[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[Guy]

They're in prison, there is no fucking privileged class.

Yes, yes there is.

Men receive sentences 63% longer for the same crime, and women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration for the same crime if convicted.

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/f ... ities.aspx

This is the last I'll say on this topic.

In Australia, sentencing is performed through a method known as 'instinctive synthesis'. It balances out all the factors relevant to sentencing, whether they are the circumstances of the offence or the offender - and separating the two fis a fallacy -- together with the rationales for sentencing (deterrence, protective incarceration, rehabilitation, denunciation by the community etc) and, having regard to prevalent sentencing trends, come out with the number that feels most right.

Inherently, you might say, such a system based on using how the sentencer feels about all those factors and their importance (and keep in mind that this really involves a character assessment of the offender) is going to result in some biases creeping in. A female offender who is a survivor of domestic violence, or child abuse as any

But having read (and at times seen) a fair amount of sentencing decisions, I have to say this: Women present in circumstances that call for lesser offences sentences. More mitigating circumstances, less apparent likelihood to reoffend, greater family support, more likely to have committed the offence under de-facto compulsion from a man or due to ongoing abuse by the man, and so forth. And if there is any residual unfairness, perhaps it's time to treat it first in other parts of our justice system, like the ridiculously low number of women in senior legal roles.

We also, of course, have to keep this in the context of where we are as a socirty. While gender roles in our society are a double-edged sword, there is no doubt that we live in a society that men designed to benefit men. Complaints about advantages women hold are not wrong per se, but in almost all cases they are an attempt to divert the discussion from the fact that we do live in a man's world.

The female prison population faces challenges that male prisoners do not. Complaining about an article written about female prisoners -- a perfectly legitimate point of discussion -- is an unjustifiable criticism. Attempting to divert the discussion by quoting sentencing statistics is just that.

[Mahdistan]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this ... onvention/

This is a big deal. If you're thinking of not voting for Sanders because Clinton seems inevitable, take a look at this. Not sure how this math can be beaten.

[Galloism]

Yes, yes there is.

Men receive sentences 63% longer for the same crime, and women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration for the same crime if convicted.

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/f ... ities.aspx

This is the last I'll say on this topic.

In Australia, sentencing is performed through a method known as 'instinctive synthesis'. It balances out all the factors relevant to sentencing, whether they are the circumstances of the offence or the offender - and separating the two is a fallacy -- together with the rationales for sentencing (deterrence, protective incarceration, rehabilitation, denunciation by the community etc) and, having regard to prevalent sentencing trends, come out with the number that feels most right.

Inherently, you might say, such a system based on using how the sentencer feels about all those factors and their importance (and keep in mind that this really involves a character assessment of the offender) is going to result in some biases creeping in. A female offender who is a survivor of domestic violence, or child abuse as any

But having read (and at times seen) a fair amount of sentencing decisions, I have to say this: Women present in circumstances that call for lesser offences. More mitigating circumstances, less apparent likelihood to reoffend, greater family support, more likely to have committed the offence under de-facto compulsion from a man or due to ongoing abuse by the man, and so forth. And if there is any residual unfairness, perhaps it's time to treat it first in other parts of our justice system, like the ridiculously low number of women in senior legal roles.

We also, of course, have to keep this in the context of where we are as a socirty. While gender roles in our society are a double-edged sword, there is no doubt that we live in a society that men designed to benefit men. Complaints about advantages women hold are not wrong per se, but in almost all cases they are an attempt to divert the discussion from the fact that we do live in a man's world.

The female prison population faces challenges that male prisoners do not. Complaining about an article written about female prisoners -- a perfectly legitimate point of discussion -- is an unjustifiable criticism. Attempting to divert the discussion by quoting sentencing statistics is just that.

Once again, it's more along the lines that we don't give a damn if men DO have mitigating circumstances, not that men don't have mitigating circumstances. Men are no more or less likely to be abused as children or to suffer domestic violence (we now have over 200 scientific studies showing that female on male domestic violence occurs at roughly the same rate as the reverse). Many of those studies are from the United States, of course, so may or may not apply in Australia.

In any case, I want to point this out:

We also, of course, have to keep this in the context of where we are as a socirty. While gender roles in our society are a double-edged sword, there is no doubt that we live in a society that men designed to benefit men. Complaints about advantages women hold are not wrong per se, but in almost all cases they are an attempt to divert the discussion from the fact that we do live in a man's world.

We live in a society that doesn't give a fucking damn about men's issues, and works very hard to erase and minimize issues that disparately affect men, even if supremely severe (like 1 in 50 men being in prison, for instance). The attempt to focus entirely on women's problems in an area where men's problems are much much worse, in a society which deliberately attempts to minimize and erase sexist issues that affect men IS a problem.

You are part of it.

[Maurepas]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/

This is a big deal. If you're thinking of not voting for Sanders because Clinton seems inevitable, take a look at this. Not sure how this math can be beaten.

This is wrong right off, Hillary actually has 2165 Delegates. As much as the Sanders camp wants to ignore Superdelegates, that's wishful thinking, Sanders needs to beat that math and convince them to move to beat her.

[Kelinfort]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/

This is a big deal. If you're thinking of not voting for Sanders because Clinton seems inevitable, take a look at this. Not sure how this math can be beaten.

You're ignoring superdelegates, who aren't going to change to the guy who lost the popular vote, relatively badly I might add.

[Galloism]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/

This is a big deal. If you're thinking of not voting for Sanders because Clinton seems inevitable, take a look at this. Not sure how this math can be beaten.

You're ignoring superdelegates, who aren't going to change to the guy who lost the popular vote, relatively badly I might add.

I'm still upset about that, but I can't argue the fact that Bernie lost fair and square.

[Mahdistan]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/

This is a big deal. If you're thinking of not voting for Sanders because Clinton seems inevitable, take a look at this. Not sure how this math can be beaten.

This is wrong right off, Hillary actually has 2165 Delegates. As much as the Sanders camp wants to ignore Superdelegates, that's wishful thinking, Sanders needs to beat that math and convince them to move to beat her.

I think this is under the assumption that they'll move upon seeing that Sanders will take the majority of the pledged delegates at the convention. Elected Superdelegates supporting are on thin ice to begin with, in a lot of cases, for supporting Hillary automatically, so I think that the majority of them would move in this case. But, this at least disproves the idea that Sanders could realistically lose before the convention.

I'm aware of how bad things are right now for Sanders, but I'm in it with him to the end. I see no one in America more qualified to be president.

[Myrensis]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/

This is a big deal. If you're thinking of not voting for Sanders because Clinton seems inevitable, take a look at this. Not sure how this math can be beaten.

Well, I was actually going to avoid posting this, but since you insist.

Promising theoretical turnout in the general when he can't make it appear in the primary is not going to help Sanders

His huge rally crowds aren't going to help him, as they're obviously not translating into votes.

Regardless of whether you think his motives are pure, he's a late comer to the party who hasn't exactly been striving to make nice with the DNC.

If you think it's more likely that Sanders will get 65% in every remaining contest than for Hillary to manage 36%, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you, cheap.

If, as seems almost certain, Hillary comes to the convention with more delegates and the popular vote, there will be no contested convention because the Super Delegates will give her the nomination on the first ballot.

What Sanders will almost certainly get is a minority report allowing him to force a vote to incorporate his issues into the party platform.

[Guy]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/

This is a big deal. If you're thinking of not voting for Sanders because Clinton seems inevitable, take a look at this. Not sure how this math can be beaten.

Is this satire?

The number is 2026. Whoever gets to 2026 pledged delegates will walk away with the nomination, in all likelihood.

[The only reason superdelegates might ignore the pledged delegate count is because they either (i) Really, really don't want the winner to be the nominee (not likely with either candidate, but if anything, might work to Clinton's advantage); or (ii) Think the pledged delegate result is seriously undemocratic (again not likely, but if anything, might benefit Clinton since she'll win the popular vote in a tight delegate race).]

Hillary is on 1665, Sanders in 1370. There are 1016 pledged delegates remaining. This means that Hillary needs (2026-1665)/1016 = 35.5% of the remaining vote.

She will beat the shit out of that. Even after factoring losses in multiple-step caucuses, and whatever else you want.

If you think the superdelegates will walk away from the party establishment candidate who's won both the popular vote and pledged delegate contest, I'd like some of what you're having.

[The United Territories of Providence]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/

This is a big deal. If you're thinking of not voting for Sanders because Clinton seems inevitable, take a look at this. Not sure how this math can be beaten.

This isn't math, it's someone's attempt at delegate math who seems to not be at all familiar with the concepts of the most basic of algebraic functions. Addition and Subtraction. Not only that, but appears to have lived under a rock for the last 44 years.

[USS Monitor]

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...

No, he is not always wrong.

He is always railing against feminism. That's the topic his clock is stuck on. Once in a while, a conversation comes around where it is actually reasonable.

[USS Monitor]

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.

Focusing on it too much can be divisive and counterproductive.

[Galloism]

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.

Focusing on it too much can be divisive and counterproductive.

I don't really think so. Thing is, we need to have a very serious discussion in this country about gender. Being the first woman president, she's in a unique place to bring about discussion needed to tear down the old gender stereotypes about men and women. They need to die - fast.

Now if that's what she would actually do, that would be great.

[The Romulan Republic]

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...

No, he is not always wrong.

He is always railing against feminism. That's the topic his clock is stuck on. Once in a while, a conversation comes around where it is actually reasonable.

I was referring to the Republican front-runner, not anyone posting here.

[USS Monitor]

I follow a lot of news and I've yet to see this editorial on my feed, but reading the article, she doesn't only talk about women in it, that's just the specific story she's writing about. When she says what needs to be done the first things she points out are thusly:

We can't go on like this. It is time we reform our broken criminal justice system. First, we need to reform policing practices, end racial profiling, and eradicate racial disparities in sentencing. Second, we need to promote alternatives to incarceration, particularly for nonviolent and first-time offenders, so families aren't broken up. We need to improve access to high-quality treatment for substance abuse, inside and outside the prison system, because drug and alcohol addiction is a disease, not a crime — and we need to treat it as such.

I can't figure out the part where I'm supposed to disagree with that. Nor that she's leaving out the racial issue talked about in this thread.

That isn't the part that offended people.

[Maurepas]

I follow a lot of news and I've yet to see this editorial on my feed, but reading the article, she doesn't only talk about women in it, that's just the specific story she's writing about. When she says what needs to be done the first things she points out are thusly:



I can't figure out the part where I'm supposed to disagree with that. Nor that she's leaving out the racial issue talked about in this thread.

That isn't the part that offended people.

I realize that, but my point is that for all the talk on here that she's ignoring this, that, and the other group, and specifically the charge that she's ignoring the racial issue, when it comes to the part of the article with actual, practical, implications of things she'll actually be pursuing it's clearly stuff that will benefit those groups. Ignoring that in favor of bitching about the story surrounding the actual platform presented seems incredibly myopic to me.

[USS Monitor]

No, he is not always wrong.

He is always railing against feminism. That's the topic his clock is stuck on. Once in a while, a conversation comes around where it is actually reasonable.

I was referring to the Republican front-runner, not anyone posting here.

Oh, I must have got that conflated with a different conversation that was going on. Sorry about that.

Trump is right once in a while, too, though. He pointed out that Bush didn't keep us safe from terrorists.

[USS Monitor]

That isn't the part that offended people.

I realize that, but my point is that for all the talk on here that she's ignoring this, that, and the other group, and specifically the charge that she's ignoring the racial issue, when it comes to the part of the article with actual, practical, implications of things she'll actually be pursuing it's clearly stuff that will benefit those groups. Ignoring that in favor of bitching about the story surrounding the actual platform presented seems incredibly myopic to me.

People here have been talking about racial bias, but I don't think the intent was to accuse Clinton of ignoring it.

[Maurepas]

I realize that, but my point is that for all the talk on here that she's ignoring this, that, and the other group, and specifically the charge that she's ignoring the racial issue, when it comes to the part of the article with actual, practical, implications of things she'll actually be pursuing it's clearly stuff that will benefit those groups. Ignoring that in favor of bitching about the story surrounding the actual platform presented seems incredibly myopic to me.

People here have been talking about racial bias, but I don't think the intent was to accuse Clinton of ignoring it.

If you say so, posts on here are literally stating that she's ignoring men, black men, etc., and I'm just saying that despite the story focusing on women, the policies presented will objectively help those groups. Complaining that she's biased or ignoring any of the groups or issues talked about with regard to this article just because the point was women and women in prison makes no sense.

[USS Monitor]

People here have been talking about racial bias, but I don't think the intent was to accuse Clinton of ignoring it.

If you say so, posts on here are literally stating that she's ignoring men, black men, etc., and I'm just saying that despite the story focusing on women, the policies presented will objectively help those groups. Complaining that she's biased or ignoring any of the groups or issues talked about with regard to this article just because the point was women and women in prison makes no sense.

They're saying she's ignoring men -- and ignoring black men because they're men, not ignoring them because they're black.

[Maurepas]

If you say so, posts on here are literally stating that she's ignoring men, black men, etc., and I'm just saying that despite the story focusing on women, the policies presented will objectively help those groups. Complaining that she's biased or ignoring any of the groups or issues talked about with regard to this article just because the point was women and women in prison makes no sense.

They're saying she's ignoring men -- and ignoring black men because they're men, not ignoring them because they're black.

Exactly, and they're wrong. The actual policy she talks about in the article will directly and definitively address problems in both groups.

The only way that narrative holds up is if the recommended course of action she lays out only applies to Women, and that is objectively incorrect, it by definition will have effects for both genders, and in my opinion, it is the right way to go, therefore the idea that I'm supposed to criticize her for supposedly ignoring men is simply nonsense.

It is time we reform our broken criminal justice system. First, we need to reform policing practices, end racial profiling, and eradicate racial disparities in sentencing. Second, we need to promote alternatives to incarceration, particularly for nonviolent and first-time offenders, so families aren't broken up. We need to improve access to high-quality treatment for substance abuse, inside and outside the prison system, because drug and alcohol addiction is a disease, not a crime — and we need to treat it as such.

I can't understand how these policies don't effect men, or ignore men in her recommendations. The narrative being presented here is simply untrue.

[USS Monitor]

They're saying she's ignoring men -- and ignoring black men because they're men, not ignoring them because they're black.

Exactly, and they're wrong. The actual policy she talks about in the article will directly and definitively address problems in both groups.

The only way that narrative holds up is if the recommended course of action she lays out only applies to Women, and that is objectively incorrect, it by definition will have effects for both genders, and in my opinion, it is the right way to go, therefore the idea that I'm supposed to criticize her for supposedly ignoring men is simply nonsense.

It is time we reform our broken criminal justice system. First, we need to reform policing practices, end racial profiling, and eradicate racial disparities in sentencing. Second, we need to promote alternatives to incarceration, particularly for nonviolent and first-time offenders, so families aren't broken up. We need to improve access to high-quality treatment for substance abuse, inside and outside the prison system, because drug and alcohol addiction is a disease, not a crime — and we need to treat it as such.

I can't understand how these policies don't effect men, or ignore men in her recommendations. The narrative being presented here is simply untrue.

The policies she proposed aren't the problem. The problem is the way she argues for them, as if it's primarily a women's issue. The policy she suggested would have some benefits for men, but the way the editorial is written, it sounds less like that is her goal and more like a side-effect. That's a problem because we don't have all the details of how these policies would be implemented -- e.g. what kind of alternatives to incarceration would be available, and what exact criteria would be used to decide who gets them? -- and someone that is thinking about the problem from a wrongheaded perspective is more likely to fuck it up when it comes time to work out the details. There is also the fact that presidents do more than just choose policies. They also have a leading role in conversations about social issues and whatnot, and it's going to be really counterproductive if Hillary goes on this way in that role.

Maybe there are things she has said elsewhere that are better, but this editorial on its own is working painfully hard to make it all about women. It's just really poorly-written and unbalanced. And it's not the first time that Hillary has made an ass of herself dealing with gender issues.

[Kvatchdom]

I do fear Bernie Sanders has lost his momentum.

[Maurepas]

Exactly, and they're wrong. The actual policy she talks about in the article will directly and definitively address problems in both groups.

The only way that narrative holds up is if the recommended course of action she lays out only applies to Women, and that is objectively incorrect, it by definition will have effects for both genders, and in my opinion, it is the right way to go, therefore the idea that I'm supposed to criticize her for supposedly ignoring men is simply nonsense.



I can't understand how these policies don't effect men, or ignore men in her recommendations. The narrative being presented here is simply untrue.

The policies she proposed aren't the problem. The problem is the way she argues for them, as if it's primarily a women's issue. The policy she suggested would have some benefits for men, but the way the editorial is written, it sounds less like that is her goal and more like a side-effect. That's a problem because we don't have all the details of how these policies would be implemented -- e.g. what kind of alternatives to incarceration would be available, and what exact criteria would be used to decide who gets them? -- and someone that is thinking about the problem from a wrongheaded perspective is more likely to fuck it up when it comes time to work out the details. There is also the fact that presidents do more than just choose policies. They also have a leading role in conversations about social issues and whatnot, and it's going to be really counterproductive if Hillary goes on this way in that role.

Maybe there are things she has said elsewhere that are better, but this editorial on its own is working painfully hard to make it all about women. It's just really poorly-written and unbalanced. And it's not the first time that Hillary has made an ass of herself dealing with gender issues.

But that is a different argument to saying she's ignoring them. She clearly wrote the editorial with Tanya's story as the focus, and with a point to make about women in the prison system. But that's not the same as saying she's ignoring Men. I could maybe see the argument that one is afraid that such reforms might be biased towards women, but nothing in the article actually suggests that. The only things presented are a story about an incarcerated woman, some ideas about reform that encompass the whole of the criminal-justice system, and some ideas concerning women in particular. Nothing in it suggests that her reforms would be biased in any way. That employers shouldn't be able to ask about criminal history on the application is also a good idea I'd like to see implemented, and would effect both genders. Mentioning the story of this woman, and some ideas that would help women in particular =/= negating or ignoring men in her ideas for reform.

Or to put it more simply, Premise A doesn't imply ignorance of Premise B, nor does Solution C ignore either A or B, especially when Solution C specifically doesn't exclude or specify A or B in their description. I mean, I get it, I literally cringe in debates when she brings up being a woman as a point seemingly out of nowhere, and she does have a bad habit of that, I just don't think this in particular is an example of that necessarily.

[The Romulan Republic]

I do fear Bernie Sanders has lost his momentum.

I think he will win more states. I've heard that the upcoming Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia are considered competitive, and I'll be surprised if he doesn't take Oregon. It is unlikely to be enough to over take Clinton now, barring something huge like an indictment, but I think he will probably get more wins, and he will definitely substantially increase his current pledged delegate count, as he will get some delegates even in states he loses.

And of course, more delegates/wins translates to more political clout at the convention.