Are Hillary Clinton and the Clintons basically B.S'ing Black People

If you watch and hear Hillary and Bill Clinton speeches, does one get that feeling the Clinton is basically b.s'ing black people and they are too unaware to realize it ?

If you did a search back to Clinton's presidency, he and the Republicans were basically the construct of the unfair and disparity of minorities by the justice system.

Don't forget he and the republicans basically kicked millions of poor out of the need gov't assistance

What do you mean by BS'ing?  The Clintons actually dislike blacks and want to put them in jail?  They just don't care very much?

The 90's crime bill was the result of, well, high crime and murder rates and was supported by most people, including many black leaders (both civic and political).  It might have overshot and need changes but most 20+ year old social policy could do with some tweaks.

Bill Clinton sort of got cornered on welfare reform.  He campaigned on the platform in 1992 when people were becoming increasingly convinced that the system was rife with fraud and creating dependency.  After the GOP won Congress, Clinton vetoed two earlier bills that he found too conservative.  He wasn't thrilled with the final bill either but the public supported it so he got what concessions he could and signed it when it passed.  The GOP knew they had public support on it and Clinton wasn't going to be able to get deeper changes by repeatedly vetoing legislation that the people wanted passed.

I assume that black people, to same degree as anyone else, partially by go along with tradition, media, party lines etc and partially make their own personal evaluations of the candidates.  Assuming that they are "too unaware to realize it" to any greater degree than any other voter group invites the question of why black voters would be uniquely susceptible to being tricked.

yes they are. 

They are running off of legacy. It still stuns (and embarrasses) me that during Bill's time, it was a running joke among black folks, that Bill was the first black president, because he admitted to smoking weed, and cheated on his wife with fat white chicks. It was embarrassing, because most of the black people I'm acquainted with don't hold either of those actions as particularly noble, and for others to then assume that it's the "black" position, gave a perception that they too had lower morals and ethics. 

How anyone can look at Clinton and Sanders, and think that Clinton wants to do more to help black people, is absolutely beyond me. I really don't get it. She's up 2M in the popular vote.  That makes no sense. Sanders draws 30,000 and fills stadiums, she draws 1500, and wins/ties states. Either Sanders enthusiasts don't get around to voting (or don't understand an open vs. closed primary) or....I truly don't know what the or is. I can't think of any reason why she is still beating him so decisively.  

I saw a quote the other day that was attributed to Mark Twain.  I didn't dig deeper to see if it was truly his, but “If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”. 

berzirk said:

yes they are.

They are running off of legacy. It still stuns (and embarrasses) me that during Bill's time, it was a running joke among black folks, that Bill was the first black president, because he admitted to smoking weed, and cheated on his wife with fat white chicks.

Click to expand...

It was more because... well, I answered it in your own thread a few months back:

Bill Clinton was incredibly popular with the black community. During his political career, he was a regular fixture in black neighborhoods, talking to the people and eating soul food. The child of a poor Arkansas family, he came across as relating to then unlike any previous president and, when elected, put an unprecedented number of African Americans into important administration roles. After leaving office, he started the Clinton Foundation in Harlem.

Clinton actually visited African-Americans and gave a rat's ass about their problems. After patrician Bush Sr and Reagan with his Lee Atwater racist dog-whistles, that was amazing for them and they still remember and appreciate it.

Sanders draws 30,000 and fills stadiums, she draws 1500, and wins/ties states. Either Sanders enthusiasts don't get around to voting...

Click to expand...

Or care more about a free Vampire Weekend concert than politics. Really, it's the issue with extrapolating votes from "enthusiasm". Sanders' supporters tend younger with the time and energy to stand around and yell in a crowd. Clinton wins older and more settled demographics who have other shit to do on a Thursday but who still plan on actually casting a ballot. The problem is that older people actually make it to the polls even if they didn't make it to Super Fun Time Rally Party with all their friends.

Finger_Shocker said:

If you watch and hear Hillary and Bill Clinton speeches, does one get that feeling the Clinton is basically b.s'ing black people everyone and they are too unaware to realize it ?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Syntax Error said:

The 90's crime bill was the result of, well, high crime and murder rates and was supported by most people, including many black leaders (both civic and political). It might have overshot and need changes but most 20+ year old social policy could do with some tweaks.

Click to expand...

Bush was elected in 1988 because of the Willie Horton ad. Fear of crime, and fear of black men committing crime, was real.

Criminological research at the time was not neck deep into concepts like rehabilitation, advocating decarceration, and arguing against the prison industrial complex (it was getting there, though). The "superpredator" that Clinton is so maligned for saying a quarter century ago comes from research by John DiIulio during the time. Her saying that shows that they were following current research, not going off of some gut instinct nonsense. The research turned out to be dead wrong (thankfully), but that doesn't stop the Monday morning quarterbacks from lambasting her now for what she said then. People are viewing 1994-1995 with their 2016 lenses, not giving any possibility to the person they were at the time (if they were even alive).

mykevermin said:

Bush was elected in 1988 because of the Willie Horton ad. Fear of crime, and fear of black men committing crime, was real.

Criminological research at the time was not neck deep into concepts like rehabilitation, advocating decarceration, and arguing against the prison industrial complex (it was getting there, though). The "superpredator" that Clinton is so maligned for saying a quarter century ago comes from research by John DiIulio during the time. Her saying that shows that they were following current research, not going off of some gut instinct nonsense. The research turned out to be dead wrong (thankfully), but that doesn't stop the Monday morning quarterbacks from lambasting her now for what she said then. People are viewing 1994-1995 with their 2016 lenses, not giving any possibility to the person they were at the time (if they were even alive).

Click to expand...

OK, and I don't disagree with any of that (and admittedly, I hate Hillary Clinton more than any other contemporary politician...shit...I can't say that anymore. I also really hate Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Louis Gohmert, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee...OK, I hate a lot of politicians) but if the excuse that Hillary was just following the studies and information at the time, and therefore should be off the hook for retrospectively being wrong (even though both she and Bill would continued to defend her position and statements earlier on the campaign trail), then shouldn't we be more lenient in using that as a reason to let W off the hook for WMD's? Or for the people who for some reason give a shit about Libya, for Obama saying the attacks were video related, when they were later proven not to be?

I'm a firm believer in people making judgments based on the information at their disposal, and admire someone who later becomes better educated, or changes their position based on life events or additional information, but I would hope that if we're using that as reasoning to accept a changed opinion that was proven wrong, it's applied evenly to people we like and dislike politically.

Sure the Clintons are BSing Black people. But why should minority groups trust the Republican party who continually makes an effort to undermine and subjugate them with their malicious policies? Don't vote for the President, vote against the jackass Congressman, Mayor, Senator who keeps f-ing with your community's self-interests.

People will never vote for the best candidate only the worst.

I bet if the Pope ran for a political seat he'll lose as well.

Only the worst people end up in government

berzirk said:

OK, and I don't disagree with any of that (and admittedly, I hate Hillary Clinton more than any other contemporary politician...shit...I can't say that anymore. I also really hate Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Louis Gohmert, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee...OK, I hate a lot of politicians) but if the excuse that Hillary was just following the studies and information at the time, and therefore should be off the hook for retrospectively being wrong (even though both she and Bill would continued to defend her position and statements earlier on the campaign trail), then shouldn't we be more lenient in using that as a reason to let W off the hook for WMD's? Or for the people who for some reason give a shit about Libya, for Obama saying the attacks were video related, when they were later proven not to be?

I'm a firm believer in people making judgments based on the information at their disposal, and admire someone who later becomes better educated, or changes their position based on life events or additional information, but I would hope that if we're using that as reasoning to accept a changed opinion that was proven wrong, it's applied evenly to people we like and dislike politically.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference IMO b/w scientific evidence and conjecture. The conjecture was that Iraq had WMDs, and there were a TON of critics of that from the start, pointing out the flaws, lack of evidence, and so on. Criminologists weren't critiquing the superpredator idea at the time because it was the prevailing wisdom.

Today we don't hold food scientists to the fire because they overlooked the health problems related to trans fats, or that they ignored critics. We accept that they were wrong, adapt, and move on.

To compare believing in science to believing in the opinion of some people simply aren't comparable to me.

Problem is Hilary likely haven't really changed her actual view, except being better at B.S'ing it to the blacks

One can say Obama haven't changed gov't but gov't have changed him

Yes.

Next question.