• 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

i think he's just pointing out that vetting a candidate may be irrelevant

And I’m arguing against that point. Clinton never having to address her record was one among many factors that helped her lose that election all by her lonesome.

ETA: feel free to offer a substantive critique of my point.
 
As I mentioned earlier and as Barca stated well right above, to my knowledge, Kamala Harris has not been posed a direct question on her record in an official interview or debate setting where she could respond intelligently and in more than 280 characters. Her book mentions some aspects, but similar to the Twitter thread that started this debate, it’s one side of a story that does not have full context to go along with it. Clearly this is the issue that will stick with Harris for a while, so undoubtedly such an opportunity to address it will come up. I don’t think the fact she hasn’t yet is that strange at all, especially since she has not officially declared her candidacy.

Wasn't her book an opportunity to address it? And she failed? Why?
 
but you know enough about Kamala Harris to dismiss policy-based critiques of her record?

This is what I’m talking about, y’all.

i never "dismissed" or handwaived her record. the only thin i said about it was that it's a little disingenuous to rant/rave about an AG being tough on crime in 2003.

you guys are just as bad about jamming words in people's mouths as you claim others.
 
Wasn't her book an opportunity to address it? And she failed? Why?

Yeah, this is what I was referring to.

All she has to say is that it’s her job to argue in favor of the state’s interests, irrespective of her personal beliefs, because a) that’s her job and b) that’s her job. She understands that in doing her job, she fucked people over and that’s why she is putting herself in the position to change the policies that she was obliged to carry out.

That might not be enough for the far left, but that’s what the most basic form of accountability looks like.
 
i never "dismissed" or handwaived her record. the only thin i said about it was that it's a little disingenuous to rant/rave about an AG being tough on crime in 2003.

you guys are just as bad about jamming words in people's mouths as you claim others.

How else am I supposed to read your casual dismissals of other posters’ substantive critiques? I feel like I’m already giving you the benefit of the doubt.
 
And I’m arguing against that point. Clinton never having to address her record was one among many factors that helped her lose that election all by her lonesome.

ETA: feel free to offer a substantive critique of my point.

get real - her candidacy came down to things other than her record or resume. the woman crushed the popular vote. you think she lost because she didn't answer questions about her war vote enough? on what positions was her record unclear
 
get real - her candidacy came down to things other than her record or resume. the woman crushed the popular vote. you think she lost because she didn't answer questions about her war vote enough? on what positions was her record unclear

Speaking of putting words in posters’ mouths. LOL

That’s why I said it was one factor among many. Not campaigning in battleground states was another comical (though since it gave us trump maybe not comical) unforced error.
 
RJ gets it.

ITC, Barca, TWMD, Ph - how do y’all feel about hof Sherrod?

I like him a lot. If we are doing the "one big flaw" thing, he is pretty terrible on trade. But I'd be excited to vote for him.
 
I’ll answer for him - yes.

Do you have any thoughts on my posts about what accountability could look like in this case?

you either vote for her or you do not, based on the available information. i don't know what you want me to say other than it's possible for some Democrats to not care as much about drug convictions in California. that's not a dismissal, it's just a perspective.
 
i never "dismissed" or handwaived her record. the only thin i said about it was that it's a little disingenuous to rant/rave about an AG being tough on crime in 2003.

you guys are just as bad about jamming words in people's mouths as you claim others.
1. I'm the one that has posted criticisms of Harris, and i'm not ranting or raving.
2. There's nothing disengenious about questioning 10 year old decisions. If anything is disengenious, it's pretending that authoritarianism was acceptable in 2010.
 
Speaking of putting words in posters’ mouths. LOL

That’s why I said it was one factor among many. Not campaigning in battleground states was another comical (though since it gave us trump maybe not comical) unforced error.

i don't know why you brought it up then. Hillary is the worst example of a candidate with an unexamined record
 
this does not look like accountability to me:

In her memoir published Tuesday, the California Democrat describes herself as a “progressive prosecutor” and says it’s a “false choice” to decide between supporting the police and advocating for greater scrutiny of law enforcement. The argument is aimed at liberal critics of her record who argue she was sometimes too quick to side with the police and too slow to adopt sentencing reforms.

“I know that most police officers deserve to be proud of their public service and commended for the way they do their jobs,” Harris writes in “The Truths We Hold.” ‘’I know how difficult and dangerous the job is, day in and day out, and I know how hard it is for the officers’ families, who have to wonder if the person they love will be coming home at the end of each shift.”


But, she continues, “I also know this: it is a false choice to suggest you must either be for the police or for police accountability. I am for both. Most people I know are for both. Let’s speak some truth about that, too.”
 
Wasn't her book an opportunity to address it? And she failed? Why?

I don’t think she failed. I think she defended it fairly well, but it was written to toe the line, as most candidacy books are. Establish bonafides while painting the weaknesses in a flattering light. My issue with that is the same with the Twitter thread, there’s no pushback, no conversation, no follow up questions.
 
i thought you guys meant being held accountable by the voter, not her owning her mistakes. i see a politician being a politician, and not doing it very well
 
Back
Top