2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[intra vires]

Not true. I support Warren. Am still Progressive.

Same, I've been Warren Nation (sorry I had to) since she created the CFPB.

Kamala Harris has a shyt record compared to someone like Larry Krasner. And the excuse of "criminal justice reform didn't kick off until 2014" is a vapid excuse. She's claiming to be a black woman representing black people in the most liberal state in the Union. She should have been on that wave before it became popular. She chose not to. In fact, she let Mnunchin off and now he's Director of OMB and Acting Chief of Staff.

Kamala is as good of an Obama pick as Merrick Garland.

I don't think it's fair to compare Harris to Kranser (or what Zephyr Teachout would have been). He's been fighting the good fight his entire legal career and that's not her background. That's why I brought up her record looking like a Republican. We don't need to get into Progressives when Mike DeWine's record and Harris' record are arguably a wash (hell DeWine supported bodycams in 2015 when Harris didn't).

Anyway, that fool doesn't get that this is the primary, not the general election where she's the nominee.

You're supposed to be vetted during the primary, critiquing candidates isn't a big deal. I've been defending Warren, conceding when appropriate, elsewhere because my lefty friends want smoke and they have legitimate criticisms.

For the record, I've always been critical of Harris...

Spoiler: This was my first post on this website

Setting aside her failure to prosecute Mnuchin, who later became her benefactor, here are some other issues:

• Supports civil asset forfeiture*
  
• Supports prison slave labor and kept an innocent person prison on technicalities.
• Supports more US intervention** in the Middle East
• More than 84% of her contributions came from 'large donors', making her a darling of the Democratic donor class.
  • Additionally, her largest donor is Time Warner which is anti-net neutrality.
• Under her stewardship the California AG's office had 707 cases of prosecutorial misconduct, six of which resulted in disciplinary action.
• Appealed a case being thrown out despite it having a made-up confession at the center of it.

Two of her senatorial campaign themes were “Criminal Justice Reform” and “Civil Rights, Equality and Justice for All”; however, as you can see her actions conflict with that rhetoric. I don’t get the enthusiasm for her. She’s pretty much the standard mediocre prosecutor who seeks higher office.

Spoiler: *

As stated in the article she fought against a bill to curb it and sponsored one to expand it. That goes beyond any “well prosecutors and CAF is complicated” styled apologizing some of you maybe tempted to do.

Spoiler: **

On balance, people like to frame the military argument as interventionist vs non-interventionist which is too vague. I don't see any evidence that she is anymore hawkish than the average Democrat. So interpret that at you own discretion.

I figured she would have addressed this by now.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Miss me with that bullshyt.


I was going to do another point by point response to your drivel, but that isn’t necessary because I would be reiterating my last post, which was ostensibly me reiterating the article.

You have continually demonstrated how far out of your depth you are on this issue which is why you refuse to engage with Lara Bazelon’s piece. This doesn’t surprise me because you’re intellectually dishonest and have a hard time admitting you're wrong, which is the mark of a fragile ego. Tulsi’s supporters have done a much better job addressing her criticisms than you have for Kamala.

You don’t know anything about criminal legal reform and that has been demonstrated in all your dismissive and ignorant responses in this thread. Moreover, your mere word choice tips that off, which wouldn't be a problem if you were sincere about your lack of knowledge. You don’t understand what prosecutorial discretion is, which is why you think what she did is merely a function of being a part of the system.

Next, I never said you weren't black. Many posters on this website don't believe you're black, but that's not what I said. I said your ilk doesn't care about black victims and this is true. Whether you're black is irrelevant to that statement and you’d know that if you weren’t a proponent of tokenism.

Finally, you have yet to address a single critique laid out in the author’s piece. Do that, without non-sequiturs, and then I’ll assume your ready for a serious discussion... I may even answer your previously stated non-sequiturs about other prosecutors and Bernie.

I don't actually expect you to address the piece... If you could do that, then you would have done so initially.




Oh and there are more critiques about her on the way.

Bruh, you ain't saying shyt I don't know and your little bullshyt about "not knowing about justice reform" is some pandering bullshyt cause you think that if I don't agree when you then the other person is an idiot.

You're not that bright. Don't play yourself. You're not persuasive. You're arrogant.

Your hit piece sucks.

People have been writing these pieces about Kamala trying to undermine her the MOMENT she got into the Senate because THEY KNEW she was coming for the White House. They've been calling it since Obama was in office giving her props.

You want a hero and a perfect woman. You're not going to get either. You're going to get competence, stability, and progress.

Kamala is a good candidate and will be a great president.

Since you really want to do this shyt, I'll break down the article later. Puta.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Same, I've been Warren Nation (sorry I had to) since she created the CFPB.



I don't think it's fair to compare Harris to Kranser (or what Zephyr Teachout would have been). He's been fighting the good fight his entire legal career and that's not her background. That's why I brought up her record looking like a Republican. We don't need to get into Progressives when Mike DeWine's record and Harris' record are arguably a wash (hell DeWine supported bodycams in 2015 when Harris didn't).

Anyway, that fool doesn't get that this is the primary, not the general election where she's the nominee.

You're supposed to be vetted during the primary, critiquing candidates isn't a big deal. I've been defending Warren, conceding when appropriate, elsewhere because my lefty friends want smoke and they have legitimate criticisms.

For the record, I've always been critical of Harris...
I figured she would have addressed this by now.

Dude. It's California. You talking about .

I dont think you really understand this.

She's going to get big money and she's going to have some errors in her span of her administration

Show me the data from other AGs.

This shyt is all a hit piece on Kamala and yall are trying your damnest to undermine her.

If you wanna play this game, you probably oppose all prosecutors who run for office.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@intra vires This is precisely why I don't take Kamala critiques seriously. Unless you show me she was any worse than any other AG pre the nation-wide criminal justice reform movement in 2013/2014, then nothing you say really matters.

The common narrative is that frankly because of her job you think she's disqualified. Especially in a huge state where people fall in the cracks like California.

You're playing into the Bernie Bro left when you do this:



This is just irresponsible and naive ultimately.

Its basically an attack on the nature of the job itself and not the reality of the boulder that the entire country was under, even in arguably one of the the most progressive states in the country.

You don't wanna see what other DAs and AGs were doing, do you?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[intra vires]

Bruh, you ain't saying shyt I don't know and your little bullshyt about "not knowing about justice reform" is some pandering bullshyt cause you think that if I don't agree when you then the other person is an idiot.

You're not that bright. Don't play yourself. You're not persuasive. You're arrogant.

Your hit piece sucks.

People have been writing these pieces about Kamala trying to undermine her the MOMENT she got into the Senate because THEY KNEW she was coming for the White House. They've been calling it since Obama was in office giving her props.

You want a hero and a perfect woman. You're not going to get either. You're going to get competence, stability, and progress.

Kamala is a good candidate and will be a great president.

Since you really want to do this shyt, I'll break down the article later. Puta.

If you're going to continue to quote me then it should be with direct responses to Professor Bazelon’s article, otherwise you're just derailing the conversation…

I’ll be reposting that article and others in her 2020 thread when it gets created, maybe someone will have tweeted a defense of her that you can quote by then.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

If you're going to continue to quote me then it should be with direct responses to Professor Bazelon’s article, otherwise you're just derailing the conversation…

I’ll be reposting that article and others in her 2020 thread when it gets created, maybe someone will have tweeted a defense of her that you can quote by then.

Emily Bazelon wrote this glowing piece in 2016 :rockwtfusay:

Kamala Harris, a ‘Top Cop’ in the Era of Black Lives Matter

Then her sister Lara Bazelon writes the take down when she poses a threat to Bernie in 2019 :50CentUMad:

Opinion | Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’

IN THE SAME NEWSPAPER


WHO YOU FOOLIN DAWG? :confusedjagfan:



@wire28 @Return to Forever @ezrathegreat @Jello Biafra @humble forever @Darth Nubian @Dameon Farrow @General Bravo III @BigMoneyGrip @hashmander @VR Tripper @Iceson Beckford [ @BaileyPark31 @Lucky_Lefty @johnedwarduado @Armchair Militant

 

[intra vires]

I’ll be reposting that Lara's article and others in her 2020 thread when it gets created, maybe someone will have tweeted a defense of her that you can quote by then.

The only way to explain your conclusion is that you didn't read either article. E. Bazelon's article alludes to some of the things that Lara mentioned. Key differences are, E. Bazelon didn't look at her entire record, because thet's not the purpose of the piece, and she was talking to people who like Harris, but cannot base their beliefs that she will be an ally on criminal legal reform on her actual record (something that was stated in the article). You keep exposing yourself with own goals...

Anyway, if you're going to continue to quote me then it should be with direct responses to Professor Bazelon’s article, otherwise you're just derailing the conversation.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I’ll be reposting that Lara's article and others in her 2020 thread when it gets created, maybe someone will have tweeted a defense of her that you can quote by then.

The only way to explain your conclusion is that you didn't read either article. E. Bazelon's article alludes to some of the things that Lara mentioned. Key differences are, E. Bazelon didn't look at her entire record, because thet's not the purpose of the piece, and she was talking to people who like Harris, but cannot base their beliefs that she will be an ally on criminal legal reform on her actual record (something that was stated in the article). You keep exposing yourself with own goals...

Anyway, if you're going to continue to quote me then it should be with direct responses to Professor Bazelon’s article, otherwise you're just derailing the conversation.

Dude. Emily literally was praised by Kamala for writing the 2016 article.

Her sister Lara comes at Kamala's neck 3 years later.

Joke's on you brother

 

[intra vires]

Dude. Emily literally was praised by Kamala for writing the 2016 article.

Her sister Lara comes at Kamala's neck 3 years later.

Joke's on you brother

If you read the article and didn't depend on twitter to formulate your opinions... you know what?

If you're going to continue to quote me then it should be with direct responses to Professor Bazelon’s article, otherwise you're just derailing the conversation…

I’ll be reposting that article and others in her 2020 thread when it gets created, maybe someone will have tweeted a defense of her that you can quote by then.

Opinion | Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’

Also, you're no more my brother than Sheriff David Clarke is. Take that statement the way I'm clearly intending it to be taken.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

If you read the article and didn't depend on twitter to formulate your opinions... you know what?

If you're going to continue to quote me then it should be with direct responses to Professor Bazelon’s article, otherwise you're just derailing the conversation…

I’ll be reposting that article and others in her 2020 thread when it gets created, maybe someone will have tweeted a defense of her that you can quote by then.

Opinion | Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’

Also, you're no more my brother than Sheriff David Clarke is. Take that statement the way I'm clearly intending it to be taken.

You keep referring to her as "professor" like her sister ain't a fukking law grad academic her damn self

I SEE THROUGH YOU

You hate Kamala Harris. Thats fine, but you're not going to make me stop exposing your hate campaign against her.

No one is perfect, and it seems you can't come to terms with that.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@intra vires

I see through you

 

[intra vires]

This is a decent primer on some of Sen. Gillibrand's positions. Definitely not exhaustive (no economics or foreign policy), but that's why I called it a primer.

Sen. Gillibrand's vacillating positions are reflective of who her constituency is. When she was a Congresswoman with a rural constituency she operated on behalf of their interests; however, when she ran for Senate, she modified her stances to reflect that broader and more liberal constituency. Those with an academic background in politics would say she leans towards the delegate theory of representation.

Now, this doesn't explain everything, especially her extreme swings (ie immigration). The troubling thing about this is it sort of tells us she may not have strong enough convictions to be a steadfast POTUS in the face of polling. She generally moves to the correct position, but that's because NY has been trending in those directions. How is she going to react to polling from purple areas she'd have presumably won in the election?

Moreover, I think it's she'd have to govern as a centrist, given the broad coalition she'd need to win. There's a good argument that a Sen. Sanders or a Sen. Warren would have to govern in a reconciliatory way, especially Sen. Warren, but that's not at all what I mean regarding Sen. Gillibrand. There is no reconciliation with her, just skepticism of her commitment to progressive values.

The Franken thing is and was always bullshyt, but I addressed it in her 2020 thread so, I'm not rehashing that.

Anyway, Gillibrand isn't even on my radar as choice in the primary and I don't see how she's going to distinguish herself in this field. I find her likable, but that's not how I select candidates.

 

[intra vires]

@∆y = f(∆x)

If you're going to continue to quote me then it should be with direct responses to Professor Bazelon’s article, otherwise you're just derailing the conversation…

I’ll be reposting that article and others in her 2020 thread when it gets created, maybe someone will have tweeted a defense of her that you can quote by then.