[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[USS Monitor]

I try not to be cynical.

its not easy.

All Hillary can do is play the woman card you know. That's what Donald says, depressing to see liberals taking his talking points and running. Guessing this year she can never mention women's issues or she'll be clubbed over the head with that shit. Kind of like 08 when Obama was going to only be the president for black folks.

Obama talked about race a lot less than Hillary has been talking about gender. And trust me, I don't get my talking points from Trump. I've been complaining about Clinton's sexist crap since several months ago when Trump was still going after Megyn Kelly rather than Clinton.

Yes, Trump is a sexist douche. I don't think anyone with a working brain would deny that he's a sexist douche. That doesn't make it OK for Clinton to prioritize women above men on issues that affect men in large numbers. It doesn't make it OK for her to single out female Sanders supporters on the basis of our gender and insult our intelligence.

Talking about actual women's issues like abortion, pay equality, etc. is fine. Taking things that are not specifically women's issues and trying to shoehorn gender into the discussion where it doesn't belong is going to rub people the wrong way. I get frustrated with Ostro same as other people on NS do, but in this case, he has a point.

[USS Monitor]

I could write a better one, and i'm supposedly a misogynistic MRA. She didn't cover the tampon issue, which is serious and has led to human rights abuses and medical problems from people being assigned already used tampons and rationing them and shit, she didn't cover women being restrained and cuffed to beds during childbirth which causes completely unnecessary pain from the position, she didn't cover the comparative lack of ex-con programmes, she didn't cover anything. There's PLENTY she could have talked about to make out women need to be talked about in the criminal justice system if she wanted to.
She didn't.

Used tampons... Nightmare fuel. I need brain bleach.

[USS Monitor]

I'm sure there's no shortage of people in prison who are innocent, bet some of them are white. So, not really. Then again if Trump wrote an editorial I can't imagine he could go through the whole thing without insulting some minority group or another.

Well, the latter is no doubt true, but I very very very very seriously doubt all this protestation that everyone would be totally ok with writing an editorial bemoaning the number of white people in prison.

I doubt it too.

[USS Monitor]

Not sure why she felt the need to make that so very gender-specific... It talks about a lot of things that also apply to men in prison.

Why focus on child hunger? Why does it have to be age specific?

Because kids are less capable of doing anything about their problems and are less likely to be responsible for their own problems.

[Corrian]

I get frustrated with Ostro same as other people on NS do, but in this case, he has a point.

I agree with freaking Trump occasionally. Everyone can have something agreeable.

[USS Monitor]

I get frustrated with Ostro same as other people on NS do, but in this case, he has a point.

I agree with freaking Trump occasionally. Everyone can have something agreeable.

Stopped clocks. Right twice a day.

[The Romulan Republic]

I agree with freaking Trump occasionally. Everyone can have something agreeable.

Stopped clocks. Right twice a day.

He isn't a stopped clock though. He's a clock that keeps randomly jumping to the wrong time.

Seriously, if anyone could manage to always be wrong...

[Corrian]

Stopped clocks. Right twice a day.

He isn't a stopped clock though. He's a clock that keeps randomly jumping to the wrong time.

Seriously, if anyone could manage to always be wrong...

Yet somehow he manages not to be.

[Ashmoria]

He isn't a stopped clock though. He's a clock that keeps randomly jumping to the wrong time.

Seriously, if anyone could manage to always be wrong...

Yet somehow he manages not to be.

what do you agree with him about?

[Corrian]

what do you agree with him about?

Well, for one, I'm pretty sure he was against the Iraq were.

Two, I think we oddly agree on Syria.

Three, he recently defended Sanders when the media kept acting like he was still losing even though he won 8 states in a row.

Of course now those gains were completely destroyed, but still.

[Ashmoria]

what do you agree with him about?

Well, for one, I'm pretty sure he was against the Iraq were.

Two, I think we oddly agree on Syria.

Three, he recently defended Sanders when the media kept acting like he was still losing even though he won 8 states in a row.

Of course now those gains were completely destroyed, but still.

he was against the Iraq war after it started and started going south.

you think we should bomb Syria until isis is completely destroyed, destroying Syria in the process?

[Tahar Joblis]

An editorial about women in prison that focuses on the problem of how many women are in prison is like an editorial about white people in prison that focuses on the problem of how many white people are in prison.

sure

whatever

(two paragraphs of anecdotes)

Mass incarceration has torn families apart, impoverished communities, and kept too many Americans from living up to their God-given potential. But mass incarceration's impact on women and their families has been particularly acute — and it doesn't get the attention it deserves. I learned about Alice and Tanya's experiences through a nonprofit organization that works with women in the justice system. (Both women's names have been changed to protect their privacy.)

We could just as easily¹ say that mass incarceration's impact on white people and their families has been particularly acute and doesn't get the attention it deserves; after all, non-Hispanic white prisoners make up a significant share of the US prison population! All the more so because you're not going to find organizations that are dedicated to working with whites in the justice system.

The United States' prison and jail population includes 215,000 women — nearly one-third of all female prisoners worldwide, and 800% more women than were in prison four decades ago. African-American women are more than twice as likely to be in prison than white women.

Hm, I bet I could come up with a similar number for whites. Or men. Or most other groups in prison. And I bet that if the US has over 20% of the global prison population, we have more than one third of the white prison population.

But women aren't the only ones affected when they are sent to prison. The high number of women in prison — and the long lengths of their sentences — destabilizes families and communities, especially their children. Since 1991, the number of children with a mother in prison has more than doubled. Mothers in prison are five times more likely than fathers in prison to have to put their children in foster care while they serve their sentences.

Considering how much the prison population has grown in the last 25 years, I bet the number of children with a white parent in prison has more than doubled since 1991. David Duke Hillary Clinton continues from that point to talk about what she sees as a path forward, promising to make the justice system ease up on white people women.

This is a surprise to nobody. Hillary Clinton has been happy to recite feminist talking points. The question in my mind is why she thinks it is politically savvy to spend her time editorializing on women in prison. Is this some sort of strange compromise of trying to position herself more strongly against mass incarceration without making any real policy commitments that would put a serious dent in the prison population?
1. Actually, that's more easily. Note that this is not as disproportionately small a share of the white population as the female population.

[AiliailiA]

Why focus on child hunger? Why does it have to be age specific?

it really is like that

no one gives a fuck about adult hunger so if you want to DO something about hunger you have to go after something people do care about (at least a little) --child hunger

the average American gives less than a fuck about criminals and tends to think that it would be for the best to keep them in prison forever no matter how minor the offence. men in prison? depraved animals that must be kept caged for the public good. so starting with serious but non-violent offenses by the only kind of women we REALLY care about--mothers of young children--can get people thinking about how crazy our mass incarceration system is.

Well finally you've said something meaningful in support of Clinton's op-ed.

It's political expediency, is your argument. Hardly impressive, but a WHOLE lot better than dismissing other posters with "whatever".

[Ashmoria]

it really is like that

no one gives a fuck about adult hunger so if you want to DO something about hunger you have to go after something people do care about (at least a little) --child hunger

the average American gives less than a fuck about criminals and tends to think that it would be for the best to keep them in prison forever no matter how minor the offence. men in prison? depraved animals that must be kept caged for the public good. so starting with serious but non-violent offenses by the only kind of women we REALLY care about--mothers of young children--can get people thinking about how crazy our mass incarceration system is.

Well finally you've said something meaningful in support of Clinton's op-ed.

It's political expediency, is your argument. Hardly impressive, but a WHOLE lot better than dismissing other posters with "whatever".

I don't really consider that support since I have no way of knowing if that informed her decision to write it.

I'm not fond of repeating myself over and over again. she wrote an editorial on one topic. it wasn't necessary to include other topics. any criticism of her on that basis is stupid.

[AiliailiA]

Well finally you've said something meaningful in support of Clinton's op-ed.

It's political expediency, is your argument. Hardly impressive, but a WHOLE lot better than dismissing other posters with "whatever".

I don't really consider that support since I have no way of knowing if that informed her decision to write it.

I'm not fond of repeating myself over and over again. she wrote an editorial on one topic. it wasn't necessary to include other topics. any criticism of her on that basis is stupid.

You won't defend what's in the article, or what's left out. You won't comment on the use of "Tanya" who was apparently innocent and "Alice" who presumably should have had extenuating circumstances considered (for whatever it was that got her 17 years inside), neither of which is verifiable because they're pseudonyms. You won't comment on the utter deceptiveness of talking about percent of the world's women imprisoned in the US as though women are disproportionately targetted by the legal system in the US (contrary to the facts). You won't even comment on the inadequacy of what's in the article to address issues actually faced by women in prison. It's all fine by you because "it wasn't necessary to include other topics" but you haven't spoken in your own words ANYTHING Clinton wrote there.

We're being stupid for criticizing the article, we should just shut up. And you don't have to say anything defending the content of the article except that ... it's about what it's about.

I'm prepared to leave it there. If you want to raise anything actually in the article, I'll discuss that.

[Ashmoria]

I don't really consider that support since I have no way of knowing if that informed her decision to write it.

I'm not fond of repeating myself over and over again. she wrote an editorial on one topic. it wasn't necessary to include other topics. any criticism of her on that basis is stupid.

You won't defend what's in the article, or what's left out. You won't comment on the use of "Tanya" who was apparently innocent and "Alice" who presumably should have had extenuating circumstances considered (for whatever it was that got her 17 years inside), neither of which is verifiable because they're pseudonyms. You won't comment on the utter deceptiveness of talking about percent of the world's women imprisoned in the US as though women are disproportionately targetted by the legal system in the US (contrary to the facts). You won't even comment on the inadequacy of what's in the article to address issues actually faced by women in prison. It's all fine by you because "it wasn't necessary to include other topics" but you haven't spoken in your own words ANYTHING Clinton wrote there.

We're being stupid for criticizing the article, we should just shut up. And you don't have to say anything defending the content of the article except that ... it's about what it's about.

I'm prepared to leave it there. If you want to raise anything actually in the article, I'll discuss that.

yes you should stop criticizing the editorial for what it isn't. if she wrote something that isn't true then its a good thing to bring out. if you want to say its a bit shallow, FINE.

if you want to talk about the evils of the prison system and mass incarceration then feel free to start a new thread. its not really appropriate here.

but to worry because it doesn't talk about MEN, that's just stupid.

[Arumdaum]

my mom threw away our voter pamphlets lol

our actual ballots were also almost destroyed by food lol - also nearly thrown away

maybe i should start picking up the mail instead of my sister

[Conserative Morality]

but to worry because it doesn't talk about MEN, that's just stupid.

If that were reversed, everyone here, me included, would be outraged.

Get off the fucking double standard.

[Ashmoria]

but to worry because it doesn't talk about MEN, that's just stupid.

If that were reversed, everyone here, me included, would be outraged.

Get off the fucking double standard.

no it wouldn't.

stop with the bullshit dissing of Clinton. she doesn't have to write about what she didn't write about.

[The United Territories of Providence]

So what exactly is the issue? Yes, we have a prison system that has destroyed many families and has harshly punished otherwise non-violent criminals for low level offenses. Yes, there seems to be systematic discrimination in that system that hurts latinos and blacks. Yes, we have a large share of the worlds prison population. Yes, we have 30% of the female prison population of the world and quite a few men as well.

So what is the issue? Fuck Hillary for saying that we should reform our prison system right. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump aren't taking the liberal position that perhaps...we should have fewer people in jail. Maybe you don't agree that she singled out women on this particular issue, even though our prison system is unfair to all swaths of Americans. However, is it not better that she can recognize that our prison system is flawed and acutely unfair for women...then her going the route of the opposition who refuse to acknowledge the problem? I would argue, that simply because female prisoners matter...does not mean that male prisoners do not matter. All prisoners matter, but can women's issues not be discussed without immediately benefiting men? Can she talk about women and their problems? Because it's not ignoring men's problems, I'm sure she knows they exist because she has talked about them on the campaign trial....

[Galloism]

So what exactly is the issue? Yes, we have a prison system that has destroyed many families and has harshly punished otherwise non-violent criminals for low level offenses. Yes, there seems to be systematic discrimination in that system that hurts latinos and blacks. Yes, we have a large share of the worlds prison population. Yes, we have 30% of the female prison population of the world and quite a few men as well.

So what is the issue? Fuck Hillary for saying that we should reform our prison system right. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump aren't taking the liberal position that perhaps...we should have fewer people in jail. Maybe you don't agree that she singled out women on this particular issue, even though our prison system is unfair to all swaths of Americans. However, is it not better that she can recognize that our prison system is flawed and acutely unfair for women...then her going the route of the opposition who refuse to acknowledge the problem? I would argue, that simply because female prisoners matter...does not mean that male prisoners do not matter. All prisoners matter, but can women's issues not be discussed without immediately benefiting men? Can she talk about women and their problems? Because it's not ignoring men's problems, I'm sure she knows they exist because she has talked about them on the campaign trial....

Mostly it's because she picked the group with the absolute highest level of privilege regarding the criminal justice system, then said they were more acutely affected by the problems in the Justice system.

It would be like bemoaning the violence in white neighborhoods or poverty among white people. It may be true that violence in white neighborhoods is bad, but you're focusing your help on the people least in need of it.

[Geilinor]

So what exactly is the issue? Yes, we have a prison system that has destroyed many families and has harshly punished otherwise non-violent criminals for low level offenses. Yes, there seems to be systematic discrimination in that system that hurts latinos and blacks. Yes, we have a large share of the worlds prison population. Yes, we have 30% of the female prison population of the world and quite a few men as well.

So what is the issue? Fuck Hillary for saying that we should reform our prison system right. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump aren't taking the liberal position that perhaps...we should have fewer people in jail. Maybe you don't agree that she singled out women on this particular issue, even though our prison system is unfair to all swaths of Americans. However, is it not better that she can recognize that our prison system is flawed and acutely unfair for women...then her going the route of the opposition who refuse to acknowledge the problem? I would argue, that simply because female prisoners matter...does not mean that male prisoners do not matter. All prisoners matter, but can women's issues not be discussed without immediately benefiting men? Can she talk about women and their problems? Because it's not ignoring men's problems, I'm sure she knows they exist because she has talked about them on the campaign trial....

Mostly it's because she picked the group with the absolute highest level of privilege regarding the criminal justice system, then said they were more acutely affected by the problems in the Justice system.

It would be like bemoaning the violence in white neighborhoods or poverty among white people. It may be true that violence in white neighborhoods is bad, but you're focusing your help on the people least in need of it.

I believe what she was referring to is families who are split apart because someone (typically the father) is in prison.

[The United Territories of Providence]

So what exactly is the issue? Yes, we have a prison system that has destroyed many families and has harshly punished otherwise non-violent criminals for low level offenses. Yes, there seems to be systematic discrimination in that system that hurts latinos and blacks. Yes, we have a large share of the worlds prison population. Yes, we have 30% of the female prison population of the world and quite a few men as well.

So what is the issue? Fuck Hillary for saying that we should reform our prison system right. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump aren't taking the liberal position that perhaps...we should have fewer people in jail. Maybe you don't agree that she singled out women on this particular issue, even though our prison system is unfair to all swaths of Americans. However, is it not better that she can recognize that our prison system is flawed and acutely unfair for women...then her going the route of the opposition who refuse to acknowledge the problem? I would argue, that simply because female prisoners matter...does not mean that male prisoners do not matter. All prisoners matter, but can women's issues not be discussed without immediately benefiting men? Can she talk about women and their problems? Because it's not ignoring men's problems, I'm sure she knows they exist because she has talked about them on the campaign trial....

Mostly it's because she picked the group with the absolute highest level of privilege regarding the criminal justice system, then said they were more acutely affected by the problems in the Justice system.

It would be like bemoaning the violence in white neighborhoods or poverty among white people. It may be true that violence in white neighborhoods is bad, but you're focusing your help on the people least in need of it.

Well, No.

Women are the fastest growing prison demographic, not latinos, or blacks, or men. Women. Furthermore, she didn't say white women. She said
women, and the majority of women behind bars are latino or black. So not only is this a gender issue, it's a racial issue.

More women are in federal prison for non-violent crimes than men are. Less than 7% of women in federal prison have committed a violent crime.

Women in prison are much more likely than men to contract a disease. The rates of chronic and communicable illnesses among women, Including HIV are staggering. Not to mention, that nearly half of all girls, not women, I'm talking about juveniles now...they report vaginal injuries consistent with sexual assault.

Women don't have the best access to healthcare either. There are cases where women die during childbirth because they weren't attended to, there are instances of women dying from toxic shock because they reuse and ration tampons, not to mention rising rates of breast and ovarian cancers.

If we account for all women under some sort of custody, there are 1.2 Million women. That's not close to the number of men under the same custody, but there is an issue.

To say that women aren't acutely affected, or that they are least in need of assistance...well it's just not true. Women, who are overwhelmingly women of color...are acutely affected by our prison system. Hillary Clinton is right on the money.

[Geilinor]

And the op-ed never denied the effects on men. She was pointing out that many women are in prison as well and that women in prison don't get the same attention. Just like male abuse victims don't get their share of attention.

[MERIZoC]

All Hillary can do is play the woman card you know. That's what Donald says, depressing to see liberals taking his talking points and running. Guessing this year she can never mention women's issues or she'll be clubbed over the head with that shit. Kind of like 08 when Obama was going to only be the president for black folks.

Obama talked about race a lot less than Hillary has been talking about gender. And trust me, I don't get my talking points from Trump. I've been complaining about Clinton's sexist crap since several months ago when Trump was still going after Megyn Kelly rather than Clinton.

Yes, Trump is a sexist douche. I don't think anyone with a working brain would deny that he's a sexist douche. That doesn't make it OK for Clinton to prioritize women above men on issues that affect men in large numbers. It doesn't make it OK for her to single out female Sanders supporters on the basis of our gender and insult our intelligence.

Talking about actual women's issues like abortion, pay equality, etc. is fine. Taking things that are not specifically women's issues and trying to shoehorn gender into the discussion where it doesn't belong is going to rub people the wrong way. I get frustrated with Ostro same as other people on NS do, but in this case, he has a point.

Thing is, Obama should have talked about race more. He had the opportunity to bring a direct conversation about race to the table and didn't. I don't fault Clinton for trying to do that with gender, though I don't think she's done the best job of it.