Hillary flip flops more than a fish out of water

[Stevedangos]

On the heels of the social unrest caused by a string of law enforcement involved deaths of African-American males across the country, today Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for an end to mass incarceration.

However, a little more than 20 years ago in 1994, Clinton spoke in support her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, and his sweeping crime bill that would build more federal prisons and “lock up violent offenders so they can never could get out again.”

In a 1994 CSPAN interview, then-first lady Hillary Clinton pushed for the stalled crime bill saying, “This bill will put more police on the streets, would have locked up violent offenders so they can never could get out again, would have given more prison construction money available to the states as well as the federal government.”

Now she says we need to end the era of mass incarceration??? All she does is look at Twitter and put out a statement supporting what her handlers believe is th ecurrent popular position.

And cant she afford someone to do her hair and makeup??

 

[vbsideout]

She is 110 years old so quit complaining about her looks. Please tell me what politician has not flip flopped during their political careers pub or dem

 

[Neutron Monster]

The world of 1994 is very different than the world of 2015. Notably, the crime rate was much higher 20 years ago - per capita rate of violent crime is down close to 50% according to the FBI's crime statistics. You're old enough to remember that crime was a major campaign issue in the early-mid 1990s because it had spiked from about 1970 to 1994. That spike has gone away, and so has crime as a major political issue in national elections. Do you see any of Walker, Bush, Rubio, Christie, Cruz, etc. talking about crime as a major issue? It's a different world and our politicans are reacting to it by acknowledging that we've created a new problem - overincarceration.

If you're going to criticize Hillary for that, you have to criticize the Rs as well, because both parties (D and R) were in a race to appear tougher on crime throughout the 1990s.

The optimal action in 1994 was probably to put more cops on the streets. That was a good initiative pushed by Clinton, and it helped. But, the 3 strikes laws of the 1990s and other inflexible rules requiring mass incarceration are a failure, and it's good that she recognizes it. Some of those laws are Federal, and they should be repealed.

Again, it's kind of odd to pick on Hillary when the Republican Party wanted the same thing in 1994, and when many R candidates in 2015 are advocating for the exact same thing she is (an update of the sentencing rules.) This is an emerging area of bipartisan consensus.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

The world of 1994 is very different than the world of 2015. Notably, the crime rate was much higher 20 years ago - per capita rate of violent crime is down close to 50% according to the FBI's crime statistics. You're old enough to remember that crime was a major campaign issue in the early-mid 1990s because it had spiked from about 1970 to 1994. That spike has gone away, and so has crime as a major political issue in national elections. Do you see any of Walker, Bush, Rubio, Christie, Cruz, etc. talking about crime as a major issue? It's a different world and our politicans are reacting to it by acknowledging that we've created a new problem - overincarceration.

If you're going to criticize Hillary for that, you have to criticize the Rs as well, because both parties (D and R) were in a race to appear tougher on crime throughout the 1990s.

The optimal action in 1994 was probably to put more cops on the streets. That was a good initiative pushed by Clinton, and it helped. But, the 3 strikes laws of the 1990s and other inflexible rules requiring mass incarceration are a failure, and it's good that she recognizes it. Some of those laws are Federal, and they should be repealed.

Again, it's kind of odd to pick on Hillary when the Republican Party wanted the same thing in 1994, and when many R candidates in 2015 are advocating for the exact same thing she is (an update of the sentencing rules.) This is an emerging area of bipartisan consensus.

But that's not what Breitbart told him to post.

 

[Stevedangos]

The world of 1994 is very different than the world of 2015. Notably, the crime rate was much higher 20 years ago - per capita rate of violent crime is down close to 50% according to the FBI's crime statistics. You're old enough to remember that crime was a major campaign issue in the early-mid 1990s because it had spiked from about 1970 to 1994. That spike has gone away, and so has crime as a major political issue in national elections. Do you see any of Walker, Bush, Rubio, Christie, Cruz, etc. talking about crime as a major issue? It's a different world and our politicans are reacting to it by acknowledging that we've created a new problem - overincarceration.

If you're going to criticize Hillary for that, you have to criticize the Rs as well, because both parties (D and R) were in a race to appear tougher on crime throughout the 1990s.

The optimal action in 1994 was probably to put more cops on the streets. That was a good initiative pushed by Clinton, and it helped. But, the 3 strikes laws of the 1990s and other inflexible rules requiring mass incarceration are a failure, and it's good that she recognizes it. Some of those laws are Federal, and they should be repealed.

Again, it's kind of odd to pick on Hillary when the Republican Party wanted the same thing in 1994, and when many R candidates in 2015 are advocating for the exact same thing she is (an update of the sentencing rules.) This is an emerging area of bipartisan consensus.

 

[Stevedangos]

The world is a different place today and crime rate is way down compared to 20 years ago BECAUSE WE STARTED LOCKING CRIMINALS UP for many years

Why would we want to change something that worked??

 

[Veer2Eternity]

The world is a different place today and crime rate is way down compared to 20 years ago BECAUSE WE STARTED LOCKING CRIMINALS UP for many years

Why would we want to change something that worked??

Because it costs lots of money to build prisons and keep those guys in . You're saying spending is good?

See why nobody that understands economics and fiscal policy thinks the GOP is conservative?

Even on social issues their conservatism usually is just rhetoric to stir the drooling masses.

 

[millerbleach]

The world is a different place today and crime rate is way down compared to 20 years ago BECAUSE WE STARTED LOCKING CRIMINALS UP for many years

Why would we want to change something that worked??

Crime has just gotten too rare. We need more crime.

 

[Duck_walk]

Crime has just gotten too rare. We need more crime.

We don't want anyone in the WH who has evolved over the past 20 years. Changing your opinion is a sign of weaknesses. Adapting to a changing world is for weaklings.

 

[Neutron Monster]

The world is a different place today and crime rate is way down compared to 20 years ago BECAUSE WE STARTED LOCKING CRIMINALS UP for many years

Why would we want to change something that worked??

Because it costs lots of money to build prisons and keep those guys in . You're saying spending is good?

See why nobody that understands economics and fiscal policy thinks the GOP is conservative?

Even on social issues their conservatism usually is just rhetoric to stir the drooling masses.

It's even more than that, veer - steve Is heavily overstating the impact these laws had on crime.

The US was increasing jail time through the 1970s and 1980s yet crime kept rising.

The core reason crime is down is a change in our society more so than a change in incarceration rates. One of the interesting things about having 50 states is having 50 criminal justice systems. There was variation in the change of incarceration rates by state. The states that went the craziest haven't been lowering their crime rates materially faster than those who's prison populations haven't grown as quickly.

 

[Neutron Monster]

We don't want anyone in the WH who has evolved over the past 20 years. Changing your opinion is a sign of weaknesses. Adapting to a changing world is for weaklings.

Yeah, nothing could possibly have changed or have been learned in two decades.

 

[WCS Coach]

Who cares what her position is......she is old and ugly. That will not change.

 

[Bogey Man]

Haven't we learned what happens when we elect a president running on the coattails of another family member? Now we are getting Hillary and Jeb rammed down our throats. God help us!! They should go to Hollywood if they want to be "stars"!!

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Who cares what her position is......she is old and ugly. That will not change.

Do you think the GOP nominee (Likely Shrub3) is attractive?

 

[Neutron Monster]

Haven't we learned what happens when we elect a president running on the coattails of another family member? Now we are getting Hillary and Jeb rammed down our throats. God help us!! They should go to Hollywood if they want to be "stars"!!

I don't think you can really use GWB as a reason to say there shouldn't be second generation/related presidents. For one, everyone is different; having last name X doesn't magically make you a good or bad President. I can understand the fatigue but I think people should judge Hillary and Jeb on their own merits.

Further, plenty of Presidents/senior political figures have been dynastic in US history, and some of those people have been very good in their roles. We've have Adamses, Roosevelts, Tafts, Kennedys, and others over time.

If Hillary and Jeb had different last names, their resumes would still be competitive. Sec State and Senator plus a two term governor of a swing state.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Do you think the GOP nominee (Likely Shrub3) is attractive?

I don't think it's likely that it's him yet. I think Walker and Rubio are just as likely.

Bush came out early to try to look like an inevitable candidate. I don't think it is going as well as he expected.

 

[Expect2Win]

I don't think you can really use GWB as a reason to say there shouldn't be second generation/related presidents. For one, everyone is different; having last name X doesn't magically make you a good or bad President. I can understand the fatigue but I think people should judge Hillary and Jeb on their own merits.

Further, plenty of Presidents/senior political figures have been dynastic in US history, and some of those people have been very good in their roles. We've have Adamses, Roosevelts, Tafts, Kennedys, and others over time.

If Hillary and Jeb had different last names, their resumes would still be competitive. Sec State and Senator plus a two term governor of a swing state.

This country would look a lot different had it been Jeb in 2000 instead of W. Jeb would have been a much better President then.

 

[Wildcat98]

Who cares what her position is......she is old and ugly. That will not change.

but she is smart so I choose her over some good looking gal that is dumber then a rock like you guys running Palin.

 

[Stevedangos]

but she is smart so I choose her over some good looking gal that is dumber then a rock like you guys running Palin.

Didnt Palen pretty much predict what is going on in the Ukraine??

When people back then were pushing for them to be a NATO member state she asked if everyone was willing to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine if they were allowed to join NATO. She said Russia had aspirations in Crimea and by golly I think she was a lot more accurate than the idiots making fun of her then and now.

 

[Neutron Monster]

The "idiots" making fun of her then and now were right. She's just not very bright.

You don't have to defend everyone who is an R. There are plenty of people on both sides who are not worthy of office. She's one of the brightest examples of this in the R party.

Also, Palin made a half-cocked claim that "weakness" of Obama would cause Russia to invade the Ukraine. Was it Obama's "weakness" that caused him to invade Georgia in 2008 prior to ever being elected? Of course not. It's the fact that Putin plays in his backyard and the US has no real power to stop them from doing so without going to war (which isn't going to happen).

The Ukraine is an example of why she is an idiot - what, exactly, was the US supposed to do? Go to war with Russia? Our economies aren't very intertwined, it's not like we have a lot of strings we can pull to punish them diplomatically or financially.

Also, the war in the Ukraine isn't about NATO, it's a battle over control of the country between the native Russians/Russian speakers in the East/Crimea and native Ukrainians in the Western part of the country. Russia took control of areas where a majority of people identify as ethnically Russian once the pro-Russian president was overthrown in Kiev by native Ukrainians.

This is exactly the sort of the thing the US should be staying out of, just like Bush stayed out of Georgia.

 

[Wildcat98]

Didnt Palen pretty much predict what is going on in the Ukraine??

When people back then were pushing for them to be a NATO member state she asked if everyone was willing to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine if they were allowed to join NATO. She said Russia had aspirations in Crimea and by golly I think she was a lot more accurate than the idiots making fun of her then and now.

If you are even going to remotely defend her you are as dumb as she is. Now I remember where I saw you.

 

[Stevedangos]

The "idiots" making fun of her then and now were right. She's just not very bright.

You don't have to defend everyone who is an R. There are plenty of people on both sides who are not worthy of office. She's one of the brightest examples of this in the R party.
you are just clueless,,,what Palen said was if you admit the Ukraine as a member of NATO are we willing to go to war with russia to defend them.

We are bound by the NATO Treaty to defend any member nation if it is attacked the same as if the United States was attacked, it wasnt her that was saying we should let them in NATO, she was pointing out what the ramifications of allowing them in NATO were.

She would have been a hell of a lot better president than Obama thats for damn sure. The country is rioting in the streets and burning down with him at the helm. He is giving Iran the green light to develope nuclear weapons and paying them to do it. I bet you anything within ten year Obama and Jenner are Sorority sisters
Also, Palin made a half-cocked claim that "weakness" of Obama would cause Russia to invade the Ukraine. Was it Obama's "weakness" that caused him to invade Georgia in 2008 prior to ever being elected? Of course not. It's the fact that Putin plays in his backyard and the US has no real power to stop them from doing so without going to war (which isn't going to happen).

The Ukraine is an example of why she is an idiot - what, exactly, was the US supposed to do? Go to war with Russia? Our economies aren't very intertwined, it's not like we have a lot of strings we can pull to punish them diplomatically or financially.

Also, the war in the Ukraine isn't about NATO, it's a battle over control of the country between the native Russians/Russian speakers in the East/Crimea and native Ukrainians in the Western part of the country. Russia took control of areas where a majority of people identify as ethnically Russian once the pro-Russian president was overthrown in Kiev by native Ukrainians.

This is exactly the sort of the thing the US should be staying out of, just like Bush stayed out of Georgia.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Please start typing below the quote so people can tell what you've said.

That is not what she said she was "right" about. What she said was that electing someone "weak" like Obama would embolden Russia to invade Ukraine. That is the core thing she claims she was right about.

Palin would be a god awful President by any stretch of the imagination. She's an idiot. She's incredibly unqualified to hold any elective office, let alone the Presidency. I may disagree with the political views of many, but I think plenty of them are intelligent and qualified to hold office. Palin is not one of them. She's a zealot who is too dumb to realize the real world implications of the policies she supports.

I think Obama is an example that pretty well counters this - politically, he's not remotely a Republican, and his goals differ from them in many areas. That doesn't make someone unqualified to be President, it just makes them a member of a different political party. But he generally supports policies that are aligned with his actual goals, and his goals generally acknowledge real problems in America and the world. Republicans like Jeb, Rubio, Romney, Paul Ryan, Bob Corker, and Nathan Deal are examples of counters to the Palin-type of idiocy - generally, smart people who comprehend the real issues in the US, even if their goals and solutions aren't aligned with what the Dems want. McConnell and Boehner, too, are in this camp.

There is a problem in the R party where a significant subset of the base supports candidates whose goals are misaligned with the facts of life in America and in the world (i.e. climate change deniers or people who pretend the US could do something substantive about the Ukraine) or whose policy proposals are totally brain-dead and not aligned with their actual goals (people like Sam Brownback who pretend tax cuts pay for themselves or people who support denying a deal with Iran unless they agree to acknowledge the existence of Israel- something which has nothing to do whatsoever with nuclear disarmament.) Palin lives in this world of stupidity.

The rest of what you post is beneath responding to.