RBG leaves the stage.

The Progressive already put Harris on the same iceflow because when she was a Prosecutor she made the unforgivable sin of prosecuting people.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
why not?

it's the kind of law&order that would actually help both the people and the courts.
It would also help balance the complete incompetence of the Trump appointees.
Click to expand...

I think he's a traditional politician, a status quo type, not a disruptor or even much of a progressive. I'm not going to cry if Biden wins.
 
Last edited:
"He won't burn the system down and I'm mad about that for some reason."

Got it.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
He's spoken out before against packing the courts in any fashion. But he's refused to comment so far this time. Who knows what will happen if he is elected? These are unprecedented times.



I assume one of the reasons he picked Harris as his running mate is to get the left wing of the party on board.
Click to expand...

I predict that the far left would be disappointed by her, too, which would be fine with me.
 
JoeMorgue said:
There is literally no one progressive enough for progressives.
Click to expand...

Insightful and succinct. I rarely post but my purpose right now is to pour the cold water of realpolitik on some of the idealism and wishful thinking pervading these threads.
 
Scopedog said:
Insightful and succinct. I rarely post but my purpose right now is to pour the cold water of realpolitik on some of the idealism and wishful thinking pervading these threads.
Click to expand...

It's literally impossible to imagine you not wearing a Guy Fawkes mask right now.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's literally impossible to imagine you not wearing a Guy Fawkes mask right now.
Click to expand...

The allusion escapes me. I know what a Guy Fawkes mask is and I'm aware of the historical origin of the mask and some of what it represents in online communities but I've never seen V for Vendetta. Are you calling me a troll perhaps?
 
Scopedog said:
I think he's a traditional politician, a status quo type, not a disruptor or even much of a progressive. I'm not going to cry if Biden wins.
Click to expand...

I think he could be convinced that that would be fixing the system, not disrupting it.
Courts always complain that they are overworked.
 
Venom said:
And got called a liberal for it by leftist commentators, people who appear to prefer being bogged down by their political handicaps than doing something about it.
Click to expand...
Leftists called Chomsky a liberal. Ooookkaaay.

What does this even mean, not to mention without a link how are we to know if your interpretation of what was said is accurate?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I doubt anyone will like every political position that a candidate has, simply because that position is the result of compromises (or in Trump's case extremes).

That is why people feel it's more important to like the Candidate, because they trust he will act in their best interest even if he doesn't do exactly as he said he would.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have to like every policy for it to not be evil.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The Progressive already put Harris on the same iceflow because when she was a Prosecutor she made the unforgivable sin of prosecuting people.
Click to expand...

Ironic, given that, among other reforms, she dropped all cases involving simple marajuana possession, worked to divert harder users to rehab instead of prison, refused to prosecute unimportant "third strike" offenses (violent, or other major, offenses were still prosecuted), and despite claims to the contrary, she did not send a single person to jail for their children's truancy (and while it's framed as "Johnny Highschooler skips out for the afternoon", we're really discussing more like "Timmy in second grade has been absent for 600 days so far out of 180 total in the school year without explanation, what the entire **** is happening with him?").

So, basically, just going into detail on what you said above. She was harsh on, say, people who beat their spouses, child sex abusers, and so forth - as a left of center guy who finds socialists more persuasive than lasse-faire capitalists based on what I know of both (I admit to being fairly ignorant on economic matters, however, so I refuse to fully endorse socialism), I fully support this.

And of course, their preferred candidate, one Bernie Sanders, agrees with Biden's approach of increasing police funding to provide better training (I think this effort is doomed to failure, which is why I would prefer far more radical reforms, to the point of dismantling quite a few police departments and replacing them, using the opportunity to toss out so-called "bad apples" at all levels, refusing to deal with PD unions and societies as they're often safe harbors for the very worst actors, and using independent prosecutors to go after killer cops, among other things.)
 
Trump tried to make a news event of announcing the nomination. He failed, the NYT stole his thunder. :)
 
Mumbles said:
Ironic, given that, among other reforms, she dropped all cases involving simple marajuana possession, worked to divert harder users to rehab instead of prison, refused to prosecute unimportant "third strike" offenses (violent, or other major, offenses were still prosecuted), and despite claims to the contrary, she did not send a single person to jail for their children's truancy (and while it's framed as "Johnny Highschooler skips out for the afternoon", we're really discussing more like "Timmy in second grade has been absent for 600 days so far out of 180 total in the school year without explanation, what the entire **** is happening with him?").

So, basically, just going into detail on what you said above. She was harsh on, say, people who beat their spouses, child sex abusers, and so forth - as a left of center guy who finds socialists more persuasive than lasse-faire capitalists based on what I know of both (I admit to being fairly ignorant on economic matters, however, so I refuse to fully endorse socialism), I fully support this.

And of course, their preferred candidate, one Bernie Sanders, agrees with Biden's approach of increasing police funding to provide better training (I think this effort is doomed to failure, which is why I would prefer far more radical reforms, to the point of dismantling quite a few police departments and replacing them, using the opportunity to toss out so-called "bad apples" at all levels, refusing to deal with PD unions and societies as they're often safe harbors for the very worst actors, and using independent prosecutors to go after killer cops, among other things.)
Click to expand...

Yup, I've said it before - the Opening Arguments podcast did a deep dive into her entire career and, while there are a couple of questionable moves on her part as prosecutor, for the most part it's grossly mischaracterised by her critics. And her voting record puts her as one of the most progressive people in the Senate (I forget her exact position but in the top 5, IIRC), even further to the left than Bernie Sanders.

The proof of the pudding will be how she influences Biden's policies. WRT marijuana, when she was running to be a candidate, one of her campaign promises was to legalise it at a federal level.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
According to the NY Times, Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett
Click to expand...

The Great Zaganza said:
of course he will - he has no choice in the matter if he wants to have a shot in November.
Click to expand...

I've said this before, maybe elsewhere, but Barrett (or whoever is the nominee) should, if she has a grain of judicial ethics in her, recuse herself from any case about the election of the man who has pretty much said that he's going to create a case about the election and nominated her at least in part to help decide on that case- this seems so clear to me that I don't see how anyone could dispute the need for that recusal. And I believe some Democrats have already raised this issue, calling on the eventual nominee to recuse.

And here's my fear- that McConnell, who seems to be orchestrating this whole thing, will go along with that call for recusal, and thereby gain credit for crafting "a reasonable compromise" in a situation that should have never gotten to the point that it needed that compromise to begin with. McConnell wants the SC seat, but not necessarily to seal Trump's reelection; he's forcing the issue before the election because he thinks the GOP may lose either the White House or the Senate (possibly both), and thus lose even the fig leaf of justification he's constructed- afterwards, nobody will buy "the voice of the people compels us!" from the last two elections (2016 and 2018) when the most recent undercuts them. If they force the nomination through before the election, its results won't matter, the GOP will have what they want, that SC seat with its long-term benefits. And if they agree that Barrett should recuse, then, as I said, they get credit for being "reasonable," which may swing enough votes their way to limit the damage from the election, possibly even win it for either Senate or the White House or both. If they don't win, oh well- McConnell himself is safe enough in KY, there's always another election no more than two years down the road, and peoples' memories are usefully short while that SC seat is for a lifetime.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
...while there are a couple of questionable moves on her part as prosecutor, for the most part it's grossly mischaracterised by her critics. And her voting record puts her as one of the most progressive people in the Senate (I forget her exact position but in the top 5, IIRC)... WRT marijuana, when she was running to be a candidate, one of her campaign promises was to legalise it at a federal level.
Click to expand...
Have you seen a list of the specific bills & votes which that rating was based on? I'd be a bit relieved if convinced, but I'm used to claims of "the most ___ in whatever body of government" usually being false, or misleading, such as being based on lots of votes on symbolic fluff bills I don't care about outweighing votes the other way on substantial bills I do care about.

To people who weren't already paying close attention to her in the Senate (which is practically everybody), the main source of information about her is how she behaved as a candidate. And that went from talking like a lefty on substantial issues that would actually affect people's lives (and rising in the polls while she did) to turning 180° against herself (and crashing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom