US PoliERA 2018 |OT13| Very Legal & Very Cool (and very redacted)

Oct 25, 2017
1,467
it's harder to trust people who could benefit politically from a pivot even if the direction of the party makes a genuine evolution seem likely. if you've got a life-or-death issue or two, people who've spent the longest on the right side of those issues will be the candidates you vote for when options exist.
Sure, but there are very few viable candidates who have been on the right side for a long time of many of the issues that affect my life. So I just shouldn't vote?

If I know their stance on the issue now, I know them to stick to their word, and I see their policy proposals, why should I be wary or harp on their past position (and even actively persuade others not to support them like some are).

Obama evolves on gay marriage -> publically announces support -> pushes for DADT repeal -> implements protections for LGBT people in federal jobs, schools, etc -> nominates liberal supreme court justices -> gay marriage gets passed

Obama supports immigrants -> tries immigration reform (gets cockblocked) -> pushes DACA as executive order

Am I supposed to just sit in a rut and be sad that Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2000? Like seriously?
 
Nov 14, 2017
4,373
I don't think Trump realizes that half the people writing these disingenuous op-eds are doing it exclusively to provide cover for his corrupt admin and stupid catchphrases, not because they actually believe it or have evidence to support it. The NYT editorial page exists to be at the perceived center of the Overton window, no matter how absurd the take. Sessions was chanting "LOCK HER UP" as recently as this summer, but even he knew there was simply nothing there with regards to a Clinton investigation.
 
Oct 31, 2017
417
All this came out of a post where I said that I wouldn't vote for Kamala in the primary because of her history as a former prosecutor. That's it. That shouldn't be controversial, but apparently, it is.
See, that's fine and all, specifically for you. But unfortunately, the vast majority of people I see online trashing Harris for her prosecutorial past and support of shitty criminal justice policies wave away Bernie's vote for the crime bill and things like, when talking about the gap between crack and cocaine sentencing in the 90's, his response was, "the cocaine users should get just as harsh sentences," not we should have softer penalties for crack users.

Now, I think Bernie has "evolved" on the issue (I think the truth is, being a politician from Vermont, he really doesn't care), but it's severely hypocritical for many people to act like Kamala Harris is secretly laughing about letting rich criminals off the hook while Bernie's record on criminal justice wasn't great either. Now, if you believe Bernie has changed based on his words an deeds, fine, but then you should at least give the same to Harris.

Again, I'm not talking specifically about you in this situation, but to the many people online who think Kamala personally stopped trans people in jail from getting medical care while acting like Bernie has always been woke about this stuff.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,394
Sure, but there are very few viable candidates who have been on the right side for a long time of many of the issues that affect my life. So I just shouldn't vote?

If I know their stance on the issue now, I know them to stick to their word, and I see their policy proposals, why should I be wary or harp on their past position (and even actively persuade others not to support them like some are).

Obama evolves on gay marriage -> publically announces support -> pushes for DADT repeal -> implements protections for LGBT people in federal jobs, schools, etc -> nominates liberal supreme court justices -> gay marriage gets passed

Obama supports immigrants -> tries immigration reform (gets cockblocked) -> pushes DACA as executive order

Am I supposed to just sit in a rut and be sad that Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2000? Like seriously?
Once POTUS Obama actually did things legislatively to show his movement on these issues, then it would make sense to trust him!

If we're looking at POTUS Harris in 2023, and she's engineered sentencing reforms and has had her DoJ crack down on law enforcement abuses in cities across the United States, then my thinking on her will evolve and I'll feel much more comfortable with her.

But to go back to your rhetorical question, of course you should vote. Most people vote while holding their noses. I can tell that you're no Republican because you even had to ask this question. Republicans just instinctively understand the concept of holding their noses and voting for people they may not like. Again, if Harris wins the nomination, I'm obviously voting for her with reservations about what type of POTUS she'd be, but with no reservations about choosing her over fucking Trump, that moron.

See, that's fine and all, specifically for you. But unfortunately, the vast majority of people I see online trashing Harris for her prosecutorial past and support of shitty criminal justice policies wave away Bernie's vote for the crime bill and things like, when talking about the gap between crack and cocaine sentencing in the 90's, his response was, "the cocaine users should get just as harsh sentences," not we should have softer penalties for crack users.

Now, I think Bernie has "evolved" on the issue (I think the truth is, being a politician from Vermont, he really doesn't care), but it's severely hypocritical for many people to act like Kamala Harris is secretly laughing about letting rich criminals off the hook while Bernie's record on criminal justice wasn't great either. Now, if you believe Bernie has changed based on his words an deeds, fine, but then you should at least give the same to Harris.

Again, I'm not talking specifically about you in this situation, but to the many people online who think Kamala personally stopped trans people in jail from getting medical care while acting like Bernie has always been woke about this stuff.
I'm with you there, but Kamala is brown and a woman and Bernie is white and a man, and we have a lot of sexism within our party. The people saying this stuff online would vote for a populist Republican who was subtly, rather than overtly, racist and sexist in about two seconds.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,070
Sure, I anticipated this response, and I'd say that I'd rather have the legislative unknown in this regard than the legislative known, considering that the "legislative known" is really bad in my view.

Beto is lucky; he doesn't have a history and he also has that great response on Colin Kaepernick. There isn't substance there, I freely admit, but there is also the room there for me to trust him a bit more because of his lack of legislative substance.
I'll put it another way.

If Beto and Harris were both asked about Harris' record on criminal justice, isn't it possible that Harris could have a better response? Beto's response would be easier, but Kamala's response could be deeper. A deeper understanding of what went wrong because she was there, she did it, and she's been forced to reckon with herself ever since. She has first hand knowledge about what drove her past actions and can better understand what it takes to overcome those incentives, if she's given it serious introspection. I think it's possible she would be more motivated to be better on criminal justice because of her past, rather than in spite of it. An opportunity for her to make up for past mistakes. IF that's how she see is.

Of course, maybe she'll just make excuses and say what she thinks people will want to hear (this is certainly the more common approach we see).

I'm just saying both are possible. Kamala Harris has been who I think has the most potential, even if it's unlikely that potential ends up being expressed (I think it's more likely she'll play it safe, which is why my money would be on Beto).
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,425
One of my friends sent me this article talking about how polarization and 24/7 media exposure have helped weaken Congress' power. Does anyone think there's merit to this, or is it missing something?

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/congress-weak-members-want-weak/
I'm really not sure this is a problem with Congress so much as with Republicans. It's another result of the philosophy of handicapping the government or simply having no interest in governing in the first place. This is what Republican voters want and reward. I don't think the same is true for Democratic voters.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,189
The difference is this: If you posted here in the middle of a conversation that you supported three strikes laws in the past, but you realize how harmful they are now, I'd accept your evolution in thinking without questioning.

But you aren't running in the primary for one of the only two parties that can win the presidency, with the other party's option for president being obviously untenable.

The threshold for Harris (or Biden, or Bernie for that matter, since he also voted in favor of that monstrous crime bill) is much higher.
Right, and isn't that threshold defined by what they actually do? I have not seen Kamala's support for three-strike sentencing or Gillibrand's support for immigration crackdowns resurface as planks of their senate careers, for instance. Just the opposite. If legislative action as senators doesn't a reflect an evolution in thinking, then what does?

All this came out of a post where I said that I wouldn't vote for Kamala in the primary because of her history as a former prosecutor. That's it. That shouldn't be controversial, but apparently, it is.
All I asked for was an explanation of why her prosecutor history should disqualify her as a presidential contender. I wasn't trying to play gotcha, I was genuinely looking for information. Sorry you thought that ask was controversial
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,467
Once POTUS Obama actually did things legislatively to show his movement on these issues, then it would make sense to trust him!

If we're looking at POTUS Harris in 2023, and she's engineered sentencing reforms and has had her DoJ crack down on law enforcement abuses in cities across the United States, then my thinking on her will evolve and I'll feel much more comfortable with her.

But to go back to your rhetorical question, of course you should vote. Most people vote while holding their noses. I can tell that you're no Republican because you even had to ask this question. Republicans just instinctively understand the concept of holding their noses and voting for people they may not like. Again, if Harris wins the nomination, I'm obviously voting for her with reservations about what type of POTUS she'd be, but with no reservations about choosing her over fucking Trump, that moron.
To that second paragraph, there is no POTUS Harris in 2023 if we're refusing to back her in 2020 because we don't trust her on criminal justice issues.

And to clarify, I'm just using your post as an example about how we're talking about primary candidates in general, the litmus test is very harsh.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,394
I'll put it another way.

If Beto and Harris were both asked about Harris' record on criminal justice, isn't it possible that Harris could have a better response? Beto's response would be easier, but Kamala's response could be deeper. A deeper understanding of what went wrong because she was there, she did it, and she's been forced to reckon with herself ever since. She has first hand knowledge about what drove her past actions and can better understand what it takes to overcome those incentives, if she's given it serious introspection. I think it's possible she would be more motivated to be better on criminal justice because of her past, rather than in spite of it. An opportunity for her to make up for past mistakes. IF that's how she see is.

Of course, maybe she'll just make excuses and say what she thinks people will want to hear (this is certainly the more common approach we see).

I'm just saying both are possible. Kamala Harris has been who I think has the most potential, even if it's unlikely that potential ends up being expressed (I think it's more likely she'll play it safe, which is why my money would be on Beto).
Sure, this is possible, but I'm not going to trust this possibility enough to vote for her over someone without her history in the primary, frankly.

I'm not saying that she can't genuinely assess her past actions, the context of those actions, and how those actions harmed communities. I'm not saying that she can't then share a unique viewpoint about how her views have changed after living this history.

I'm just saying that I'm not going to vote for her words when there are also her actions available for evaluation; I'm going to vote based on her actions in the primary.

To that second paragraph, there is no POTUS Harris in 2023 if we're refusing to back her in 2020 because we don't trust her on criminal justice issues.

And to clarify, I'm just using your post as an example about how we're talking about primary candidates in general, the litmus test is very harsh.
I don't understand this post. There is no POTUS Harris in 2023 if she scares off a significant bloc of voters in 2019 because of her history, in which case, the primary process worked. And if she doesn't scare off that bloc, wins the primary, and wins the presidency, the primary process...also worked. What's your point here?

Right, and isn't that threshold defined by what they actually do? I have not seen Kamala's support for three-strike sentencing or Gillibrand's support for immigration crackdowns resurface as planks of their senate careers, for instance. Just the opposite. If legislative action as senators doesn't a reflect an evolution in thinking, then what does?
Harris's actions in the past, when she had more power than being in the minority of the Senate as she is now, carry more weight with me. But again, your argument here that Harris done "just the opposite" probably isn't actually true, at least in any substantive way. Hey, if this sentencing reform bill, which looks reasonably decent, gets out of the Senate with her vote, you'll have more of an argument than you currently have about Harris having clear markers of evolution on her positions w/r/t crime.

And please, the whining about my "controversial" remark is unbecoming, and it wasn't pointed at you anyway, so relax.

It's totally fair for people to have red lines in the primary. Like, personally, Warren is out for me after that DNA shit. Just brutally insensitive to Native people, and she's done nothing but triple down on it.

Harris doesn't cross a red line for me (isn't she in with that Abolish Bail movement now with Booker?), but it's fair if she does for other people.
Right? This is a primary. Dream big! Hold to your ideals!

Then get in line for the general.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
3,040
It's totally fair for people to have red lines in the primary. Like, personally, Warren is out for me after that DNA shit. Just brutally insensitive to Native people, and she's done nothing but triple down on it.

Harris doesn't cross a red line for me (isn't she in with that Abolish Bail movement now with Booker?), but it's fair if she does for other people.
 

Casa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,251
Literally anyone Trump nominates for AG will be a partisan hack to some degree. He will have shady agreements and handshake deals as a prerequisite to even be considered. He wouldn't let another "weakling" like Sessions happen. He has repeatedly made it clear that he wants an AG that will be his shield and sword and will work for him.

For these reasons alone not a single Dem should even consider voting yes. But of course this Burr asshole will likely sail through. Disgusting.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,104
Oct 26, 2017
2,383
Sure, but there are very few viable candidates who have been on the right side for a long time of many of the issues that affect my life. So I just shouldn't vote?

If I know their stance on the issue now, I know them to stick to their word, and I see their policy proposals, why should I be wary or harp on their past position (and even actively persuade others not to support them like some are).

Obama evolves on gay marriage -> publically announces support -> pushes for DADT repeal -> implements protections for LGBT people in federal jobs, schools, etc -> nominates liberal supreme court justices -> gay marriage gets passed

Obama supports immigrants -> tries immigration reform (gets cockblocked) -> pushes DACA as executive order

Am I supposed to just sit in a rut and be sad that Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2000? Like seriously?
no. i'm trying to say that in a primary, "longest consistently positive track record on a given thing" is an ok deciding factor to go by. that's all.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,189
Harris's actions in the past, when she had more power than being in the minority of the Senate as she is now, carry more weight with me. But again, your argument here that Harris done "just the opposite" probably isn't actually true, at least in any substantive way. Hey, if this sentencing reform bill, which looks reasonably decent, gets out of the Senate with her vote, you'll have more of an argument than you currently have about Harris having clear markers of evolution on her positions w/r/t crime.
You're right, I am taking a big gamble in assuming that her support for sentencing reform is genuine and not masking a secret attempt to pass a different bill that would actually shore up three-strike sentencing guidelines. But that's the risk I take posting in here!
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,690
So, I have made a decision that since I can't vote in FL primaries (registered Indy) that I will accept and support whoever the eventual nominee is. If Bernie or Kamala can drag their tired asses onto that podium, they get my sword
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,394
You're right, I am taking a big gamble in assuming that her support for sentencing reform is genuine and not masking a secret attempt to pass a different bill that would actually shore up three-strike sentencing guidelines. But that's the risk I take posting in here!
Maybe risk making a cogent point sometime while you're at it.

So, I have made a decision that since I can't vote in FL primaries (registered Indy) that I will accept and support whoever the eventual nominee is. If Bernie or Kamala can drag their tired asses onto that podium, they get my sword
Man, I might have to literally hold my nose if Bernie makes it out of the primary somehow.

Because I wouldn't want to smell the vomit after I throw up while filling in my bubble for him in the general, I mean.

It could only be more obvious if everyone involved in colluding with a foreign power to influence an election did an elaborate dance number while singing about it in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue before all boarding a flight to live in Moscow for the rest of their lives.

Literally anyone Trump nominates for AG will be a partisan hack to some degree. He will have shady agreements and handshake deals as a prerequisite to even be considered. He wouldn't let another "weakling" like Sessions happen. He has repeatedly made it clear that he wants an AG that will be his shield and sword and will work for him.

For these reasons alone not a single Dem should even consider voting yes. But of course this Burr asshole will likely sail through. Disgusting.
Whitaker being de-fanged makes me wonder how effective the next partisan hack of an AG will be, though...
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,425
I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I'm assuming the "size 16 shoe about to drop" is a Comey reference considering he's 6'8" and that's likely his shoe size.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,690
Why not just change your registration?
Mostly for work reasons. I used to work for Gov. Voldemort's office and now I coordinate police and fire for emergency management, so it's easier to both stay under the radar and keep my job options open in a charged political environment. Also, it cuts down on political mailings and cash begging
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,554
Man, I might have to literally hold my nose if Bernie makes it out of the primary somehow.

Because I wouldn't want to smell the vomit after I throw up while filling in my bubble for him in the general, I mean.
That would be my same reaction. That and not bothering to watch any debate involving him and Trump.