We love controversy so you know damn well after it was said he smoked weed and was getting his dikk sucked in office every nikka on earth thought he was damn near a god at that time. And playing the saxophone was the icing on the cake. People were calling him the first black president...
In retrospect as a younger breh Bill Clinton was a monster. Old heads how was he viewed in Black America during his term?
- Thread starter Snake316
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 90s bill clinton clinton crime bill
Sir Richard Spirit
Superstar
Obama blamed him for the Great Recession through the GLBA.
Black people loved Bill Clinton like they do White Jesus.
I remember watching a news clip of Vernon Jordan driving Bill Clinton on the golf course and they had some old Black dude going on and on about how the most important thing to take out of that clip was that "a Black man was playing golf with the President of the United States."
he just kept saying that shyt over and over - "A Black man was playing..."
more empty symbolism
I remember watching a news clip of Vernon Jordan driving Bill Clinton on the golf course and they had some old Black dude going on and on about how the most important thing to take out of that clip was that "a Black man was playing golf with the President of the United States."
he just kept saying that shyt over and over - "A Black man was playing..."
more empty symbolism
dj-method-x
Superstar
Economy was great back then. People loved him. He probably would have won a 3rd term if he could have one. You know how Obama was a great speaker and very charismatic? Billy Clint was the white version of that. Republicans hated him but times were good.
They said he was the 1st Black President because he played the saxophone and snuck a blow job in his office
It was pure fukking ignorance where all bad shyt is associated with Black people and people were proud too.
A Black female author, whats her name started the shyt.
Mike Nasty
Superstar
He signed NAFTA. No amount of time will change that.let's all revisit this thread 4 years from now
Bill Clinton inherited a terrible economy in the throes of a deep recession from the first George Bush (Dems saving us from a disastrous republican administration would become a pattern) and left with a goddamn budget surplus and a truly booming economy.
In addition, Clinton also inherited a country where cities like NY and LA were averaging 2,000 bodies a year. By any objective measure, Clinton was an historically successful president.
Posters here are sharing think pieces from the Washington Examiner????
In addition, Clinton also inherited a country where cities like NY and LA were averaging 2,000 bodies a year. By any objective measure, Clinton was an historically successful president.
Posters here are sharing think pieces from the Washington Examiner????
Amo Husserl
Superstar
They said he was the 1st Black President because he played the saxophone and snuck a blow job in his office
It was pure fukking ignorance where all bad shyt is associated with Black people and people were proud too.
A Black female author, whats her name started the shyt.
Toni Morrison.
Here’s some info in regards to the crime bill
According to a 1994 Gallup survey, 58% of African Americans supported the crime bill, compared to 49% of white Americans. Most Black mayors, who were grappling with a record wave of violent crime, did so as well. As he joined a delegation of mayors lobbying Congress to back the bill, Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke said, “We’re trying very hard to explain to Congress that this is a matter that needs bipartisan support.”
In a recent interview Rep. James Clyburn, a member of the House leadership and one of the most powerful African American elected officials, reflected on the reasons for his vote in favor of the bill. “Crack cocaine was a scourge in the Black community,” he recalled. “They wanted it out of those communities, and they had gotten very tough on drugs. And that’s why yours truly, and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, voted for that 1994 crime bill.”
As Yale law professor James Forman Jr. wrote in his much-cited 2017 book, Locking Up Our Own, “At the height of the [crack] epidemic, Black political and civic leaders often compared crack to the greatest evils that African Americans had ever suffered.” Writing twenty years earlier, another prominent African American scholar, Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy, argued that “Blacks have suffered more from being left unprotected or under-protected by law enforcement authorities than from being mistreated as suspects or defendants” (“Unprotected or under-protected” are interesting and important choice of words, to which we’ll return).
It was against this backdrop that the CBC considered its options. The draft bill contained many provisions to which they objected, such as giving states incentives to implement mandatory minimum sentences and preventing currently incarcerated people from obtaining Pell grants for education. At the same time, the bill offered significant funding for crime prevention, including community policing, drug treatment, and programs for young people. It also contained the landmark Violence Against Women Act, which sharply reduced the incidence of domestic violence, and a ban on assault weapons, which helped to reduce the firearm homicide rate.
In the end, said Maryland representative Kweisi Mfume, the then-chair of the CBC, “We have put our stamp on this bill.” Two-thirds of the CBC members voted for its passage, as did the only Black senator at the time, Illinois’ Carol Moseley Braun. But key CBC members voted No on the bill, including John Lewis, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, and Charles Rangel. Similar to these CBC members in the mid-1990s, Rep. Bass’s comments made it clear that she thought “there was another way to go.” Still, she reminded us of the importance of complexity and nuance when looking at a politician’s record from decades ago.
It is easy to play Monday-morning quarterback. But did the controversial 1994 crime bill actually reduce violence while increasing mass incarceration and racial disparities in the criminal justice system?
Let’s begin with the facts. Between the end of the 1960s to the beginning of the 1990s, the overall rate of violent crime more than doubled before peaking in 1991 and beginning a long-term decline that brought the rate back down to the levels of the early 1970s. The homicide rate followed a similar pattern, with less variation between peaks and troughs. Between 1980 and 2006, the incarceration rate more than quadrupled before beginning a long-term decline that has brought it down to roughly where it stood when the 1994 crime bill was enacted. Since 2006, incarceration rateshave fallen by 17% for White Americans, 26% for Hispanics, and 34% for African Americans.
Did the 1994 crime bill help decrease the rate of violent crime? Probably, although the rate had begun to decline before the bill went into effect. Did the bill contribute to the expansion of incarceration? Again, probably so, although the bulk of the growth occurred in the fifteen years before the bill was enacted and has fallen significantly for nearly fifteen years.
But one thing is clear: the 1994 bill interacted with—and reinforced—an existing and highly problematic piece of legislation: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created huge disparities in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. Under this bill, a person was sentenced to a five-year minimum sentence for five grams of crack cocaine, but it took 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the same sentence. Because crack is a cheaper alternative to powder cocaine, it is more prominent in low-income neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are more likely to be predominately Black and in urban areas that can be overpoliced more easily than suburban or rural areas. While the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, enacted under the Obama-Biden administration, reduced the crack/powder cocaine disparity from 100:1 to 18:1, the damage had been done, and its effects continue to this day.
In the absence of the 1986 anti-drug bill, the effects of the 1994 on extended incarceration rates would have been less severe. But as James Clyburn’s comments show, getting tough on drugs was a key objective of the 1994 bill, not an unintended byproduct.
Let’s return to the “unprotected or under-protected” comment from Prof. Kennedy. Members of the CBC claim they want better policing for Black communities rather than more. This is complicated for people to interpret, especially when polls show that over 80% of Blacks want more police presence, not less. Often, surveys don’t ask the right type of questions about policing—questions that would get at complexity and nuance. Here’s what we mean:
Police respond more slowly to calls for service in Black communities. Ambulance services responding in Black communities compared to white communities are several minutes slower. If someone is suffering from a stroke or heart attack, these minutes are often a matter of life and death.
In addition, the violent crime clearance rate is unacceptably low. To most Black people, it seems that police care less for their communities, for their deceased loved ones, and for their own lives. So, when Black people say “more policing,” they mean better than what they have and similar to what predominately white communities receive. Black people want police to experience their neighborhoods and really engage in community policing rather than overpolicing their neighborhoods and harassing Black drivers and young people while responding too slowly when they are most needed.
According to a 1994 Gallup survey, 58% of African Americans supported the crime bill, compared to 49% of white Americans. Most Black mayors, who were grappling with a record wave of violent crime, did so as well. As he joined a delegation of mayors lobbying Congress to back the bill, Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke said, “We’re trying very hard to explain to Congress that this is a matter that needs bipartisan support.”
In a recent interview Rep. James Clyburn, a member of the House leadership and one of the most powerful African American elected officials, reflected on the reasons for his vote in favor of the bill. “Crack cocaine was a scourge in the Black community,” he recalled. “They wanted it out of those communities, and they had gotten very tough on drugs. And that’s why yours truly, and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, voted for that 1994 crime bill.”
As Yale law professor James Forman Jr. wrote in his much-cited 2017 book, Locking Up Our Own, “At the height of the [crack] epidemic, Black political and civic leaders often compared crack to the greatest evils that African Americans had ever suffered.” Writing twenty years earlier, another prominent African American scholar, Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy, argued that “Blacks have suffered more from being left unprotected or under-protected by law enforcement authorities than from being mistreated as suspects or defendants” (“Unprotected or under-protected” are interesting and important choice of words, to which we’ll return).
It was against this backdrop that the CBC considered its options. The draft bill contained many provisions to which they objected, such as giving states incentives to implement mandatory minimum sentences and preventing currently incarcerated people from obtaining Pell grants for education. At the same time, the bill offered significant funding for crime prevention, including community policing, drug treatment, and programs for young people. It also contained the landmark Violence Against Women Act, which sharply reduced the incidence of domestic violence, and a ban on assault weapons, which helped to reduce the firearm homicide rate.
In the end, said Maryland representative Kweisi Mfume, the then-chair of the CBC, “We have put our stamp on this bill.” Two-thirds of the CBC members voted for its passage, as did the only Black senator at the time, Illinois’ Carol Moseley Braun. But key CBC members voted No on the bill, including John Lewis, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, and Charles Rangel. Similar to these CBC members in the mid-1990s, Rep. Bass’s comments made it clear that she thought “there was another way to go.” Still, she reminded us of the importance of complexity and nuance when looking at a politician’s record from decades ago.
It is easy to play Monday-morning quarterback. But did the controversial 1994 crime bill actually reduce violence while increasing mass incarceration and racial disparities in the criminal justice system?
Let’s begin with the facts. Between the end of the 1960s to the beginning of the 1990s, the overall rate of violent crime more than doubled before peaking in 1991 and beginning a long-term decline that brought the rate back down to the levels of the early 1970s. The homicide rate followed a similar pattern, with less variation between peaks and troughs. Between 1980 and 2006, the incarceration rate more than quadrupled before beginning a long-term decline that has brought it down to roughly where it stood when the 1994 crime bill was enacted. Since 2006, incarceration rateshave fallen by 17% for White Americans, 26% for Hispanics, and 34% for African Americans.
Did the 1994 crime bill help decrease the rate of violent crime? Probably, although the rate had begun to decline before the bill went into effect. Did the bill contribute to the expansion of incarceration? Again, probably so, although the bulk of the growth occurred in the fifteen years before the bill was enacted and has fallen significantly for nearly fifteen years.
But one thing is clear: the 1994 bill interacted with—and reinforced—an existing and highly problematic piece of legislation: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created huge disparities in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. Under this bill, a person was sentenced to a five-year minimum sentence for five grams of crack cocaine, but it took 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the same sentence. Because crack is a cheaper alternative to powder cocaine, it is more prominent in low-income neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are more likely to be predominately Black and in urban areas that can be overpoliced more easily than suburban or rural areas. While the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, enacted under the Obama-Biden administration, reduced the crack/powder cocaine disparity from 100:1 to 18:1, the damage had been done, and its effects continue to this day.
In the absence of the 1986 anti-drug bill, the effects of the 1994 on extended incarceration rates would have been less severe. But as James Clyburn’s comments show, getting tough on drugs was a key objective of the 1994 bill, not an unintended byproduct.
Let’s return to the “unprotected or under-protected” comment from Prof. Kennedy. Members of the CBC claim they want better policing for Black communities rather than more. This is complicated for people to interpret, especially when polls show that over 80% of Blacks want more police presence, not less. Often, surveys don’t ask the right type of questions about policing—questions that would get at complexity and nuance. Here’s what we mean:
Police respond more slowly to calls for service in Black communities. Ambulance services responding in Black communities compared to white communities are several minutes slower. If someone is suffering from a stroke or heart attack, these minutes are often a matter of life and death.
In addition, the violent crime clearance rate is unacceptably low. To most Black people, it seems that police care less for their communities, for their deceased loved ones, and for their own lives. So, when Black people say “more policing,” they mean better than what they have and similar to what predominately white communities receive. Black people want police to experience their neighborhoods and really engage in community policing rather than overpolicing their neighborhoods and harassing Black drivers and young people while responding too slowly when they are most needed.
He turned multiple generations of rural and blue collar voters Republican after signing that NAFTA trade deal. That's his legacy and
Democrats will never recover from it.
How Bill Clinton’s NAFTA law in 1994 could sink Kamala Harris in 2024
How Clinton's long-ago NAFTA deal could sink Harris in 2024 -
A political controversy that's more than three decades old could cost Vice President Kamala Harris the 2024 election next month.www.washingtonexaminer.com
This was a complete disaster and has really really hurt the American economy for generations
Nahhhh y’all told us/me that the crime rate is worse now than back then
