Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote

Superfreak said:
You must be as dumb as Desh. This has NOTHING to do with what I think of welfare reform. NOTHING to do with what Conservatives think of welfare reform. It has to do with what HILLARY THOUGHT OF IT AND THINKS OF IT.

Get that through that thick skull of yours and hope those two brain cells can connect the dots for you.
Click to expand...

Lol, you're such a numbskull. Why are you even weighing in on it then? Trying to deflect from your racist comment "why do you think black people should be slaves of politicians?", I suppose.
 
cawacko said:
Maybe if we were face to face I could see your facial response while typing this in to know if you were serious or not here. Pretty clear she's not a Hillary fan based on the article.
Click to expand...

:) No, seriously I think she just hates Hillary. It doesn't make much sense to me that she would hold Hil''s record against her otherwise. Hillary did nothing any other political wife or husband wouldn't do, at least publicly.
 
christiefan915 said:
:) No, seriously I think she just hates Hillary. It doesn't make much sense to me that she would hold Hil''s record against her otherwise. Hillary did nothing any other political wife or husband wouldn't do, at least publicly.
Click to expand...

Well I generally have very different views the Michelle Alexander but when putting myself in her shoes I see where she is coming from. Here's an ending to an AlterNet article that also referenced Alexander's article:

Hillary Clinton isn’t her husband, and she deserves to be judged independently. But, as Alexander points out, Hillary wasn’t a typical first lady. She was hugely influential in her husband’s administration, and she actively defended his policies on the campaign trail. And “she continues to invoke the economy and country that Bill Clinton left behind as a legacy she would continue.” That makes Bill Clinton’s record relevant to this campaign.

At any rate, what Bill and Hillary Clinton have in common is a history of compromising on crucial issues, issues of enormous consequence to minority voters. This is a message that Sanders would do well to promote as this race enters the home stretch.

http://www.alternet.org/election-20...hy-black-voters-shouldnt-surrender-their-vote


I can understand disagreeing with Alexander but I thinking dismissing her as just a Hillary hater is too facile an answer.
 
cawacko said:
Well I generally have very different views the Michelle Alexander but when putting myself in her shoes I see where she is coming from. Here's an ending to an AlterNet article that also referenced Alexander's article:

Hillary Clinton isn’t her husband, and she deserves to be judged independently. But, as Alexander points out, Hillary wasn’t a typical first lady. She was hugely influential in her husband’s administration, and she actively defended his policies on the campaign trail. And “she continues to invoke the economy and country that Bill Clinton left behind as a legacy she would continue.” That makes Bill Clinton’s record relevant to this campaign.

At any rate, what Bill and Hillary Clinton have in common is a history of compromising on crucial issues, issues of enormous consequence to minority voters. This is a message that Sanders would do well to promote as this race enters the home stretch.

http://www.alternet.org/election-20...hy-black-voters-shouldnt-surrender-their-vote

I can understand disagreeing with Alexander but I thinking dismissing her as just a Hillary hater is too facile an answer.
Click to expand...

She does seem to be blaming Bill and Hill for a lot of the bad things that happened to blacks in the last 20 years. We've had a republican president and republican majority congresses that could have undone some of the things she criticizing the Clintons for, but that hasn't happened.
 
christiefan915 said:
She does seem to be blaming Bill and Hill for a lot of the bad things that happened to blacks in the last 20 years. We've had a republican president and republican majority congresses that could have undone some of the things she criticizing the Clintons for, but that hasn't happened.
Click to expand...

Blacks don't vote for Republicans. Their influence is in the Democratic Party. This woman is a pro-black left winger. She's not a partisan Dem.

If you remember BAC who used to post here he'd always go after Democrats for not being liberal enough. BAC was a socialist. This lady isn't much different.
 
cawacko said:
Blacks don't vote for Republicans. Their influence is in the Democratic Party. This woman is a pro-black left winger. She's not a partisan Dem.

If you remember BAC who used to post here he'd always go after Democrats for not being liberal enough. BAC was a socialist. This lady isn't much different.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'll read the book to get a clearer picture of where she's coming from.

Edit: I just got on the library wait list, 17 people ahead of me.
 
christiefan915 said:
Maybe I'll read the book to get a clearer picture of where she's coming from.
Click to expand...

I go back to my previous comment. I think you're coming from a more 'I want to defend Hillary from haters' mindset. This woman is coming from a totally different level. She's coming from being black in the U.S. and the wrongs she thinks have been done to blacks by it's leaders. Like I said this is a (very) left wing woman but she is no Democratic partisan. So she has no problem calling out Democrats for what she see's are their failures, especially since Democrats are ostensibly on the side of blacks.
 
christiefan915 said:
Lol, you're such a numbskull. Why are you even weighing in on it then? Trying to deflect from your racist comment "why do you think black people should be slaves of politicians?", I suppose.
Click to expand...

You truly are a fucking moron. YOU keep trying to pretend this is about what WE think or what Conservatives think. It isn't. The author is saying what HILLARY thinks. But you are too fucking stupid to realize that.

That comment to Desh was mocking her idiocy on another thread. But I shouldn't be too shocked that you are too ignorant to comprehend sarcasm.

Now... are you finally going to figure out what the OP is about?
 
cawacko said:
Well I generally have very different views the Michelle Alexander but when putting myself in her shoes I see where she is coming from. Here's an ending to an AlterNet article that also referenced Alexander's article:

Hillary Clinton isn’t her husband, and she deserves to be judged independently. But, as Alexander points out, Hillary wasn’t a typical first lady. She was hugely influential in her husband’s administration, and she actively defended his policies on the campaign trail. And “she continues to invoke the economy and country that Bill Clinton left behind as a legacy she would continue.” That makes Bill Clinton’s record relevant to this campaign.

At any rate, what Bill and Hillary Clinton have in common is a history of compromising on crucial issues, issues of enormous consequence to minority voters. This is a message that Sanders would do well to promote as this race enters the home stretch.

http://www.alternet.org/election-20...hy-black-voters-shouldnt-surrender-their-vote


I can understand disagreeing with Alexander but I thinking dismissing her as just a Hillary hater is too facile an answer.
Click to expand...

I posted the same quote from the article. Christie is too stupid to comprehend what it says.
 
christiefan915 said:
She does seem to be blaming Bill and Hill for a lot of the bad things that happened to blacks in the last 20 years. We've had a republican president and republican majority congresses that could have undone some of the things she criticizing the Clintons for, but that hasn't happened.
Click to expand...

See... she continues to try and make this about conservatives/Republicans.

She is too stupid to realize it isn't about what OTHER people can/have/could have done. It is about what the CLINTONS HAVE DONE
 
Superfreak said:
See... she continues to try and make this about conservatives/Republicans.

She is too stupid to realize it isn't about what OTHER people can/have/could have done. It is about what the CLINTONS HAVE DONE
Click to expand...

yeah, this lady (Alexander) is coming from a TOTALLY different level. It's definitely not the partisan back and forth mindset we have on a board like this.
 
evince said:
that author doesnt control black voters
Click to expand...

Black voters that choose to stay on the plantation do and for a long time they've been choosing to be slaves and pawns for the Democrats. We're 50 years into LBJ's claim about blacks voting Democrat for 200 years.
 
cawacko said:
yeah, this lady (Alexander) is coming from a TOTALLY different level. It's definitely not the partisan back and forth mindset we have on a board like this.
Click to expand...

Well I just re-read the article twice today. Please explain the totally different level she's coming from.

Thing is, I agree with her about crime and black incarceration rates. I've always been against the "three strikes" law. I agree that having the highest incarceration rate in the world is insane. I agree we shouldn't imprison people for low-level drug crimes. And I agree this all happened during Bill Clinton's administration, and that now he admits he went too far. That's more than a lot of pols would do.

I do not agree that Hillary is responsible for any of this. Being responsible to me means being one of the politicians who was in favor of and voted for all these issues. And one of those people who actually voted for the crime bill was Bernie Sanders. Furthermore, the author completely ignores the overall crime rate in the early '90s. She makes no mention of the right's Willie Horton politics and how that contributed to the perception that Democrats were soft on crime. She leaves out how the crime bill got plenty of bi-partisan support. And she avoids talking about why these laws she's so critical of weren't overturned after Clinton left office.

This is my problem with the author, and my opinion. I think it's completely unfair to blame Hillary for what her husband did, and it doesn't matter that she inserts the caveat "To be fair, the Clintons now feel bad about how their politics and policies have worked out for black people. Bill says that he “overshot the mark” with his crime policies; and Hillary has put forth a plan to ban racial profiling, eliminate the sentencing disparities between crack and cocaine, and abolish private prisons, among other measures." Blame Hillary for what she did or talks about today, not 25 years ago.

The racism problems in this country transcend any president's administration because there is precious little a president can do to change the minds and hearts of racists.
 
christiefan915 said:
Well I just re-read the article twice today. Please explain the totally different level she's coming from.

Thing is, I agree with her about crime and black incarceration rates. I've always been against the "three strikes" law. I agree that having the highest incarceration rate in the world is insane. I agree we shouldn't imprison people for low-level drug crimes. And I agree this all happened during Bill Clinton's administration, and that now he admits he went too far. That's more than a lot of pols would do.

I do not agree that Hillary is responsible for any of this. Being responsible to me means being one of the politicians who was in favor of and voted for all these issues. And one of those people who actually voted for the crime bill was Bernie Sanders. Furthermore, the author completely ignores the overall crime rate in the early '90s. She makes no mention of the right's Willie Horton politics and how that contributed to the perception that Democrats were soft on crime. She leaves out how the crime bill got plenty of bi-partisan support. And she avoids talking about why these laws she's so critical of weren't overturned after Clinton left office.

This is my problem with the author, and my opinion. I think it's completely unfair to blame Hillary for what her husband did, and it doesn't matter that she inserts the caveat "To be fair, the Clintons now feel bad about how their politics and policies have worked out for black people. Bill says that he “overshot the mark” with his crime policies; and Hillary has put forth a plan to ban racial profiling, eliminate the sentencing disparities between crack and cocaine, and abolish private prisons, among other measures." Blame Hillary for what she did or talks about today, not 25 years ago.

The racism problems in this country transcend any president's administration because there is precious little a president can do to change the minds and hearts of racists.
Click to expand...

My problem with her book was the lack of readily acknowledging the crime problem and the call within even the black community for more policing and cracking down on crime and drug dealers terrorizing communities. So while she does make good points about the ills of the system she loses credibility in my eyes but assigning no responsibility to the black communities actions.

The author wants the political parties to change. Since blacks basically only vote for Democrats that is where her focus is. Hillary quite often talks her past so I don't think the author is out of line doing so as well. And when Hillary touts Bill's record as President she opens herself up to his record, both the good and bad.

This author is very left wing and very pro black.
 
934156_939990996087421_561948080581265442_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top