Monday, October 19, 2015

Regardless of Polls Bernie Sanders Supports Blacks much better than Hillary Clinton

The media has been telling for quite a while that Hillary Clinton is winning the polls, among African Americans, against Bernie Sanders by wide margins.

I don't know how reliable these polls are; but I know that there is an enormous amount of evidence to show that Hillary Clinton and her husband have done a terrible job representing them and they're a major part of the reason for the massive incarceration of blacks and shipping jobs overseas among many other things.

Edit: Regrettably Bernie Sanders has conceded to Hillary Clinton and endorsed her; however that doesn't make Hillary Clinton's record any better and she' shown that like other politicians, including Barack Obama, once in office, she' cater to her campaign donors. However Jill Stein ahs demonstrated taht she's also much better than Hillary Clinton for minorities as well as the rest of us. The sooner we let them know we won't fall for the lesser of two evils the better and only then will the political establishment adress interests of the majority of the public regardless of race. Also with these two horendous candidates it is the best chance for an alternative candidate since Lincoln was the last one to win.

When Bill Clinton was president he spent a fair amount of time in black churches and buttered them up a lot and Hillary Clinton is following up with a lot of promises as well; but like everything else her history doesn't back it up at all.

Hillary Clinton has also been best friends with Alice Walton who continues to be one of her best supporters. She is, of course, one of the leading owners of Walmart which has been shipping jobs overseas as part of their efforts to drive wages down for the entire working class, including blacks. Her husband has been one of the leading supporters of globalization that also ships jobs overseas and corporate control of schools,often through Charter Schools but also by encouraging them to rely on corporate advertising which has been proven to interfere dramatically with education. This has impacted lowest income people including blacks the worst.

It should be incredibly obvious that businesses that want to expand and maximize their profits shouldn't be in charge of prison systems since they have a built in incentive to try not to reduce recidivism; but that doesn't seem to stop many of the Republican campaign contributors or Hillary's. The following two articles demonstrate just how terrible she and her husband have been on skyrocketing prison policies and privatization of the prisons:

Private Prison Lobbyists Are Top Fundraisers for Hillary Clinton 07/24/2015

Lobbyists for two major prison companies—Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group—are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The implication is that laws governing crime and incarceration will deliver more inmates and profits to private prison companies if Clinton is elected.

Lee Fang reports at The Intercept:

Last week, Clinton and other candidates revealed a number of lobbyists who are serving as “bundlers” for their campaigns. Bundlers collect contributions on behalf of a campaign, and are often rewarded with special favors, such as access to the candidate.

Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit.

As we reported yesterday, fully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.

Hillary Clinton has a complicated history with incarceration. As first lady, she championed efforts to get tough on crime. “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” Clinton said in 1994. “The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets,” she added. .... Complete article

Hillary Clinton was part of the mass-incarceration problem. Can she really be the solution? 04/30/2015

A lot of people who have been supporting criminal justice reform for much longer than Hillary Clinton are feeling very conflicted about her speech at Columbia University yesterday embracing the cause. And some are simply angry.

After all, as recently as 2008 Clinton was attacking Barack Obama for his opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, using it as an example that he was too liberal to win the Democratic nomination. And she wasn't exactly a bystander during the "tough on crime" era of the 1980s and '90s that created mass incarceration by putting many more offenders in prison for much longer. Bill Clinton championed a 1994 law that, among other things, has increased untold numbers of prison sentences (by encouraging states to drastically reduce or eliminate parole and early release). And his First Lady was right alongside him. "We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders," she said in 1994. "We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets."

The criticism of Clinton's relatively sudden flip-flop comes from some of the top advocates in the criminal justice reform movement, including the heads of the Drug Policy Alliance and Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Many feel it's foolish to believe that Clinton has a change of heart now, and don't see why they should support her just because of one speech. Others want to see her take more responsibility for her role in creating the problem she now says she wants to solve.

Behind the snark, there are two big questions: Why should we believe Hillary Clinton suddenly cares about criminal justice reform? and Has Hillary Clinton really learned from her mistakes? The first of those actually doesn't matter at all. The second one matters a lot. Complete article

This is just one of many issues that she has flip flopped on. She also flip flopped on TPP, the Keystone pipeline, immigration, and many other issues and to the best of my knowledge she still isn't making any effort to advocate for Single Payer Health care, nor has she demonstrated any interest in ending arms sales to countries around the world, including many weapons that will almost certainly be turned against us, if things continue happening as they have in the past.

Many of the issues that impact all of us impact those at the bottom of the social and economic ladder the most since they get the worst of it. Minorities, including blacks often have the least job opportunities when jobs are shipped overseas, they wind up with the most pollution when many of the power plants go to those with the least political power, and they often wind up fighting the wars based on lies due to lack of other opportunities.

Her support for corporate interests, at the expense of the majority especially African Americans isn't something new; she supported Barry Goldwater and before that Nixon when she was in school and went into politics immediately afterwards. It's hard to imagine she knew back then that she could be preparing for a run for the presidency but posturing is standard operating procedure in politics and she must have known that back then.

It should be clear which of the two can be trusted more to do what they promise; one of them has a history of doing it the other has a history of spinning.

If these polls giving Hillary a big lead are even close it is only because instead of trying to educate the public with accurate information about their position on issues, the media and political establishment is flooding the airwaves with enormous amounts of propaganda that ignore the most important facts and makes all kind of promises that they almost certainly have no intention of keeping. This is exactly what they did when they gave Barack Obama an enormous amount of good press in 2008 and 2012; then when it came time to keep his promises he broke on after another unless there was an enormous outcry, then he scaled back slightly on efforts to break promises at least until people aren't paying attention.

If alternative media outlets manage to inform the public about how unreliable the media is and how typical establishment candidates routinely betray the vast majority, and ensure that people are able to vote and have their votes counted then establishment candidates, including Hillary Clinton will ahve little or no chance of winning.

No comments:

Post a Comment