Hillary's new rant as candidate opposes Hillary the First Lady

[Dino]

Could the first Democratic debate be old Hillary vs. the Old Hillary?



Posted by admin
0
0
0
0
0
Here's Hillary Clinton In 1994 Talking Up Tough-On-Crime Legislation
“There will be more police on the street, a hundred thousand more police officers, with flexibility given to local communities to determine how best to use them.”
View Video ›

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Wednesday for ending “the era of mass incarceration.” Clinton’s remarks, as noted by many in the media, specifically reject the “tough-on-crime” mantra and legislation advocated by her husband during his time as president.
The shift in rhetoric and policy around criminal justice issues has been significant over the last two decades. In fact, 21 years ago, Hillary Clinton as first lady spoke to a conference for female police officers where he pushed her husband’s agenda in New York.

At the time, Clinton said the 1994 crime bill — which called for 100,000 more police officers, more prisons, and harsher sentencing for crimes, and enacted stricter gun laws — would “make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve.”
“We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you’re out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door,” remarked the then-first lady.

Clinton also noted that the crime bill would help build more prisons.
“We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons,” she said. “It is also a question of prevention. We want to give police officers the tools to help young people stay out of trouble. We want to begin to give young people something to say yes to, not just to have to face the bleak, alienated streets that too often push them in the wrong direction.”

On Wednesday, Clinton talked about how the United States “almost 25% of the world’s prison population,” called for police to be equipped with body cameras, and discussed the issues of substance abuse and mental health. The remarks come as during protests and riots in Baltimore after the death of 25-year-old black man who died from injuries received while in police custody.
Speaking to C-SPAN in 1994, Clinton called the crime bill “both smart and tough.”

“I think as more Americans focus on the fact that this bill would have put more police on the street, would have locked up violent offenders so they could never get out a again,” she said. “Would have given more prison construction money available to the states as well as the federal government. But also would have dealt with prevention, giving young people something to say yes to. It’s a very well thought out crime bill that is both smart and tough. ”

Here are the full 1994 remarks on the crime bill specifics:

The sad truth is that, unfortunately, there are those who would rather talk about fighting crime than actually give you the tools that you can use to fight crime. And what we have to do, those of us in civilian life, is to stand up and support those of you who are on the front line. Because this crime bill will make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve.
There will be more police on the street, a hundred thousand more police officers, with flexibility given to local communities to determine how best to use them. We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you’re out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door.
We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons. It is also a question of prevention. We want to give police officers the tools to help young people stay out of trouble. We want to begin to give young people something to say yes to, not just to have to face the bleak, alienated streets that too often push them in the wrong direction.
And also in this crime bill is something that goes along with the domestic violence initiative. For the first time, there is a special section that focuses on violence against women. And understand that there are special problems that go along with domestic violence and other crimes committed against women.
So all in all, this crime bill tries to take a bottoms-up approach, because it is built on the experience of people who have actually been there, people like yourselves.

http://newspindle.com/heres-hillary-clinton-in-1994-talking-up-tough-on-crime-legislation/

 

[RickWA]

Could the first Democratic debate be old Hillary vs. the Old Hillary?



Posted by admin
0
0
0
0
0
Here's Hillary Clinton In 1994 Talking Up Tough-On-Crime Legislation
“There will be more police on the street, a hundred thousand more police officers, with flexibility given to local communities to determine how best to use them.”
View Video ›

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Wednesday for ending “the era of mass incarceration.” Clinton’s remarks, as noted by many in the media, specifically reject the “tough-on-crime” mantra and legislation advocated by her husband during his time as president.
The shift in rhetoric and policy around criminal justice issues has been significant over the last two decades. In fact, 21 years ago, Hillary Clinton as first lady spoke to a conference for female police officers where he pushed her husband’s agenda in New York.

At the time, Clinton said the 1994 crime bill — which called for 100,000 more police officers, more prisons, and harsher sentencing for crimes, and enacted stricter gun laws — would “make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve.”
“We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you’re out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door,” remarked the then-first lady.

Clinton also noted that the crime bill would help build more prisons.
“We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons,” she said. “It is also a question of prevention. We want to give police officers the tools to help young people stay out of trouble. We want to begin to give young people something to say yes to, not just to have to face the bleak, alienated streets that too often push them in the wrong direction.”

On Wednesday, Clinton talked about how the United States “almost 25% of the world’s prison population,” called for police to be equipped with body cameras, and discussed the issues of substance abuse and mental health. The remarks come as during protests and riots in Baltimore after the death of 25-year-old black man who died from injuries received while in police custody.
Speaking to C-SPAN in 1994, Clinton called the crime bill “both smart and tough.”

“I think as more Americans focus on the fact that this bill would have put more police on the street, would have locked up violent offenders so they could never get out a again,” she said. “Would have given more prison construction money available to the states as well as the federal government. But also would have dealt with prevention, giving young people something to say yes to. It’s a very well thought out crime bill that is both smart and tough. ”

Here are the full 1994 remarks on the crime bill specifics:

The sad truth is that, unfortunately, there are those who would rather talk about fighting crime than actually give you the tools that you can use to fight crime. And what we have to do, those of us in civilian life, is to stand up and support those of you who are on the front line. Because this crime bill will make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve.
There will be more police on the street, a hundred thousand more police officers, with flexibility given to local communities to determine how best to use them. We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you’re out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door.
We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons. It is also a question of prevention. We want to give police officers the tools to help young people stay out of trouble. We want to begin to give young people something to say yes to, not just to have to face the bleak, alienated streets that too often push them in the wrong direction.
And also in this crime bill is something that goes along with the domestic violence initiative. For the first time, there is a special section that focuses on violence against women. And understand that there are special problems that go along with domestic violence and other crimes committed against women.
So all in all, this crime bill tries to take a bottoms-up approach, because it is built on the experience of people who have actually been there, people like yourselves.

http://newspindle.com/heres-hillary-clinton-in-1994-talking-up-tough-on-crime-legislation/

Please remember, when Democrats do this sort of thing - they are "evolving". When non-Democrats do this sort of thing, they are "flip-flopping" and "Etch-a-Sketching".

This is how the world works to adolescent, constantly-self-exempting lefty. :-/

 

[Arkady]

Could the first Democratic debate be old Hillary vs. the Old Hillary?

It appears that she's learned something over the course of these many years. That's a good thing. Too many politicians come across as ineducable.... taking their positions as matters of faith, rather than reactions to real-world evidence, and thus not allowing those positions to change as new information and analysis comes in.

Having said that, I want to clarify that some of the positions she took before remain compatible with her current positions. These are two separate issues: how many police to have on the street, and how many people to keep behind bars. As far back as I can remember, I've favored both things: putting more cops on the street and locking up fewer people.

In fact, it's entirely possible that putting more cops on the street would mean FEWER people behind bars. One of the main reasons for long prison sentences is deterrence.

Think of it this way. Putting aside moral considerations, what if you had a chance to steal a hundred thousand dollars, but if you get caught, you get 5 years in jail. Would you do it? Well, there's obviously a factor missing in the equation. How likely are you to be caught?

Let's say you perceive a 1 in 100 chance of getting sent to jail. Is it worth it? Now, what if it's a 1 in 2 chance of getting 1 year in jail, instead? Regardless of how you answered the first question, I think the second possibility will be a bigger deterrent. A 1% probability of 5 years works out to a value of 18.25 days, whereas a 50% chance of 1 year works out to a value of 182.5 days.

In theory, a society can work on either factor, or both, in trying to increase the deterrent effect. You can have a low chance of getting caught coupled with terrifyingly draconian results if you are, or you can have a high chance of getting caught with much milder results, and those two can be equivalently powerful in making people think twice about committing a crime.

We, as a society, spent most of the last few decades leaning hard on the factor concerned with the magnitude of the penalty -- using sentencing guidelines to bring about longer and longer jail times for those convicted. It's possible (and I think very likely) that our results would be better if we lightened up on the sentences but used heightened police presence on the streets to make getting away with a crime seem less likely. Then you wouldn't need all those criminals sitting behind bars in order to terrify people into not committing a crime. I think that the severity-of-sentence factor starts to have greatly diminishing psychological impact in the equation, the higher you go... there's probably no meaningful difference in deterrent effect of a 50-year sentence over a 40-year sentence, for example. But I don't think you get that diminishing return when it comes to the probability-of-sentence factor. A 50% chance of being punished will have a materially greater deterrent effect than a 40% chance. So, that's going to be the more effective factor to work on.

 

[Arkady]

Please remember, when Democrats do this sort of thing - they are "evolving". When non-Democrats do this sort of thing, they are "flip-flopping" and "Etch-a-Sketching".

This is how the world works to adolescent, constantly-self-exempting lefty. :-/

I'm sure there's some "self-exempting" behavior on both sides, when it comes to excusing position changes for one group and ridiculing them for another. But the "Etch-a-sketch" bit is pretty specific to Romney. Not only did his adviser foolishly provide that soundbite, but Romney's flip-flopping on abortion made it a particularly strong criticism for him. This wasn't about a politician who once believed one thing gradually transitioning to something else as he became aware of new information and analysis. It was a matter of a guy with no principles on the topic remaking his position, back and forth, repeatedly, to respond to the political considerations of the moment. When he ran for Senator in Massachusetts, he was strongly pro-choice, with a heart rending personal story to support it. Then, when he wanted the job managing the Winter Olympics in socially conservative Utah, he's suddenly not pro-choice at all. Then he sets his sights on the Massachusetts governorship, and is pro-choice again, and acts like his previous comments were overblown by the media. Then he takes aim at the Republican nomination and he's a hard-core pro-lifer.

 

[MrMike]

Rick is right. Dems consider this "evolving"

Hillary of course, is a classic panderer, but she really doesn't do it well. I seriously hope she is the 2016 nominee. It will be priceless to watch her meltdown and the Dems scramble to find a replacement.

Could the first Democratic debate be old Hillary vs. the Old Hillary?



Posted by admin
0
0
0
0
0
Here's Hillary Clinton In 1994 Talking Up Tough-On-Crime Legislation
“There will be more police on the street, a hundred thousand more police officers, with flexibility given to local communities to determine how best to use them.”
View Video ›

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Wednesday for ending “the era of mass incarceration.” Clinton’s remarks, as noted by many in the media, specifically reject the “tough-on-crime” mantra and legislation advocated by her husband during his time as president.
The shift in rhetoric and policy around criminal justice issues has been significant over the last two decades. In fact, 21 years ago, Hillary Clinton as first lady spoke to a conference for female police officers where he pushed her husband’s agenda in New York.

At the time, Clinton said the 1994 crime bill — which called for 100,000 more police officers, more prisons, and harsher sentencing for crimes, and enacted stricter gun laws — would “make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve.”
“We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you’re out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door,” remarked the then-first lady.

Clinton also noted that the crime bill would help build more prisons.
“We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons,” she said. “It is also a question of prevention. We want to give police officers the tools to help young people stay out of trouble. We want to begin to give young people something to say yes to, not just to have to face the bleak, alienated streets that too often push them in the wrong direction.”

On Wednesday, Clinton talked about how the United States “almost 25% of the world’s prison population,” called for police to be equipped with body cameras, and discussed the issues of substance abuse and mental health. The remarks come as during protests and riots in Baltimore after the death of 25-year-old black man who died from injuries received while in police custody.
Speaking to C-SPAN in 1994, Clinton called the crime bill “both smart and tough.”

“I think as more Americans focus on the fact that this bill would have put more police on the street, would have locked up violent offenders so they could never get out a again,” she said. “Would have given more prison construction money available to the states as well as the federal government. But also would have dealt with prevention, giving young people something to say yes to. It’s a very well thought out crime bill that is both smart and tough. ”

Here are the full 1994 remarks on the crime bill specifics:

The sad truth is that, unfortunately, there are those who would rather talk about fighting crime than actually give you the tools that you can use to fight crime. And what we have to do, those of us in civilian life, is to stand up and support those of you who are on the front line. Because this crime bill will make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve.
There will be more police on the street, a hundred thousand more police officers, with flexibility given to local communities to determine how best to use them. We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you’re out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door.
We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons. It is also a question of prevention. We want to give police officers the tools to help young people stay out of trouble. We want to begin to give young people something to say yes to, not just to have to face the bleak, alienated streets that too often push them in the wrong direction.
And also in this crime bill is something that goes along with the domestic violence initiative. For the first time, there is a special section that focuses on violence against women. And understand that there are special problems that go along with domestic violence and other crimes committed against women.
So all in all, this crime bill tries to take a bottoms-up approach, because it is built on the experience of people who have actually been there, people like yourselves.

http://newspindle.com/heres-hillary-clinton-in-1994-talking-up-tough-on-crime-legislation/

 

[RickWA]

I'm sure there's some "self-exempting" behavior on both sides, when it comes to excusing position changes for one group and ridiculing them for another. But the "Etch-a-sketch" bit is pretty specific to Romney. Not only did his adviser foolishly provide that soundbite, but Romney's flip-flopping on abortion made it a particularly strong criticism for him. This wasn't about a politician who once believed one thing gradually transitioning to something else as he became aware of new information and analysis. It was a matter of a guy with no principles on the topic remaking his position, back and forth, repeatedly, to respond to the political considerations of the moment. When he ran for Senator in Massachusetts, he was strongly pro-choice, with a heart rending personal story to support it. Then, when he wanted the job managing the Winter Olympics in socially conservative Utah, he's suddenly not pro-choice at all. Then he sets his sights on the Massachusetts governorship, and is pro-choice again, and acts like his previous comments were overblown by the media. Then he takes aim at the Republican nomination and he's a hard-core pro-lifer.

Nope. On this forum and elsewhere, "etch-a-sketch" is routinely used on any non-Democrats whose position on a given issue doesn't remain fixed for life. But I do understand that it's different.

 

[Drumcollie]

Please remember, when Democrats do this sort of thing - they are "evolving". When non-Democrats do this sort of thing, they are "flip-flopping" and "Etch-a-Sketching".

This is how the world works to adolescent, constantly-self-exempting lefty. :-/

Well said....if slavery was an option that democratic thought would win an election....they would be for it again.

 

[Dino]

It appears that she's learned something over the course of these many years. That's a good thing. Too many politicians come across as ineducable.... taking their positions as matters of faith, rather than reactions to real-world evidence, and thus not allowing those positions to change as new information and analysis comes in.

Having said that, I want to clarify that some of the positions she took before remain compatible with her current positions. These are two separate issues: how many police to have on the street, and how many people to keep behind bars. As far back as I can remember, I've favored both things: putting more cops on the street and locking up fewer people.

In fact, it's entirely possible that putting more cops on the street would mean FEWER people behind bars. One of the main reasons for long prison sentences is deterrence.

Think of it this way. Putting aside moral considerations, what if you had a chance to steal a hundred thousand dollars, but if you get caught, you get 5 years in jail. Would you do it? Well, there's obviously a factor missing in the equation. How likely are you to be caught?

Let's say you perceive a 1 in 100 chance of getting sent to jail. Is it worth it? Now, what if it's a 1 in 2 chance of getting 1 year in jail, instead? Regardless of how you answered the first question, I think the second possibility will be a bigger deterrent. A 1% probability of 5 years works out to a value of 18.25 days, whereas a 50% chance of 1 year works out to a value of 182.5 days.

In theory, a society can work on either factor, or both, in trying to increase the deterrent effect. You can have a low chance of getting caught coupled with terrifyingly draconian results if you are, or you can have a high chance of getting caught with much milder results, and those two can be equivalently powerful in making people think twice about committing a crime.

We, as a society, spent most of the last few decades leaning hard on the factor concerned with the magnitude of the penalty -- using sentencing guidelines to bring about longer and longer jail times for those convicted. It's possible (and I think very likely) that our results would be better if we lightened up on the sentences but used heightened police presence on the streets to make getting away with a crime seem less likely. Then you wouldn't need all those criminals sitting behind bars in order to terrify people into not committing a crime. I think that the severity-of-sentence factor starts to have greatly diminishing psychological impact in the equation, the higher you go... there's probably no meaningful difference in deterrent effect of a 50-year sentence over a 40-year sentence, for example. But I don't think you get that diminishing return when it comes to the probability-of-sentence factor. A 50% chance of being punished will have a materially greater deterrent effect than a 40% chance. So, that's going to be the more effective factor to work on.

All this blather means you stopped reading before Hillary went on to tout the idea fo more prisons.

Impressive.

 

[Arkady]

All this blather means you stopped reading before Hillary went on to tout the idea fo more prisons.

Impressive.

I did not. If you learn to read more carefully, you'll be able to avoid these mistakes in the future. I acknowledged that her position has changed: "It appears that she's learned something over the course of these many years." I then focused on one item where it didn't necessarily represent a change, "Having said that, I want to clarify that some of the positions she took before remain compatible with her current positions." You see that bit about "some of the positions"? This is a second acknowledgement that some of the positions she took before are not compatible with her current positions. See your error now?

Anyway, on the specific topic of prisons, her position seems to have shifted... though it's not certain how much. Her 1994 comments mentioned that the crime bill would build more prisons as a passing comment, not as something she was arguing was a top selling point. It comes across more like a bone she's throwing to those who think more incarceration is key. In fact, she said it in a paragraph where she was praising the fact that the focus was no longer exclusively on punishing people. Even in 1994, what she was jazzed up about was a move away from a monomaniacal focus on incarceration, and towards prevention. She may have found it politically beneficial to say that there were more dollars to build prisons, but she doesn't expressly endorse the idea that this is a good thing.