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

[BeastieRunner]

For people not on that list,
I'm still about President Duckworth or President Harris. I've seen some push back against Sen. Chris Murphy lately, and he'd also be great, but I realize that they'll get every gun-humper out there petrified to have someone who is motivated to do right by the country after Newtown. I'd be proud, but I realize it would reinvigorate the traitorous terrorist organization known as the NRA.

Duckworth seems to be the new mold, FYI.

Young female combat veteran.

And so far all are Dems.

[aja_christopher]

And for those who need to be reminded -- or made aware of -- exactly the kind of thing we need to take a stand against:

[BeastieRunner]

Because we need some humor up in here:

[worstblogever]

See the Donald is arguing that if he’s impeached market will crash.

That's the thing, though... if there's no Trump in the White House, there's no stupid tariffs, and stubborn, idiotic insistence that the U.S. have "easy to win trade wars".

His impeachment would likely stabilize the stock market.

[Tami]

National Enquirer kept damaging documents on Trump in a safe.

I hope the DOJ has them now.

AP: National Enquirer’s safe held damaging Trump stories

[numberthirty]

For people not on that list,
I'm still about President Duckworth or President Harris. I've seen some push back against Sen. Chris Murphy lately, and he'd also be great, but I realize that they'll get every gun-humper out there petrified to have someone who is motivated to do right by the country after Newtown. I'd be proud, but I realize it would reinvigorate the traitorous terrorist organization known as the NRA.

Harris built her political career on being a part of the law enforcement status quo that many in this thread rail against.

If you have an alternative who didn't build their career that way, why wouldn't you back them instead?

[aja_christopher]

Harris built her political career on being a part of the law enforcement status quo that many in this thread rail against.

There are many good police officers out there -- most voters don't immediately dismiss officers of the law just because they are cops.

Moreover, someone who has worked in law enforcement is likewise more aware of the issues said departments face and, possibly, how best to resolve them.

All this talk is putting the cart before the horse regardless: handle midterms then talk about the next Presidential election -- you might miss out on putting an "unknown" like O'Rourke (or Obama) in office while you're sitting around debating the "knowns".

[numberthirty]

There are many good police officers out there -- most voters don't immediately dismiss officers of the law just because they are cops.

Moreover, someone who has worked in law enforcement is likewise more aware of the issues said departments face and, possibly, how best to resolve them.

All this talk is putting the cart before the horse regardless: handle midterms then talk about the next Presidential election -- you might miss out on putting an "unknown" like O'Rourke (or Obama) in office while you're sitting around debating the "knowns".

Anyone with even a remotely cursory understanding of Harris' political career would know some of the issues in her being one of someone's two "Go To" choices for President. You are not immediately dismissing them if you are basing it on what they have actually done and not simply that they were a part of law enforcement.

If she has that know how that you suggest, there are times in her political career that strongly suggest that she set that aside for some reason.

Simply saying that there are aspects of her political past that I cannot see rewarding if there are other realistic options.

[aja_christopher]

Anyone with even a remotely cursory understanding of Harris' political career would know some of the issues in her being one of someone's two "Go To" choices for President. You are not immediately dismissing them if you are basing it on what they have actually done and not simply that they were a part of law enforcement.

If she has that know how that you suggest, there are times in her political career that strongly suggest that she set them aside for some reason.

Simply saying that there are aspects of her political past that I cannot see rewarding if there are other realistic options.

Whatever you say, thirty.

Just remember to vote next election -- back up your rhetoric on these boards with effective action.

The reality remains that if more people like you had spoken out and voted against people like Trump -- instead of people like Hillary and Duckworth -- we wouldn't even be in this situation to begin with.

[numberthirty]

Whatever you say, thirty.

Just remember to vote next election -- back up your rhetoric on these boards with effective action.

The reality remains that if more people like you had spoken out and voted against people like Trump -- instead of people like Hillary and Duckworth -- we wouldn't even be in this situation to begin with.

It is not about what I say.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...198996291.html

After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime Freed

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

Man behind bars 2 years after judge orders release

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.

California Atty. Gen.Kamala D. Harris, whose office maintains that evidence still points to Larsen's guilt, accuses him and his attorneys of filing a petition seeking his release more than six years after he was legally required to do so. Prosecutors question whether the judges had the authority to hear Larsen's petition for release.

The standoff offers a window into what is often a defendant's last chance to have a criminal conviction overturned.

Larsen turned to the federal court to file a habeas corpus claim after exhausting his appeals in California state courts. In overturning Larsen's conviction, the federal court found he was "actually innocent" under the law because it had no confidence in the outcome of the original trial.

[worstblogever]

Harris built her political career on being a part of the law enforcement status quo that many in this thread rail against.

If you have an alternative who didn't build their career that way, why wouldn't you back them instead?

I mentioned TWO alternatives in the post you're quoting. Also, for those of us who actually live in the here and now and don't cherry-pick things about candidates from years ago... Senator Harris supports police reform, and you're misrepresenting her stances based on what her former career was.

But, I'll chalk up your need to start splitting hairs over Kamala Harris as part of a pattern from the past four years, and address a thing for anyone who hasn't noticed it yet:

You are not a Democrat. You actively post negative opinions about some of the very best Democratic candidates based on your own inane purity tests for why they're not liberal enough for you, as a person who is not a Democrat, and argues against the majority of their policies while claiming to be "independent". Your criticism remains suspiciously facetious, and no one should take it seriously as it only exists to try to create dissenters to curtail positivity for those candidates.

It's not very good sabotage when it's this transparent.

[Kirby101]

I thought the Dems were a lock to win 2004, then they nominated safe Kerry. This could give me 2004 vibes. Unpopular President who won under controversy with a relatively stable economy who was benefitting off the short term success of tax cuts (where he would be gone before the ramifications) facing someone who isn’t terribly appealing to the Democratic base. Sounds very similar

Well the Media did a great job assassinating Deans character. And I am not convinced Bush won Ohio legitimately. Of course Bush never should have been in office, since he lost to Gore.

[numberthirty]

I mentioned TWO alternatives in the post you're quoting. Also, for those of us who actually live in the here and now and don't cherry-pick things about candidates from years ago... Senator Harris supports police reform, and you're misrepresenting her stances based on what her former career was.

But, I'll chalk up your need to start splitting hairs over Kamala Harris as part of a pattern from the past four years, and address a thing for anyone who hasn't noticed it yet:

You are not a Democrat. You actively post negative opinions about some of the very best Democratic candidates based on your own inane purity tests for why they're not liberal enough for you, as a person who is not a Democrat, and argues against the majority of their policies while claiming to be "independent". Your criticism remains suspiciously facetious, and no one should take it seriously as it only exists to try to create dissenters to curtail positivity for those candidates.

It's not very good sabotage when it's this transparent.

What you are talking about now versus what you have actually done is not "Splitting Hairs". It is simply pointing out what you have actually done in your political career(and I only noted the example that is the hardest to set aside).

If folks can look at that and figure it into a bigger picture where that politician is still on their short list, that is each person's call to make.

I just cannot personally see doing so. Anyone except for Harris. I also do not believe that there will not be candidates without those negatives going into the next primary.

As for "Inane Purity Tests..."

If you look at that example and you see "Inane", you should take a second look. Never mind that pointing out what someone has actually done is not an "Opinion".

Finally, forget "Not Progressive Enough..." What I pointed out is "Clearly In The Wrong..."

[numberthirty]

As for another troubling thing that Harris did during her time as AG...

https://medium.com/@politicspeach/ka...s-d5dbcc5fde2f

In practice, Harris defended California’s uniquely cruel three-strikes law, the only one in the country which imposed life sentences for a third “strike” that was any minor felony. She urged voters to reject Proposition 66, a ballot initiative that would have reformed the harsh law by making only serious or violent felonies trigger life sentences. Harris promised that if voters rejected the initiative, she would put forward her own, different reform.

Harris’s bullishness on three strikes was unusual. When she ran for attorney general, her Republican opponent actually ran to her left on the issue. In fact, four years earlier, as the Los Angeles County district attorney, he had proposed a reform of the law. Harris had not supported it. The below video posted by Lee Camp, outlines an in depth factual view on who Kamala Harris really is.

[worstblogever]

I'm not falling for the trap of litigating a hypothetical 2020 Presidential primary with someone who operates almost completely in gish-gallops when 2018 still is ten weeks away.

No one else in their right mind should, either.