Why havent you gottan trump out of office NOW?The Donald thanks you.
Joe Biden to Black people: "You ain't black [if you don't vote for me]" Edit: He apologized
- Thread starter FLATOP
- Start date
I’m voting for Biden...
Symone Sanders the worst advisor in history. 
Born2BKing
Veteran
fukk you talm bout?
Speak for yourself goofy
saturn7
Politics is an EXCHANGE!!!
Biden played key role in pushing US to take hardline stances on crime in 1990s, and now he's apologizing as 2020 looms
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-apologizes-for-pushing-hardline-laws-on-crime-immigration-in-1990s-2019-1
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-apologizes-for-pushing-hardline-laws-on-crime-immigration-in-1990s-2019-1
Oh so now you cant read???
You been in here crying about how evil trump is and what hes gonna do if he becomes president again(even though hes president now)
Why havent you and your democrat street team got him out the paint, after 3 years???
crazy that people can allow disrespect like this and calling it "politics". Only group in America where getting spit on is considered an "agenda". Everybody else getting shyt for their votes, we get some old cracker telling us we not black enough.
saturn7
Politics is an EXCHANGE!!!
The Complex History of the Controversial 1994 Crime Bill
A political compromise, the crime bill contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.
Cross-posted at MSNBC.com
When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders take the stage Thursday night in Brooklyn, the debate moderators will almost certainly ask them about a 22-year-old crime law. The issue is back in the news after the 1994 crime bill came up at a Hillary Clinton campaign rally last week.
Since then, much has been said about the legislation’s effect on crime and mass incarceration. Some argue the measure, officially called the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, led to a drop in crime. Others vehemently contend it did not. Questions abound about its impact on mass incarceration.
With millions watching Thursday, the candidates can help put the bill in context — and offer their specific ideas to move criminal justice policy forward.
Like most political compromises, the crime bill did some good and some bad. It contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.
First, the good: Though the crime bill was not responsible for the entire drop in crime, it likely helped — not by locking people up, but by putting more cops on the street, studies show. It provided funding for 100,000 new police officers and $14 billion in grants for community-oriented policing, for example. From 1990 to 1999, the number of police officers rose 28 percent, from 699,000 to 899,000, partly funded by the crime bill.
Research also indicates smarter policing tactics, like the ones funded by the bill, and social and economic factors — like an aging population and decreased alcohol consumption — played a role in the crime decline as well.
Crime had already started declining before the bill passed. From 1991 to 1994, crime dropped 10 percent and violence decreased by 5 percent. From 1994 to 2000, crime fell an additional 23 percent, with violent crime dropping by almost 30 percent. All of the above contributed to the fall.
Then there’s the bad: Although incarceration was already rising steadily before the crime bill, several of its provisions helped increase incarceration even further. Nevertheless, this increase had little impact on America’s subsequent drop in crime.
From 1970 to 1994, the rate of imprisonment exploded 400 percent, to 387 per 100,000 people. From 1994 to 2009, imprisonment continued to rise, doubling.
The crime bill contributed to this increase in incarceration. First, it banned 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons, authorized the death penalty for dozens of existing and new federal crimes, and instituted a federal “three strikes and you’re out” provision.
But those facets were far less pernicious than how the crime bill influenced states to increase their prison rolls. The bill granted states $12.5 billion to build prisons if they passed “truth-in-sentencing” (TIS) laws, which required inmates to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
A 2002 Urban Institute study found that between 1995 and 1999, nine states adopted TIS laws for the first time, and another 21 states changed their TIS laws to comply with the crime bill’s requirements and then apply for funding. By 1999, a total of 42 states had such laws on the books, sustaining an increase in imprisonment.
The crime bill, however, was just the most high-profile legislation to increase the number of people behind bars. On their own, states passed three-strikes laws, enacted mandatory minimums, eliminated parole, and removed judicial discretion in sentencing. By dangling bonus dollars, the crime bill encouraged states to remain on their tough-on-crime course.
continued:
The Complex History of the Controversial 1994 Crime Bill
A political compromise, the crime bill contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.
Cross-posted at MSNBC.com
When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders take the stage Thursday night in Brooklyn, the debate moderators will almost certainly ask them about a 22-year-old crime law. The issue is back in the news after the 1994 crime bill came up at a Hillary Clinton campaign rally last week.
Since then, much has been said about the legislation’s effect on crime and mass incarceration. Some argue the measure, officially called the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, led to a drop in crime. Others vehemently contend it did not. Questions abound about its impact on mass incarceration.
With millions watching Thursday, the candidates can help put the bill in context — and offer their specific ideas to move criminal justice policy forward.
Like most political compromises, the crime bill did some good and some bad. It contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.
First, the good: Though the crime bill was not responsible for the entire drop in crime, it likely helped — not by locking people up, but by putting more cops on the street, studies show. It provided funding for 100,000 new police officers and $14 billion in grants for community-oriented policing, for example. From 1990 to 1999, the number of police officers rose 28 percent, from 699,000 to 899,000, partly funded by the crime bill.
Research also indicates smarter policing tactics, like the ones funded by the bill, and social and economic factors — like an aging population and decreased alcohol consumption — played a role in the crime decline as well.
Crime had already started declining before the bill passed. From 1991 to 1994, crime dropped 10 percent and violence decreased by 5 percent. From 1994 to 2000, crime fell an additional 23 percent, with violent crime dropping by almost 30 percent. All of the above contributed to the fall.
Then there’s the bad: Although incarceration was already rising steadily before the crime bill, several of its provisions helped increase incarceration even further. Nevertheless, this increase had little impact on America’s subsequent drop in crime.
From 1970 to 1994, the rate of imprisonment exploded 400 percent, to 387 per 100,000 people. From 1994 to 2009, imprisonment continued to rise, doubling.
The crime bill contributed to this increase in incarceration. First, it banned 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons, authorized the death penalty for dozens of existing and new federal crimes, and instituted a federal “three strikes and you’re out” provision.
But those facets were far less pernicious than how the crime bill influenced states to increase their prison rolls. The bill granted states $12.5 billion to build prisons if they passed “truth-in-sentencing” (TIS) laws, which required inmates to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
A 2002 Urban Institute study found that between 1995 and 1999, nine states adopted TIS laws for the first time, and another 21 states changed their TIS laws to comply with the crime bill’s requirements and then apply for funding. By 1999, a total of 42 states had such laws on the books, sustaining an increase in imprisonment.
The crime bill, however, was just the most high-profile legislation to increase the number of people behind bars. On their own, states passed three-strikes laws, enacted mandatory minimums, eliminated parole, and removed judicial discretion in sentencing. By dangling bonus dollars, the crime bill encouraged states to remain on their tough-on-crime course.
continued:
The Complex History of the Controversial 1994 Crime Bill
Born2BKing
Veteran
Again, the fukk are you talking about? He was up for impeachment and his and your republicans boys blocked it.
It’s a stupid statement, but his black base eats this stuff up.
“We Are Not Our Ancestors” And “Tangibles” Twitter don’t really vote, and many of them that supposedly do already said they weren’t voting months ago. Biden knows what he’s doing and who he’s aiming for.
“We Are Not Our Ancestors” And “Tangibles” Twitter don’t really vote, and many of them that supposedly do already said they weren’t voting months ago. Biden knows what he’s doing and who he’s aiming for.
Ezekiel 25:17
Veteran
Bernie been with us since the civil rights. Bernie actually suggested marijuana taxes (a start) go to us
Lets ban bet on this simpleton
Unless youre too p*ssy
"When the hate dont work they start tellin lies"
Im getting sick of you lames imagining me
