Page 995 of 1172 FirstFirst ... 495895945985991992993994995996997998999100510451095 ... LastLast
Results 14,911 to 14,925 of 17573
  1. #14911
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    11,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    We’re talking about one thing that was not ever risen to her office if any of the properly primary-sourced accounts are to be believed. Got it.
    Just typing in the words "Kamala Harris wrongful convictions" gets several hits.

    Covering up a corrupt lab tech whose work (and intentional sabotage of results) led to alot - she hid this from defense attorneys and suggested the judge who disagreed was really suffering from a conflict of interest - 600 cases got thrown out.

    Championing laws to prosecute parents for truant children despite knowing it hits minority communities harder.

    Opposing bills to reduce severity of low level drug offenses, fighting against police cameras, fighting to keep the death penalty.

    Fighting against recompense to the wrongfully convicted.

    Worst of all is how she regularly fights to keep the wrongfully convicted in prison on minor technicalities (like a defendant forced to be his own lawyer couldn't get a conviction overturned based on not knowing what to bring up - he was convicted on the testimony of someone described as a habitual and pathological liar by their own mother and yes, that was withheld by the prosecution).

    Basically, the closer you look at her AG record the less she looks like a progressive and the more she looks like.....Jeff Sessions with the ability to at least feel some level of shame when things go public. Which would be a real improvement in the Ku Klux Keebler, but not enough to convince me that Harris should be allowed to enforce, or worse, possibly make laws.
    "Theory: The Phoenix doesn't corrupt the characters, it corrupts the authors." Gambit, King of Thieves

  2. #14912
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    She’s not for Biden. Which is why Taz said her. The point in selecting a progressive would be to make an olive branch so that the Sanders voters who are rebelling right now will come back in the fold. If that’s the road they are going to go down then the only one who really fits the bill is Turner because it’s spot where Biden is knowingly ceding some capital in his admin to Sanders ideology in a way that will be seen as an act of good faith by the people who probably were going to be a thorn in Biden’s side otherwise.

    Taz is making the point that if your progressive olive branch is going to be someone like Abrams or Harris it’s not going to accomplish the entire point of a bringing a progressive on the ticket.

    It’s kind of like this. Palin was inconvenient for McCain, but she brought a small town far right sensibility to his campaign. For voters who loved Obama, bringing in Biden at the time wasn’t anything exciting. He was an old guard white guy who was part of the status quo they were trying to move into a new future away from. But picking Biden wasn’t about appealing to those people. It was about pacifying older white voters that were nervous about a young black President promising changeand it was a “wink wink calm down the old white elder statesman who’s been around forever will be in the room too”.

    It’s the balancing act thing. If that’s the angle you are going for, then it’s about making the VP someone who is a concession from your camp and a dog whistle to say “don’t worry, your voice will be in the room fighting too”. Turner fits that. AOC fits that.

    And if you aren’t really going to commit to that, then it’s a waste of time and you should just go for straight political strategy and that’s where someone like Whitmer would be useful.

    It’s just a matter of what your goal is with the pick. If you are looking for a progressive to unify the party, some people are going to be seen as a true act of good faith and some are just going to be viewed as set pieces.
    Surely the progressive wing can do better than Nina Turner? Abrams is from Bernie's own wing, btw - she's a candidate Our Revolution supported in '18. AOC is too young and would likely be controversial among the left because she disagree with Sanders decisions in the primaries.

    Edit: Why not Tulsi? It's not like she disagrees with Turner on much.
    Last edited by Steel Inquisitor; 03-30-2020 at 09:17 PM.

  3. #14913
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    Just typing in the words "Kamala Harris wrongful convictions" gets several hits.

    Covering up a corrupt lab tech whose work (and intentional sabotage of results) led to alot - she hid this from defense attorneys and suggested the judge who disagreed was really suffering from a conflict of interest - 600 cases got thrown out.

    Championing laws to prosecute parents for truant children despite knowing it hits minority communities harder.

    Opposing bills to reduce severity of low level drug offenses, fighting against police cameras, fighting to keep the death penalty.

    Fighting against recompense to the wrongfully convicted.

    Worst of all is how she regularly fights to keep the wrongfully convicted in prison on minor technicalities (like a defendant forced to be his own lawyer couldn't get a conviction overturned based on not knowing what to bring up - he was convicted on the testimony of someone described as a habitual and pathological liar by their own mother and yes, that was withheld by the prosecution).

    Basically, the closer you look at her AG record the less she looks like a progressive and the more she looks like.....Jeff Sessions with the ability to at least feel some level of shame when things go public. Which would be a real improvement in the Ku Klux Keebler, but not enough to convince me that Harris should be allowed to enforce, or worse, possibly make laws.
    Again, a great many of these attacks derive from not fully understanding her role as an Attorney General and, thus, her limitations. Your office is tasked with upholding convictions. You aren’t a politician—you are a lawyer and a prosecutor working for the government. Frankly, the fact that she fought to overturn a homophobic proposition shows how often she frankly overstepped her role when she could. You aren’t supposed to contradict past convictions; you uphold them in Court. And, as a lawyer, you use whatever legal means to make that happen.

    Sure, it makes it difficult to run for office, but the stuff that she actually had real control over (i.e. not the cases she defended, but the priorities for law enforcement and targets for incarceration) do hint at a more progressive track record, the cameras thing being the one legitimate thing I think she can be called on to answer for. Not to mention that when she could take openly political stands as a Senator, she has been consistently in Sanders’ corner. The fact that she is dismissed, but Tulsi Gabbard, who actively defends genocidal maniacs and makes homophobic statements (way after Kamala Harris fought the homophobic proposition passed democratically in her own state), isn’t is, to me, unreasonable.

    This Op-Ed I think lays out my position quite clearly, coming from someone with more “skin in the game” than I, as a white male, have.
    Last edited by TheDarman; 03-30-2020 at 09:38 PM.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  4. #14914
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    Again, a great many of these attacks derive from not fully understanding her role as an Attorney General and, thus, her limitations. Your office is tasked with upholding convictions. You aren’t a politician—you are a lawyer and a prosecutor working for the government. Frankly, the fact that she fought to overturn a homophobic proposition shows how often she frankly overstepped her role when she could. You aren’t supposed to contradict past convictions; you uphold them in Court. And, as a lawyer, you use whatever legal means to make that happen.

    Sure, it makes it difficult to run for office, but the stuff that she actually had real control over (i.e. not the cases she defended, but the priorities for law enforcement and targets for incarceration) do hint at a more progressive track record, the cameras thing being the one legitimate thing I think she can be called on to answer for. Not to mention that when she could take openly political stands as a Senator, she has been consistently in Sanders’ corner. The fact that she is dismissed, but Tulsi Gabbard, who actively defends genocidal maniacs and makes homophobic statements (way after Kamala Harris fought the homophobic proposition passed democratically in her own state), isn’t is, to me, unreasonable.

    This Op-Ed I think lays out my position quite clearly, coming from someone with more “skin in the game” than I, as a white male, have.
    Tried to make a case for that a judge had a conflict of interest when a lab was dirty.

    While I guess you can try to make that case to the voters?

    You are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't potentially go over like a lead balloon.

    And that's not even one of the really "What Gives?..." moments in her career.

    It would ultimately be risking making things more difficult when Biden already represents a roll of the dice.

  5. #14915
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    ...

    Who comes to mind?
    If I'm looking at what I tend to believe is the case that Biden seems to be making?

    I tend to lean towards Booker.

    I think that he tends to make the best(and, honestly, the clearest...) case for what seems to be the "Aspirational..." component of Biden's pitch.

    He seems like he is probably the best surrogate when it comes to that Biden might wind up being an issue.

  6. #14916
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Tried to make a case for that a judge had a conflict of interest when a lab was dirty.

    While I guess you can try to make that case to the voters?

    You are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't potentially go over like a lead balloon.

    And that's not even one of the really "What Gives?..." moments in her career.

    It would ultimately be risking making things more difficult when Biden already represents a roll of the dice.
    The two old men left standing where both a "roll of the dice."

  7. #14917
    Extraordinary Member Robotman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,809

    Default

    I’m totally on board with the idea of Gretchen Whitmer as Biden’s VP choice. She can help deliver Michigan which is vital and she’s clearly getting under Trump’s skin. Having her on the ticket could remind the public just how bad the Trump administration screwed up the coronavirus response. It’ll prevent Trump from sugar coating the disaster if you have a VP candidate who has first hand experience of dealing with the lack of supplies from the federal government and Trump’s horrible mismanagement and pettiness.
    Last edited by Robotman; 03-31-2020 at 01:04 AM.

  8. #14918
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazirai View Post
    Barbara Lee
    Maxine Waters
    Mark Pocan
    Ro Khana
    Pramila Jayapal
    Keith Ellison
    Lynn Woolsey
    Raúl Grijalva
    Bernie Sanders
    Ted Lieu
    Alma Adams from NC
    Jan Schakowsky
    Jamie Raskin
    Brendan Boyle from Philly
    Lacy Clay
    AOC
    Ilhan Omar
    Adams is good, but not well known.
    Grijalva had problems being too radical, so much so he alienated members of the Mexican community in the Raza Unida Party he was in in Tucson.
    Isn't Lacy Clay retired from politics?
    Lee is ok, 73. But she's not known for pushing for higher office.
    I like Waters but she has her own issues praising Castro's Cuba in the past and is 81 years old.
    Ellison has his own problems with sexual harassment charges.
    Lieu was born in Taiwan. Any candidate not born in America can't run for office.
    Sanders is 80 years old, has too much baggage for the general and would likely reject it since he wants to be on top of the ticket.
    AOC's too young.
    Omar was born in Somalia.

    Are a few...

    Governor? Mine, Roy Cooper.
    Obama Official? Can't name many outside of Kal Pen

    Nina Turner was a progressive fighter in Ohio and helped the black community there since If you've never been to Ohio, the black community wasn't/isn't very well represented outside of certain places.
    She ran for state secretary and lost... soo. People lose elections all the time. Then come back and win. She chose not to run again.
    Nina Turner is a firebrand who absolutely despises the Democratic party and never got over the rejection from the party once she endorsed Sanders in '16. She's a very close friend and supporter of Tulsi, and I can't remember her ever disagreeing with her about anything. Which speaks volumes about how "progressive" she is. Losing elections is ok now? She's infamous for telling the media she won't vote for the Democratic nominee, as well, so if Biden becomes the nominee expect that response.


    Her loss was actually 59 to 36, not really two to one. Also again Ohio, she had a lot of big money against her.

    Why is it so hard for folks here to understand that most times whoever has the most money wins. Not everytime, but most. She also ran against an entrenched Republican.
    We do, actually. That's why we like our politicians to have it. People run against entrenched Republicans all over the country.

    Didn't Abrams lose?
    Abrams only lost because her opponent broke all the rules in suppressing votes and he still had trouble keeping her from winning.

    I donated to her, and supported her run, but once I learned she took money from Bloomberg, I'm good. Call me a purist. But I don't think using the money of a racist to fight racism is good.

    If you think so, I'm happy for you. I won't support corruption anymore. They need to earn my vote.
    Yet you're ok with Turner when she protects Trump supporters high up in her organisation.
    Last edited by Steel Inquisitor; 03-30-2020 at 10:43 PM.

  9. #14919
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Tried to make a case for that a judge had a conflict of interest when a lab was dirty.

    While I guess you can try to make that case to the voters?

    You are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't potentially go over like a lead balloon.

    And that's not even one of the really "What Gives?..." moments in her career.

    It would ultimately be risking making things more difficult when Biden already represents a roll of the dice.
    I sincerely doubt it.

    For one thing, Donald Trump is more of a “tough on crime” candidate. The parts of Harris’ record he is liable to go after are going to be the “softer” parts—like manipulating her office and going after a proposition that was democratically voted on for example. Trump is not going to win any points by pointing out marijuana convictions (which went down as both a share of convictions and real jail time while Harris was in office) given his Attorneys General have been more adamant about enforcing its illegality.

    For another, you can read the Op-Ed penned by a Civil Rights Activist...or not. I know you’re relatively close-minded when it comes to anyone who falls outside Bernie’s circles, especially Kamala Harris.

    I just think this whole conversation gets to the root of a deep misunderstanding of what an Attorney General’s office does.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  10. #14920
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    I just think this whole conversation gets to the root of a deep misunderstanding of what an Attorney General’s office does.
    the problems that are pointed out are frequently *way bigger* than Kamala Harris, and hanging a lot of it around her neck is just wrong-headed. She should have done a better job answering to this criticism, though, and that she didn't really does make me question the wisdom of her as VP. I mean, no set of answers would've pacified all of ACAB twitterati but she needed to do better and she didn't.

    Also, I agree that Whitmer's star is rising at the moment.
    Last edited by Tendrin; 03-30-2020 at 11:23 PM.

  11. #14921
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    the problems that are pointed out are frequently *way bigger* than Kamala Harris, and hanging a lot of it around her neck is just wrong-headed.
    If that's all there was to it, you'd have a different discussion.

    As the reality of it actually stands?

    Lisa Madigan gets extra money out of Herbalife for Illinois while Harris doesn't even investigate them even though prosecutors working for the state seemed to be pushing for it.

    How do you cut someone who makes those calls slack on that they regularly just went with the problematic status quo in a state? "Let's Not Go After A Clear Grifter Ponzi Scheme While An Innocent Man Stays In Jail For A Couple Of Years After A Federal Judge Decides On His Release..."?

    Never mind some of the seriously glaring stuff.

    Edit: Agreed on some of the stuff in post-edit.

    And, yeah. If Whitmer isn't at least in the running, they are dropping the ball. Not quite as "Might Get The Ball Over The Line..." as Booker, but a serious possibility.

    One other thing...

    While I don't want to lose Pritzker, that guy has turned out to be a better communicator than I thought he would be. Probably still a little light on qualifications, but he could also do a solid job of making the pitch.
    Last edited by numberthirty; 03-30-2020 at 11:29 PM.

  12. #14922
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    If that's all there was to it, you'd have a different discussion.

    As the reality of it actually stands?

    Lisa Madigan gets extra money out of Herbalife for Illinois while Harris doesn't even investigate them even though prosecutors working for the state seemed to be pushing for it.

    How do you cut someone who makes those calls slack on that they regularly just went with the problematic status quo in a state? "Let's Not Go After A Clear Grifter Ponzi Scheme While An Innocent Man Stays In Jail For A Couple Of Years After A Federal Judge Decides On His Release..."?

    Never mind some of the seriously glaring stuff.

    Edit: Agreed on some of the stuff in post-edit.

    And, yeah. If Whitmer isn't at least in the running, they are dropping the ball. Not quite as "Might Get The Ball Over The Line..." as Booker, but a serious possibility.

    One other thing...

    While I don't want to lose Pritzker, that guy has turned out to be a better communicator than I thought he would be. Probably still a little light on qualifications, but he could also do a solid job of making the pitch.
    She should answer for why she didn't investigate. It's a fair question to ask her, but it isn't enough to be disqualifying on its own. People *can* get things wrong.

    Folks are too busy trying to push her out for her for being a 'cop'. Why she didn't do something is a *fair question to ask*, but it still doesn't change that you have some pretty substantial misunderstandings, as Darman has repeatedly pointed out.
    Last edited by Tendrin; 03-30-2020 at 11:42 PM.

  13. #14923
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    She should answer for why she didn't investigate. It's a fair question to ask her, but it isn't enough to be disqualifying on its own. People *can* get things wrong.

    Folks are too busy trying to push her out for her for being a 'cop'. Why she didn't do something is a *fair question to ask*, but it still doesn't change that you have some pretty substantial misunderstandings, as Darman has repeatedly pointed out.
    Again...

    The idea that "Well, technically this is how a prosecutor or AG should do the job..." is going to cut it when people actually see some of her actual record?

    It's laughable.

  14. #14924
    Astonishing Member jetengine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,835

    Default

    Isnt alot of the complaints made against Harris the same as people screaming at McDonald's cashiers that their burgers are bad for you ?

  15. #14925
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    Adams is good, but not well known.
    Grijalva had problems being too radical, so much so he alienated members of the Mexican community in the Raza Unida Party he was in in Tucson.
    Isn't Lacy Clay retired from politics?
    Lee is ok, 73. But she's not known for pushing for higher office.
    I like Waters but she has her own issues praising Castro's Cuba in the past and is 81 years old.
    Ellison has his own problems with sexual harassment charges.
    Lieu was born in Taiwan. Any candidate not born in America can't run for office.
    Sanders is 80 years old, has too much baggage for the general and would likely reject it since he wants to be on top of the ticket.
    AOC's too young.
    Omar was born in Somalia.



    Nina Turner is a firebrand who absolutely despises the Democratic party and never got over the rejection from the party once she endorsed Sanders in '16. She's a very close friend and supporter of Tulsi, and I can't remember her ever disagreeing with her about anything. Which speaks volumes about how "progressive" she is. Losing elections is ok now? She's infamous for telling the media she won't vote for the Democratic nominee, as well, so if Biden becomes the nominee expect that response.




    We do, actually. That's why we like our politicians to have it. People run against entrenched Republicans all over the country.



    Abrams only lost because her opponent broke all the rules in suppressing votes and he still had trouble keeping her from winning.



    Yet you're ok with Turner when she protects Trump supporters high up in her organisation.
    He asked who I thought was Progressive, not who I want for VP.
    Every single person alive has issues.

    Hell, me living in several countries growing up and by choice and praising them would get some here to denounce me as a foreign agent if I ran for office lol.
    I actually like Russia and have been to Cuba... OHHH Scandal. Does that make me an apologist too If I like their educational structure?

    Does it make me a Sympathizer because I like their Single Payer system? Or that Cuba came up with treatments for a couple cancers?
    How about Russia? If I like Their Transportation system and Medical system?
    I lived in Germany, They fought a war against us and had racists and Ethno geneticists murder people.
    I lived in Japan for 6 years, and am fond of the Governmental structure there, and I love their healthcare and educational systems.
    I lived in England twice for a year and 6 months, am I fond of the King? Drams, lol.

    Who are these supporters you speak of? Methinks you are trolling.
    Nina despises the Democratic party as I do then. I want the party to do better some of you don't. If that is despising then a lot of Independents like me Despise the party.
    I don't care about tribalism, tribalism gave us Trump because the Democratic party wants conservatives and shits on their left base. They take corrupt money and brines, and let in racists like Bloomberg.
    They let people who ACTUALLY sabotage the party like Manchin and DESPISE Sanders for wanting to actually help people. Yeah, I despise the Democratic party too.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, they can kiss my black ass. I don't vote for letters, I vote for policy.
    I think Sanders probably would have a better shot if he had run as a Republican.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •