Prosecutorial Discretion. That’s it. That’s the post.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
I've been doing a lot of reading about Mayor Pete after his recent CNN Town Hall and I have to see I really like the guy. Shout-out to the early voters in this thread poll who hopped on that train before it was cool. I just donated $20.20 to his campaign and hope he gets the time he deserves during the first primary debate.
Source? That sounds like a major reach.
Anyway, here's a very simple video for anyone who wants to know what an AG does.
And here's an article outlining the relationship between prosecutor and police.
in the video you posted it's the part that they go over as 'advising state agencies on any legal matters they are facing'. A more practical example: if the police wanna do stop and frisk, or really any tactic that is legally disputable, but the DA won't back them legally, then they may be more likely to held liable if counterclaims are brought against the department or officers, and the people brought into legal jeopardy by that tactic will not face legal consequences, the over-all affect of this situation (the DA's interpretation of what legal policing practices are) is that the DA and their prosecutors have substantial affect on law enforcement agencies practices. In my post, I referred to Serial which dedicates much of it's 3rd season's content to the power dynamics. https://serialpodcast.org/season-three/5/pleas-baby-pleas this episode is the most explicit about it as far as subtitles go, but really you have to see the whole thing to realize prosecutors are central to what is happening in police departments.
in the article you posted: "Prosecutors can file charges on all crimes for which the police arrested a suspect, can file charges that are more or less severe than the charges leveled by the police, or can decide not to file any charges at all. " if they don't file charges any counterclaims seeking redress for damages for police misconduct are gonna play a different way, and police conduct will 'quickly' change in theory.
Also in the article you posted: "Most head prosecutors are elected officials. Many of them view their position as a stepping-stone to higher office. Their charging decisions are often, therefore, affected by public opinion or important support groups. For example, a prosecutor may file charges on every shoplifting case, no matter how weak, to curry favor with local store owners who want to get the word out that shoplifters will be prosecuted. For similar reasons, a prosecutor may pursue otherwise weak prostitution charges to avoid alienating powerful civic groups. Deputy or assistant prosecutors may feel that appearing tough will help their careers, either within the prosecutor’s office or later if they want to become judges."
thats all sinister for sure, but it gets even more messed up when the legality of policing is brought up in court. listen to serial to find out more
in the article you posted: "Prosecutors can file charges on all crimes for which the police arrested a suspect, can file charges that are more or less severe than the charges leveled by the police, or can decide not to file any charges at all. " if they don't file charges any counterclaims seeking redress for damages for police misconduct are gonna play a different way, and police conduct will 'quickly' change in theory.
Also in the article you posted: "Most head prosecutors are elected officials. Many of them view their position as a stepping-stone to higher office. Their charging decisions are often, therefore, affected by public opinion or important support groups. For example, a prosecutor may file charges on every shoplifting case, no matter how weak, to curry favor with local store owners who want to get the word out that shoplifters will be prosecuted. For similar reasons, a prosecutor may pursue otherwise weak prostitution charges to avoid alienating powerful civic groups. Deputy or assistant prosecutors may feel that appearing tough will help their careers, either within the prosecutor’s office or later if they want to become judges."
thats all sinister for sure, but it gets even more messed up when the legality of policing is brought up in court. listen to serial to find out more
Last edited:
I like his ideas on the Supreme Court. He’s off my list for public option instead of single payer and keeping himself open to wallstreet money—
But this guy speaks substance, has a clear view of the issues, and it’s just a pleasure to watch a left gay man from Pence’s home state talk sense. Bernie’s said he wants a woman, but seeing Pete square off against Pence in a VP debate would be a real treat...
Anyone who likes Beto, I really don’t see how Pete isn’t straight up a superior option.
Believe it or not, most people don't share your political opinions. Moderates and liberals still dominate the voting booths. Smogon and Twitter are not at all representative of the voter base, especially when young people have the lowest turnout rates (with older black women having the highest).
That's why Pete, or any other candidate, isn't a "straight up superior option" to anyone.
Except for Tulsi Gabbard. She sucks.
Would you prefer if I wrote and/or instead of “and”?
Based on the political climate, based on Trump in the White House and AOC in the news, what do you think youth/progressive turn out for the 2020 primaries is going to look like?
And if young turnout increases, would you call that a good thing or a bad thing if your goal is beating Trump no matter what?
if you must know, i am a communist and i stan beto o'rourke for 2020. so no, im not some kind of "berniebro" and you may feel free to cancel his pussy. im just pointing out a teeny tiny bit of potential hypocrisy on your part
seeing as the 18-29 year old age group has had the lowest turnout in every presidential election since at least 1986 (not caring to look back further), still low. They're usually a bit over 10 points behind 30-44 in turnout and 45+ is considerably higher (with 60+ always the highest).
The highest youth turnout ever was for Obama in 2008 and even then it was still under 50%.
What matter is not what % turn out. What matters is what percent the turn out increases. And I think with the problem child of Trump and a beloved candidate like Bernie (as well as several other popular candidates), the turn out Obama got is going to be massively overwhelmed.
Between 2008 and now, we have had a decade of older people dying, Generation Z moving up, and millennials facing the realities of a rigged economy. So I am INCLUDING people in their 30's as part of the youth vote. 2020 will definitely see those generations' engagement and participation increase massively--
...and if you want to beat Trump, you should welcome that.
It's possible. It's been less important in past elections how much the youth turnout even increased or decreased, since they were a relatively smaller part of the electorate than older generations, but that is changing. The US was still predominantly an older nation, not a younger one. 2020 is roughly the tipping point in which more millennials will be eligible to vote than baby boomers. But they have to show up and they have to vote by a wide margin.
But even in 2008 when a record turnout existed for young voters, it was close to record turnout for all age groups, so they normally wouldn't even have made a particularly meaningful impact relative to other ages vs in other elections. It turns out when a lot of young people want to vote, it's usually because a lot of people want to vote, period. The difference in 2008 was the actual margin in the cohort, which was absurd.
In addition, your assumption rests entirely on the notion that people who voted a certain way in their 20s will still do so in their 30s, and so on. Young liberals age but stay liberal, new even younger liberals become eligible to vote, and old conservatives die off. This is a brilliant theory that hasn't held water in any election in the past to my knowledge. It may come crashing down in that way kinda all at once but I'm not at all convinced that 2020 is the year.
In 2016, exit polls had the 18-29 cohort (19% of electorate) Clinton +18 and the 30-44 cohort (25% of electorate) Clinton +8.
In 2012, exit polls had the 18-29 cohort (19% of electorate) Obama +23 and the 30-44 cohort (27% of electorate) Obama +7.
In 2008, exit polls had the 18-29 cohort (18% of electorate) Obama +34 and the 30-44 cohort (29% of electorate) Obama +6.
That 30-44 cohort has been exceptionally stubborn, even as 2008 voters gradually moved into the older category by 2012 and 2016.
It's possibly that 2020 is different, since by then the 30-44 cohort was nearly ALL in the 18-29 cohort in 2008, 12 years prior. But if that were actually the case and the 30-44 cohort was going to suddenly vote D+~20, we'd have seen more movement in that direction in 2012 and 2016 first.
It turns out that some people just get more conservative as they age... (shocker).
Also re: the 18-29 cohort's decreasing margin of victory...
Obama didn't match his historic 2008 in 2012, and Clinton was even a bit worse, but her numbers were still much better than what Kerry, Gore, or even Clinton (Bill) got. You don't actually have to win the youth vote by 30 to win (thankfully), now that the age distribution itself is younger.
But even in 2008 when a record turnout existed for young voters, it was close to record turnout for all age groups, so they normally wouldn't even have made a particularly meaningful impact relative to other ages vs in other elections. It turns out when a lot of young people want to vote, it's usually because a lot of people want to vote, period. The difference in 2008 was the actual margin in the cohort, which was absurd.
In addition, your assumption rests entirely on the notion that people who voted a certain way in their 20s will still do so in their 30s, and so on. Young liberals age but stay liberal, new even younger liberals become eligible to vote, and old conservatives die off. This is a brilliant theory that hasn't held water in any election in the past to my knowledge. It may come crashing down in that way kinda all at once but I'm not at all convinced that 2020 is the year.
In 2016, exit polls had the 18-29 cohort (19% of electorate) Clinton +18 and the 30-44 cohort (25% of electorate) Clinton +8.
In 2012, exit polls had the 18-29 cohort (19% of electorate) Obama +23 and the 30-44 cohort (27% of electorate) Obama +7.
In 2008, exit polls had the 18-29 cohort (18% of electorate) Obama +34 and the 30-44 cohort (29% of electorate) Obama +6.
That 30-44 cohort has been exceptionally stubborn, even as 2008 voters gradually moved into the older category by 2012 and 2016.
It's possibly that 2020 is different, since by then the 30-44 cohort was nearly ALL in the 18-29 cohort in 2008, 12 years prior. But if that were actually the case and the 30-44 cohort was going to suddenly vote D+~20, we'd have seen more movement in that direction in 2012 and 2016 first.
It turns out that some people just get more conservative as they age... (shocker).
Also re: the 18-29 cohort's decreasing margin of victory...
Obama didn't match his historic 2008 in 2012, and Clinton was even a bit worse, but her numbers were still much better than what Kerry, Gore, or even Clinton (Bill) got. You don't actually have to win the youth vote by 30 to win (thankfully), now that the age distribution itself is younger.
We'll see-- they better hope that the youth doesn't come out, because when you ask the internet who it wants including all candidates, this is what happens:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/3/5/1839795/-Test-2-W-Poll?
1) Bernie Sanders 70% (17000 votes)
2) Andrew Yang 12% (3000 votes)
3) Tulsi Gabbard 7% (1800 votes)
4) Kamala Harris 3% (750 votes)
5) Warren / Inslee 2% (~500 votes)
6) Beto / Biden 1% (~200 votes)
Rest of them at 0%
I personally think this doesn't reflect reality, but it definitely illustrates what the mainstream media and pollsters aren't paying attention to.
People barely know Yang and Yanggang is already this fervent and growing this quickly. I definitely think he and Harris are the 2 biggest threats to Bernie.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/3/5/1839795/-Test-2-W-Poll?
1) Bernie Sanders 70% (17000 votes)
2) Andrew Yang 12% (3000 votes)
3) Tulsi Gabbard 7% (1800 votes)
4) Kamala Harris 3% (750 votes)
5) Warren / Inslee 2% (~500 votes)
6) Beto / Biden 1% (~200 votes)
Rest of them at 0%
I personally think this doesn't reflect reality, but it definitely illustrates what the mainstream media and pollsters aren't paying attention to.
People barely know Yang and Yanggang is already this fervent and growing this quickly. I definitely think he and Harris are the 2 biggest threats to Bernie.
Last edited:
I’m hyper skeptical of Yang because of who the “yanggang” are.
And also I hate the discussion about turnout because it shifts the blame onto the voting populous when the republicans have only won 1 popular vote in the past 30 years.Thats 7 times out of 8!!! But sure it’s because the youth didn’t turn out last time that’s for SURE why Clinton lost.
The American electoral system is rigged as fuck and needs to be fixed but for some reason asking for or talking about policy that would do that is a Democratic taboo and I have no idea why?
And also I hate the discussion about turnout because it shifts the blame onto the voting populous when the republicans have only won 1 popular vote in the past 30 years.Thats 7 times out of 8!!! But sure it’s because the youth didn’t turn out last time that’s for SURE why Clinton lost.
The American electoral system is rigged as fuck and needs to be fixed but for some reason asking for or talking about policy that would do that is a Democratic taboo and I have no idea why?
Known stuffed poll where Bernie supporters gathered en masse to vote. Pretty certain Daily Kos acknowledged this at some point.
Also online polls are unscientific. I’d rather use tea leaves.
I couldn’t agree more Valk. Voter shaming is stupid because it's never the onus of the voters to vote, it's always the responsibility of politicians to get voters to vote. The entitlement with which 3rd way democrat politics demands our votes is insane. I mean, Bill Clinton gained power by telling the unions "I'm going to side with Wallstreet but fuck you-- you got nowhere else to go."
"I'm with her." "I was born to be in it." How about, "Not me. Us." instead?
About how rigged the system is... have you heard of the Dictator's Handbook? This summary by CGPGrey blew my mind and totally changed my understanding of politics... and after watching it all the bullshit games, sucking up to elites, and stamping on democracy makes total logical sense. Actually Bernie and politicians who try to serve the people are what make no sense when viewing politics from the lens it gives.
As for YangGang... in part I think it is part of the "Obama Boys"/"Bernie Bros" phenomena when the candidate's loudest most testosterone charged audience members get perceived as the whole base (when Bernie now has more support from black Americans and women than from white Americans and men); and part of it has to do with how Yang got running on alternative media.
There are a LOT of people online who first heard of Yang on "Waking up with Sam Harris," and then a LOT more momentum took off when he want on the Joe Rogan Experience. Those two channels have big audiences, but they are inherently connected to the Intellectual Dark Web, which is notoriously known for the most visible online right-wingers, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson. Sam is "left" on domestic and economic issues, but his strain of new atheism rings a lot more like neoconservatism than progressivism on foreign policy so I'm sure like Rubin or Peterson there are a lot of populist-right and libertarian types who love Sam; and DEFINITELY a lot of them watch Joe Rogan Experience. And then Yang went on Tucker Carlson (he's been on Fox News 5-6 times) and that was that-- that audience now loves him. (As does Tucker Carlson)
Thing is, he didn't win those audiences by changing his talking points or policies-- he changed the framing, but delivered the exact same content to Fox Business, Tucker Carlson, Sam Harris, and JRE, as he did when he went on Vox's Ezra Klein show and progressive channels like TYT, the David Pakman show. (He seems off the radar of democratic socialists, but the social democrat half of the progressive media wing has picked him up favorably)
The audience we're talking about (populist right, libertarian/"classical liberal", even populist nationalist) is not inherently right wing on economic issues or foreign policy. In fact, Trump WON by running LEFT of the entire GOP field ("I'm going to defend Medicare and Medicaid," "The Iraq War was Stupid,") on economics and foreign policy, and even left of Hillary Clinton on Trade and foreign policy ("NAFTA was awful, shipping all our jobs to China.", "You think the US are good guys?"). Even his anti-immigration stance is technically a pro-labor position where elites have tried to utilize the vulnerability of immigrants to extract cheaper labor (and further decrease the value of labor). For an audience that didn't get to vote for Bernie because they didn't know enough about him or weren't registered as Democrats, Trump was oddly the most pro-labor, anti-war* candidate on stage and that's how he won. *I guess Rand Paul is also more anti-war but libertarians are awful on economics so... bleh
There is no such thing as a GOP base that loves tax cuts for the 1% and deregulation-- the GOP only has a voter base because of social issues + Bill Clinton/New Democrats telling the unions to go fuck themselves and then passing more of Reagan's platform than HW Bush could ever dream of. (And the secret police destroying the socialist/communist parties behind the scene, but you know...)
So while that audience loves "Economic Nationalism," "Isolationism", and "Draining the Swamp," Trump is failing to deliver all of those things (lots of them now freaking out about seeing their taxes INCREASED this year and the tax policies cripple Medicare/Medicaid, while there is no Wall and Bolton is planning to invade Venezuela and Iran)... so they're probably (quite visibly) becoming more and more open to a progressive candidate offering them "Economic Justice," "Non-interventionism", and "Money out of Politics," instead...
...as long as that candidate "isn't a Cuck" and doesn't pander to identity politics/political correctness. Literally, the only reasons they don't like Bernie are because he let those two BLM activists take his stage and then endorsed Hillary.
But Andrew is not only decidedly dry on identity politics (he talks about the issues facing different identity groups, but he doesn't make emotion-driven arguments for that identity group-- he only describes the problems they're facing statistically), but he A) makes decidedly non-PC comments and B) is unafraid of mentioning men's issues.
"A friend told me that the exact opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes numbers." <-- completely willing to run a stereotype of his own race
"There are 3.5 million Truck drivers, 97% male, average age 47... the answer is not expecting them all to be computer programmers-- they didn't like school back then and they won't like it now."
"25% of men in their 20's are not participating in the work force. And we know from the robust literature of psychological studies that when men don't work we don't handle it as well as women... we are less likely to engage in social activity, we are more likely to turn to drugs, despite more time we are less likely to volunteer. We're much more likely to play video games and unplug from the world."
Being willing to talk about men specifically as a vulnerable group is a quality I haven't seen in any of the the other democratic candidates and being completely unafraid from talking about the non-PC, non-clean-and-even statistics and psychological data around differences in groups-- even if he only ever belittles/jokes about men and his own race and always paints a flattering picture of women-- he's still unafraid about talking about the genders and races as different.
"My wife is at home right now taking care of our two sons, one of whom is autistic-- she works way harder than me, generates more value than me, but the market values her productivity at ZERO." <- you can see that this comment is definitely not post-modern, but definitely will find favor with many women democrats AND populist nationalists.
He probably gets away with it in a way that a white male candidate really couldn't; and so he is the least PC of all the candidates. Yang hasn't been on Rubin Report or been corronated by Eric Weinstein, but his refusal to use the traditional set of identity politics boundaries for a democratic candidate and his appearences on Sam Harris/JRE have pretty much made him THE democratic candidate of the Intellectual Dark Web.
Along with Tulsi Gabbard, who shares many similar qualities but whom Sam Harris will always hate because he's a neocon but whatevs.
The point is the white working class and populist nationalist types are absolutely winnable by progressive even if we protect justice for minorities.
Trump sent a massive and divisive dog whistle out last time when he said "Make America great Again" when America has never been great for a lot of people. But realistically-- it was great for those white working class voters who got the full benefit of the New Deal and generations of more Keynsean democrats... they just couldn't hear and couldn't fear the ugliness of that "again" when the same boot of economic vulnerability has also been planted on their throats, and rural America is going through the same decline as urban America has long dealt with...
...in large part because of the policies of Bill Clinton and the 3rd way Democrats. It was just really, really, REALLY unfortunate that the candidate was Hillary Clinton.
This is why Progressives should win, and why I am also not afraid of what's going on in the Yang camp-- he can play a positive unifying role here (as can Tulsi Gabbard). He is, as a younger Asian man, privileged to be able to talk about men’s issues and poor white people’s issues in a way that Bernie or Warren really can’t without being called bigoted. As a entrepreneur/capitalist he is able to speak to how venture folks and small businesses really should be part of the progressive coalition— as they massively benefit from federally government backed health, education, and social insurance that they themselves cannot afford for their workers. Yang speaks to robust social insurance = small local business creation in a way Bernie really doesn't know how to.
Elites win when the people are divided; as that Youtube video I posted talks about the key to successful politics is playing on those differences to divide and conquer: to win with the least required support from divided groups while taking donor $$$-- make re-election rates as high as possible with favorability as low as possible, and yourself as rich as possible.
There will always be division because different groups do have different interests. Bernie should get a better answer on Reparations and it's not an answer that is going to help him win Minnesota. But when enough of the people have been trampled on-- when it really is 1% vs. the 99%, then the 99% starts to act a whole lot more like one unifiable block, and the calculus of winning elections swings massively in favor of progressives. That change in the calculus is what's truly remarkable about what happened in 2016-- and as Noam Chomsky said, the remarkable thing about 2016 was not Donald Trump (who is playing the same cynical game as the others), but Bernie Sanders, who is refusing to play the game of division.
We can win this with not the left base, or the right base, but the will of the people-- and we can do it by demanding economic and social justice, and by promising to end the wars. The people are ready for a real revolution.
Last edited:
In actually relevant news, it looks like Beto now has the record for most first day donations. I really wasn't expecting that, tbh. Does this have any significant impact on his 2020 prospects? I thought he'd be out by Super Tuesday, but maybe not. I think Beto could be a good replacement for Biden voters if Biden chooses to sit out. I don't see him winning, but I think he will be a formidable force alongside Kamala and Bernie.
Also, how is all of this not immediately disqualifying for Biden, especially in #MeToo era??
Also, how is all of this not immediately disqualifying for Biden, especially in #MeToo era??
I clicked because I've been straddling the line of supporting him should he run, but after watching it's painfully clear he should not be given serious consideration, except for maybe a criminal investigation.
The first video I could maybe, MAYBE chalk up to an accidental brush of the girl's chest (even saying that sounds awful), but man there are a lot of videos in that thread that are downright shocking in his brazen, affectionate touching of those girls. Truly disturbing.
Yeah even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his intentions are innocent, we've come way too far to elect someone who has such a disturbing disregard for boundaries. I thought the most surreal one was him with Hillary, because she was so clearly uncomfortable and couldn't get him to let go, and that's Hillary Fucking Clinton. And of course all of the ones with children were outright repulsive to watch.
How many individual donors for Beto?
Oh wait... he didn’t release that...
...though I'm kind of shocked that the Donor class seems to be annointing O'Rourke and not Kamala Harris... as I said, I think she's clearly the stronger candidate of the two... in terms of being smarter, and more substantive, and coherent, and politically savvy...
Oh wait... he didn’t release that...
...though I'm kind of shocked that the Donor class seems to be annointing O'Rourke and not Kamala Harris... as I said, I think she's clearly the stronger candidate of the two... in terms of being smarter, and more substantive, and coherent, and politically savvy...
Last edited:
Where are bernie's tax returns? He said they were coming 3 weeks ago... and also 3 years ago. What's he hiding?
In other words, this is a stupid game to play. Talk about policy and qualifications.
Last edited: