It's chilling how many 'progressives' favor mass incarceration

[bravenak]

When it comes to Hillary. They were so worried about the emotional pain and the stigma the word 'superpredators' has on violent drug cartels, but they want an older woman thrown UNDER the jail for noncompliance with office procedures. One time I forgot to print the payroll report at work and file it away, I wonder how many years I'm lookin at? A nickel? A dime?

The cries for that poor woman to be FROGMARCHED into federal court, escorted by the FBI, chill me to the bone.

I guess soon we will have the 'witch' tests, and toss her into the Sea to see if she drowns, for if she does not, then 'WITCH!'. I better find my nice 'testifyin' dress for her Trial by Fire.

Sad to see how many folks is lusting after bringing her 'to heel'.

[highprincipleswork]

1. I'm just in favor of people representing me not doing reckless, foolish things and also bringing

their baggage along to potentially hurt the Democratic Party's chances in November.

Honesty would be nice too.

[bravenak]

2. So I guess you are in favor of the incarceration of Madame Secretary?

[dchill]

3. Sending one criminal to prison...

is not "mass incarceration."

[bravenak]

4. Sending a lady who was non compliant to prison is unreal and unnatural

As is lusting over the idea of locking up a grandmother.

[dchill]

11. Non compliant.

What a snow job.

[bravenak]

15. Only the truth

[dchill]

22. In a pig's eye.

[bravenak]

23. The truth is omnipresent

[dchill]

25. OK. Go get some, and we'll talk.

[bravenak]

27. I shall share my truth with all and sundry!!! No more witch tests!!!

Don't burn Hillary!! Save our Candidate!! Goooo teeamm!!

[highprincipleswork]

5. It's not up to me to judge the final determination, but I've heard enough to know it sounds

quite wrong and very fishy. Also that it seems she has been very less than honest about it. And to know that it is at least potentially devastating to her campaign and also to our chances in November if she is the nominee.

Hillary is perfectly capable of creating tons of trouble for herself.

And I admit, i don't like her economic policy tendencies.

But mostly I don't want a candidate that is severely or mortally wounded by indictment or threat of indictment or just public perceptions that something really wrong was done.

[Live and Learn]

6. I am confused, Snowden isn't a woman and Hillary didn't call for witch tests for him, just prison.

[bravenak]

8. Tsk tsk tsk! My op, my choice of narratives!

I imagine her going out boldly, like Joan of Arc, nobly burnt to death at the hand of the forces of the patriarchy, head held high and resolute, dignity intact... And year hence, humanity with not revile her, but hold her noble memory dear, in a special place in their hearts..

[Live and Learn]

9. I wonder if Robert Murdoch will pay her funeral expenses. nt

[bravenak]

14. Ahhh! Her realm shall pay as she lies in State

Her coronation stolen from her grasp by the very forces she sought to give her kind and wise council to.

[Live and Learn]

28. It's counsel but a great story. I love the ending. So who is wearing the crown now, Bernie or

Trump? Please do go on.

[bravenak]

29. My bad. I was excited!!

We pass the crown to Chelsea! Her heiress!

[Live and Learn]

31. Ugh, I hate that ending. Little Goldman Sachs babies, no. Got any altenative endings? nt

[bravenak]

32. No, sadly

[Live and Learn]

34. You should have warned me it was a tragedy. nt

[bravenak]

36. I thought the 'noble burning' was a good clue!

[Live and Learn]

39. I thought the "noble" part made it a comedy. Interesting mix of genres in your story. nt

[bravenak]

43. I found it to be both funny and sad. I imagined a 'Marianne' type quality, lady liberty and such

[Live and Learn]

45. Yes, quite good except that ending is really too tragic for prime time. nt

[bravenak]

50. Maybe hbo? Starz!!!

[Live and Learn]

52. LOL Maybe. Give it a try. That remind me, I am behind on Once Upon a Time episodes. nt

[ucrdem]

7. If they're waiting for a DSK moment it isn't going to come.

And you know what else? These little schemes have a way of backfiring. And that's all I'm gonna say about that.

[bravenak]

10. Surely you jest, kind sir!

For if she is not to be taken to her noble yet cruel and unfair incarceration, how shall her detractors ever obtain pleasure and joy? Shall they whither in longing for the day that never comes? Shall they fitzmas without a pit? Nay sir! Let the Witch tests commence!

[ProudProgressiveNow]

12. I hear tell there is this Trump feller...

who want to make our lives miserable. Maybe... just maybe.....we need to focus on that ugly possibility.

[bravenak]

20. That would be wonderful

[ProudProgressiveNow]

24. +1000 nt

[akbacchus_BC]

13. Which President endorsed three strikes you are out?

Simple question and it only deserves a simple answer! No one is above the law and no one is frog marching Mrs. Clinton any where! Give me a break. Mrs. Clinton is being held to say where she went wrong about the emails, she said if she knew better she would not have used her private email. What a drama you are creating on here. I understand your support for Mrs. Clinton but this is ridiculous on your part. She is not being frog marched to a cell!

[bravenak]

17. Which president? Is she president? Was she?

[akbacchus_BC]

19. I was only asking a question. Why are you so defensive?

[bravenak]

21. I was asking questions too!

[akbacchus_BC]

26. You need a time out! We all like whom we like, but my goodness, you seem to

be looking for a war on DU. My apologies, you keep on doing and I do not wish to have anymore interaction with you! Goodnight!

[bravenak]

30. Please remain calm

[akbacchus_BC]

37. I am calm alright. Am on your side with Mrs. Clinton being the nominee. I have said before that she

is more qualified than Trump and I hope she wins the GE. One never knows how people vote. I cannot figure out how so many people are so upset with President Obama when the GOP said their job was to make him a one term President. Lo and behold, he won in 2012.

Having said the above, I really like Mr. Sanders, I like his policies. Maybe he too thinks he can make a difference like President Obama but on a different level for poor people, students. Who would not gravitate towards that.

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. Oh, you mean she should get special treatment because she's a woman?

Justice is supposed to be blind.

[bravenak]

18. No. She should be treated as a witch, wear a scarlet letter as Hester did.

We shall whip her with the cat o nines and glory in her pain and suffering.

[akbacchus_BC]

38. When you say things like that, it does not support your candidate.

Be specific about what Mrs. Clintons values are!

[bravenak]

41. That was called 'sarcasm'

[akbacchus_BC]

51. Sarcasm is not working when it is crucial. You obviously not into marketing.

No offence meant, you have to tell us why your candidate is more electable than Mr. Sanders.

Let me reiterate, Mr. Sanders is for poor people, he is not for Wall Street, he did not gain monetary rewards for speeches to Wall Street personnel. Please talk me down.

[bravenak]

60. You are way off base

[VulgarPoet]

111. Please don't sully the names of perfectly decent witches with Clinton's. Thanks.

[bravenak]

114. When was Hester a witch?

[jfern]

33. So Hillary should get away with breaking all the laws

since if she was given probation or something that would be mass incarceration? LOL!!!!!!!!

[bravenak]

35. All the laws? My WHAT a BUSY woman! Lor'!

[jfern]

46. I didn't say she broke ALL the laws

[bravenak]

48. You used exactly the phrase 'all the laws'

[jfern]

53. It was saying that you are arguing that it doesn't matter if she breaks laws

[bravenak]

59. I am saying it is disgusting to want her in prison

[jfern]

79. So prison is only for the little people?

[bravenak]

88. Prison should only be for those who commit violent crimes, fraudsters who bilk society

And other such unredeemable souls. I do not believe in locking up more people. We need to lock up fewer people.

[msongs]

40. oh you forgot to list the laws hillary has "broken". oops nt

[jfern]

44. Here are somefrom a while ago

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/

[Ms. Toad]

42. Mass incarceration.

I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Mass = large numbers of persons. Clinton = one person.

It is also a bit odd that you seem to oppose her incarceration (or be defending her) because she is an "older woman," yet you believe this "older woman" is fit to be president. I suspect being president is at least (likely more) stressful than serving time in a federal prison. I also suspect there are a good many more ways to be "noncomplian[t] with office procedures" as president than as SOS - so if the "older woman" can't handle technology regulations, the White House isn't likely to be a friendlier place for her.

If you don't like the age/gender card being played against Clinton, don't use it to excuse her behavior or suggest that prison would be too hard on her as an "older woman"

[bravenak]

47. We incarcerate them one at a time.

Unless they are tried together... Each inmate adds to the massive number of inmates.

[akbacchus_BC]

54. Holy moly, you have now risen to a different level. 'We incarcerate them one at a time'. Guess

Zimmerman was right to shoot Trayvon. You have just lost a lot of credibility! Keep talking, you will sink to a different level before morning!

[bravenak]

58. What the hell does this have to do with ZIMMERMAN?

Maybe you are sleepy.

[akbacchus_BC]

74. You are right, it is late here. Good night!

[bravenak]

76. Night!

[Ms. Toad]

62. Aren't you the same person who claimed yesterday or the day before

that progressives were being hypocritical because they only wanted to imprison a single person (Clinton), and thought everyone else (specifically Snowden) should go free?

Pretty twisted logic there.

[bravenak]

63. I said yesterday he should remain free in Russia

[Ms. Toad]

110. The question wasn't what you personally want.

It was how you characterized people who called for Clinton's incarceration.

I'm pretty sure you complained that progressives were being hypocritical because they DID NOT believe the masses should be incarcerated (one at a time, or otherwise) - only that Clinton should be incarcerated.

Now you claim that incarcerating only Clinton is mass incarceration, because she is one of a series. I was not aware that between yesterday and today those progressives you called hypocritical yesterday now believe Snowden should be incarcerated. Must have happened, though, since the only way calling for the imprisonment of one person becomes supporting mass incarceration is if the same people calling for the imprisonment of one are also calling for the imprisonment of all those others you are adding Clinton to in order to make a mass that is incarcerated.

Either that, or we're back to the term not meaning what you think it means.

[lovemydog]

49. Agree, and I've wondered about it myself.

As you know, I believe more and more in the prison abolition movement. I'm not into incarceration unless for violent crimes or outrageously egregious violations of the law. Or to keep truly dangerous people off the streets. There are much better alternatives that include sentencing that allows for repayment in some form, via fines and work.

I believe some of the 'progressives' who want to jail a lot of people (like the ones who keep talking about jailing people who served in office) are more punitive minded than rehabilitation minded. That's my overall impression based on reading here.

Maybe they blame former presidents and former office holders for everything wrong with their lives. Maybe they're ignorant of the governmental immunities granted to most office holders. The thing that concerns me most about it is that I'm afraid if we followed through on some of these repeated cries, we'd turn into a banana republic. One where right wingers would then use it to round up and jail any political opponents whose policies or mistakes they don't like.

Not too sure. But I thought I'd give you a reply, as it's an interesting topic of discussion.

[bravenak]

56. It seems that it would be impossible to reduce the rate of incarceration in this way

If we decide that our hate for a person requires us to inflate situations to the point where we are raging for them to be put away for years and years, how can we say we are going to end the practise of long term and massive levels of incarceration. We don't need to balance the scales between blacks and whites by incarcerating more whites, but to reduce the levels of incarceration period. Stop trying to lock people up for every violation. Diversion and traning reduces much of the probkems in these sitiations. Record keeping is tedious and we al, have been non compliant on sonething at sometime. Traning and education, possibly a repremand and a plan to change course is merited. Not full on incarceration, this is silly and sad and kinda scary.

[Live and Learn]

68. Wow, I actually agree with you on that. nt

[bravenak]

69. Uh oh! This is a good thing!

[lovemydog]

77. Great post and I fully agree.

There's a genuine sickness in a society that is one of the wealthiest in the history of human civilization, that has a higher percentage of its population incarcerated than that of any other western nation. I'm always fascinated by this topic, as I've been fascinated by it for years. There's a great book on the matter called The Crime of Punishment by Dr. Karl Menninger. I read it a long time ago and it influenced me greatly. Both the statistics of it but even more, the morality and ethics of it.

[Live and Learn]

73. Hmm, I think the ones that want to jail office holders want to give them a taste of their own

medicine. No more, no less.

[lovemydog]

80. Yes, true.

But then wouldn't the right wing (which has many many more members in Congress than the left wing, which only has a handful) use it to incarcerate anyone they don't like. Charging them with lack of patriotism, treason, failing to adequately support wars, crimes of a sexual nature, and all sorts of other bullshit?

[Live and Learn]

82. They already do that. nt

[lovemydog]

91. In some states.

At a federal level, rarely.

[melman]

55. Great stuff

Making sense is overrated.

[Bonobo]

57. Wow, that's kinda ass-backwards.

[bravenak]

61. Perhaps Bernie should have voted NAY

[Live and Learn]

66. But then you would have complained that he didn't support women. He did warn what would happen. nt

[bravenak]

67. That is an excuse

[Live and Learn]

70. Nope. He had a choice support women and vote yes of vote no and lose the chance.

It is how politics works and he railed against it at the time. Surely you know that Clinton fully supported the bill and loves putting 'super-predators' away. You can't deny that one.

[bravenak]

71. And Hillary had a hand in that support for the violence against women act.

Same bill, both supported some aspects and opposed others. It was a compromise for all parties.

[Bonobo]

72. Yeah, maybe.

Then maybe we wouldn't have this confused OP conflating one person ( a person who aggressively lobbied for the bill) going to jail with the mass incarceration of millions of Americans and the destructions of millions more families and truly countless damage to the fabric of the communities of color that you should be angry about (rather than wasting truly over the top rhetoric on this).

[bravenak]

75. I do not need more whites imprisoned to make myself feel better

I want fewer imprisoned period.

[akbacchus_BC]

81. I cannot help myself, would you feel better if more blacks were imprisoned?

That is how it sounds to me!

[bravenak]

83. That is a ridiculous assertion for you to make about a black woman

[akbacchus_BC]

89. Oh bravenak, you sound like my boss, am expected to live in her head!

How on earth would I know your ethnicity. You know what -- do what you do best on here! Was nice chatting with you precious!

[Bonobo]

78. Wait, you understand that Hillary is just one person, right?

You seem to be acting as if somehow Hillary going to prison is somehow comparable to millions of people going to jail.

Do you know how odd your argument/position sounds right now?

[bravenak]

84. Not comparable. Just adding to the totals of millions incarcerated

I am only interested in confining the violent of financially violent. Other stuff too, but not stuff like this.

[Bonobo]

95. Hell, it's not even close to an offense that she should do jail time for.

But I think that it is shady as hell.

[bravenak]

98. It was stupid

But our government is not much better at cyber security

[JRLeft]

64. She won't go to prison nor should she, but what she did is stupid.

By the way it should not prevent her from being president. Her policies on the other hand are bad.

[bravenak]

65. I can understand that position

Completely. I'm just not voting Trump. He's insane.

[JRLeft]

85. I've already said I'd vote for her November.

[bravenak]

87. I know. I woulda voted for him over Trump too.

[JRLeft]

92. My problem with Hillary is her hawkish ways and her never support of

Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 04:41 AM - Edit history (1)

the right wing government in Israel. She's not neutral on the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

[akbacchus_BC]

93. You are confusing me regarding the US support for Israel. Are you for it or not?

Frankly, am against it!

[JRLeft]

100. I'm for a neutral stance.

The US has always been Israel is right no matter what.

[bravenak]

102. I agree with you

Completely

[JRLeft]

103. Hillary cannot be because she takes money from AIPAC.

[bravenak]

104. They like her

It has been like this for decades. Aipac is just a thing dems have to work with until we get to a place where we no longer let interest groups have so much influence. There are always going to be special interest groups, I wouldn't mind black orgs having more influence on the party. I just deal with what we have, I know everything takes a lot of time to change. I'm growing more patient. Supreme court is my first focus.

[JRLeft]

109. It owns both parties. My congress women Barbara Lee is neutral.

[bravenak]

94. I know.

[joshcryer]

86. You have to reconcile with the fact...

...that there will be 8 years of this. Literally 8 years of wanting Clinton thrown behind bars. To a level that Bush the war criminal never received. From the left and right combined.

Meanwhile shit will get done and progress will move forward.

[bravenak]

90. It is absolutely mindboggling

And futile.

[Fumesucker]

106. Eh, I remember this place when "impeachment is off the table" was a brand new phrase

Not happy campers at all.

Part of the reason I'm not a Hillary fan is that she was fooled by someone with zero credibility, George W Bush. You really should leave him out of any arguments regarding HRC, his contribution to her story is not positive.

Not wanting someone to be President is not the same damn thing as wanting them in jail, there is zero chance Hillary Clinton will go to jail any more than Betrayus did and everyone involved knows it.

I understand why the powerful get away with murder (in Bush's case nearly literally) but that doesn't mean I have to like it or encourage it.

[joshcryer]

107. Oh, I think Clinton was terrible for doing what she did.

Not even asking the higher ups, pretending everything was OK, probably vetting it through her own lawyers before she even did it.

Clinton: "Are we OK setting up a private server?"

Aids: "We need to ask the administration about that."

Clinton: "No, legally, can we do this? No permission needed. I take the heat."

Aids: "Um, OK."

Then they set it up under an obvious domain name, openly give out her address on that domain name to everyone who needed the SoS's address, and wait to see someone complain. No one fucking did, as the IG report shows. No one said "shut that down, it's bad practice." Because she and her team simply ignored the policy recommendations and waited for them to come to her. The fact that she managed to survive her entire tenure without it coming up* proves that cyber-security was out of the loop, thus inoculating her even further. *Two staffers did bring it up to their Director but got the "it's been approved legally" treatment.

But to say this shifty bureaucratic crap reaches the level of a felony is so laughable as to be a joke. People want it to be the case, but this sort of thing happens all the time. Policy recommendations are often ignored, and the actual penalty for ignoring such recommendations is to be forced to resign or be fired. Clinton, like many, many, many bureaucrats before her, managed to get through her tenure without getting caught, reprimanded, and fired. In the case of the SoS that takes someone high up, like the President or his staff, and I fully believe them that they were out of the loop with regards to her email setup, and that they didn't question it to any significant degree. I think Obama let Clinton do her thing, as that is the kind of person I see him as.

As far as Clinton "getting away" with it. I think that's really really not true. She set the damn thing up because she's an "intensely private person," and that she wanted control over her own emails. That they were laid bare, and that it is a major (non-) issue leading up to her campaign I consider punishment. It's really a very small thing but the talking heads are sitting there salivating over the prospect of an indictment you can just smell it oozing from their mouths.

And don't get me started about her IWR vote, she did that to seem strong on military, because she was running for President. It was weak and cowardly. At the bare minimum she could've voted for the limiting resolutions that failed. But she couldn't even make that much of a calculation.

[Fumesucker]

108. I don't buy that

An "intensely private person" wouldn't have deliberately mingled their work and private emails.

If Hillary had voted "No" on the IWR like the majority of Democrats in Congress she would be finishing up her second term now and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Her biggest fuckup really was trusting Bush and Cheney to be competent at anything beyond lining their own pockets. That's assuming she wasn't fooled and knew Dubya was going to invade Iraq.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. I haven't seen any evidence of anything prison-worthy, I certainly don't "want" her to go there.

My problem with the whole thing is that it points up a reflexive aversion to transparency and a tendency towards rule-breaking which hopefully she would not carry into the oval office.

Furthermore, I think she has exhibited a pattern of favoring short-term political considerations over long-term good judgment; this situation to the IWR to marriage equality, and so on.


But prison? No.


For what it's worth, I don't think this woman belongs in prison, either.

http://www.wptv.com/news/region-martin-county/stuart/stuart-woman-faces-10-years-in-prison-in-medical-marijuana-case

Unfortunately, the chair of our party has worked overtime to ensure she and people like her continue to do so.

[bravenak]

97. I hate her position on cannibis

She is way too old school. But look at her district, it's probably what THEY want.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Maybe, or maybe it's the alcohol, pharma, and private prison lobby money.

Either way, DWS is bad for our brand, because she is the person representing the party in many functions.

But I recognize it's a digression from the topic of your thread, so I'll leave it at that.

[bravenak]

101. Perhaps after the election we will have a change in leadership

That might be a worthy goal if her leadership is thr cause of so much friction. I rather think she is a good person, just way to my right. As they all are...

[bvf]

105. This progressive is certainly in favor

of banning antisemites from this website.

I won't mention any names. It hardly seems necessary.

[PufPuf23]

112. I only clinked on this thread because I thought the rare occasion where

one could agree with the OP.

I do not hate Hillary Clinton nor do I want Clinton arrested but also have scant sympathy for her and do not want Clinton to be the Democratic nominee or POTUS.

Some folks seem blind to Clinton's lack of character and poor decisions and will accept or minimize and their is no changing their mind.

Some folks are just over dramatic and dishonest partisans on both sides of the aisle.

Time to stop Trump and get real for people, the environment, and economic as well as social justice. Stop wars.

[Vattel]

113. She is not that overweight.