|
NewForumSoftware posted:Hillary owned slaves Please don't make things up just to attack Hillary Clinton. Hillary's personal slaves were a job perk like a company car, not her personal property like a hot rod.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I agree, if people were criticizing Hillary Clinton's (or any other democrat's) existing policies on prison reform rather than posting "Hillary owned slaves", I'd have nothing to complain about. But she did own slaves 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Ugh why do people keep criticizing this politician for things they've done and supported instead of the things they double pinky swear they'll actually be concerned about at some point in the future once they have more power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If someone sat around posting about FDR being a slaver all the time, but refused to talk about republicans who promote prison slavery, I'd think hmm, maybe that person is just using prison slavery as a cudgel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:But she did own slaves technically the taxpayers of the state of arkansas owned those slaves, so she owned like 1/1,180,000 of each slave
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:technically the taxpayers of the state of arkansas owned those slaves, so she owned like 1/1,180,000 of each slave I mean, it sounds like she was subsidized for the use of slaves, even worse!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the answers to these questions are no, what do we do about politicians who support them? Do we criticize their positions and support challengers to them if they refuse to change their stance? Or do we stay silent about the ones on our team for fear of making Democrats look bad and take the baldly hypocritical stance that it's okay when we do it. Like I said, feel free to criticize democrats for their actual current positions on prison reform. Do not confuse posting "Hillary owned slaves" with actual advocacy on prison reform. Feel free to post "Hillary clinton has bad policy positions on prison reform and doesn't want to do enough about prison slavery". I want to believe you are smart enough to see the difference between these two things. Also lol don't you dare mention FDR was a slaver or we'll make ourselves believe you're defending slavery by tying it to that great man! <================
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
we know neolib positions on prison reform suck we say "hillary clinton owned slaves" because (a) it makes brokebrains like you mad (b) forces neolibs to actually engage with their hypocracy even if its just by contorting into deflection and (c) hillary clinton owned slaves
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
So I'm right and it's just about trolling, thanks for the honesty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
What exactly constitutes support of prison slave labor? Here's a 2008 press release from Bernie's official site about ribbon-cutting a new welcome center in Vermont, in the county that houses the state's prison work camp. A new welcome center built by slave labor and donations from Bernie's friend of 35yrs and commercial real estate developer, Tony Pomerleau. quote:U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said the welcome center is a landmark for St. Johnsbury and Vermont. He applauded the people who made the renovation project possible. Tony Pomerleau is a very old and very rich guy Bernie worked with as mayor in Burlington in the 80s. The same guy who seemingly advised both parties in the land deal involving Jane Sanders/Burlington College and the Catholic Diocese in 2010. Under his advice she successfully campaigned for the school to buy $10mil of lakefront real estate when they only had 130 full-time students, defaulted on the loans about a year later and was forced out. The school went full bankrupt last year and currently in 2017 all their land ended up with a commercial real estate developer after foreclosure. Is the firing squad here principled enough to turn on Bernie as well? What-about if Pomerleau comes up dirty in the now 2-year-long FBI investigation into this deal? Did Trump have real oppo research when his campaign allegedly tipped off the Feds? How clean has this self-made millionaire friend of Bernie's really been over the last 40 years? Was Bernie really invulnerable to 6 months straight of poo poo like this from the media, bots and the FBI?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:(c) hillary clinton owned slaves Not owned, her family was compensated in slaves Breakfast All Day posted:(b) forces neolibs to actually engage with their hypocrisy even if its just by contorting into deflection and It's also good to point out her reservations against slavery weren't, like human rights or decency, but physical fear that the slaves would be dangerous to her family, and her heartwarming story of how she overcame that fear and took the risk involved someone telling her the positive financial effect on the state budget.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
wixard posted:What exactly constitutes support of prison slave labor? Here's a 2008 press release from Bernie's official site about ribbon-cutting a new welcome center in Vermont, in the county that houses the state's prison work camp. A new welcome center built by slave labor and donations from Bernie's friend of 35yrs and commercial real estate developer, Tony Pomerleau. The Caledonia camp focuses on rehabilitation, and from what I have read has a good record reintegrating people into the community and getting them work after their sentence, so right of the bat it's a whole different beast from the Arkansas prison system which was not about rehabilitation, in fact it relied on mostly violent criminals who would never be released, it was just about labor extraction, so it's a whole different beast. That said, I believe prisoners should be paid a fair wage for their work, and even an honest commitment to and good record of rehabilitation does not excuse the state from a moral obligation to compensate people for their work. Touting a rehabilitation center as providing "low-cost labor" is immoral. It's odious pandering to the worst impulses of affluent FYGM fucks, and Bernie deserves to be criticized for that and should be pressed to disavow it if he runs. I fully support anyone running the the left of Bernie Sanders, because unlike some people I think debate and criticism is healthy and I don't think it should be suppressed because bringing up bad things a politician supports makes them *gasp* look bad. Do you get that not everyone is beholden to the same cult of personality that Clintonistas are, that I don't believe that if Bernie does it, it must be good? All American politicians are bad, most are horrible, Bernie is the closest we've maybe ever come to an almost-good politician, but even he has a ways to go. I voted for him because he was the lessermost evil with a chance to win the primary, then I voted for Clinton because she was the lessermost evil with a chance to win the general. wixard posted:Tony Pomerleau is a very old and very rich guy Bernie worked with as mayor in Burlington in the 80s. The same guy who seemingly advised both parties in the land deal involving Jane Sanders/Burlington College and the Catholic Diocese in 2010. Under his advice she successfully campaigned for the school to buy $10mil of lakefront real estate when they only had 130 full-time students, defaulted on the loans about a year later and was forced out. The school went full bankrupt last year and currently in 2017 all their land ended up with a commercial real estate developer after foreclosure. I haven't seen anything to link Jane to this except guilt-by-association and internet conspiracy theories, and even less on Bernie. It's all rumors that a Republican politician admits to starting. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you get that not everyone is beholden to the same cult of personality that Clintonistas are, that I don't believe that if Bernie does it, it must be good? All American politicians are bad, most are horrible, Bernie is the closest we've maybe ever come to an almost-good politician, but even he has a ways to go. I voted for him because he was the lessermost evil with a chance to win the primary, then I voted for Clinton because she was the lessermost evil with a chance to win the general. Same, but technically I didn't even vote for Bernie, I didn't bother voting in the primary because I thought either would be fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I'm right and it's just about trolling, thanks for the honesty. Hillary Clinton is one of the reasons why the prison system is as bad as it is, therefore she is personally complicit in what amounts to slavery. In other words, Hillary Clinton owned slaves and enabled others to own slaves to this day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you get that not everyone is beholden to the same cult of personality that Clintonistas are, that I don't believe that if Bernie does it, it must be good? All American politicians are bad, most are horrible, Bernie is the closest we've maybe ever come to an almost-good politician, but even he has a ways to go. I voted for him because he was the lessermost evil with a chance to win the primary, then I voted for Clinton because she was the lessermost evil with a chance to win the general. As a teenager I wore a t-shirt with the picture from my avatar in 1996 with the caption "Why vote for the lesser evil?" under it because I thought Dole and Clinton were the same. I'm not Clintonista and if you asked me in 2015 what my ideal outcome was, I would have said Bernie. But having just lived through the 2016 election, I have a hard time swallowing a lot of the theorizing about his performance in the general vs hers, because it seems to rely on a belief that his shining leftist ideas would raise him above the bullshit everything was mired in. quote:I haven't seen anything to link Jane to this except guilt-by-association and internet conspiracy theories, and even less on Bernie. It's all rumors that a Republican politician admits to starting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Bernie Sanders is one of the reasons why the prison system is as bad as it is, therefore he is personally complicit in what amounts to slavery. Agreed
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
wixard posted:I'm trying to figure out what the baseline is for criticizing Hillary from the left in this thread. Is it Bernie, thus centered around the 2016 election, or is it some ideal left candidate we've never seen? The baseline for criticizing Hillary as well as any other candidate in existence is their position on substantial issues, not their being worse or better than an arbitrary other person, hth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The baseline for criticizing Hillary as well as any other candidate in existence is their position on substantial issues, not their being worse or better than an arbitrary other person, hth. Was gonna say this but less succinctly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's also good to point out her reservations against slavery weren't, like human rights or decency, but physical fear that the slaves would be dangerous to her family, and her heartwarming story of how she overcame that fear and took the risk involved someone telling her the positive financial effect on the state budget. imho the more egregious and telling part of the story was her expressing amazement that the state-owned slaves were fully formed human beings capable of expressing complex thoughts and not quasi-verbal ape-men
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Agreed I didn't know Sanders was widely cast as a partner in the Bill "Welfare Reform" Clinton Administration. Learn something new every day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Hot take: If you can't stop screaming about how your team is better when you talk about hillary or bernie, you're just as bad as the republicans who vote based on party lines no matter how bad republicans get. It's all tribal bullshit and that's why it's annoying as gently caress, unproductive, and banned in every other thread. Your take is about as hot as a blizzard so keep it to yourself. Like, I already know if there's clinton chat going on and Majorian is involved, his take is hillary sucks. I already know if JC is talking, bernie supporters were racist and/or sexist. You're all screaming the same poo poo into the void because you're pissed, and I get that, but instead of making GBS threads up the thread, just shout at your wall because it has the same effect on you without pissing the rest of us off. gently caress. And yeah, I know this is the thread for these posts, but it's also the thread for lovely bad posts in general and this definitely meets the criteria. If they're allowed to complain about bernie and clinton almost a year after the election I'm allowed to complain about them not shutting the gently caress up about it, right?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Hot take: If you can't stop screaming about how your team is better when you talk about hillary or bernie, you're just as bad as the republicans who vote based on party lines no matter how bad republicans get. It's all tribal bullshit and that's why it's annoying as gently caress, unproductive, and banned in every other thread. Your take is about as hot as a blizzard so keep it to yourself. Whether or not the Democrats learn the right lessons from 2016 is a really, really loving important thing. I would like it very much if the Democrats stopped acting like idiots, and kicked the third way Democrats out of all positions of power, so that they could take control of the government. It's great that none of this matters to you or whatever, but perhaps you should expect to see some of it in a debate and discussion forum that focuses on politics, particularly in a thread for this very topic? Also, for the record, I don't dislike Clinton any more or less than the average American politician. She's no more or less corrupt or mendacious than most people in politics. She was just a bad candidate who now needs to get out of the way of progress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Whether or not the Democrats learn the right lessons from 2016 is a really, really loving important thing. I would like it very much if the Democrats stopped acting like idiots, and kicked the third way Democrats out of all positions of power, so that they could take control of the government. Going in circles about Hillary and her slaves is far less productive a discussion than about anything else related to Democrats getting their act together. Want to stop politicians complicit in legal slavery? Lets talk who should be excluded from the future of the party beyond Hillary (Harris is an easy example for discussion). Care about policies ending prison slavery? This discussion of Hillary's gross book has little we can apply and it would be vastly more informative to discussion what is being done and who can be pressured to get more done right now to stop slavery in America. What should the litmus test policy be on prison labor and prison slavery? Should we really strive to never nominate a governor or attorney general from a state with prison labor or can attempts to ameliorate prison slavery absolve some of the sin?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Hot take: If you can't stop screaming about how your team is better when you talk about hillary or bernie, you're just as bad as the republicans who vote based on party lines no matter how bad republicans get. It's all tribal bullshit and that's why it's annoying as gently caress, unproductive, and banned in every other thread. Your take is about as hot as a blizzard so keep it to yourself. The Hillary - Bernie chat will die out when one of them retires. As long as they are both trying to maintain influence, it remains relevant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Whether or not the Democrats learn the right lessons from 2016 is a really, really loving important thing. I would like it very much if the Democrats stopped acting like idiots, and kicked the third way Democrats out of all positions of power, so that they could take control of the government. i dunno i'm kinda curious to see how many offices the dems can lose from constantly stepping on their own dicks while republicans complete their transformation into the great value 4th reich
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:And yeah, I know this is the thread for these posts, but it's also the thread for lovely bad posts in general and this definitely meets the criteria. If they're allowed to complain about bernie and clinton almost a year after the election I'm allowed to complain about them not shutting the gently caress up about it, right? I mean, I guess so, but then I feel like this would turn the thread into a more general poo poo-flinging posting ghetto which by the way is totally okay with me. Of course if we really wanted to dig into the Democratic Party's failures then it would probably be wiser to expand the discussion beyond Bill and Hillary Clinton and talk about the fundraising and hiring practices of the DNC or the senate leadership's insistence on a failing slogan/platform that no one likes and yet apparently gets pushed despite all wisdom saying to scrap it altogether. If the Clintons start getting more directly involved in Democratic races or Peter Daou signs the final seal in his inevitable murder-suicide pact then yeah talking about their influence is rightly topical, but it would be nice if there were some focus on people with a little more direct impact in the here and now. Frankly that seems even less likely to go over well in other threads than Hillarychat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I didn't know Sanders was widely cast as a partner in the Bill "Welfare Reform" Clinton Administration. Learn something new every day. sanders voted for the tough-on-crime bill that was instrumental in leading to the mass incarceration we're talking about though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Talking about Hillary's slaves is actually great for illuminating the rot within the part itself, as yes-men who would savage a Republican for it turn on a dime and start to "well actually" our inhumane prison system in order to convince themselves it's okay when we do it. I don't think it's irrelevant at all. How did Bill Clinton kill welfare, because the (D) next to his name shut up most of the organizations and party members and supporters who would have mobilized to stop it had Reagan proposed it. How did Democrats pass the health insurance mandate, a Republican idea that penalizes the poor and middle class, rather than a public option that would provide for everyone, even after their presidential candidate won the primary by mocking that idea as "solving housing with a law that requires everyone to buy a house"? Partisanship again. And it's important going forward (1) to convince people not to support lovely Republican ideas just because a Democrat is doing them or else we'll just get more lovely Republican policies but also (2) pragmatically because Democrats need more than just the votes of party loyalists to win, when we turn our backs on the people who believed our promises they don't all show up next time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
botany posted:sanders voted for the tough-on-crime bill that was instrumental in leading to the mass incarceration we're talking about though. Unlike the Clintons who saw the tough on crime bill as being good in all its components, Sanders voted for it specifically to enable some parts that he thought outweighted the evils it would exacerbate, namely mass incarceration (which the Clintons in effect promoted), specifically the increase in spending on policing violence against women etc. Meanwhile he spoke out regularly - beginning even before the 1994 bill was conceived - against increasing conviction and incarceration rates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 09:39
|
|
Majorian posted:Whether or not the Democrats learn the right lessons from 2016 is a really, really loving important thing. Yeah but that's not what you're doing. You're pissing on each other on a dead gay forum and no one who has this debate listens at all to anyone but the voice in their own head, and you've all been doing it for almost a loving year now. It accomplishes nothing, so saying "but we have to do it to accomplish things" is loving asinine and you know it. If you wanted to talk about mistakes the DNC has made and is still making you'd be talking about Ellison and Perez and DWS and the Panera strategy and fundraising and better candidates and loving Feinstein, but you're not. You know exactly why you're not, everyone else knows why you're not, you just don't want to admit it, and that's what makes it so loving frustrating when it keeps popping up loving everywhere. (It's not sexism, btw, it's stupid loving tribal politics because leftists and centrists have to be different teams in your minds for this dumb argument to keep cropping up) And god dammit I agree with you on most of the things that went wrong in the election. What's lovely is you not getting past it because you have to get in the last loving word with loving JC and JC-likes of all the loving people in this loving forum. gently caress. steinrokkan posted:The Hillary - Bernie chat will die out when one of them retires. As long as they are both trying to maintain influence, it remains relevant. Actually it'll die out when people stop identifying themselves as being in tribes instead of being allies in a coalition under one political party with disagreements. VitalSigns posted:Talking about Hillary's slaves is actually great for illuminating the rot within the part itself, as yes-men who would savage a Republican for it turn on a dime and start to "well actually" our inhumane prison system in order to convince themselves it's okay when we do it. Yeah but that's not the pissing match I'm talking about. Talking about how the prison system doesn't work the way people think it does is vitally important because it's a real problem that needs to get fixed yesterday. Rehashing whether Hilldawg was a bad candidate or not isn't important or helpful, it's just dumb team sports politics, and turning the issue of prison slaves into those stupid team sports politics means the problem won't get fixed because now half of the democratic party feels they have to defend loving prison slaves. It's not a winning strategy, just a spiteful one. Also Bill's another matter entirely. He was way worse than people remember for a lot of reasons, and pointing them out to show that the DNC has been in a pretty big decline (although I'd still argue Obama was a big step up from Clinton) can sometimes help people get woke or whatever the kids say these days. It probably won't, but it can. Sometimes.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:If you wanted to talk about mistakes the DNC has made and is still making you'd be talking about Ellison and Perez and DWS and the Panera strategy and fundraising and better candidates and loving Feinstein, but you're not. LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:turning the issue of prison slaves into those stupid team sports politics means the problem won't get fixed because now half of the democratic party feels they have to defend loving prison slaves. You can't even bring up better ideas without a sclerotic party elite screeching that better ideas are a betrayal because it implies their ideas weren't always the best, and whipping up blind terror that the party is under attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Yeah but that's not what you're doing. You're pissing on each other on a dead gay forum and no one who has this debate listens at all to anyone but the voice in their own head, and you've all been doing it for almost a loving year now. It accomplishes nothing, so saying "but we have to do it to accomplish things" is loving asinine and you know it. If you wanted to talk about mistakes the DNC has made and is still making you'd be talking about Ellison and Perez and DWS and the Panera strategy and fundraising and better candidates and loving Feinstein, but you're not. You know exactly why you're not, everyone else knows why you're not, you just don't want to admit it, and that's what makes it so loving frustrating when it keeps popping up loving everywhere. (It's not sexism, btw, it's stupid loving tribal politics because leftists and centrists have to be different teams in your minds for this dumb argument to keep cropping up) If people feel a need to defend something reflexively due to personal loyalties, it means they are NOT allies in a single issue / policy based framework, it shows they are instead part of a feudal structure where policies and issues are a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Those people need to change their attitude. Because the next time they invest themselves into a candidate that eventually betrays the issues, they will once again lapse into defending them, perpetuating the vicious cycle of zero accountability for politicians. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Unlike the Clintons who saw the tough on crime bill as being good in all its components, Sanders voted for it specifically to enable some parts that he thought outweighted the evils it would exacerbate, namely mass incarceration (which the Clintons in effect promoted), specifically the increase in spending on policing violence against women etc. Meanwhile he spoke out regularly - beginning even before the 1994 bill was conceived - against increasing conviction and incarceration rates. and clinton voted for the iraq war as a compromise deal with bush  this wasn't even a close-to-unanimous bill like iraq, a third of all democrats voted against the bill. including the majority of black dems, if i recall correctly. also sanders protested that incarceration rates and severity were not enough for powder cocaine users. his solution to racist mandatory minimums was literally that everyone should be jailed as harshly as black people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
botany posted:also sanders protested that incarceration rates and severity were not enough for powder cocaine users. his solution to racist mandatory minimums was literally that everyone should be jailed as harshly as black people. That woulda killed the bill awful fast, though. Don't see why you knock a guy for smart politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That woulda killed the bill awful fast, though. Don't see why you knock a guy for smart politics. he didn't offer an amendment. he talked about the bill and said "oh by the way, we need to also throw powder cocaine users in jail forever, i'm pretty pissed we didn't get to vote for that option!" he wasn't trying to kill the bill, he was voicing his opinion that being tough on drugs is what vermonters want so that's what he wants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
botany posted:and clinton voted for the iraq war as a compromise deal with bush you are wrong, sanders voted against mandatory minimums, as well as presented amendments to e.g. restrict death penalty also, hillary's vote for Iraq would have been more tolerable as a compromise, instead of a show of gratitude for services already rendered, so to speak
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Finally, the 1994 bill authorized a committee to investigate whether crack vs. powder cocaine should be treated differently, and what the impact of outstanding sentencing practices was. When the findings were presented to the Congress in 1995, Sanders was among the minority of Democrats who voted against dismissing the report that found the disproportionate persecution of crack possession to be a factor in growing racial disparity: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll725.xml To twist this as Sanders' lust for prisoner blood is at best humorous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Finally, the 1994 bill authorized a committee to investigate whether crack vs. powder cocaine should be treated differently, and what the impact of outstanding sentencing practices was. When the findings were presented to the Congress in 1995, Sanders was among the minority of Democrats who voted against dismissing the report that found the disproportionate persecution of crack possession to be a factor in growing racial disparity: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll725.xml yes, and the recommendation following the report was to lower sentencing for crack cocaine users. cue sanders:  he, at other times, voted against mandatory minimums, and he was generally way less tough on crime than clinton. still, he was tough enough that he could dedicate part of his personal page to listing his "tough on crime" votes: https://web.archive.org/web/20061018180921/http:/www.bernie.org/truth/crime.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
botany posted:and clinton voted for the iraq war as a compromise deal with bush are people really still trying to defend clinton's iraq war vote?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 12:43
|
|
