SIO67: Andrew Torrez on The Crime Bill and Broken Window Theory

This episode is brought to you by Hello Fresh! Go to and enter promo code seriouspod30 for $30 off!

Andrew Torrez of the impossibly famous podcast Opening Arguments is here to talk about the Crime Bill of 1994 and some surrounding issues! Hillary was blamed for supporting this bill, by Bernie Bros, despite the fact that she wasn’t in the Senate and the time and Bernie actually VOTED for the bill.

The conversation will be continued on tomorrow’s Opening Arguments Podcast because we’re doing a super cool crossover thingy!

Here is who voted on the crime bill:

 And here’s Bernie talking about the crime bill, it’s the third full paragraph that begins “The second bill….”

Leave Thomas a voicemail! (916) 750-4746, remember short and to the point!

Support us on Patreon at:

Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod


For comments, email

Direct Download

3 Replies to “SIO67: Andrew Torrez on The Crime Bill and Broken Window Theory”

  1. One reason we know we cannot believe what Hillary Clinton says is that she said in her own words in a speech to a Wall Street corporate crowd that “sometimes you have to have a public position on an issue and a separate private position.” That’s corruption, guys: Tell the public one thing then pander to paying corporate interests behind the scenes. That’s what corruption is, even if it’s our darling who’s doing it.

    Sounds like you’re polishing the odoriferous DNC strategy (the one that gave us the Trump administration) by villainizing Bernie Sanders and shifting the blame for Hillary’s disastrous performance onto voters who didn’t show up to vote for somebody they didn’t like and didn’t believe in. Getting us ready to double down on failure.

    I felt manipulated after the 2016 election. Hillary had a whiff of carrion about her that would have kept me from voting for her under almost any other circumstances, but Donald Trump was a freshly shat turd that you could smell from across the room. Though I didn’t know how, I had a nagging feeling that it had been set up that way on purpose because that was the only way Hillary would ever get elected. Why are we always dealing with the very worst that our two parties can produce? It still hasn’t dawned on you guys what happened in 2016 and that’s why we’re going to lose again in 2020 (and, no, Tony Robins and Tinker Bell hand in hand won’t help). I know that Elizabeth Warren doesn’t share all of Hillary’s smelly baggage, but she’s going to be perceived as Hillary 2.0 and we’re going down again, for a lot of the same reasons as last time. I worry that it is so important to the PC/SJW crowd to have a woman candidate that they would rather run a woman and lose than run a man.

    A big, big part of getting the vote out is inspiration. Hillary was as inspiring as a cold wet dishrag. I expect Elizabeth Warren to be about as inspiring as a warm wet dishrag . The thought of Al Franken running always makes me smile. It gives me a sense of peace, like everything could be okay again someday. That’s where we should focus our efforts. I live on social security and a $200/mo. pension, but I’d cough up a couple o’ hunnerd bucks somehow to see a debate between Franken and Trump (of course, Trump’s kids would never allow it to take place—unless they’re as tired of him as we are by then).

    Wrong, Andrew. Corporate America does not want a mobile workforce. They want people stuck in their jobs where they can keep wages low and benefits minimal. Tying health insurance to a person’s continued employment, especially for those with families, serves the Corporate Oligarchy well. It makes people afraid to give up or change jobs. The people who own this country, the Koch brothers, et al, don’t consider an upwardly (or laterally) mobile, well trained, well educated workforce an asset. They have people offshore to do the complicated shit. Here they need meat-bots.

  2. Corruption would be if Hillary Clinton had actually done anything corrupt. As it stands, a lot of people have bought into the Republican narrative that there’s just something wrong with her. It all started with the Clinton Killcount chain letter in the 90s. Apparently a lot of people believe they’ll be murdered by the ghost of one the “victims” if they don’t keep passing it along, since the same long-disproven accusations are thrown along today, along with ones of her being sick, or her somehow causing Benghazi, or whatever other Big Lie Republicans have gotten people to believe.

    Objectively, we’re talking about one of the single most qualified individuals to be President in the modern history. A person who has been a top contender for President for some time now, with absolutely none of her support based on the idea that she should just be elected for being a woman. After all, we see how well that alleged support for women devoid of policy elevated Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann to such lofty political positions they aimed for, right? Hillary Clinton was put forth because we’re talking about someone who, every time she’s been investigated, has turned up no crimes. There are VERY few Americans who would meet that standard.

    On top of that, when she was run against this supposed liberal darling who would surely have won, she beat him. Bernie couldn’t even win a majority of liberals, so we expect he somehow would have pulled in enough conservative voters to make up the difference?

    And yet, despite people trying to claim she was uninspired and horrible and all this and that, she still got more votes than the other guy. Oh, but we’re supposed to believe that’s ok because both sides are the same. Somehow. I mean, Republican party had a big Tea Party Movement organized by Big Oil and cigarette companies. Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to see about reversing climate change that those same oil companies wholeheartedly fight. Republicans decrease taxes on the wealthy while starting up a bunch of new wars that kill poor people, but Democrats are somehow just as bad for scaling back the wars, using drones instead of soldiers, and trying to avoid new wars.

    Now, if you want some real corruption, look into that Jill Stein woman, who somehow didn’t magically get huge support despite being a woman. See, Stein ran on the Green party ticket, and was all environmentalist, except she also hobnobs with Russians and invests in oil and gas companies. But then, that’d require someone to pay attention to a real scandal rather than yet another fictional one about the Clintons.

  3. You missed it entirely: The fact that Hillary was promising two different things to two different groups of people while taking large sums of money from one of them is the very definition of corruption. It’s what people call “being two-faced” or “talking out of both sides of your mouth.” Hillary is a very practiced liar, but that’s what politicians do. Politics is the science of lying. Donald Trump, who has been likened to “a coked up toddler with Tourette’s,” is a reflexive, impulsive liar with very little self control. I’d still take Hillary over The Donald , but it is a classic “lesser of two evils” choice.

    The fact that the Irredeemable Left still views Hillary as “the ideal candidate” is why we’re going to loose again in 2020. Ideal candidates don’t lose elections to talking turds.

Leave a Reply