this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
43 points (75.3% liked)

politics

18866 readers
21 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Whatever Harris did as a prosecutor seems reasonable given both the context of the time she during which was a prosecutor, and her overall political alignment. I would rather have a progressive presidential candidate like Bernie (too late), or AOC (maybe 2028 or later). But choosing Harris means that the overall “liberal” agenda stays on the table

Some highlights from the article

Harris, as part of her previous presidential campaign, also released a criminal justice reform plan that seeks to scale back incarceration, end the death penalty and solitary confinement, ban private prisons, and get rid of cash bail. Biden also backs a fairly aggressive criminal justice reform plan, despite his own mixed record on criminal justice issues.

A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions. She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.

But what seem like contradictions may reflect a balancing act. Harris’s parents worked on civil rights causes, and she came from a background well aware of the excesses of the criminal justice system — but in office, she played the role of a prosecutor and California’s lawyer. She started in an era when “tough on crime” politics were popular across party lines — but she rose to national prominence as criminal justice reform started to take off nationally. She had an eye on higher political office as support for criminal justice reform became de rigueur for Democrats — but she still had to work as California’s top law enforcement official.

Harris also pushed for more systemic reforms. Her most successful program as district attorney, “Back on Track,” allowed first-time drug offenders, including drug dealers, to get a high school diploma and a job instead of prison time. Adams, Harris’s previous spokesperson, noted that the program started in 2005, “when most prosecutors were using a ‘tough on crime’ approach.”

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah bruh, idgaf. Harris 2024. Fuck the republican traitor filth.

Also: appreciate Biden’s true patriotism. That’s a goddamn patriot, not that fucking orange shitcunt traitor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I am not saying she’s a bad candidate, and definitely not versus Trump

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

CAN WE GET FIVE F**KING MINUTES

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Wait, what’s the complaint? I read a lot of comments complaining about her prosecutorial record, so I was like what’s her record exactly? Then I shared the article. Are…are you complaining about how the internet works?

Edit: I also think she’s a reasonable prosecutor given she had to work during the “tough on crime” era. I can’t judge for what she did when everyone was doing the same wrong thing. In fact, I think she tried to be better? The question is what would she do differently now.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Ha. It’s not you, it’s just the instant spin-up of the “why not to vote for the Democrat” machine is gonna make people touchy about even a perfectly reasonable article that starts to cast about through the years for reasons to evaluate Harris poorly, with its implied pretense that we need to evaluate her for any length of time before deciding that voting for her is better than the alternative who is very literally worse than letting rabid dogs loose in a children’s hospital.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Honestly, if the choice was trump or let rabid dogs loose in one children's hospital, I'd feel bad for the kids when I voted, but that's still a better option. Now, if it's All children's hospitals, I may have to think a bit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Yes, mozz said it better - That.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

FWIW, I don’t think the article portrays her in a bad light.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The complaint is that there is no time to do anything different. She's not a bad candidate just because she's not checking all your boxes. She's a great candidate for this situation.

If you want to complain about your lack of options, time travel back about 60 years. Ther rest of us are living here right now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I agree, I think the article puts her work in context. For whatever reason people think this article is against her. It’s just telling things how it is. I think she’s a reasonable presidential nominee, and is definitely far better than the alternative

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Complaining how the campaign media works yes. Biden literally just announced he was withdrawing hours ago.

We’re going to get into the nasty ugly shit and contention about Harris and whoever gets the VP nod shortly. Can we wait JUST A LITTLE WHILE PLEASE. Is that too much to ask?

Is a reluctance to go from a handful of months-long scraps about Biden immediately to articles about Harris-as-prosecutor some kind of outlier? These articles are going to flood in, the corporate news just did two huge rails of coke and will be up all night cranking out all the innuendo, inference, and suppositions anyone has any right to expect and it isn’t going to stop for months.

Let’s wait a minute. A brief pause.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, as mentioned that’s just the internet doing its thing. Perhaps touch some grass?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So what we she doing while she was prosecutor?

“Prosecuting crimes”

What the fuck, that’s outrageous. She should have been legislating for better laws and refusing to enforce the ones that I personally don’t agree with, now, in the modern day. Well. Anyway. What was the other guy doing during this time?

“Raping children”

Well I can’t see how putting him in charge of the most powerful country in the world, with an army of followers already organized to disable its democratic safeguards, could go wrong. Did anything go wrong with it last time? The more I think about it the more I feel like this election might be the perfect time to do some pointless grandstanding.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

From what I can make out, she's got some hits and some misses in her history, but overall a pretty progressive record.

Edit: By "pretty progressive", I mean relative to the arternatives and what's to be expected from any Democrat. Which is to say of course not nearly progressive enough and tainted with bad choices. But certainly good enough to vote for instead of Trump.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

She covered up that a state crime lab employee was falsifying evidence leading to hundreds of false convictions. She opposed police reform including opposing body cameras. Her office, she claims without her knowledge, argued that prisoners eligible for parole shouldn't be released from prisons so overcrowded that a judge ruled them cruel and unusual because it would reduce the availability of prison labor. She argued on two separate occasions that prisoners who had had their convictions overturned on the basis of actual innocence shouldn't be released from prison because they hadn't filed the motion for release quickly enough.

Her record is staunchly pro establishment and she has participated in acts of overt corruption to maintain the status quo.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The other guy rapes children and wants to shoot protestors with live ammunition

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yep, bad choice and worse choice. She hasn't been nominated yet though so there is a slim hope for the Dems choice to improve. Hopefully there will be people vocal about finding someone who's record is more progressive before the convention.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good to know raping children isn’t a red line for you, or at least that stopping the end of democracy in the US and mass deportations and etc is… well… idk, I need to know a little more about the alternative before I come out against that stuff.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wanting a progressive Dem nominee is pro Trump?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, I thought you were shitting on the presumptive nominee in a fashion that’s suddenly started coming out of the woodwork in a small but notable grouping of posts and comments, which I’m sure will grow to a torrent by a few days from now and not let up until the election, now that it’s no longer relevant to shit on Biden relentlessly.

Were you supporting a progressive candidate or alternate strategy for the Democrats and I overlooked it? That actually (very seriously) does sound like a good thing, yes; IDK whose messages I was reading instead that gave me the idea you were doing that other thing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've been shitting on her the same way since Biden picked her for VP. I was hoping for Stacy Abrams then. I don't have a specific candidate I like right now because I think Bernie and Elizabeth Warren both have the same age issue, a younger candidate probably has a better chance. I wouldn't hate Hakeem Jefferies as the nominee, I think Mark Kelly has a good chance of beating Trump. I like Cory Booker and think Tammy Duckworth would be an interesting candidate.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't have a specific candidate I like right now

Ah, okay, so just trying to help the Democrats lose, then, by instilling a general malaise against the current candidate with (only after some prompting) only the vaguest of unrealistic hand waving towards something that might be a solution but in practice will not be.

Well, good luck with it I guess. Have fun.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Trying to help the Democrats not immediately latch on to a bad candidate. We have until the convention to find someone better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And yet, when I ask you which candidate they should be latching onto instead of her, you can’t even pretend to be interested in the answer to the question.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I gave 4 potential candidates I would support.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You gave two that were too old, one you wouldn’t hate, one who might beat Trump, one you liked, and one you thought was “interesting.”

Idk man. I love progressive stuff; more than Harris (or for that matter better than Biden) sounds great. I’m gonna like something that sounds like promoting that outcome. I hate the idea of Trump winning the election. I’m gonna dislike something that seems to promote that outcome, which includes shitting on the extremely-presumptive nominee without some kind of alternate plan to replace her with that is more solid than a long unenthusiastic list of candidates at varying levels of wild unrealisticness who are “interesting”.

(I also predicted this like just recently like days ago - that the instant Biden was replaced with Harris, we were gonna get a big drumbeat of “oh actually Harris isn’t good enough, we need to dump her, not to replace her with anyone in particular, just, you know, the whole PROSECUTOR thing, you know…”)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So what you're saying is that you already knew she was a problematic and unpopular choice but you are going to accuse anyone who voices that of supporting baby rape because you think any attempt to find a better candidate helps Trump. I think forcing a bad choice without any level of discussion helps Trump but I still don't think you support baby rape.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’m saying that:

  • I agree she’s not the perfect candidate I would pick, although at the end of the day the whole child rape and ending democracy thing makes it kind of a moot point as far as supporting her in the general election if she is the nominee
  • If someone wants to capitalize on the VERY short possibly nonexistent window of replacing her as the nominee, they had better have their plan picked out and be advocating for it hard without delay. If instead of that someone is just shitting on her for various non-disqualifying reasons, then I am probably going to mock or ignore them, since that behavior is not well aligned with producing any good outcome for progressive goals.

Seems fair?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Until and unless someone steps up to challenge her and we know who is willing to throw their hat in the ring we can't really support a specific candidate. All we have is speculation and who I'd like. Blind loyalty and immediately falling in line obscures the true picture for how much support she has and makes it less likely that a challenger will step forward. We need a real conversation about Harris's candidacy and to know if anyone will challenge her for the nomination. Elizabeth Warren is who I want with Bernie as my second choice but I don't see either of them as a real possibility because of their age. Let's see if someone closer to them is willing to fight for the nomination before falling in line.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Wasn’t aware I was “falling in line.” That’s a very weird and specific characterization.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Thanks to both of you.

This is what I wanted: more information (actual, not FauxNews) about this person.

How bad she's been, how she's played the political ropes, her origins. Things she's stood up for.

All of it!

I know if she wins candidacy, I'll vote for her. Because fuck another 4 years of the self aggrandizing Putin puppet.

I'd like to know what I can about the lesser evil I'll be supporting.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

She isn’t remotely progressive. There’s a long list of very problematic stuff she did while AG which the other commentator covered in part but there’s also:

-She’s a blatant supporter of Israel's Genocide

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The other guys wants to “deport” every single illegal immigrant.

Apparatus like that, once set up, usually finds applications which weren’t in the planning documents when they were presented for public consumption.

Honestly? Harris is not my favorite pick. But pretending that voting against Trump needs some kind of evaluation against the other alternative is pure poppycock.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nowhere in my comment did I suggest Trump would be better, he clearly wouldn’t be. I was replying to someone saying she’s progressive showing she isn’t.

Right now is the time to try and steer support to candidates we want to get the nomination. After the nomination you won’t see me posting as critically.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Who is your alternative?

I think an alternative at all is unlikely, although if one that were realistic came along, I’d be fuckin thrilled

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Going off candidates that that may have a chance given the short window, Whitmer or AOC would be much better to me.

I’m much further left but willing to compromise to stop trump but need to see some material change to our policy on Israel. We can’t just keep giving a genocidal government weapons and funding and acting like we have no leverage.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

So… Ralph Nader actually went into this a little bit. He was disgusted with the left for agreeing to vote ahead of time for Biden without even trying to form any kind of a pressure bloc to demand concessions in terms of better humanity in Gaza. I feel you.

I can’t possibly see what you can demand from Harris though, materially. She’s not in charge. Her priorities, until January 6th, are Biden’s priorities. And anything you do to try to pressure her for announcing better policies on Israel is flirting with fucking it up and Trump getting in and just giving Israel approval to go in and kill the other 90% of the Palestinians and open beachfront property and no “ceasefire” or “weapons pause” or any of Biden’s milquetoast resistance on the table at all.

Idk. It’s not even certain that she can win. Weakening her even more in service of the Palestinians I think has an excellent chance of killing a whole bunch more Palestinians.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

counterpunch has extreme left bias according to media bias fact check site

Though professing to support a two-state solution, Harris has repeatedly refused to make any distinction between criticisms of the Israeli occupation and colonization in the West Bank and attacks on Israel itself.

That doesn't prove in ANY WAY that she is a blatant supporter of genocide, jesus fucking christ.

Harris has repeatedly refused to make any distinction between criticisms of the Israeli occupation

an easily proven lie

that article even quotes the intercept

Unlike some of her counterparts in the Senate, she has not publicly made any demands of Israel or Netanyahu regarding the human rights of Palestinians.

and yet: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vp-harris-urges-israeli-government-do-more-boost-aid-into-gaza-2024-03-03/

** U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris bluntly called out Israel on Sunday for not doing enough to ease a "humanitarian catastrophe" in Gaza as the Biden administration faces increasing pressure to rein in its close ally while it wages war with Hamas militants.**

Harris, speaking in front of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where state troopers beat U.S. civil rights marchers nearly six decades ago, called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and urged Hamas to accept a deal to release hostages in return for a 6-week cessation of hostilities. But she directed the bulk of her comments at Israel in what appeared to be the sharpest rebuke yet by a senior leader in the U.S. government over the conditions in the coastal enclave.

"People in Gaza are starving. The conditions are inhumane and our common humanity compels us to act," Harris said at an event to commemorate the 59th anniversary of "Bloody Sunday" in Alabama. "The Israeli government must do more to significantly increase the flow of aid. No excuses," Harris said. Her comments reflected intense frustration, if not desperation, within the U.S. government about the war, which has hurt President Joe Biden with left-leaning voters as he seeks re-election this year.

oh but she totally is blatantly supporting the genocide!!!!

edit: yes, downvote me for bringing you inconvenient truths that don't fall within your little narrative.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

She’s a part of the administration that hasn’t stopped weapon shipments to the country committing the genocide. It doesn’t matter if she has given some meaningless lines on the tragedy going on if there’s been next to nothing done to stop it.

She with Biden came out and said the US will not impose conditions on support for Israel. The country committing the genocide. How is that not blatant support?

Between that, her ties to AIPAC I don’t see how anyone can say she’ll be a meaningful improvement. Sorry to tell you “inconvenient truths that don’t fall within your little narrative”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

MBFC also rates the Jerusalem Post as credible, which anyone who's read the Post for any significant amount of time knows is a lie.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I've already seen people try to attack her for putting pot smokers in jail, you know, like how the law requires??

Then, when they are shown the fact that she was part of the effort to reschedule marijuana and they call her a hypocrite... Why didn't she then go and reverse all those cases... THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Biden pardoned every prisoner in federal prison for possession (which wasn’t many; most are in prison at the state level, but if you’re one of them, it’s significant.) And, the Democrats introduced multiple bills to legalize marijuana.

Because voting’s not important and the Democrats aren’t good enough, though, there were enough Republicans in place that a couple of tepidly oppositional Democrats were enough to defeat the legalization bills.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Who's wrong? About what?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am hopeful she has changed since her days as a prosecutor.

I am sad that I have no other choice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So, she was literally reflecting the will of the voters with some of her decisions. Given that, I think her choices make sense.

In one instance — her handling of California’s “three strikes” law — Harris was arguably ahead of the time. Under the law, someone who committed a third felony could go to prison for 25 years to life, even if the third felony was a nonviolent crime. But Harris required that the San Francisco district attorney’s office only charge for a third strike if the felony was a serious or violent crime.

California voters in 2004, the year that Harris took office, rejected a ballot initiative to implement a similar reform statewide — though the ballot proposal had some pushback on the details, leading to Harris’s own opposition. It wasn’t until 2012 that voters approved the change.

“There’s been incredibly rapid change in public opinion, in attention to criminal justice,” Silard said, citing his decades-long experience in the criminal justice system and current experience as president of the reform-minded Rosenberg Foundation. “Bringing a reverse lens to that is not fair, and also doesn’t recognize folks who were courageous at that time.”

Emphasis mine

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah that's not really what I'm worried about.

Admittedly this is from her time as an Attorney General, not a prosecutor, but that was more recent and therefore more worrying to me:

”Harris’s office launched into a campaign of all-out obstruction, refusing to answer why they could not simply release low-risk, nonviolent inmates to conform to the Supreme Court’s request."

From: https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/

Bias rating: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-american-prospect/

All that to say, I want her as my president. This is just a pretty big stain on her record, and I hope she has continued to grow and change so that the Harris we see today isn't the Harris that would fight to keep people in prison at any cost.