-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Yes, it's like a 4% difference, hardly worth mentioning when people mention helping working class people. It's a classical dog whistle for white people.
See? That's PATENTLY untrue.
I'm not familiar with the Larsen case, but George Gage was convicted of raping his daughter in a he-said-they-said situation. Maybe the daughter (who attempted suicide) and the ex-wife (who testified that Gage abused them) lied, maybe not. Multiple courts looked over the decision. Gage failed to appeal properly and provided no reason for the conviction to be over turned beyond his ex-wife calling the daughter a serial liar in a different context, and Harris refused to reopen the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2818500/george-gage-v-kevin-chappell/
Kevin Cooper is a serial felon who escaped from a prison where he was serving time for iron-clad cases of rape and armed robbery (which he admitted to). Along his path, a family was brutally murdered, their vehicle stolen and another woman raped. Cooper admits he was hiding out right by the home and traveled along the vehicle's route at the specific time, but claims he hitchhiked all the way. Most everyone who looked at the case agreed the evidence was overwhelming. Harris's office refused to reopen the case twenty-plus years later or test DNA evidence, although Harris herself later urged the state to carry out the testing.
These are the two cases that I see cited most often as evidence for Harris's abuse of her position, and they're far from cases of clearly innocent people. Call it whataboutism, but there are far worse situations in the criminal justice system (and elsewhere) that I'm much more concerned with.
Last edited:
...so wait, that poll says everyone who knows about him hates him but he still pulls 3-7% anyway?
The "centrist" 4% is all in on the "both sides" rhetoric.
Diamond Joe being our only hope would be sad.
literally anyone who can dump a few hundred million into a presidential campaign could buy at least 3--5% of the vote, no matter how detestable they are
this has further convinced me that everyone with more than a hundred million dollars in assets is a policy failure in addition to all billionaires
The lower right quadrant in my favorite graph? 3.8%.
There is literally no electorate for an actual libertarian candidate
sure there isn't an electorate, but there might be enough of these dipshits to swing an election if enough Rural Whites come out of the woodwork again (assuming Schultz doesn't just kill his campaign well before ballots are printed)
only if they tell people to rise up
If someone who had a hundred million dollars was willing to spend it all so frivolously then trickle-down economics would actually work.
It's pretty clear that this is what Schultz wants. He wants trump to get reelected just like how Jill Stein wanted Clinton to lose. There is absolutely no reason to think that he wont run because just going by that poll alone he has a chance of preventing a democrat from getting elected to the presidency.
It's funny how she's always the answer to "is there a <millenial meme> candidate"
But did she furrow her brow?
Disappointing after her response to Franken.
Pretty sure that Franken response is why she didn't go hard here
Is there actual evidence that there are a significant amount of people upset by her call for Franken to resign? That it will be an issue for her moving forward?
You don't want to look like the person who always needs to be first.
But that's why this is weird, because the VA NAACP, Harris, and Castro had already come out ahead of her.
I mean.. is this an actual concern..? It's not like she's running on "I am the first person to call everything out" or even labeled as that?
I haven't heard any significant criticism of her that involves Franken.
She was the first Senator to ask for Franken's resignation....by minutes.
I've still yet to see any reason for how this would possibly hurt her (Franken). Seems to me it's better than not at best and benign at worst. So I'm not following how this would impact her decision here.
Last edited:
Because being the person who ALWAYS has to be the first to condemn someone is a really bad look. No one likes that girl/guy and being first out the gates here instead of letting other (nonwhite) candidates/organizations make the first calls here would play into that characterization.
But if this was deliberately softballing an initial response she overcorrected.
Except.. she's not first here, like you already said. All I'm seeing is a weak response and an excuse that isn't even being discussed or referenced in the real world. Like do we really think she was like "oh boy, I was first for Franken, and even though no one really cares, I better not be first for this one.. people really don't like firsts!"?
Calling for people to step aside for sexual assault and blackface/KKK costumes is not a competition. It's common decency, not a poor strategy.
Gillibrand's doing campaign events in New Hampshire today, which is probably why she hedged even though she didn't need to, as you're gonna be disconnected from twitter/news updates in the middle of those. https://cbs6albany.com/news/nation-...d-meets-with-young-democrats-in-new-hampshire This thing happened fast.
I'd be shocked if she doesn't escalate her response in the next 18 hours.
I'm all about Bernie right now. Warren is a close second but no one else is really grabbing me.
I get that she hadn't seen the pictures yet, but what more context do you need to ask someone to step aside? A "if this is true, he needs to resign" is like, the fucking decent thing to do. Issuing a better statement is not going to hurt her in any way, it's going to help. And she should be criticized for not doing it.
No location or context is going to change that so we should just call it out for what it is, a weak statement with no excuse.
If you go by Twitter it's going to be a thing. Outside of that? Who can tell
If.. we go off Twitter literally anything and everything is going to be a thing. Unless there is actual traction behind those statements/"criticisms"
Issuing a resignation request first would have hurt her by playing into the Franken stuff. That's more a general issue with her personal history and not wanting to make it look like she has a pattern of always needing to be first. But on top of that Issuing a resignation request first before any black candidates or organizations first would have looked super bad. You really do not want to be perceived as that girl/guy stepping over those communities.
Given the timing (about 15 minutes after Harris' tweet) and the fact that this happened during a campaign event, there's a good chance she didn't know that Harris and the VA NAACP had come out for resignation and that she would have been avoiding problem number 2. It's weak. It can also be upgraded fairly easily with no consequences- if it's not relatively quickly, I would be very surprised.
There is no significant evidence of this at all. If there is, please provide it. Why would it matter if a black candidate did it first? She's already getting blowback for being white and not calling for resignation, looking at PoliERA, among general criticism. This clearly hurts more than helps, if we're really gunna approach this from a moralless "political strategy" perspective.
Like how long is it gunna take for people to just stop making excuses and do the right thing? She didn't wait around on Franken so we should criticize her for hesitating here.
At a public-facing campaign event? Her prior statement was put out 2 hours ago, likely in the middle of it. We anonymous internet people get to go offstage and look down at our phones. That's not how it's going to work for someone who's doing retail campaigning.
You're making a lot of excuses for someone who clearly took a loss here and released a poor statement. Like I said before.. what other context do you need for "dressed up in blackface or a KKK costume"? She knew enough to call it "disturbing". "if this is true, he should resign", done. It doesn't matter where she was, what she was doing, who she was with, whatever.
I mean this is pretty basic shit.
"having seen the photo"
get the fuck out of here with that
she sounds like the higher ups in the NFL
get the fuck out of here with that
she sounds like the higher ups in the NFL
This isn't true, Harris could of rectified the wrong but didn't.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/kamala-harris-prosecutor-record-2020-campaign.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
I honestly think some of you are overreacting to Gillibrand's responses. I mean, it's not like she didn't express any contentious sentiments towards what happened, regardless if she outright called for the governor's resignation or not. Treating her as if she was defending him is just uncalled-for.
- Status