• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Junebug said:
Without having to dig very far, you were onviously pretty lazy in History class.
Click to expand...

JFC, I made a mistake that I admitted and apologized for because I was incorrect on the starting years of the Boomer generation. They were sent to Vietnam, did not start Vietnam. WFU was spot on in his admonishment and I have corrected myself.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
This is so infuriatingly wrong, but again, not derailing the thread further. PMs are open with what specific reasons you feel we are all lazy millennials, but not in this thread.

Harris/Beto 2020.
Click to expand...

The reality is you hold and post falsehoods to buoy your position. Your false and Pavlovian post on this thread is an example.

Now, you are crying being held accountable for being wrong. You brag about taking pot shots at me and cry when I hit back and prove you wrong.

Millennials have opportunities to effect and impact change we could never dream of having. Stop blaming others and do it!

If you actually read my posts about these things, you'd see I am consistent. If you don't walk the walk, don't talk smack.
 
Shooshmoo said:
TITCR
Click to expand...

BarcaDeac said:
yep. we're sitting here trying to talk ourselves out of someone who hasn't even announced their candidacy yet (though probably will). if she emerges as the nominee I hope anyone who doesn't want another Trump term will vote for her, whether she is the perfect candidate or not. so many Republicans were troubled by Trump but you damn well better believe they fell in line November 2016. I do hope if she runs she's asked about these issues while she was AG and I'm hoping we'll learn her stances have evolved.
Click to expand...

but the frustrating thing is the first response from a lot of folks is that instead of saying "yeah, what's up with that", they jump straight to "omg, purity test! this is how we got Trump" rhetoric.

nobody is saying Harris or any of the Dem potential nominees aren't worse than Trump, but goddamn can't we have higher ambitions than not worse than Trump?
 
One huge plus for getting all this info out now is it should cut down on debate pot shots so we can focus on policy and actually getting stuff done.

I do have one request. When Harris declares, please change the thread title to “THE CANDIDATE WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY!”
 
PhDeac said:
One huge plus for getting all this info out now is it should cut down on debate pot shots so we can focus on policy and actually getting stuff done.

I do have one request. When Harris declares, please change the thread title to “THE CANDIDATE WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY!”
Click to expand...

I’m not super hopeful that the debates will go that way, but you’re right that it can’t hurt to get it all out now.
 
There is plenty of relevant, and recent history to hold Harris accountable for.

- 8 years ago: Refusal and failure to prosecute foreclosure fraud, such as Steven Mnuchin's case, when other state AGs were doing much more.


- 8 years ago: fought for terrible "anti-truancy" bill that criminalized truancy (exactly who did this bill affect the most?)

- 4 years ago: supports and fights for the expansion(!!!) of civil asset forfeiture

-4 years ago: argued IN COURT against sentencing reform because it would drain the prison labor supply.

-8 years ago: argued IN COURT against releasing the records of police officers with misconduct histories.


I really don't understand the resistance of Democrat voters to hold candidates accountable by squaring their reputation with their history. Its not a matter of "falling in love", but due dilligence. It doesn't matter if the Republicans nominate an axe murderer, their lack of standards is their perogative, and it's irrelevant to our candidate selection.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
There is plenty of relevant, and recent history to hold Harris accountable for.

- 8 years ago: Refusal and failure to prosecute foreclosure fraud, such as Steven Mnuchin's case, when other state AGs were doing much more.


- 8 years ago: fought for terrible "anti-truancy" bill that criminalized truancy (exactly who did this bill affect the most?)

- 4 years ago: supports and fights for the expansion(!!!) of civil asset forfeiture

-4 years ago: argued IN COURT against sentencing reform because it would drain the prison labor supply.

-8 years ago: argued IN COURT against releasing the records of police officers with misconduct histories.


I really don't understand the resistance of Democrat voters to hold candidates accountable by squaring their reputation with their history. Its not a matter of "falling in love", but due dilligence. It doesn't matter if the Republicans nominate an axe murderer, their lack of standards is their perogative, and it's irrelevant to our candidate selection.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a classic fascist white supremacist candidate to me. Do better guys, comon.
 
MHBDemon said:
Super sophisticated critique of my abolitionist purity. You still don't know what you are talking about. Chances are you can't find my past statements and that they didn't say what you think they said. I don't think cages (jails/prisons) should exist. Period. We can have conversations all day about what to do with people who commit [insert crime], but it doesn't make my status as an abolitionist at all hypocritical in the way that you think it does. Your comparison to pro-life assholes is moronic.
Click to expand...

I get not wanting to lock people up for non violent crimes, drug offenses etc.... that make a lot of sense to me. But what about seriously violent criminals or sexual offenders that present a clear and obvious threat to the general population? Are you thinking more like mental health treatments in secure facilities, because that's not far from prison either. What's your opinion of better more effective options?
 
MHBDemon said:
Super sophisticated critique of my abolitionist purity. You still don't know what you are talking about. Chances are you can't find my past statements and that they didn't say what you think they said. I don't think cages (jails/prisons) should exist. Period. We can have conversations all day about what to do with people who commit [insert crime], but it doesn't make my status as an abolitionist at all hypocritical in the way that you think it does. Your comparison to pro-life assholes is moronic.
Click to expand...

I know you hate hearing it.

It's EXACTLY the same. Your position is I'm against everything with exceptions. It's the same as theirs.

This is like the concept that the extreme left and extreme right are polar opposites when they are basically the same. It's not a line. Political stances are a circle.
 
RJKarl said:
I know you hate hearing it.

It's EXACTLY the same. Your position is I'm against everything with exceptions. It's the same as theirs.

This is like the concept that the extreme left and extreme right are polar opposites when they are basically the same. It's not a line. Political stances are a circle.
Click to expand...

still a boomer. still a moron.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
but the frustrating thing is the first response from a lot of folks is that instead of saying "yeah, what's up with that", they jump straight to "omg, purity test! this is how we got Trump" rhetoric.

nobody is saying Harris or any of the Dem potential nominees aren't worse than Trump, but goddamn can't we have higher ambitions than not worse than Trump?
Click to expand...

People jump to that because of the even more frustrating thing - MHB still out there saying he is not sure if he could vote for her if she is the nominee out of "principle". That has been the frustrating thing since the election.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
I get not wanting to lock people up for non violent crimes, drug offenses etc.... that make a lot of sense to me. But what about seriously violent criminals or sexual offenders that present a clear and obvious threat to the general population? Are you thinking more like mental health treatments in secure facilities, because that's not far from prison either. What's your opinion of better more effective options?
Click to expand...

This is not the appropriate thread, and I hope to get a discussion thread up on the merits of the debate between reform and abolition sometime in the future, but a short answer is from one of the most prolific abolitionist organizers today.

pulling the relevant text from this:
https://medium.com/@icelevel/whos-left-mariame-26ed2237ada6

"These are posed as questions about safety but are mostly based in fear of the other. Safety for whom? And from what?
It doesn't make sense to answer because there are bad people who have not been incarcerated."

And from an interview with the same activist:

I guess that answer won’t satisfy people who want you to provide them with a solution, with the solution. Who immediately want to know: “how are we going to deal with the rapists and the murderers?” This is the question that always gets thrown at anybody who identifies as abolitionist—and my question back is “what are you doing right now about the rapists and the murderers?” That’s the first thing: Is what’s happening right now working for you? Are you feeling safer? Has the current approach ended rape and murder? The vast majority of rapists never see the inside of a courtroom, let alone get convicted and end up in prison. In fact, they end up becoming President. So the system you feel so attached to and that you seem invested in preserving is not delivering what you say you want, which is presumably safety and an end to violence. Worse than that it is causing inordinate additional harm. The logics of policing and prisons are not actually addressing the systemic causes and roots of violence.

Number two is that I always say: the answer to the question is a collective project. Your question is a good one in the sense that you’re thinking about how we might address harm (which is not the same as crime incidentally)—and so let’s figure out together, across our communities, what would be a just system for adjudicating and evaluating harm. That’s a very different posture to take. It’s a question that invites people in, that invites people to offer their ideas. It invites us to argue with each other, to say “this will work better” and “no, this is the best way,” rather than accepting as permanent and always necessary the current oppressive institutions that we have.

Our current punishment apparatus are sites of terrible and incredible violence. The sites of policing and imprisonment and containment—Dean Spade says this correctly, he says the prison is a serial killer and a rapist. So you have to be confronted with your own acceptance that the current model (a) is either the best we can do and the best we can expect or (b) is doing exactly what you say you want in the world—providing safety—when it is not, based on every empirical measure.
Click to expand...

So it's not a simple answer and won't appease everyone here. But my alternative is to build a different world where we don't rely on these institutions.
 
MHBDemon said:
This is not the appropriate thread, and I hope to get a discussion thread up on the merits of the debate between reform and abolition sometime in the future, but a short answer is from one of the most prolific abolitionist organizers today.

pulling the relevant text from this:
https://medium.com/@icelevel/whos-left-mariame-26ed2237ada6

"These are posed as questions about safety but are mostly based in fear of the other. Safety for whom? And from what?
It doesn't make sense to answer because there are bad people who have not been incarcerated."

And from an interview with the same activist:



So it's not a simple answer and won't appease everyone here. But my alternative is to build a different world where we don't rely on these institutions.
Click to expand...

so that's great about wanting to change the system and look at root causes of violence, mental health, etc. but that guy's response is just a bunch of platitude. but what do you do when someone still murders someone?
 
When you talk to people about prison reform today, you frequently get one of "yeah, we should not have for-profit prisons" or "yeah people should not be in jail for non-violent drug offenses."

The reality is these two things still play just a minor role in the overall expansion of the PIC. I think private prisons only make up ~7% of our incarcerated population, and although my recollection could be off, non-violent drug offenders make up less than 10%.

So you have to examine the whole system, and not just those two aspects of the system which one deems as flawed.
 
It's really not fair to blame rj's stupidity and bad breath on his age or his date of birth.
 
Not at all. Believing WAR and other made up things aren't stats doesn't mean I haven't read it.
 
All stats are made up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top