You fell for this huckster!

[bhaktajan]

"Here's the truth, brothers and sisters, there's plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city, it's just in the wrong hands!”
Mayor de Blasio Says Wealth Is ‘in the Wrong Hands,’ Pledges to Redistribute It

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/n...e-of-city.html

[Truth Detector]

It's not. That's part of why it's such a good thing that Obama drove both unemployment and poverty numbers lower.

That is exactly what the Democratic Party of the Jackass stands for as bloviated by you snowflake. Again, it is difficult for someone like you with room temp IQ to comprehend the obvious, much less what was said a day ago.

Ours is. It's right there in our nation's statement of purpose, the preamble to the Constitution. One of the core purposes was to promote the general welfare.

The General Welfare clause is not about Government redistributing wealth you ignorant fool. I do wish you had gotten an education. But alas, all you received was indoctrination. You're a shining example of how badly our educational establishment is failing its citizens.

[Truth Detector]

Check again. What do you think the murder rate, violent crime rate, and property crime rate were in 2008? 2016?

Once again you lack the IQ to comprehend the OBVIOUS. If you LOWER the bar for incarceration, crimes haven't decreased.....they just don't get counted. Moron.

[Truth Detector]

Michelle Alexander (a black woman) wrote The New Jim Crow. Here’s an article she wrote for The Nation about the Clinton’s from a black perspective

https://www.thenation.com/article/hi...peoples-votes/

Great article; room temp IQ liberals will not read or comprehend the truth in this. They prefer to walk around like sheep parroting whatever talking point MSNBC feeds them.

[Jarod]

Anyone who believed Mexico would pay is dumb.
Anyone who supports the declaration of a National Emergency over the wall is dumb.

[evince]

or evil

[evince]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Alexanderhe New Jim Crow[edit]
Main article: The New Jim Crow



Alexander published her first book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness in 2010. In it, she argues that systemic racial discrimination in the United States resumed following the Civil Rights Movement; the resumption is embedded in the US War on Drugs and other governmental policies and is having devastating social consequences. She considers the scope and impact of this current law enforcement, legal and penal activity to be comparable with that of the Jim Crow laws of the 19th and 20th centuries. Her book concentrates on the mass incarceration of African-American men.[8]
In The New Jim Crow, Alexander argues that mass incarceration in America functions as a system of racial control in a similar way to how Jim Crow once operated. Alexander writes, "Race plays a major role-indeed, a defining role – in the current system, but not because of what is commonly understood as old-fashioned, hostile bigotry. This system of control depends far more on racial indifference (defined as a lack of compassion and caring about race and racial groups) than racial hostility – a feature it actually shares with its predecessors."[9]
The New Jim Crow describes how she believes oppressed minorities are "subject to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, public benefits, and jury service, just as their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents once were". Alexander argues the harsh penalty of how "people whose only crime is drug addiction or possession of a small amount of drugs for recreational use find themselves locked out of the mainstream society--permanently--and also highlights the inequality presented from the fact that "blacks are admitted to prison on drug charges at a rate from twenty to fifty-seven times greater than that of white men". Alexander's The New Jim Crow analyzes some of the factors she argues contribute to the new and modified Jim Crow laws that reside in American society today.[citation needed]
In a 2012 interview, Alexander told the story of the origin of the book. While she was working on cases of "Driving While Black" racial profiling in Oakland with the ACLU, a young African-American man came in with a well-documented case of many repeated stops by police over the past year. Listening to his story, Alexander increasingly felt she had the test case for which she was looking. However, the man then said in passing that he had a felony drug conviction on his record and Alexander had to backtrack completely: the conviction was an insurmountable obstacle to a test case in front of a jury for her at that time. In response, the man then became angry at her, saying in effect that "I'm innocent ...; it was just a plea bargain"; she "was no better than the police"; and "You're crazy if you think you're going to find anyone here to challenge the police who is not already 'in the system'." He ended by stalking out of the building, tearing up his notes as he went. The experience stuck with Alexander and eventually grew into the book, prompted in part by more observations of events in Oakland. She has since tried to find the young man again, in part to dedicate the book to him, but has so far been unable to.[10]
The New Jim Crow was re-released in paperback in early 2012 and has received significant praise. As of March 2012 it had been on The New York Times Best Seller list for 6 weeks[11] and it also reached number 1 on the Washington Post bestseller list in 2012. The book has also been the subject of scholarly debate and criticism.[12][13][14][15]
In the fall of 2015, all freshmen enrolled at Brown University have read The New Jim Crow as part of the campus's First Readings Program initiated by the Office of the Dean of the College and voted on by the faculty.[16]
Yale University clinical law professor James Forman Jr., while acknowledging the many similarities and insights in using the Jim Crow analogy, has argued that Alexander overstates her case, and leaves out important ways in which the newer system of mass incarceration is different. In one paper, Forman Jr. identifies Alexander as one of a number of authors who have overstated and misstated their case.[17] He asserts that her framework over-emphasizes the War on Drugs and ignores violent crimes, asserting that Alexander's analysis is demographically simplistic.



so you guys agree with her?

[Oneuli]

The General Welfare clause is not about Government redistributing wealth

You need to work on your reading comprehension, dummy. I didn't say it was. If you read back in the thread, you'll see that the stupidest participant in this forum made the claim that "Government isn't there to do good for people." I pointed out that, in fact, it was, and that the general welfare clause shows that. Try to keep up.

[Oneuli]

If you LOWER the bar for incarceration, crimes haven't decreased.....they just don't get counted.

Obviously, you're wrong. A crime does not need to lead to incarceration to be counted in the crime stats. For example, unsolved homicides go into the murder rate, even though nobody has been imprisoned. It's hilarious what obvious things right-wingers are too stupid to realize. How do you even handle daily tasks like tying your shoes, with such a low IQ? Do they make you wear a helmet?

[Truth Detector]

You need to work on your reading comprehension, dummy. I didn't say it was.

Yes, you did. You need to get your head out of your LYING ass so that you can get some oxygen to that tiny low IQ brain of yours.

If you read back in the thread, you'll see that the stupidest participant in this forum made the claim that "Government isn't there to do good for people." I pointed out that, in fact, it was, and that the general welfare clause shows that. Try to keep up.

If you read back in the thread, you'll see that the stupidest participant in this forum made the claim that "Government is there to do good for people." I pointed out that fact and stated that the General Welfare clause was not intended to mean welfare and wealth redistribution schemes.

But being the dishonest low IQ moron that you are, you stomp your feet and insist that it does. That's because you lack the IQ it would take to comprehend the OBVIOUS.

This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

[Truth Detector]

Obviously, you're wrong. A crime does not need to lead to incarceration to be counted in the crime stats. For example, unsolved homicides go into the murder rate, even though nobody has been imprisoned. It's hilarious what obvious things right-wingers are too stupid to realize. How do you even handle daily tasks like tying your shoes, with such a low IQ? Do they make you wear a helmet?

Obviously you're an idiot. When you lower the bar for incarceration, you will obviously get less crime. Dunce.

[Oneuli]

Yes, you did. You need to get your head out of your LYING ass so that you can get some oxygen to that tiny low IQ brain of yours.



If you read back in the thread, you'll see that the stupidest participant in this forum made the claim that "Government is there to do good for people." I pointed out that fact and stated that the General Welfare clause was not intended to mean welfare and wealth redistribution schemes.

But being the dishonest low IQ moron that you are, you stomp your feet and insist that it does. That's because you lack the IQ it would take to comprehend the OBVIOUS.

This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

Do you see your mistake? The issue we're discussing is your braindead assertion that government isn't there to do good for the people, and now you're trying to debate, instead, whether the federal government, in particular, has the right to legislate for the general welfare or whether it reserved it to the states. But, obviously, that's entirely a side point. Whether our government was set up to have the legislation for that carried on at the state or federal level, it's still the case that the purpose was to promote the general welfare. In other words, government is there to do good for the people.

Screwed that one up pretty badly, didn't you?

[Oneuli]

When you lower the bar for incarceration, you will obviously get less crime.

What makes you think that? Here, since the homicide example flew right over your head, let's try something even simpler. Picture a guy commits a minor felony. In System A, he's handed a one year prison sentence. In System B, he's handed a suspended sentence, provided he sticks with drug counseling for the year, does community service, and doesn't get into any more trouble. What happens to the crime rate in each? Well, obviously, that counts as one crime, in both cases. Whether he also adds to the incarceration rate is completely immaterial to the question of whether he shows up in the crime rate.

See your error now? Yeah, sure you do. But, of course, you'll be too embarrassed to admit it. Dumb people are just that way.

[Micawber]

What fucking idiots Trumppers are!

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/trum...gn-pledge.html

Trump’s nuts are in a vice

[Truth Detector]

Do you see your mistake? The issue we're discussing is your braindead assertion that government isn't there to do good for the people, and now you're trying to debate, instead, whether the federal government, in particular, has the right to legislate for the general welfare or whether it reserved it to the states.

Do you ever see how fucking stupid you look? The issue we're discussing is your braindead assertion that government was created to do good for the people. It's painfully obvious you're an uneducated idiot. The perfect constituent for the Democratic Party of the Jackass.

Whether our government was set up to have the legislation for that carried on at the state or federal level, it's still the case that the purpose was to promote the general welfare. In other words, government is there to do good for the people.

Screwed that one up pretty badly, didn't you?

Yes you did snowflake. But when you have an IQ that is room temp, screwing things up and getting everything wrong is to be expected. Go play in the sandbox now. Life is too short for your special brand of stupid.