Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[fanyfan]

People itt have been upset that she has been called homophobic because “she has changed her personal views.” Problem is her old personal views weren’t just anti marriage, they were pro conversion therapy. She still goes to the same church which holds the same beliefs, so she’s probably still donating to an organization that supports conversion therapy. But saying that isn’t politically expedient anymore I guess.

First of all, there was a point where pretty much every politician was anti-gay marriage. It’s a disgusting part of our history, but even most democrats (except Bernie) who have been around that long have had those views, conversion therapy aside. For what it’s worth, Tulsi has given us a pretty good idea on why her personal views have changed (her service in Iraq). It’s a criticism of her, but her pro-lgbt voting record is also something to take into account. Since she’s joined the U.S. House of Reps in 2012, her voting record has been 100% pro-lgbt, so in the end I don’t think that holding anti-gay views years ago counts as holding views that are politically expedient. She has also issued multiple apologies to the lgbt community, so that shows strength to admit you were wrong rather than throwing it under the rug.

Now of course that’s my opinion that’s shes changed, and it’s perfectly fine for you to look at all that and come to a different conclusion. Now, where you lose me, is where you say

She still goes to the same church which holds the same beliefs, so she’s probably still donating to an organization that supports conversion therapy. But saying that isn’t politically expedient anymore I guess.

I searched and couldn’t find any evidence that she attends/donates to the same church that she used to attend. Unless you’re referring to the Hindu faith as a whole, in which case what I could find is that hindus in general are quite accepting of gay marriage, with just a couple exceptions. The organization that she was a part of in her early years, the one her father started, is clearly not what you’re referring to. Could you please provide some link to what you’re talking about? Otherwise it comes off as weird that you’re talking about something we have no evidence of.
As I was formulating this post, there was something else I wanna respond to

No my point was that it’s a tad hypocritical to say certain people only changed viewpoints because it’s politically expedient to do so, which disqualifies them, then support Tulsi. I was also trying to say I don’t necessarily think changing view points because it’s politically expedient is always a bad thing (though I didn’t put it very well).

I disagree that it’s hypocritical. There’s a difference between changing public polisions because it’s politically expedient and someone having an actual change of heart. A point I didn’t bring up before is people like Kamala, Booker, Gillibrand, etc are already backtracking on policies like Medicare for All, letting us know that they won’t fight for it when they get elected. Tulsi, on the other hand, I have found no convincing reason to believe that she has not genuinely changed her mind. Again, voting record, apologies, etc. That’s the difference in my mind, and probably others as well.

 

[Chou Toshio]

No my point was that it’s a tad hypocritical to say certain people only changed viewpoints because it’s politically expedient to do so, which disqualifies them, then support Tulsi. I was also trying to say I don’t necessarily think changing view points because it’s politically expedient is always a bad thing (though I didn’t put it very well).

Ahhhhhh, gotcha. Hey, I got no problem with people changing minds and opinions. I think it's good when politicians change in response to pressure from voters (that's the whole point of engaging in politics) and I even say "I'd rather have Trump taking action just because it looks good to the voters than having action that flagrantly betrays the voters."

Actions taken just to look good, tend to actually be good... whether you believe in the convictions or not, that goes with Trump and TPP, and it goes with Tulsi and her voting on LGBTQ issues, or Kamala Harris supporting Bernie's Medicare for All bill or sponsoring the Green New Deal. If you don't trust them you can say that they're just for show; but there is a genuine value for the people.

To me the issue is not political expediency or responsiveness to pressure... to me the issue is that I simply don't trust her. I don't trust her because of her donor money. I don't trust her because of her friendliness with the establishment and Hillary's old infrastructure. I don't trust her because of her record. It's true that this means there is literally nothing she can do to win over voters like me because any action she takes will not make her record or her trustworthiness stack up to Bernie Sanders'... but that's kind of a big reason why he's so popular. This year we can get the real deal.

And I think as my previous post(s) have iterated, the quality I most value in a democratic candidate is enmity to the establishment-- because I sincerely believe we NEED a political revolution; we need a mandate to completely change the Democratic Party and how Washington works. The more enmity the candidate has, the more I can trust him/her, and the stronger that mandate becomes in the event that he/she wins.

That's why--
1) Bernie Sanders (He's waging a political revolution, and has been fighting the establishment since forever)
2) Tulsi Gabbard (is making the worst enemies for herself in order to fight for her issues unbendingly-- and we saw her mettle when she stepped down from Vice Chair of the DNC and establishment stardom in order to endorse Bernie)
3) Andrew Yang (Too friendly to the DNC, but he has a degree of populist rhetoric-- he calls 2016 rigged against Bernie, points to a need for Congress to be reformed in order to get his agenda, points at weak politicians unwilling to take automation seriously, etc.)
4) Elizabeth Warren (Talks a big game but then folds to DNC leadership every time...)
5) write in Bernie Sanders

Is the list that works best for reaching the goal of real and needed reform coming from my understanding of our politics and our policies.

Enmity+courage is not a replacement for trustworthiness, but considering how much wealth and power there is to be had by caving, enmity is a pretty damn good proxy and a critical quality for a truly transformative leader. ESPECIALLY with Tulsi, because she is a Veteral Woman of Color, because she is smart and bold-- she was a favorite of the Democrats, a rising star; up until she supported Bernie. The fact that she could have (and probably still could) easily get on the lane to wealth and power simply by selling out to the donors and establishment earns her more respect.

 

[atomicllamas]

First of all, there was a point where pretty much every politician was anti-gay marriage. It’s a disgusting part of our history, but even most democrats (except Bernie) who have been around that long have had those views, conversion therapy aside. For what it’s worth, Tulsi has given us a pretty good idea on why her personal views have changed (her service in Iraq). It’s a criticism of her, but her pro-lgbt voting record is also something to take into account. Since she’s joined the U.S. House of Reps in 2012, her voting record has been 100% pro-lgbt, so in the end I don’t think that holding anti-gay views years ago counts as holding views that are politically expedient. She has also issued multiple apologies to the lgbt community, so that shows strength to admit you were wrong rather than throwing it under the rug.

Now of course that’s my opinion that’s shes changed, and it’s perfectly fine for you to look at all that and come to a different conclusion. Now, where you lose me, is where you say

I searched and couldn’t find any evidence that she attends/donates to the same church that she used to attend. Unless you’re referring to the Hindu faith as a whole, in which case what I could find is that hindus in general are quite accepting of gay marriage, with just a couple exceptions. The organization that she was a part of in her early years, the one her father started, is clearly not what you’re referring to. Could you please provide some link to what you’re talking about? Otherwise it comes off as weird that you’re talking about something we have no evidence of.
As I was formulating this post, there was something else I wanna respond to

I disagree that it’s hypocritical. There’s a difference between changing public polisions because it’s politically expedient and someone having an actual change of heart. A point I didn’t bring up before is people like Kamala, Booker, Gillibrand, etc are already backtracking on policies like Medicare for All, letting us know that they won’t fight for it when they get elected. Tulsi, on the other hand, I have found no convincing reason to believe that she has not genuinely changed her mind. Again, voting record, apologies, etc. That’s the difference in my mind, and probably others as well.

I had read an article about her religious beliefs that indicated she still belongs to a relatively conservative sect, but I can’t seem to find it and other articles seem to not confirm so I apologize that what I said was probably incorrect. This also makes me feel better if she wins the primary (I would have voted for her regardless but I prefer this way). To your point though, you believe her heart of hearts has changed but we can’t be sure, which is why I find political expediency arguments pretty pointless. I also disagree, it would be objectively be hypocritical to support a candidate that has changed their views for political expediency but say that disqualifies others. It sounds like you don’t agree that Tulsi’s views changed for political expediency, it also sounds like you think the others listed are being intentionally misleading about their view points, which I agree would be objectively worse.

 

[fanyfan]

I had read an article about her religious beliefs that indicated she still belongs to a relatively conservative sect, but I can’t seem to find it and other articles seem to not confirm so I apologize that what I said was probably incorrect. This also makes me feel better if she wins the primary (I would have voted for her regardless but I prefer this way). To your point though, you believe her heart of hearts has changed but we can’t be sure, which is why I find political expediency arguments pretty pointless. I also disagree, it would be objectively be hypocritical to support a candidate that has changed their views for political expediency but say that disqualifies others. It sounds like you don’t agree that Tulsi’s views changed for political expediency, it also sounds like you think the others listed are being intentionally misleading about their view points, which I agree would be objectively worse.

When you put it like that, I think the political expediency isn’t really what I’m against. I feel like I’ve been using the wrong wording here. Rather, I’m against candidates who aren’t honest and try to misread people with weasel words and who walk big parts of their platforms. Pete Buttigieg’s “Medicare for All who want it” which is actually a public option. Kamala and Gillibrand waking back support for Medicare for All. Warren waking back on like half of her platform. Anyone who says we need to get “Dark, unaccountable money out of politics”. Beto breaking his no oil money pledge. Klobuchar with weasel words coming out of her mouth every other minute. Obama and Clinton fall into this category too. I just want politicians to be honest and support a bold progressive platform. That’s why Bernie is so beloved imo, is just because of honesty. Tulsi and Yang highlight super important issues of noninterventionism and ubi respectively, but Bernie is the real deal.

Sorry, got off on a tangent there. But the point is, I think I see what you’re saying when it comes to political expediency and that it’s not necessarily a bad thing. We just need honesty in our politicians.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Beautiful...

This kind of passion is what’s going to get Bernie the earned/owned impressions and door knocks that make him easily the strongest candidate against Trump and in the primary.

 

[MikeDawg]

Given her record on prisoner abuse and prosecutorial misconduct, there's reason to fear how her Justice Department will act if she's President.

What record on "abuse and misconduct"?

But she was a conservative Attorney General up until 2017.

Do you have actual examples of her being "conservative" that don't include outright laughable claims that she's in any way pro-death penalty?

Can we all please stop getting our information from memes and fringe blogs? And can we stop treating politics like Stan Twitter? Please.

 

[orch]

What record on "abuse and misconduct"?



Do you have actual examples of her being "conservative" that don't include outright laughable claims that she's in any way pro-death penalty?

Can we all please stop getting our information from memes and fringe blogs? And can we stop treating politics like Stan Twitter? Please.

Yes, we should only digest the prescribed information (which are equally subjective as any other information) from the prescribed political class who are only self interested in maintaining their socioeconomic structure!

 

[MikeDawg]

First of all, there was a point where pretty much every politician was anti-gay marriage. It’s a disgusting part of our history, but even most democrats (except Bernie) who have been around that long have had those views,

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-has-evolved-same-sex-marriage-too-n454081

Yes, we should only digest the prescribed information (which are equally subjective as any other information) from the prescribed political class who are only self interested in maintaining their socioeconomic structure!

Or primary documents. Or anything with a shred of credibility, maybe? "Better than propaganda" isn't a high bar.

 

[orch]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-has-evolved-same-sex-marriage-too-n454081


Or primary documents. Or anything with a shred of credibility, maybe? "Better than propaganda" isn't a high bar.

Credibilism got us into this mess in the first place. I filter the information by its own merit. The source of information is merely an additional part of information that deserve the equal scruinty as any other parts of the information.

 

[Shrug]

mikedawg there is a long well-documented history of harris's support for prosecutors convicted of egregious misconduct, cops, etc. even where she is ok, like the death penalty -- she refused to seek it for an alleged cop killer despite pressure from feinstein -- she isn't good: she didnt significantly challenge the state's death penalty architecture, which newsom, for all his faults, actually did recently. her defense of three strikes and her treatment of parents of truant students is damning.

but even without the truly heinous shit above i wouldnt support a prosecutor or da for higher office. i believe in the systematic dismantling -- the abolition -- of the u.s carceral and police apparatuses. a small part of that is making serving in one of those positions categorically disqualifying for any other elected position. this has to be carried out harshly and consistently. it has to be a death sentence (heh) for any aspirations beyond. only this will disincentivize a stint upholding the colonial system of imprisonment the u.s currently operates and perhaps orient these people towards even cynically supporting real teardowns.

 

[Bughouse]

we could also maybe stop disingenuously calling prosecutors cops, though... since you know... they're not

 

[Shrug]

wht do u mean

 

[MikeDawg]

If you think I take issue with criticism, you're missing the point. Criticising a candidate's record is good. Spouting toxic rhetoric, perpetuating blatant propaganda, staying willfully misinformed, stooping to blatantly racist/sexist attacks, and using absurd purity tests to "cancel" a candidate's entire career, qualifications, and moral foundation is the problem. Calling almost any of the current dem candidates conservative, especially someone like Kamala, is embarrassingly stupid and delusional, and it makes it impossible to take that person seriously. All this while treating one candidate like fucking jesus christ is absurdly hypocritical and naive. For example, Robert Alfons insinuating I dgaf about civil rights issues because I dared to criticise Bernie's record on civil rights issues is childish as fuck. Meanwhile, I doubt he's ever criticised a bernie supporter for linking that one picture of bernie getting arrested, or calling minorities "low information voters" for not supporting him.

mikedawg there is a long well-documented history of harris's support for prosecutors convicted of egregious misconduct, cops, etc.

Like what? Appealing the decision to let a child molester walk free after one prosecutor's actions is not "supporting egregious misconduct". Thankfully, that guy was arrested again. Unfortunately, it was at the expense of another victim.

God forbid we apply nuance to anyone not named Bernard.

even where she is ok, like the death penalty -- she refused to seek it for an alleged cop killer despite pressure from feinstein -- she isn't good: she didnt significantly challenge the state's death penalty architecture, which newsom, for all his faults, actually did recently.

Newsom is a governor. Kamala was the AG. They have completely different roles, different jurisdictions, and different obligations. Her platform has always included being against capital punishment. Moreover, she was the first AG ever in California to refuse pursuing the death penalty for someone who killed a cop. What more do you possibly need? Which candidate has a better history of taking real action under huge pressure against capital punishment? Even Bernie's vote for the crime bill already puts him in a technically worse position on the DP, and that just makes it more obvious how biased and petty this "criticism" is. This is inarguably a plus for Kamala (for people who disagree with the death penalty)

her treatment of parents of truant students is damning.

What has she done irt these things that is so damning? Problematic? Sure. I certainly disagree with some of her actions as a prosecutor, just as I disagree with plenty of things that every candidate and person ever has done. But you said it was damning. What in particular warrants such a strong denouncement of her entire candidacy? Nobody got arrested due to the Truancy program, and it had multiple positive effects. I disagree with the implementation of the program (and any similar programs across the nation), but it's definitely not "damning" to her entire candidacy, and her intentions were certainly good in creating it.

Meanwhile, what were Bernie's intentions in claiming cervical cancer is caused by a lack of orgasms? What good did that accomplish? How do you feel about his handling of sexual harassment allegations in his campaign? I think it's awful, and it's incriminating that it happened under his watch, but I also think he probably sincerely wasn't aware of the issue at the time. Similarly, I think we should apply that same nuance to the fact that many of these criticisms towards Kamala's AG record are about things done by her office, not by her. For example, just like Bernie, she was shocked to learn about "her" defense of prison labor. Do you think she should be blamed for that? If so, Bernie should be blamed for his campaign's sexual harassment, which is pretty damning.

but even without the truly heinous shit above

There you go again. If you think that's "truly heinous", I'd love to hear your description of things like genocide!

i wouldnt support a prosecutor or da for higher office. i believe in the systematic dismantling -- the abolition -- of the u.s carceral and police apparatuses. a small part of that is making serving in one of those positions categorically disqualifying for any other elected position. this has to be carried out harshly and consistently. it has to be a death sentence (heh) for any aspirations beyond. only this will disincentivize a stint upholding the colonial system of imprisonment the u.s currently operates and perhaps orient these people towards even cynically supporting real teardowns.

That's perfectly fair, and it's p much the only reason that I equally support a few of the other candidates. Similarly, I don't want to be lead by an old white guy with a history of inaction and super problematic views on civil rights ("most drug dealers are black"), indefensibly misogynistic statements, and dismissal of gay marriage because of "states' rights". I think that would be a major step back, especially when we have multiple candidates with far more accomplishments and nearly identical platforms who aren't openly hostile against "identity politics".

 

[MikeDawg]

wht do u mean

Prosecutors are lawyers. Cops are cops.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Harris wants to jail parents of truant kids in poor, economically unstable (and often minority) families working 2 or 3 jobs to keep their kids fed.

Progressives in the race want to give those families child care, guaranteed housing, higher paying jobs, stronger worker’s right, and straight up $$.

“Jobs and education— not jails and incarceration!”

 

[Celticpride]

Progressives in the race want to give those families child care, guaranteed housing, higher paying jobs, stronger worker’s right, and straight up $$.

You'd have to hodgepodge together 4 or 5 different candidates platforms to reach this conclusion. If "progressives in the race" means "all the things I like about these candidates and none of the drawbacks" then sure progressives in the race want to do that.

Claiming higher paying jobs, stronger workers rights, and government funded childcare as progessive things is pretty hilarious too. Plenty of other democratic candidates want those things too.

 

[DTC]

Apparently I was the very first person in this thread to vote for John Delaney. He's not my favorite, but he's my favorite out of all of the options in this poll.

 

[Shrug]

i genuinely do not understand the framing of your post. when did i say i supported bernie sanders? i made another post essentially arguing that voting for bernie sanders or anyone else did not Matter. yet you frame my entire post as an argument for bernie sanders in opposition to harris. you could have saved yourself many words of typing by excising all of that. im unsure if that was a misreading on your part or intentionally disingenuous, but who cares. lemme run through this quick by quick categorized:

the unneeded:

If you think I take issue with criticism, you're missing the point. Criticising a candidate's record is good. Spouting toxic rhetoric, perpetuating blatant propaganda, staying willfully misinformed, stooping to blatantly racist/sexist attacks, and using absurd purity tests to "cancel" a candidate's entire career, qualifications, and moral foundation is the problem. Calling almost any of the current dem candidates conservative, especially someone like Kamala, is embarrassingly stupid and delusional, and it makes it impossible to take that person seriously. All this while treating one candidate like fucking jesus christ is absurdly hypocritical and naive. For example, Robert Alfons insinuating I dgaf about civil rights issues because I dared to criticise Bernie's record on civil rights issues is childish as fuck. Meanwhile, I doubt he's ever criticised a bernie supporter for linking that one picture of bernie getting arrested, or calling minorities "low information voters" for not supporting him.

didnt need this. i didnt do any of this (prison abolition is "toxic rhetoric" or "racist or sexist"?; "purity tests" means what?) and the other people you're shooting at obviously meant different things in context, i.e conservative does not always mean "has the politics of louie gohmert". the robert alfons stuff is more specific and i cant be bothered to look for it. he's a big boy poster and can defend himself. but why clutter a post that nearly entirely quotes me by opening with a paragraph that has nothing to do with what i said? one suspects that you intended to prime the reader with the ideas that i "stooped" to racism and sexism, that i employed "purity tests", that i remained "willfully misinformed" about... things you will struggle to make clear later. but i cant be sure; either way, for the sake of clarity and good-faith argument, id have cut this whole thing and made it a different post to respond to other posters.

God forbid we apply nuance to anyone not named Bernard.

see paragraph 1.

Which candidate has a better history of taking real action under huge pressure against capital punishment? Even Bernie's vote for the crime bill already puts him in a technically worse position on the DP, and that just makes it more obvious how biased and petty this "criticism" is.

see paragraph 1, and also this should probably go in a separate section aswell.

Meanwhile, what were Bernie's intentions in claiming cervical cancer is caused by a lack of orgasms? What good did that accomplish? How do you feel about his handling of sexual harassment allegations in his campaign? I think it's awful, and it's incriminating that it happened under his watch, but I also think he probably sincerely wasn't aware of the issue at the time. Similarly, I think we should apply that same nuance to the fact that many of these criticisms towards Kamala's AG record are about things done by her office, not by her. For example, just like Bernie, she was shocked to learn about "her" defense of prison labor. Do you think she should be blamed for that? If so, Bernie should be blamed for his campaign's sexual harassment, which is pretty damning.

cant be bothered to colander through so i'll come back to some of this but again see above.

the ideologically repulsive:

Like what? Appealing the decision to let a child molester walk free after one prosecutor's actions is not "supporting egregious misconduct". Thankfully, that guy was arrested again. Unfortunately, it was at the expense of another victim.

you tried the "if you dont like prosecutors you like pedophiles" shit on me? really? child molester. think through this one. in the case file that you linked, the judge in ruling against harris noted:

hm. that clearly would prejudice a jury against anyone and thus deny him due process, innocent before proven guilty and so on. it is undoubtedly unfortunate that the person in question abused again, but prosecutorial misconduct happens by definition while a person is legally innocent. your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that if you support due process of law you support pedophiles. thats pretty gross!

Newsom is a governor. Kamala was the AG. They have completely different roles, different jurisdictions, and different obligations. Her platform has always included being against capital punishment. Moreover, she was the first AG ever in California to refuse pursuing the death penalty for someone who killed a cop. What more do you possibly need?

I said that her not pursuing lethal injection for the person in that case was good. what more could i need? take this, written before she entered the presidential arena:
https://deathpenalty.org/blog/jones-v-davis-update/a judge ruled that CA's death penalty was unconstitutional. she appealed to preserve it. this means the opportunity existed for her to end the death penalty and she decided to instead attempt to prolong it. this is what more i would need: her actually following through on the positions you stated.

using ss for this one, you'll see why:

lets go back to what i typed:

her defense of three strikes and her treatment of parents of truant students is damning.

hm. where did that first part go? sure looks like you made a new sentence than the one i wrote because you couldnt respond to the first part! and let me say what i consider damning: the use of prison (or even the threat of it) as a bludgeon. i wrote this very clearly in my post: i am for the dismantling of the carceral state. her threat (even if it was, as you said, never carried out) to put mothers in jail represents a belief that the prison system can be used to shape society down to the most basic level. there's no grand moral punishment like one might want for a murderer. it means she thinks jail is a viable threat to coerce people into orderliness.

Similarly, I think we should apply that same nuance to the fact that many of these criticisms towards Kamala's AG record are about things done by her office, not by her. For example, just like Bernie, she was shocked to learn about "her" defense of prison labor. Do you think she should be blamed for that? If so, Bernie should be blamed for his campaign's sexual harassment, which is pretty damning.

i did not and never have defended the sanders campaign's treatment of sexual harassment allegations. but you eliding the differences in circumstance is odd. no one expects anyone to know everything that goes on in their office, and sexual assault reporting procedures need to improve categorically for all campaigns. but it is reasonable to expect an elected official to know about the ideological output of their office before it happens. defending prison labor is a policy concern. it is almost neccesary to expect the people we elect to know about the implementation of insanely important policies that their staff put into place.

the annoying:

we could also maybe stop disingenuously calling prosecutors cops, though... since you know... they're not

Prosecutors are lawyers. Cops are cops.

ok. i understand that "prosecutor" and "police officer" are different jobs i loosely use cop to mean "upholder of the carceral state" which applies to both prosecutors and cops. and also:

i mean lets get down to basics here.

what does it say on her windbreaker? save the fainting couch shit.

the baffling:

That's perfectly fair, and it's p much the only reason that I equally support a few of the other candidates.

you cite my paragraph about categorical opposition to DAs running for office. then you say it is "fair". then you say "thats why i support a former DA among other candidates". then my position, to you, is not "perfectly fair". it is wrong. why act differently?

edit: in here should also go the parts where you say "if you think this is heinous i wonder what you think about genocide". uh? i dont know what point you think you were making here. well i can guess but it's really really bad.

overall, a weak and at parts stomach-churning post from you. although i am sorta laughing at the idea of ty dolla sign singing "i think im nate dogg" but instead it's "i think im mike daawg".

 

[Bughouse]

if Harris has called herself a cop, then I suppose I can retract my criticism lol. It can't be unfair to call someone what they've called themselves. That said, calling herself the top cop probably polled well in California, but it's just not accurate. If it bites her in the ass now, so be it.

I will also argue that the job of a prosecutor is to represent the state in cases of crimes against the state. There is a somewhat narrow band of prosecutorial discretion, mostly in terms of sentencing recommendations. In that respect, she's certainly been good in advocating against the death penalty, even when it's been an option in California (one affirmed by CA voters in 2012 during her time as attorney general and again in 2016 as she got elected to the senate). But it's not generally the job of a prosecutor to pick and choose which laws to enforce. Choosing to stop defending a law more or less needs to come from the belief that the law itself is unconstitutional (think how Obama's administration stopped defending DOMA), rather than just bad policy. If she thinks it's bad, but legal, policy, she's both legally and ethically bound to enforce it. She was not the state's governor or legislature.

 

[MikeDawg]

i genuinely do not understand the framing of your post. when did i say i supported bernie sanders? i made another post essentially arguing that voting for bernie sanders or anyone else did not Matter. yet you frame my entire post as an argument for bernie sanders in opposition to harris. you could have saved yourself many words of typing by excising all of that. im unsure if that was a misreading on your part or intentionally disingenuous, but who cares. lemme run through this quick by quick categorized:

Apologies if that (and Bernie references) seemed directed at you in particular. That's not what I intended, which is why I didn't quote you and address your post until after that first paragraph (and specifically tagged other users). Though after your latest response, I guess it's not entirely inapplicable.

you tried the "if you dont like prosecutors you like pedophiles" shit on me? really? child molester. think through this one. in the case file that you linked, the judge in ruling against harris noted:
View attachment 165690
hm. that clearly would prejudice a jury against anyone and thus deny him due process, innocent before proven guilty and so on. it is undoubtedly unfortunate that the person in question abused again, but prosecutorial misconduct happens by definition while a person is legally innocent. your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that if you support due process of law you support pedophiles. thats pretty gross!

That's not what I said in the slightest. You attributed Kamala's appeal to supporting bad prosecutors; I corrected you by providing sources for the specifics of the case and the actual reasoning behind the appeal. In fact, she specifically argued that the nature of the case & the misconduct didn't qualify for the legally outrageous ruling.

I'm not sure where you got "if you dont like prosecutors you like pedophiles", but go off sis. If you don't want to actually address what I said, that's your prerogative.

I said that her not pursuing lethal injection for the person in that case was good. what more could i need? take this, written before she entered the presidential arena:
https://deathpenalty.org/blog/jones-v-davis-update/a judge ruled that CA's death penalty was unconstitutional. she appealed to preserve it. this means the opportunity existed for her to end the death penalty and she decided to instead attempt to prolong it. this is what more i would need: her actually following through on the positions you stated.

First of all, I hope you aren't using a website specifically focused on abolishing the death penalty as your main insight into this case.

Regardless, her job as attorney general was to address the constitutionality of the state’s death penalty. Despite her personal convictions, she argued it was indeed constitutional. That's called doing your job without injecting political bias, just as we would expect and hope the supreme court to do. She does not have the authority to change the law.

What she does have the power to do is pass judgement on individual cases. She absolutely "followed through" on those positions when she became the first AG ever to not pursue the death penalty for the death of a cop.

So I ask again: what more do you need? Because it seems like you are the one being disingenuous here.

using ss for this one, you'll see why:
View attachment 165691
lets go back to what i typed:

hm. where did that first part go? sure looks like you made a new sentence than the one i wrote because you couldnt respond to the first part! and let me say what i consider damning: the use of prison (or even the threat of it) as a bludgeon. i wrote this very clearly in my post: i am for the dismantling of the carceral state. her threat (even if it was, as you said, never carried out) to put mothers in jail represents a belief that the prison system can be used to shape society down to the most basic level. there's no grand moral punishment like one might want for a murderer. it means she thinks jail is a viable threat to coerce people into orderliness.

I typed part of a response, left to go live my life, then came back and forgot. sue me.

My response: when did she defend the three-strikes policy? You can list all of the vague talking points you want, but you've made it clear that you have no specifics to back them up considering I had to figure out myself all of the things you were trying to reference. I love your brilliant use of "etc" to make it seem like you had more things to say, though. "Somehow defended bad cops sometime probably, defended 3 strikes at some point maybe, etc." isn't a great way to prove your point.

I still don't see what's so damning, but whatever

you cite my paragraph about categorical opposition to DAs running for office. then you say it is "fair". then you say "thats why i support a former DA among other candidates". then my position, to you, is not "perfectly fair". it is wrong. why act differently?

That's why I support other candidates among a former DA. Unlike you, apparently, I don't think one potential issue is worth entirely denouncing a candidate. If that were the case, nobody would be voting for anyone. or as you put it:

im unsure if that was a misreading on your part or intentionally disingenuous, but who cares

Your last bit of low-effort drivel isn't worth reading.

if Harris has called herself a cop, then I suppose I can retract my criticism lol. It can't be unfair to call someone what they've called themselves. That said, calling herself the top cop probably polled well in California, but it's just not accurate. If it bites her in the ass now, so be it.

Using the catchy little "California's top cop" seems to be the only time she has ever referred to herself as a cop. I wouldn't take it as anything more than a cute soundbite for the media.

Speaking of which, she also refused to defend prop 8 on the basis of it being unconstitutional.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Bernie Sanders is anti semite, in the same way Ben Shaprio fuels anti semitism with his rhetoric

Id much rather have Kamala Harris or Andrew Yang as nominee.

 

[fanyfan]

In this post, I’m going to do a breakdown of Kamala in an attempt to see if she’d be a good 2020 candidate. I’ll go through the good and bad parts of her, and at the end I’ll give my opinion on her.
The Good
- The standard democrat ones. Pro lgbt, pro choice, in favor of gun reform, etc. standard stuff
- She has cosponsored the Medicare for All bill
- She has expressed support for Free College
- For a Green New Deal
- Doesn’t take corporate PAC money
- Against TPP
- Supports the Paris Climate Accords
- Supports DACA
- Supports raising taxes on the wealthy and lower class tax cuts
- In general, her platform, when it comes to the policies, seems to be a progressive platform
- Did some good things as AG
The Bad
- She seems to be running a platform like Hillary’s in 2016 with a ton of platitudes and cliches without too much policy focus
- Was against body cameras on cops
- Laughed at legalizing marijuana as AG in 2014 but now claims to have been always for legalizing it
- Refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank
- Takes big money from corporations and Wall St., just not in the form of Corporate PACs
- Supported multiple cases of keeping innocent people locked up, and in some cases, succeeded (as an example, look up George Gage)
- Just in general as AG didn’t really try to radically reform the system like it needs to be, and there’s more in her record there I could point to
- Her campaign has a lot of old Hillary campaign staff (so a lot of bad choices)
- Embraces identity politics way too much
- Walked back her support on Medicare for All
- In general just has a non-trustworthy vibe that makes some question whether she will fight for the things in her platform, or just be another Obama-like figure. This is hard to quantify, so you can ignore this point if you want, but this is important, as Obama showed us
- Too cozy with the establishment
Conclusion
This is the part where I give my opinion, so take this with a grain of salt. I’m not a fan of her and will not be supporting her primary run. Too much of an establishment figure that pretends to be progressive. She seems to be the establishment candidate of choice this election, is all the CNN and NBC and the like is anything to go by

 

[Chou Toshio]

In this post, I’m going to do a breakdown of Kamala in an attempt to see if she’d be a good 2020 candidate. I’ll go through the good and bad parts of her, and at the end I’ll give my opinion on her.
The Good
- The standard democrat ones. Pro lgbt, pro choice, in favor of gun reform, etc. standard stuff
- She has cosponsored the Medicare for All bill
- She has expressed support for Free College
- For a Green New Deal
- Doesn’t take corporate PAC money
- Against TPP
- Supports the Paris Climate Accords
- Supports DACA
- Supports raising taxes on the wealthy and lower class tax cuts
- In general, her platform, when it comes to the policies, seems to be a progressive platform
- Did some good things as AG
The Bad
- She seems to be running a platform like Hillary’s in 2016 with a ton of platitudes and cliches without too much policy focus
- Was against body cameras on cops
- Laughed at legalizing marijuana as AG in 2014 but now claims to have been always for legalizing it
- Refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank
- Takes big money from corporations and Wall St., just not in the form of Corporate PACs
- Supported multiple cases of keeping innocent people locked up, and in some cases, succeeded (as an example, look up George Gage)
- Just in general as AG didn’t really try to radically reform the system like it needs to be, and there’s more in her record there I could point to
- Her campaign has a lot of old Hillary campaign staff (so a lot of bad choices)
- Embraces identity politics way too much
- Walked back her support on Medicare for All
- In general just has a non-trustworthy vibe that makes some question whether she will fight for the things in her platform, or just be another Obama-like figure. This is hard to quantify, so you can ignore this point if you want, but this is important, as Obama showed us
- Too cozy with the establishment
Conclusion
This is the part where I give my opinion, so take this with a grain of salt. I’m not a fan of her and will not be supporting her primary run. Too much of an establishment figure that pretends to be progressive. She seems to be the establishment candidate of choice this election, is all the CNN and NBC and the like is anything to go by

In conclusion I think she will be the one for Bernie to beat. I think she’s far more formidable than the rest of the competition. She’s smart, she’s staking our a more progressive position, she’s got a record not nearly as easy to shred as Biden or Beto, and she’s got California— the state Bernie lost to Hillary and is a “blue” state with many of the country’s richest people. Harris is on a class above the other corporatists imo.

The only other one that genuinely worries me is Andrew Yang. Yes he’s one of the candidates I genuinely like— but that’s part of why I genuinely see him as a threat to a Sanders run. He’s a huge dark horse.

I paid in to get him to the debates, but as rivals Yanggang is going to be formidable.

 

[MikeDawg]

- She has expressed support for Free College

i believe she supports debt-free college, not free college. There's an important distinction in terms of economic impact and feasibility.

- She seems to be running a platform like Hillary’s in 2016 with a ton of platitudes and cliches without too much policy focus

Hillary's campaign was stuffed with policy, as is Kamala's. What have you seen from either of these two that suggests otherwise? Actual things, please. Not feelings.

As an auxiliary point, Hillary's media coverage was literally the most policy-focused. 28% was policy (with most of the rest being emails and other scandal discussion) and 84% negative in tone. Meanwhile, only 7% of Bernie's coverage included policy and was overwhelmingly positive in tone. They don't necessarily get to choose how they are covered, but the vast majority of people saw 4x more Hillary policy than Bernie. You can't argue she ran an empty campaign just because you actively avoided information.

- Was against body cameras on cops

Nope. She specifically pioneered a program to expand body cameras.

- Laughed at legalizing marijuana as AG in 2014 but now claims to have been always for legalizing it

This is such a silly point for any candidate. Weed isn't part of someone's deep-rooted moral foundation. If a candidate says they are for legalisation in 2019, there's a 100% chance they aren't going to veto it if Congress passes a law, especially when that candidate explicitly sponsors a legalisation bill (which booker, Kamala, and Bernie all do).


- Refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank

this is egregiously dishonest, and I implore you to do a small amount of research into the subject. I'll even give you a head start. #1

- Takes big money from corporations and Wall St., just not in the form of Corporate PACs

source?

- Supported multiple cases of keeping innocent people locked up, and in some cases, succeeded (as an example, look up George Gage)

i agree that it's not a great look from a basic ethical standpoint, but that decision coincides with reality. Congress specifically passed a law setting a strict deadline for appeals. The defendant was 6 years past that deadline. Your issue needs to be with Congress or the supreme court. The attorney general isn't all-powerful. Plus, is there any indication Kamala was even directly involved with this?

- Just in general as AG didn’t really try to radically reform the system like it needs to be, and there’s more in her record there I could point to

she did a lot of great things. Google her back on track program, open justice initiative, anti-bias training program, and body cam expansions, just to name some examples off the top of my head. But again, AG is basically a lawyer. Talk to the state legislature.


- Embraces identity politics way too much

please stop

- Walked back her support on Medicare for All

When? Last I saw she was facing criticism for going farther and wanting to completely eliminate private health options.

- In general just has a non-trustworthy vibe ... you can ignore this point if you want

Will do

- Too cozy with the establishment

Choosing to ignore this one too

 

[Myzozoa]

dont subscribe to w.e that is tho idk what it is