• 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

ImTheCaptain said:
not really. you're getting hung up on her doing her job, as defined in 2003, and basically disqualifying her. meanwhile, her opponent brags about grabbing pussies. you sound insane
Click to expand...

c'mon this is fucking ridiculous. what a shame this is the level of political discourse around here.
 
MHBDemon said:
"and yet voters in [state] were ok to vote her into the [legislative body]."

So people with bad track records/bad legislative history never get elected?
Click to expand...

I think when looking at someone who got elected as senator in California it's different than a Democrat who gets elected in Missouri or Indiana.
 
Not gonna lie, if your position is “Parents shouldn’t be held liable for their kids going to school,” that’s a pretty libertarian position to have in your locker.

I’m as pro-Harris as they come, so take all comments with a grain of salt if you want. But I don’t think that anyone should be punished for doing the job they were elected to do. Disagree all you want with the policies (and again, times change, as do beliefs and positions), but her job as AG was to have a high conviction rate and to ensure that the justice system ran as smoothly as possible. California has long had issues in its criminal justice system and there’s only so much you can do to combat the deficiencies.

Harris isn’t perfect, but no candidate is. I just want a few articles and tweets about what Warren has done to positively impact the nation while in the Senate, how Sanders has brought new ideas to the conversation, how Beto inspired a ton of young voters, etc. Someone please inform the public why all these candidates are positive role models and exciting politicians. Make Politics Positive Again.
 
JFC, this language about not holding anyone accountable "for the job they were hired to do." WTF? You are literally excusing the entire breadth of the expansion of the PIC on the excuse that everyone was just doing their job.

This is such a bad and scary take that people still have these opinions WHEN WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE BEHIND BARS THAN ANYONE IN THE WORLD.
 
you're extrapolating. it's fine to hold accountable - you are being consistent with your frustrations re: policy positions for Harris. we get it.

it's just that this candidate will have to represent lots of different people
 
MHBDemon said:
c'mon this is fucking ridiculous. what a shame this is the level of political discourse around here.
Click to expand...

it's ridiculous to point out that Donald Trump won a popularity contest as a base, terrible human being and we're quibbling about the AG's job performance from 15 years ago?
 
MHBDemon said:
JFC, this language about not holding anyone accountable "for the job they were hired to do." WTF? You are literally excusing the entire breadth of the expansion of the PIC on the excuse that everyone was just doing their job.

This is such a bad and scary take that people still have these opinions WHEN WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE BEHIND BARS THAN ANYONE IN THE WORLD.
Click to expand...

You are preaching to the choir, sir. I just wrote a position paper on the topic of mass incarceration where I advocated essentially blowing the whole damn system up and rebuilding it on as progressive of policies as possible. But revisionist history is not how you delineate between good candidates and bad candidates. You’re citing drug conviction statistics from a time where the War on Drugs met “super predators”. No state had legalized marijuana. Polling on the topic was decidedly negative. Any state AG, from the liberalest liberal to the conservativest conservative would have been expected to do what it took to get convictions.

Context is so hard for some people.
 
I think the continuous accountability -- even on things that happened 10, 20, 30 years ago -- is very important in influencing present day policy.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
you're extrapolating. it's fine to hold accountable - you are being consistent with your frustrations re: policy positions for Harris. we get it.

it's just that this candidate will have to represent lots of different people
Click to expand...

Yes, someone has to represent the rich and the landowners and the banks and the cops and the cop unions and Aramark and Sodexo, CoreCivic and GEO Group, and all the corporations that use cheap prison labor and those that squeeze money out of state budgets by paying inmates to fight fires.

You keep using this bullshit argument of representing lots of different people. I don't want my big tent of politics to continue to include people that have no objection to our current systems of incarceration. And that includes someone directly responsible to the increase in incarceration. Especially someone, that to my knowledge, has not publicly dealt with their record and what they believe differently now.

So given that I would like a candidate to represent a constituency wholly different from those identified above, I think everyone has a right and duty to criticize the fuck out of Kamala Harris' record.
 
MHBDemon said:
Yes, someone has to represent the rich and the landowners and the banks and the cops and the cop unions and Aramark and Sodexo, CoreCivic and GEO Group, and all the corporations that use cheap prison labor and those that squeeze money out of state budgets by paying inmates to fight fires.

You keep using this bullshit argument of representing lots of different people. I don't want my big tent of politics to continue to include people that have no objection to our current systems of incarceration. And that includes someone directly responsible to the increase in incarceration. Especially someone, that to my knowledge, has not publicly dealt with their record and what they believe differently now.

So given that I would like a candidate to represent a constituency wholly different from those identified above, I think everyone has a right and duty to criticize the fuck out of Kamala Harris' record.
Click to expand...

i can see you're really getting fired up here. maybe take a deep breath or two.

pretty weird to call the idea of representation a bullshit idea but in some ways i agree that the premise is weak.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
it's ridiculous to point out that Donald Trump won a popularity contest as a base, terrible human being and we're quibbling about the AG's job performance from 15 years ago?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's ridiculous. Donald Trump's shittiness and winning, have no impact on my personal decision to criticize a cop running for president.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i can see you're really getting fired up here. maybe take a deep breath or two.

pretty weird to call the idea of representation a bullshit idea but in some ways i agree that the premise is weak.
Click to expand...

Calmer than you are.

Because you apparently have a very different idea of representation to me. Let's talk about all the systemic and structural barriers to representation that exist within mass incarceration and the PIC. I'm sorry if I'd rather have someone represent them and fight for their interests, rather than someone fighting for the interests of the status quo.
 
you don't have to apologize for anything. i've already conceded that she doesn't represent you, specifically, as well as other options.

i think barca's question is germane
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
You are preaching to the choir, sir. I just wrote a position paper on the topic of mass incarceration where I advocated essentially blowing the whole damn system up and rebuilding it on as progressive of policies as possible. But revisionist history is not how you delineate between good candidates and bad candidates. You’re citing drug conviction statistics from a time where the War on Drugs met “super predators”. No state had legalized marijuana. Polling on the topic was decidedly negative. Any state AG, from the liberalest liberal to the conservativest conservative would have been expected to do what it took to get convictions.

Context is so hard for some people.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can say that her time as AG is in a different context than today. The rise of this issue to the forefront of a national conversation is happening now. The conditions that exist now, that is leading and motivating entire grassroots movements on abolition/reform, are the direct result of the administrations of people like Biden and Harris. We can't conveniently separate them from the role they played simply for political popularity concern.

Especially when neither Biden nor Harris, have provided sufficient public remarks dealing with their history.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
I think the continuous accountability -- even on things that happened 10, 20, 30 years ago -- is very important in influencing present day policy.
Click to expand...

This is important, and maybe more so to me because of my interest in the topic, but I view the modern expansion of the prison industrial complex as a political compromise among conservative democrats and "law and order" liberals with conservatives, a compromise that helped democrats electorally, but without any focus present day policy and accountability.

If we don't have those same conversations today, about policy, particularly when it comes to the question of "what function should police and prison/jails have in a modern society?" then we are left with the chance to repeat history, and have some big crime bill on increasing funding for "bias trainiing, cameras, blah blah blah" and next thing we know, we have further expansion of the carceral state.
 
I'm an abolitionist, so on principle, it is kind of hard to vote for someone like Harris.
 
MHBDemon said:
I don't understand how you can say that her time as AG is in a different context than today. The rise of this issue to the forefront of a national conversation is happening now. The conditions that exist now, that is leading and motivating entire grassroots movements on abolition/reform, are the direct result of the administrations of people like Biden and Harris. We can't conveniently separate them from the role they played simply for political popularity concern.

Especially when neither Biden nor Harris, have provided sufficient public remarks dealing with their history.
Click to expand...


I can say that because political views change over the course of time and 15 years might as well be a century as far as popular consensus goes on issues like crime, drugs, etc. Harris sponsored a program as AG that helped rehabilitate first-time drug offenders. Recidivism rates in that program were 5 times lower than the average recidivism rate in CA. Where’s that nugget on Twitter? Harris signed on to legalization of marijuana at the federal level last year. Is that included in your analysis of her candidacy?

Again, I’m a Kamala stan is you can discredit everything I’m saying if you want. But the ultra-progressive wing of the party not understanding that beliefs evolve over time is so aggravating. If someone says something or has policies in the past that don’t mesh with how you think the world should work in 2019, you disqualify them and claim that any changes from their previous beliefs and policies is phony. Kamala Harris might end up not being the overall best candidate after we do this primary cycle, but it sure as shit isn’t going to be because of her felony conviction rate as AG from 2003-2006.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top