-
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.
NYT Op-Ed: Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’
- Thread starter Deleted member 15440
- Start date
if democrats are going to elect based on purity tests, then democrats will keep losing presidential elections
If they elected based on purity tests, Hillary wouldn't have made it through the primary.
we elected Clinton in the primaries last presidential election cycle a candidate who isn't passing any kind of "purity test" and we lost to Trump in the general
"Tough on crime" is a generally effective platform especially with independent voters. That's certainly not where the Democrats' base is at on the issue, but they're all going to not vote for Trump anyway.
This a sarcastic post? If not, it's ignorant as hell. Someone's record as attorney general isn't a fucking purity test. The phrase has lost all meaning with how people throw it around cluelessly.
The excuses being made for this piece of shit are straight up embarrassing and pathetic. Way to have no standards whatsoever.
If true, that might be even more problematic because her actions and ideologies are not indicative of a progressive.
Being held accountable for past actions is part of the game. If Harris truly is worth and a strong candidate she will be able to address these concerns and assuage any misgivings the electorate has with it. Her actions since then as a Senator and how she positions herself for the future as the President will be the most telling as to how genuine that is. No candidate is perfect, but that doesn't mean we can or should ignore their past mistakes. How they respond to those concerns and what actions they've taken since then are just as important.
No, it is not. Being an AG is a much more complex position where you have to balance enforcing both federal and state laws, appeasing various interest groups that will help you get re-elected and dealing a police department that more often than not hates your guts but you need in order to make your cases. Due to what the job entails you can write such a piece about any AG.
The article focuses on her time as AG.
Every Beto/Kamala thread has at least ten people on the first page going "Beto/Kamala 2020" and its really annoying.
If anyone had any kind of standard whatsoever they would just roll over and die, politics are a game of compromise.
If you ever find the fabled unicorn of flawless candidate, you should either wake up, wonder why you're not told the full story or why your standards are so low.
Translator's note:
Purity test means applying your morals consistently instead of using them solely as a means to attack rivals.
As long as a candidate is not a horrible person, blatant criminal, bigot, grifter, etc., I'm more interested in their policy platform than anything else.
We as the people on the left need to get here. Nitpicking every little thing is going to leave you with a field of exactly zero candidates.
Once we have a winner of the Primary, regardless of who it is, we need to vote for that person if they are the better of the 2 options from the big tent parties. And we already know that for the foreseeable future, the Democratic candidate is definitely the better option.
We as the people on the left need to get here. Nitpicking every little thing is going to leave you with a field of exactly zero candidates.
Once we have a winner of the Primary, regardless of who it is, we need to vote for that person if they are the better of the 2 options from the big tent parties. And we already know that for the foreseeable future, the Democratic candidate is definitely the better option.
Purity Test is the new political strawman and it needs to be eradicated from our collective vernacular with haste.
I personally know very little of Harris but this shit looks bad and should offend anyone who claims to be a progressive.
I personally know very little of Harris but this shit looks bad and should offend anyone who claims to be a progressive.
It never had any meaning and has always been a lazy lob at anyone to the user's left. Purity tests conveniently begin immediately past one's political stace.
Nothing wrong with holding politicians' feet to the fire.
I hope Harris is able to answer for this, especially if she is the nominee, but I also hope that enough people won't hold this against her to rob her of a win in crucial electoral states.
I hope Harris is able to answer for this, especially if she is the nominee, but I also hope that enough people won't hold this against her to rob her of a win in crucial electoral states.
I think anyone who would get a hard on for being tough on crime would probably support Trump in that specific fight.
Did you read what she's done and has been accused of?
She may have knowingly destroyed innocent lives.
That's not a nitpick.
I'm getting to the point where I think a certain section of liberals just don't give a shit. Get anyone in office who "look" progressive they can turn off from politics. A Obama sounding white man and a black woman, progressive limit reached.
Shit is sad.
People you cannot be defending someone who is willing to use the same tricks used by racist prosecutors to lock up a person for 70 years.
That would be true, if they made it that far. All a democrat would have to do is show her record and a lot of the primary voters in the south are not going to fall for it.
I mean, I agree with you that it looks that way. But we don't know what her personal conviction was on that matter. Maybe the girl was extremely convincing and she was fooled even though she lied about other things? It's difficult to know how she came about her stance without actually experiencing what she did as a prosecutor.
That being said, I will of course weigh all of my options in the Primary and choose who I think is the best of the lot considering all variables.
right. it's really okay to say "she messed up in the past". we don't have to make excuses about how "well ruining people's lives and hurting them is just part of the job". That's insane.
☝️☝️☝️
Unless she's taken some major strides in criminal justice reform as a senator I'm not convinced.
These posts are honestly extremely troubling and definitely not the sentiment I expected to see on Era, especially all of them coming in like the first five posts. Jesus.
Prosecutorial overreach is a MASSIVE problem in this country and one of biggest contributors to our culture of mass incarceration, gross mistreatment of inmates while incarcerated, and the destruction of offenders' lives when they eventually get out. Culturally speaking, these are some of biggest problems we face in the United States, especially since these things disproportionately affect minorities. And all of these problems are driven in large part by the conduct of prosecutors.
It is absolutely a thousand fucking percent fair game to go through her prosecutorial record. This is the type of thing we should do with any candidate: hold them accountable for these things and call for them to signify that they are going to make a shift from these past behaviors or not.
As an attorney I see this type of shit all the time. The last thing it needs is to be downplayed, especially when we're talking about a presidential candidate.
I like Harris a lot, but she needs to address this.
Shame on ya'll for trying to downplay this. I expect better from Era. Take 20 minutes out and watch the following for an informative if superficial summary of why this is important:
Jacobin (socialist magazine) put out a similar article to the rest being published lately. They detail multiple instances that you're asking to be pointed out. You should take the time to look at her entire track record instead of buying her progressive prosecutor rhetoric, but you should also take the time to form educated criticisms of her instead of making several posts where its clear you are only viewing her through black or white lenses.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-general
She should address the Gage situation but it doesn't come close to defining her entire tenure as a prosecutor. You stated "in this moment," likely referencing police corruption/brutality issues. You dont think her drawn out resistance in the face of their attacks, including from fellow democratic colleagues, is a plus in that regard?
Stop buying into hit pieces so hard, take the time to parse all of the publicly available info that's not always included in opinion articles like the one you posted.
Read the whole thread before getting outraged please. We've all said she needs to answer for her actions.
Excuse me. But that is some grade A BULLSHIT. Whether it comes out now or comes out later, it WILL come out. So it's best to address it immediately. And if it leads a person to lose the primary so be it. Every candidate needs to be judged by their positive AND negative history.
knowingly letting an innocent person go to prison for 70 years isn't enough to make someone a horrible person? (i am assuming the information in the op is correct).
I don't quite get the hype for Kamala, she was good in the hearings against Sessions and that's about it. Her history as a prosecutor is far from ideal in a progressive candidate.
Categorizing my post as "getting outraged" is an interesting choice of words but I guess I can't say I'm surprised when it has become common practice in certain corners of the internet to classify legitimate concern as "outrage culture." You do you though.
And I have read through the whole thread. My post is addressing the sentiment that going through a prosecutor's record is somehow a "purity test." That's nonsense.
No one is criticizing Harris for doing her job as AG and prosecuting people to begin with unless they happen to think that the institution of policing and criminal justice should be done away with. As far as I can tell the author of that piece doesn't think that. However what people are criticizing her for is her record and practices as AG. For example Harris wanted to jail parents for the truancy of their children. This is something that should absolutely be criticized and this is why I made that comparison to criticizing the police for their practices. Once again no one is saying she shouldn't prosecute people at all but how she's doing for sure derserves examination and criticism.
Yeah, I mean if she thought he was innocent and still pursued, I'd definitely hold that against her. That being said, it is hard to know exactly if she actually thought he was innocent or not, regardless of the girl getting caught in lies.
She's actually got the political chops to understand that with sufficient skill you can jiu-jitsu an apology into looking great on the issues you're apologizing for (aka the polar opposite of Clinton's constant idiotic refusal to apologize for her Iraq War vote that shot her in the foot in 2008).
I think a bigger problem for her will be the long string of "oh my gosh I had no idea this was happening!". Especially in the post Trump era where the scrutiny of "ignorant" superiors who have subordinates doing illegal or unethical things. The GOP will use all that same ammo against her.
If she thought the man was innocent, why would she withhold evidence that might weaken her case. She thought the man was guilty and did whatever she wanted to win, the same tactic used by racist for decade.
We have laws in this country that require prosecutors to hand over evidence related to a crime to the defense. She of all people should understand how blacks are screwed over by prosecutors such as herself, but she probably did not care because everything is a stepping stone to power for her.
Harris' prosecutorial history has always been her Achilles' heel, because there's genuinely some bad stuff in there, but I kind of doubt any of the other candidates are going to want to hit it too hard. Biden's record on criminal justice is even worse, Gillibrand's target audience of suburban white ladies won't be super responsive to criminal justice complaints, nor will Sharrod Brown's white working class folks. Beto and Booker can't really deviate from their positive personas. And really no one is going to want to alienate her supporters with attacks, and end up in the narrative that the Democratic Party was all cool to go all law and order until a black prosecutor shows up, and now we're all worried about justice and going to punish her for playing the game that we made for her. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard will go hard on it since she has no bridges left to burn and has to find somewhere she can get leftier than thou, but "most hated by Tulsi" seems like it'll be a badge of honor for most primary voters.
God, the purity testers are nuts.
Harris is probably the smartest and most knowledgeable candidate the Dems have.
I can't believe that people are going for Beto who is a complete Air Head with no substance
Harris is probably the smartest and most knowledgeable candidate the Dems have.
I can't believe that people are going for Beto who is a complete Air Head with no substance
Well, I've read the entire thread and I share his outrage.
The things she did as outlined in that piece are indefensible.
What a horrendous idea. Disturbing.
Oh yeah, there's also this:
https://observer.com/2015/03/california-prosecutor-falsifies-transcript-of-confession/
I hope she loses.
... it's a purity test to talk about a candidate's past record as a harsh and sometimes unfair prosecutor?
That's not a purity test. Get a grip.
What's nuts is pushing somebody as a progressive who acted like a Republican when employed as an AG.
We're not talking about some minor foibles or missteps here; her political ideology during that time would seem to run in direct contrast to progressivism.