If they elected based on purity tests, Hillary wouldn't have made it through the primary.if democrats are going to elect based on purity tests, then democrats will keep losing presidential elections
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 generalif democrats are going to elect based on purity tests, then democrats will keep losing presidential elections
"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.
if democrats are going to elect based on purity tests, then democrats will keep losing presidential elections
i'm saying that excuse doesn't do anything for me whether it's true or not, and in harris's case i don't think it's true. i think she did all these things because she thought they were the correct courses of action, not because she was scared of looking like a weak woman.
This is like saying you can't criticize the police for brutality or disproportionately targeting Black people because they're just doing their jobs.
There's really only been one "progressive prosecutor" in the whole country - in Philly just now.
It's fine to examine Harris' record, for sure.
Every Beto/Kamala thread has at least ten people on the first page going "Beto/Kamala 2020" and its really annoying.The excuses being made for this piece of shit are straight up embarrassing and pathetic. Way to have no standards whatsoever.
If anyone had any kind of standard whatsoever they would just roll over and die, politics are a game of compromise.The excuses being made for this piece of shit are straight up embarrassing and pathetic. Way to have no standards whatsoever.
if democrats are going to elect based on purity tests, then democrats will keep losing presidential elections
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.
I think anyone who would get a hard on for being tough on crime would probably support Trump in that specific fight."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.
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.
Every Beto/Kamala thread has at least ten people on the first page going "Beto/Kamala 2020" and its really annoying.
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.People who get a chubby from "law and order" and locking black people up.
Aka moderates.
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.Did you read what she's done and has been accused of?
She may have knowingly destroyed innocent lives.
That's not a nitpick.
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.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.
☝️☝️☝️Harris is basically the "👏🏾Hire👏🏾More👏🏾Women👏🏾Prison guards" tweet personified
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.
She did her job or what was necessary to keep her job. You can put together a piece like this for every AG in the country.
Here comes the 'not good enough' train. Making frequent, looping stops at Kristen Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke and every single other prospective Democratic candidate until the 2020 election.
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.Have you considered that she was forced to play it a little hard because of her standing as a woman in a male dominated field?
what has she done as senator to specifically address the kinds of failures she had as prosecutor? i haven't heard her say much with regard to criminal justice.
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:
Please forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of articles designed to spread negative press around potential Democratic candidates coming out long before the primary has even started. We're gonna see this shit for every single candidate and the Russians are just going to make it worse.
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.
...
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:
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.Read the whole thread before getting outraged please. We've all said she needs to answer for her actions.
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.
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.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).
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).Harris has to address this. If she can't address it properly then she is done. I like her as a candidate but not going to lie, her record as prosecutor gives me pause.
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.
Read the whole thread before getting outraged please. We've all said she needs to answer for her actions.
What a horrendous idea. Disturbing.Ms. Harris also championed state legislation under which parents whose children were found to be habitually truant in elementary school could be prosecuted, despite concerns that it would disproportionately affect low-income people of color
Ms. Harris and her staff defended the indefensible—California State prosecutor Murray flat out falsified a transcript of a defendant's confession.
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
isn't that the job of a prosecutor?... 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.
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