All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[numberthirty]

Nor am I. But this is literally the only measure I’ve actually seen provided by Tazirai or myself and it indicates something contrary to the message that he consistently argues for.

Everything about the time Harris spent as AG wipes out any possibility that she might be "More" progressive than any of the other three people listed.

Never mind that it is an actual measure that folks either don't know about or hope won't be brought up.

You have to make a willing choice to turn a blind eye to quite a bit to even consider putting her on that list.

[TheDarman]

Everything about the time Harris spent as AG wipes out any possibility that she might be "More" progressive than any of the other three people listed.

Never mind that it is an actual measure that folks either don't know about or hope won't be brought up.

You have to make a willing choice to turn a blind eye to quite a bit to even consider putting her on that list.

Based on this, it seems Harris has been a more positive force for policing policy in the Senate than she was as Attorney General. And, as noted by Tazirai, we can't possibly count anything done by a person prior to occupying their current office against them so, no, I don't see any reason to cast her out of the top echelon based on policy issues and moderation as AG.

[Tazirai]

It’s really not, and a Democrat’s are in for a RUDE awakening if they oust Pelosi. She’s been the most effective Democrat at passing Pbama’s agenda and stopping Trump’s. It’s a big tent party with lots of voices and turmoil and she’s been incredibly successful at building consensus among her colleagues. That’s a huge skill and has been a silver lining in a decade of losing for Democrats.

There’s no guarantee the next person can get the votes and consensus. You could literally piss away the majority in the House on impact if the next leader can’t do that. And it’s not easy. Reid couldn’t do it, Schumer couldn’t do it, and Ryan couldn’t do it.. People need to stop acting like it’s given that people will fall in line under the next person. That hasn’t worked out for this party lately.

I agree with you on that. But I refuse to believe Barbara Lee or no one else has the cahones to do it. I don't think raising a ton of money is the key to being the best speaker.
But also I think Pelosi can help coach the new speaker.
She and the old guard need to pass the torch. We cannot keep the same people in office.

I see a day when Term Limits actually happen. So we need to get used to people not being in power for long stretches of time.

[Tazirai]

I'm actually curious. What do you hate so much about the TPP? I've been trying to figure it out because, for all intents and purposes, as far as trade deals go at all, it seemed pretty good.

It increased necessary environmental standards. It increased labor regulations in countries that have become truly competitive against our manufacturing sector (which would benefit from having higher labor standards in these countries). It also decreased, necessarily, our domestic patents on new drugs from pharmaceutical companies.

For anyone that is okay with trade deals generally, I don't see why the TPP, in content, got the hate it did. Other than it being a vehicle for anti-globalist populists, like Trump and Sanders, to hate on. But I'd guess they would've attacked virtually any trade deal as being harmful to the American worker because, and this is true, America doesn't aid those hurt by creative destruction. But if we had also done what other programs Obama had wanted, we probably would have more of an infrastructure in place domestically to deal with these problems. So /shrug.

Also, I'm curious what you think about these scores that a progressive organization provides based on the votes that Senators provide on actual legislation:

Here Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker are listed as more progressive than Bernie Sanders.

Have you not kept up with TPP? Saying TPP sounds good is very Hillary Clinton'ish. I don't HATE TPP, I think it's a bad deal, and not well thought out. Clinton and her Hubby gave us NAFTA, which long term hurt the country more than helped.
I don't want to explain something I've explained a jillion times. Especially to people who like to acribe bad intentions on my person. I don't think you're actually curious about my beliefs at all, I could be wrong.

Here's some research for you.
https://www.foei.org/features/tpp-ba...ple-and-planet

The fact that both Trump and Sanders are against it is good. Each has their own reasons for being against it. But if you wanted to be honest about it. You could have posted why they each oppossed TPP. But you didn't.

Good for the, as I support 2 of the three you listed. I don't endorse Booker, but I'll take his votes 100% as long as they keep up being right.
But in terms of votes, Bernie has a MUCH longer career of being Progressive than all but Warren.

[BeastieRunner]

Are you down with TPP? Yeah, you know me!

[TheDarman]

Have you not kept up with TPP? Saying TPP sounds good is very Hillary Clinton'ish. I don't HATE TPP, I think it's a bad deal, and not well thought out. Clinton and her Hubby gave us NAFTA, which long term hurt the country more than helped.

Actually, the country who was most injured by it was actually Mexico. America's and Canada's economies both actually gained a lot. The issue is that the gains aren't exactly dispersed evenly and equally. People lost their jobs and segments of the country's economy got hurt. The issue is that we didn't put in place safety net programs for those crushed by these creatively destructive forces that occurred in the economy. We didn't do enough to disperse the gains in our economy. That's fair.

I don't want to explain something I've explained a jillion times. Especially to people who like to acribe bad intentions on my person.

I don't recall having done that to you. I apologize if I made you feel that way, sincerely. Especially if it wasn't your intention to put down people you disagree with with ad hominem attacks like "corporatist" or the like.

I don't think you're actually curious about my beliefs at all, I could be wrong.

I actually was. But you provided a link that contains a particular argument that I answered in a post that followed this one anyway, which I will address again.

Here's some research for you.
https://www.foei.org/features/tpp-ba...ple-and-planet

This wasn't research. This was clearly actually looking at the text of the TPP, which did preserve what they said it did. However, the TPP had the strictest environmental protection standards of any trade deal ever. Additionally, the provision they discuss here is really non-negotiable. It is quite difficult for countries or companies to levy complaints in a domestic court because there could be reasonable claims of bias. The concern was that it was being elevated to international courts that might not be favorable to environmental protection. However, it is by no way guaranteed that the government would lose disputes with the companies should dispute arise. I still get that and I understand that point of view. But I think that focusing solely on this misses the larger point, and larger good, of the deal.

The fact that both Trump and Sanders are against it is good. Each has their own reasons for being against it. But if you wanted to be honest about it. You could have posted why they each oppossed TPP. But you didn't.

Sanders and Trump opposed the TPP because it was a bad deal for workers. That's what both of them claimed. It continues to harm manufacturing sectors in America. However, that's a fairly unfounded claim. The TPP actually has more labor protections tied to it than NAFTA did for example, which actually increases America's current competitiveness with this market. Additionally, it created a lot of labor protections and environmental protections that most countries in the deal wouldn't have accepted if not for getting access to a lucrative market. Admittedly, the United States manufacturing marketplace would've had to deal with a lot more competition. While that is good for efficiency, it is bad for people as the market can only have so many productive companies within a marketplace that exercise a comparative advantage. That will require a program that is going to sufficiently pull people up in our own country that unfortunately get hurt by this creative destruction. Obama proposed solutions to this problem, as I'm sure you know, that wasn't adopted because of who controlled Congress the last six years of his presidency. But the solution isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Good for the, as I support 2 of the three you listed. I don't endorse Booker, but I'll take his votes 100% as long as they keep up being right.
But in terms of votes, Bernie has a MUCH longer career of being Progressive than all but Warren.

There is a lifetime section there that proves that that isn't the case at all either. Again, why are we so sure that Booker's intentions are so bad but the other three mentioned therein are operating on good intentions? I'm just confused there.

Sanders has a longer career period so maybe that's what you mean but Warren, Harris, and Booker have been more consistent in their votes for progressive policy over their legislative lifetimes than Sanders. A more fair comparison would be over the last year, which Sanders falls behind all of them on.

[Tazirai]

Checked the link. It's interesting, but I'm still not convinced that there is a single consensus on the definition of 'Progressive'.

I can give you what I term a Progressive vs a Liberal vs a Moderate.

**Hillary is a Center-Right Liberal. She does things based on Opportunity, Polls, and data research. Black Lives Matter called her out on it, as did honest journalists. She's the Progressive that "gets things done!" IE.. Whatever they want me to do I'll do it. Ala the iraq war.

**Barbara a true Progressive in every sense of the word. She was the ONLY house Democrat to vote against the war which is causing us BILLIONS. She's for Medicare for all, a fifteen dollar minimum wage, her record is awesome.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...ara_lee/400237

**Joe Manchin is not a Progressive or a Liberal

**Chuck Schumer is a Liberal, but not a Progressive. He supports a lot of right wing actions, especially where business is concerned. He's not very agressive. He focuses a lot on Israeli and Jewish issues at the expense of his other constituents. He's also more into being Bi-partisan and #civility than actually fighting for Progressive values.

**Barack Obama is complicated as he was president. He started off center left and had to be dragged to the left many times. However once he realized that the GOP kinda sucked. The fight came out of him, almost too late, but he did. So I'd say Obama is moderately Progressive. He'd like things to go faster, but is okay with Incrementalism.

**Tazira is an Aggressive Progressive. He wants the most punch for the buck. He wants the media to be called out for Bothsiderism and whataboutism. He wants the old guard to realize this is not the past, and to find a message that excites their voters. He realizes that many people need to be excited to vote, which is why Donnelly lost, he shitted on his voters. He realizes that not every Progressive is going to win, even with the message they have. He also realizes that not every so called Progressive is an actual one, but mostly moderately liberal. He knows that in todays world Incrementalism helps no one. Sometimes being in peoples faces makes them uncomfortable. Some of the people on this thread are more moderate and conservative than I am.

Nor am I. But this is literally the only measure I’ve actually seen provided by Tazirai or myself and it indicates something contrary to the message that he consistently argues for.

We have different ways to want the same things. Not everyone is a nice Liberal or a #civility progressive. We need all types. But I refuse to believe Pelosi is helpful to our cause.

Everything about the time Harris spent as AG wipes out any possibility that she might be "More" progressive than any of the other three people listed.

Never mind that it is an actual measure that folks either don't know about or hope won't be brought up.

You have to make a willing choice to turn a blind eye to quite a bit to even consider putting her on that list.

Agreed. Even though Paul won't lol.

Based on this, it seems Harris has been a more positive force for policing policy in the Senate than she was as Attorney General. And, as noted by Tazirai, we can't possibly count anything done by a person prior to occupying their current office against them so, no, I don't see any reason to cast her out of the top echelon based on policy issues and moderation as AG.

When did I note this, and please be specific.

Also I support Harris, her past is as "Problematic" as Sanders yes?

[TheDarman]

**Barack Obama is complicated as he was president. He started off center left and had to be dragged to the left many times. However once he realized that the GOP kinda sucked. The fight came out of him, almost too late, but he did. So I'd say Obama is moderately Progressive. He'd like things to go faster, but is okay with Incrementalism.

I don't think he really changed his perspective on things. I think he was always a moderate progressive, and particularly aggressive on social issues, but that he had no need to really do too much with executive action when in control of Congress. When the GOP pushed back, he tried to work with them because he does believe that was what the country wanted him to do as a result of the elections. However, Obama got boned by the GOP when they refused to work with HIM. So, I think that led to him acting more unilaterally on issues, though with a little bit of trepidation and concern for the limitations of the executive branch on creating policy on its own.

We have different ways to want the same things. Not everyone is a nice Liberal or a #civility progressive. We need all types. But I refuse to believe Pelosi is helpful to our cause.

I think that's fair. Aside from Pelosi. I think she was very helpful to passing the most progressive legislation of Obama's tenure (which, in all fairness, was only during the first two years because the GOP refused to work with him on anything). But to each his own.

When did I note this, and please be specific.

Also I support Harris, her past is as "Problematic" as Sanders yes?

Just with Sanders but I will agree with that statement for sure. Both of them have ended up being better on issues that they had had problematic stances on in the past now as senators.

[Tazirai]

hMarcia Fudge under spotlight as Pelosi Speaker fight heats up

[numberthirty]

Based on this, it seems Harris has been a more positive force for policing policy in the Senate than she was as Attorney General. And, as noted by Tazirai, we can't possibly count anything done by a person prior to occupying their current office against them so, no, I don't see any reason to cast her out of the top echelon based on policy issues and moderation as AG.

There's no "Seems" to it.

If she managed not to actively work to keep a person who was likely innocent in jail, she as been a more positive force. That doesn't mean I'm going to give anyone a medal for no longer being a part of the the problem when the foundation of their political career was based on being a part of the problem.

[BeastieRunner]

Judge made a spilt decision on Abrams / Kemp. No votes counted with addresses not matching the rolls for certain counties and missing birth dates will be counted.

New counting already dropped Kemp to 50.1 and Abrams to 48.9.

[numberthirty]

Just with Sanders but I will agree with that statement for sure. Both of them have ended up being better on issues that they had had problematic stances on in the past now as senators.

If Harris only had problematic stances there would be nothing to discuss. It's what Harris actually did, and the consequences that people who we can prove were actually affected by policy that she was at the top of the chain when it chain when it came to setting it will wind up having to live with that is the issue.

[numberthirty]

As far as Harris being better on issues, we will actually have something to discuss when she comes out and disavow some of the most damning things that were done while she was AG.

[TheDarman]

If Harris only had problematic stances there would be nothing to discuss. It's what Harris actually did, and the consequences that people who we can prove were actually affected by policy that she was at the top of the chain when it chain when it came to setting it will wind up having to live with that is the issue.

Evidence of the claim that she kept a likely innocent man in jail? Because, as far as career prosecutors go, very few make it through without convictions being made against less-than-likely actual culprits. It would have to be unequivocal evidence that this guy was innocent to make me think she acted wrongly.

[numberthirty]

Evidence of the claim that she kept a likely innocent man in jail? Because, as far as career prosecutors go, very few make it through without convictions being made against less-than-likely actual culprits. It would have to be unequivocal evidence that this guy was innocent to make me think she acted wrongly.

The simplest set of articles to take a look at...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_1813819.html

Daniel Larsen, Found Innocent By Federal Judge, Has Been In Prison For 13 Years

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug...ocent-20120821

Man behind bars 2 years after judge orders release

Daniel Larsen was in a California prison serving a life sentence when he received the news he had awaited more than a decade. A federal court in Los Angeles had thrown out his conviction for carrying a concealed knife.

Two judges concluded that jurors who convicted Larsen would never have found him guilty had they heard from additional witnesses who saw a different man with the knife. Larsen's attorney, who has since been disbarred, failed to adequately investigate the case and identify the witnesses before the trial, the judges found.

But two years after he was supposed to be released, Larsen remains behind bars while the California attorney general appeals the decision. The state's main argument: He did not file his legal paperwork seeking release on time.

On Monday, Larsen's supporters delivered copies of online petitions to the attorney general's office in downtown Los Angeles demanding the man's release.

"He's living in legal limbo just waiting to be released," said his fiancee, Christina Combs.

The attorney general's office declined to comment.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013...-didnt-commit/

Judge Frees Man Who Spent More Than 13 Years In Prison For Crime He Says He Didn’t Commit

A decade later, officials with the California Innocence Project found two new witnesses, including a former chief of police, who testified in court that it was another man who was in possession of the knife.