Adolf Trump's Transition Team Confirms Pick of Racist Senator Jeff Sessions for AG Nomination...

2456

Comments

  • R0mp
    R0mp Members Posts: 4,250 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's funny. Calling out these anti-black bigots and racists for what they are is going to get you labeled as 'unAmerican', 'anti-American', 'unpatriotic' and a communist or a socialist.
  • bgoat
    bgoat Members Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    We going to Africa or Nah?

    Only by choice, I ain't running from no one.
  • Peace_79
    Peace_79 Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016

    "None of this affects black people."



    "Also ... if you are a human being that is not a black male - your civil rights and existence do not matter"


  • stringer bell
    stringer bell Members Posts: 26,212 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Copper
    Copper Members Posts: 49,532 ✭✭✭✭✭
    According to these IC ? ? we shouldn't care and should stop crying
  • Copper
    Copper Members Posts: 49,532 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Peace_79 wrote: »

    "None of this affects black people."



    "Also ... if you are a human being that is not a black male - your civil rights and existence do not matter"


    Who said this ? ?
  • NoCompetition
    NoCompetition Members Posts: 3,661 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    We going to Africa or Nah?

    Dont know. There are options. When you have such a large portion of the Country that seemed unable to recognize a potential disaster and even more unwilling to do anything to avert it, it makes you wonder. Like uh, who am I living among here? If you smart enough to know better and act/acted accordingly. Just things to think about. Who knows cant say right now.
  • Go figure
    Go figure Guests, Members, Confirm Email, Writer Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    But but Hillary said superpredators

    I mean if u just wanna bring up a single word yet ignore a whole bill and what it did then thats on u
  • NoCompetition
    NoCompetition Members Posts: 3,661 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Go figure wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    But but Hillary said superpredators

    I mean if u just wanna bring up a single word yet ignore a whole bill and what it did then thats on u

    What bill? If its the crime bill I only have limited interest in a get tough on crime bill 20 years ago during a different, crime ridden era. Criminals arent heroes that should have been coddled and allowed to victimize neighborhoods such as mine. Not that it didnt have bad effects too. Thats life you weigh everything and surmise who would be the best choice...going forward. In 2016 (different era) its not 1994 anymore. I think its more important to look forward. I wouldnt have seen anything like that happening during a Hillary presidency in 2016 (different era/dynamics). But now who knows? This is just my opinion. No candidate is going to align with you on everything. Thats where the weighing and deducing the best option going forward comes in.
  • Go figure
    Go figure Guests, Members, Confirm Email, Writer Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Go figure wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    But but Hillary said superpredators

    I mean if u just wanna bring up a single word yet ignore a whole bill and what it did then thats on u

    What bill? If its the crime bill I only have limited interest in a get tough on crime bill 20 years ago during a different, crime ridden era. Criminals arent heroes that should have been coddled and allowed to victimize neighborhoods such as mine. Not that it didnt have bad effects too. Thats life you weigh everything and surmise who would be the best choice...going forward. In 2016 (different era) its not 1994 anymore. I think its more important to look forward. I wouldnt have seen anything like that happening during a Hillary presidency in 2016 (different era/dynamics). But now who knows? This is just my opinion. No candidate is going to align with you on everything. Thats where the weighing and deducing the best option going forward comes in.

    not talking about coddling anybody. the prison system is flawed, people got life sentences for non violent offenses and guess what group has suffered the most?
    These days, Jeremy Travis is president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. But 20 years ago, he attended the signing ceremony for the crime bill — and joined the Clinton Justice Department.

    "Here's the federal government coming in and saying we'll give you money if you punish people more severely, and 28 states and the District of Columbia followed the money and enacted stricter sentencing laws for violent offenses," Travis says.

    But as Travis now knows all too well, there's a problem with that idea. Researchers including a National Academy of Sciences panel he led have since found only a modest relationship between incarceration and lower crime rates.

    "We now know with the fullness of time that we made some terrible mistakes," Travis said. "And those mistakes were to ramp up the use of prison. And that big mistake is the one that we now, 20 years later, come to grips with. We have to look in the mirror and say, 'look what we have done.'"

    Nick Turner of Vera put the human costs even more starkly.

    "If you're a black baby born today, you have a 1 in 3 chance of spending some time in prison or jail," Turner said. "If you're Latino, it's a 1 in 6 chance. And if you're white, it's 1 in 17. And so coming to terms with these disparities and reversing them, I would argue, is not only a matter of fairness and justice but it's, I would argue, a matter of national security."

    the fact that this bill was passed 20 years ago and STILL has a huge effect on problems in the black communities today u dont realize how bad an idea it was. Hillary had to renounce it during her campaign, joe biden is the one who drafted it...but he woudnt renounce it.
  • Go figure
    Go figure Guests, Members, Confirm Email, Writer Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭✭✭
    mass incarceration is one of the biggest contributing factors to black disenfranchisement today idk how someone can brush that off so easily
  • NoCompetition
    NoCompetition Members Posts: 3,661 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Go figure wrote: »
    Go figure wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    But but Hillary said superpredators

    I mean if u just wanna bring up a single word yet ignore a whole bill and what it did then thats on u

    What bill? If its the crime bill I only have limited interest in a get tough on crime bill 20 years ago during a different, crime ridden era. Criminals arent heroes that should have been coddled and allowed to victimize neighborhoods such as mine. Not that it didnt have bad effects too. Thats life you weigh everything and surmise who would be the best choice...going forward. In 2016 (different era) its not 1994 anymore. I think its more important to look forward. I wouldnt have seen anything like that happening during a Hillary presidency in 2016 (different era/dynamics). But now who knows? This is just my opinion. No candidate is going to align with you on everything. Thats where the weighing and deducing the best option going forward comes in.

    not talking about coddling anybody. the prison system is flawed, people got life sentences for non violent offenses and guess what group has suffered the most?
    These days, Jeremy Travis is president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. But 20 years ago, he attended the signing ceremony for the crime bill — and joined the Clinton Justice Department.

    "Here's the federal government coming in and saying we'll give you money if you punish people more severely, and 28 states and the District of Columbia followed the money and enacted stricter sentencing laws for violent offenses," Travis says.

    But as Travis now knows all too well, there's a problem with that idea. Researchers including a National Academy of Sciences panel he led have since found only a modest relationship between incarceration and lower crime rates.

    "We now know with the fullness of time that we made some terrible mistakes," Travis said. "And those mistakes were to ramp up the use of prison. And that big mistake is the one that we now, 20 years later, come to grips with. We have to look in the mirror and say, 'look what we have done.'"

    Nick Turner of Vera put the human costs even more starkly.

    "If you're a black baby born today, you have a 1 in 3 chance of spending some time in prison or jail," Turner said. "If you're Latino, it's a 1 in 6 chance. And if you're white, it's 1 in 17. And so coming to terms with these disparities and reversing them, I would argue, is not only a matter of fairness and justice but it's, I would argue, a matter of national security."

    the fact that this bill was passed 20 years ago and STILL has a huge effect on problems in the black communities today u dont realize how bad an idea it was. Hillary had to renounce it during her campaign, joe biden is the one who drafted it...but he woudnt renounce it.

    That first bold says for violent offenses. Regardless Hillary didnt just lock up a bunch of innocent people doing nothing. Lets be honest we're talking criminals for the vast majority doing all kinds of foul things. There is accountability on them.The penalties were increased. Speaking of effects that linger today, crime is at historic lows, minorities are in college at historic levels. Under which Presidential candidate would these trends likely continue?There are alot of people who would be up to no good, recruiting and spreading crime who are unable too. This is my point about weighing things and figuring who would be better going forward.
    But thats kind of my point about who are my fellow citizens? At some point people are what they are and its on me to navigate accordingly.
  • Peace_79
    Peace_79 Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Go figure wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    But but Hillary said superpredators

    I mean if u just wanna bring up a single word yet ignore a whole bill and what it did then thats on u

    I mean if you just want to ignore historical context and the 235 indivuals of Congress WHO ACTUALLY VOTED for the Bill (including Bernie Sanders and the majority of the Black Caucus), than that's on you ...


    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1994/h416


    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/22/dont_punish_clinton_sanders_for_1994_crime_bill_129729.html



    "... Context matters, as do details. The story of the 1994 crime bill and its impacts cannot be easily summed up in a few sentences.

    There was a lot of crime back then. More than double the current rate. There was a legitimate public demand for action..."










    It's easy to use omniceint hindsight while singling out ONE person for one of the most destructive pieces of legislation of our generation.

    But if you think about it .. it doesent make a lot of sense to do so.





    The 1994 Crime Bill was not this evil plan designed, development and implemented solely by Hilary Clinton to reign untold destruction on the black community.



    Cmon, bruh.

    That old pasty ? is not an All Powerful Super Villan


    bj13wzr0v5cy.jpg











    She's a politician...

    Her past is only important in so much as it influences her future policy positions and legislation.



    In this case, her role in supporting the Crime Bill has, in part, caused her to take a much more liberal stance on the criminal justice system and the injustice minorities face.


    I don't care why.
    I don't care about her as a person.

    I only care about how I can use her to affect change.


    But I'm pretty sure you still have no idea what she was proposing to do.

    You're still stuck in the past.



  • Go figure
    Go figure Guests, Members, Confirm Email, Writer Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Peace_79 wrote: »
    Go figure wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    But but Hillary said superpredators

    I mean if u just wanna bring up a single word yet ignore a whole bill and what it did then thats on u

    I mean if you just want to ignore historical context and the 235 indivuals of Congress WHO ACTUALLY VOTED for the Bill (including Bernie Sanders and the majority of the Black Caucus), than that's on you ...


    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1994/h416


    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/22/dont_punish_clinton_sanders_for_1994_crime_bill_129729.html



    It's easy to use omniceint hindsight while singling out ONE person for one of the most destructive pieces of legislation of our generation.

    But if you think about it .. it doesent make a lot of sense to do so.





    The 1994 Crime Bill was not this evil plan designed, development and implemented solely by Hilary Clinton to reign untold destruction on the black community.



    Cmon, bruh.

    That old pasty ? is not an All Powerful Super Villan


    bj13wzr0v5cy.jpg

    Not blaming hillary solely. It was a bipartisan bill. My issue with her is not this bill alone. The point of my comment was to not just highlight "super predator" and ignore the context of it. Thats all.

    ? is still evil tho
  • Peace_79
    Peace_79 Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Go figure wrote: »
    Peace_79 wrote: »
    Go figure wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    But but Hillary said superpredators

    I mean if u just wanna bring up a single word yet ignore a whole bill and what it did then thats on u

    I mean if you just want to ignore historical context and the 235 indivuals of Congress WHO ACTUALLY VOTED for the Bill (including Bernie Sanders and the majority of the Black Caucus), than that's on you ...


    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1994/h416


    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/22/dont_punish_clinton_sanders_for_1994_crime_bill_129729.html



    It's easy to use omniceint hindsight while singling out ONE person for one of the most destructive pieces of legislation of our generation.

    But if you think about it .. it doesent make a lot of sense to do so.





    The 1994 Crime Bill was not this evil plan designed, development and implemented solely by Hilary Clinton to reign untold destruction on the black community.



    Cmon, bruh.

    That old pasty ? is not an All Powerful Super Villan


    bj13wzr0v5cy.jpg

    Not blaming hillary solely. It was a bipartisan bill. My issue with her is not this bill alone. The point of my comment was not to just highlight "super predator" and ignore the context of it. Thats all.

    ? is still evil tho

    MANY people on here are not willing to do that.
  • NoCompetition
    NoCompetition Members Posts: 3,661 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Go figure wrote: »
    mass incarceration is one of the biggest contributing factors to black disenfranchisement today idk how someone can brush that off so easily

    I understand this point. I want it to known Im a whole picture type. Not just looking at one perspective. I realize there were going to be flaws. It can get kind of complicated but to me its a weighing process. All things considered whos the better choice. As far as the present situation and looking forward. And it has to be understood that its 2016 not 1994. I was around then, its a different world. At any rate for many of us, moves such as the thread subject arent surprising. Kind of uh...saw this type of thing being possible effects going in.
  • Go figure
    Go figure Guests, Members, Confirm Email, Writer Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Go figure wrote: »
    Go figure wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    But but Hillary said superpredators

    I mean if u just wanna bring up a single word yet ignore a whole bill and what it did then thats on u

    What bill? If its the crime bill I only have limited interest in a get tough on crime bill 20 years ago during a different, crime ridden era. Criminals arent heroes that should have been coddled and allowed to victimize neighborhoods such as mine. Not that it didnt have bad effects too. Thats life you weigh everything and surmise who would be the best choice...going forward. In 2016 (different era) its not 1994 anymore. I think its more important to look forward. I wouldnt have seen anything like that happening during a Hillary presidency in 2016 (different era/dynamics). But now who knows? This is just my opinion. No candidate is going to align with you on everything. Thats where the weighing and deducing the best option going forward comes in.

    not talking about coddling anybody. the prison system is flawed, people got life sentences for non violent offenses and guess what group has suffered the most?
    These days, Jeremy Travis is president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. But 20 years ago, he attended the signing ceremony for the crime bill — and joined the Clinton Justice Department.

    "Here's the federal government coming in and saying we'll give you money if you punish people more severely, and 28 states and the District of Columbia followed the money and enacted stricter sentencing laws for violent offenses," Travis says.

    But as Travis now knows all too well, there's a problem with that idea. Researchers including a National Academy of Sciences panel he led have since found only a modest relationship between incarceration and lower crime rates.

    "We now know with the fullness of time that we made some terrible mistakes," Travis said. "And those mistakes were to ramp up the use of prison. And that big mistake is the one that we now, 20 years later, come to grips with. We have to look in the mirror and say, 'look what we have done.'"

    Nick Turner of Vera put the human costs even more starkly.

    "If you're a black baby born today, you have a 1 in 3 chance of spending some time in prison or jail," Turner said. "If you're Latino, it's a 1 in 6 chance. And if you're white, it's 1 in 17. And so coming to terms with these disparities and reversing them, I would argue, is not only a matter of fairness and justice but it's, I would argue, a matter of national security."

    the fact that this bill was passed 20 years ago and STILL has a huge effect on problems in the black communities today u dont realize how bad an idea it was. Hillary had to renounce it during her campaign, joe biden is the one who drafted it...but he woudnt renounce it.

    That first bold says for violent offenses. Regardless Hillary didnt just lock up a bunch of innocent people doing nothing. Lets be honest we're talking criminals for the vast majority doing all kinds of foul things. There is accountability on them.The penalties were increased. Speaking of effects that linger today, crime is at historic lows, minorities are in college at historic levels. Under which Presidential candidate would these trends likely continue?There are alot of people who would be up to no good, recruiting and spreading crime who are unable too. This is my point about weighing things and figuring who would be better going forward.
    But thats kind of my point about who are my fellow citizens? At some point people are what they are and its on me to navigate accordingly.

    ....violent offenses and non violent drug offenders.

    and its more to it than just a bill. again it disenfranchised black communities across the nation in more ways than one and caused multiple effects but thats for another thread. first was slavery, then segregation, red lining, war on drugs, 1994 crime bill, mass incarceration. Its just a long line of ? and she's part of it...so why would i use my vote on her? NOT INCLUDING all the ? from this past campaign...just know im judging her first off current events THEN past. But the past only reinforces what i feel about her today
  • NoCompetition
    NoCompetition Members Posts: 3,661 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Go figure wrote: »
    Go figure wrote: »
    Go figure wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    But but Hillary said superpredators

    I mean if u just wanna bring up a single word yet ignore a whole bill and what it did then thats on u

    What bill? If its the crime bill I only have limited interest in a get tough on crime bill 20 years ago during a different, crime ridden era. Criminals arent heroes that should have been coddled and allowed to victimize neighborhoods such as mine. Not that it didnt have bad effects too. Thats life you weigh everything and surmise who would be the best choice...going forward. In 2016 (different era) its not 1994 anymore. I think its more important to look forward. I wouldnt have seen anything like that happening during a Hillary presidency in 2016 (different era/dynamics). But now who knows? This is just my opinion. No candidate is going to align with you on everything. Thats where the weighing and deducing the best option going forward comes in.

    not talking about coddling anybody. the prison system is flawed, people got life sentences for non violent offenses and guess what group has suffered the most?
    These days, Jeremy Travis is president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. But 20 years ago, he attended the signing ceremony for the crime bill — and joined the Clinton Justice Department.

    "Here's the federal government coming in and saying we'll give you money if you punish people more severely, and 28 states and the District of Columbia followed the money and enacted stricter sentencing laws for violent offenses," Travis says.

    But as Travis now knows all too well, there's a problem with that idea. Researchers including a National Academy of Sciences panel he led have since found only a modest relationship between incarceration and lower crime rates.

    "We now know with the fullness of time that we made some terrible mistakes," Travis said. "And those mistakes were to ramp up the use of prison. And that big mistake is the one that we now, 20 years later, come to grips with. We have to look in the mirror and say, 'look what we have done.'"

    Nick Turner of Vera put the human costs even more starkly.

    "If you're a black baby born today, you have a 1 in 3 chance of spending some time in prison or jail," Turner said. "If you're Latino, it's a 1 in 6 chance. And if you're white, it's 1 in 17. And so coming to terms with these disparities and reversing them, I would argue, is not only a matter of fairness and justice but it's, I would argue, a matter of national security."

    the fact that this bill was passed 20 years ago and STILL has a huge effect on problems in the black communities today u dont realize how bad an idea it was. Hillary had to renounce it during her campaign, joe biden is the one who drafted it...but he woudnt renounce it.

    That first bold says for violent offenses. Regardless Hillary didnt just lock up a bunch of innocent people doing nothing. Lets be honest we're talking criminals for the vast majority doing all kinds of foul things. There is accountability on them.The penalties were increased. Speaking of effects that linger today, crime is at historic lows, minorities are in college at historic levels. Under which Presidential candidate would these trends likely continue?There are alot of people who would be up to no good, recruiting and spreading crime who are unable too. This is my point about weighing things and figuring who would be better going forward.
    But thats kind of my point about who are my fellow citizens? At some point people are what they are and its on me to navigate accordingly.

    ....violent offenses and non violent drug offenders.

    and its more to it than just a bill. again it disenfranchised black communities across the nation in more ways than one and caused multiple effects but thats for another thread. first was slavery, then segregation, red lining, war on drugs, 1994 crime bill, mass incarceration. Its just a long line of ? and she's part of it...so why would i use my vote on her?

    We look at that crime bill differently. Honestly there is more than enough going on today, my interest in that is very limited. Honestly I gave my perspective thats all I have to say about 1994. I was there there was wild sht going on too. There is plenty going on with current events in the times we are living. Actually we just have differences of opinion. Its irrelevant now. Welp either by choice or by inaction people get Trump. And moves such as thread topic. I honestly dont think a lot of people thought things through fully. Too much looking back while some of us were and are looking to today and the future...
  • Go figure
    Go figure Guests, Members, Confirm Email, Writer Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Go figure wrote: »
    mass incarceration is one of the biggest contributing factors to black disenfranchisement today idk how someone can brush that off so easily

    I understand this point. I want it to known Im a whole picture type. Not just looking at one perspective. I realize there were going to be flaws. It can get kind of complicated but to me its a weighing process. All things considered whos the better choice. As far as the present situation and looking forward. And it has to be understood that its 2016 not 1994. I was around then, its a different world. At any rate for many of us, moves such as the thread subject arent surprising. Kind of uh...saw this type of thing being possible effects going in.

    i dont disagree with your view completely but simply put the country deserves a pres better than the 2 candidates offered. there were a lot of shady things with her campaign that made it seem they werent gonna let anyone in the DNC get in hillary's way including bernie. I would've voted for him. But seeing the ? going on i decided to sit out, as did enough other people to cause her not to win.

    And if u been paying attention bernie is still out there doing his part, while hillary disappeared (cuz she only comes around to get your votes) and trump is causing more divide in the country. they're both ? . i dont see either a better option than the other but u do, thats the only difference.
  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Some of you ? are nihilists. This generation smh.
  • 313 wayz
    313 wayz Members Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Damn man....Jeff Sessions as AG is bad business.....I already know he is going to repeal the little bit of criminal justice reform progress that was put in place during the Obama administration......Him and Tim Cotton (R-Arkansas) recommended locking up more people because we are not locking up enough people by their standard.

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/18/13669440/jeff-sessions-attorney-general-trump-justice-department

    Over the past few years, a bipartisan group of senators has been working on legislation that would reduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for nonviolent offenders and give judges more sentencing discretion in cases involving low-level drug offenders. But the legislation never really got anywhere in the Senate, in large part because Sessions, along with Trump allies and Sens. Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz, opposed the bill.


  • manofmorehouse
    manofmorehouse Members Posts: 2,716 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Lmao Trump and clinton are the same though, right?? Lol "they're one and the same". This is going to be the guy that decides whether or not to prosecute cops killing unarmed blacks. Again, survive the drought. Shout out to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson though