to. Once the party leaders decided who their pick was and closed ranks, the race was over. And while the great majority of Dem voters support things like M4A by a very wide margin, they still voted for someone who promises to veto it should it reach his desk. It's very hard to overcome that level of voter inertia.

There's a lot to think about after this primary, including how much electoral politics should be a focus. I mean, while Sanders was in the lead we had a spat of discussions about how it was really the party insiders who should decide the nominee anyway. So that will have to be taken under consideration as well. But what the Left won't do is spend the next 4 years focused on how our loss was all Russia's fault.
This is pretty much spot on. Agree about Sanders not in it to win it, but frankly I doubt attacking Biden more vociferously would have made the difference. I am more mad how he's acting right now. He's pretty much throwing all the work since 2016 in the toilet bin so he doesn't upset the freaks in the DNC. This is his moment to put a clear different policy than what the two corrupt parties are suggesting, and he's not organizing anything which is making the progressive left look particularly weak and useless.

Ultimately though nothing can be done without swaying the power in the media. It's a huge task because we're stuck in this vicious circle where money buys politics and media which in turn benefits the top. Rinse and repeat.

There's no way out besides spreading awareness (i.e naming, shaming) and a mass public boycott of the hired mercenaries in cable news and major "newspapers" who call themselves journalists. They can only feel it in their wallets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,450 Posts
Serious question - should the Democratic party triumph completely in November (holding a majority in the Senate and Congress as well as winning the Presidency), is there any chance that the Electoral College could be disbanded? My understanding is that it was set up in the Cretaceous period to put a check on those states which had more people living in cities than in the country so that the rural electorate wouldn't be disadvantaged.

As it's more than 150 years since the urban/rural population split swung in favour of the cities, surely it's way past time that the USA should entertain the radical idea of "one person, one vote" regarding the election of anyone to every political office.

Here's Wikipedia's take on it:

The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism, that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, increases the political influence of small states, preserves the two-party system, and makes the electoral outcome appear more legitimate than that of a nationwide popular vote.

Opponents of the Electoral College argue that it can result in different candidates winning the popular and electoral vote (which occurred in two of the five presidential elections from 2000 to 2016); that it causes candidates to focus their campaigning disproportionately in a few "swing states"; and that its allocation of Electoral College votes gives citizens in less populated states (e.g., Wyoming) as much as four times the voting power as those in more populous states (e.g., California).


What's the feeling here?
 
7321 - 7340 of 7448 Posts
Top