back to back otm's
― |Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Wednesday, 16 January 2019 18:46 (five years ago) link
even in an election cycle where there isn't this much progressive energy, you would expect Dem candidates to tack to the left at least somewhat during primary season, so if Gillibrand ends up trying to stake a claim towards the center she may be dooming herself before she even gets off the ground. this is also why Biden's campaign is either going to be gratuitously phony or gratuitously tone-deaf.
― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Wednesday, 16 January 2019 19:11 (five years ago) link
Gratuitous in some way, surely. Really hope he doesn't run. Fox News headline that popped up recently: Biden family sounds warning – Dems moving too far left. gtfo
― composed of atoms just as all posters have been (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 16 January 2019 19:28 (five years ago) link
If Gillibrand begins tacking rightward (centerward?) once she's all in, I'll be super disappointed. Partly because she's doing it, but mostly because Morbs can say "told you so."
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 19:50 (five years ago) link
I could really use a candidate scorecard on these proposals
On nearly every "radical" idea the American people are with us:72% want to expand Social Security.70% want Medicare for All.65% want a jobs guarantee.64% want to legalize marijuana.60% want tuition-free public colleges.58% want $15 min wage.57% want to break up big banks.— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 15, 2019
― resident hack (Simon H.), Wednesday, 16 January 2019 20:19 (five years ago) link
I could really use a candidate, Bernie or otherwise, who goes hard on the issues w/o apology all the way through
― Rhine Jive Click Bait (Hadrian VIII), Wednesday, 16 January 2019 20:34 (five years ago) link
the=these
lol at "tuition-free public colleges" though. (I get that "tuition" is short for "tuition fees" here, but think the construct looks unfortunate.)
― anatol_merklich, Thursday, 17 January 2019 00:40 (five years ago) link
no idea what your objection is
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Thursday, 17 January 2019 00:57 (five years ago) link
I get that "tuition" is short for "tuition fees" here
Here?
Well, to me "tuition" means "the act of teaching", and "tuition fees" the payment for being taught. I read "tuition-free colleges" as "colleges where no teaching is being done" when I see that.
― anatol_merklich, Thursday, 17 January 2019 01:02 (five years ago) link
But yeah, I see from some online dictionaries that the fee interpretation is more or less equally common now, especially in North America.
― anatol_merklich, Thursday, 17 January 2019 01:05 (five years ago) link
I would say it's more than equally common in the US, I've never actually heard it used to mean anything other than education fees
― Dan S, Thursday, 17 January 2019 01:10 (five years ago) link
Fair enough! Sorry for derail.
― anatol_merklich, Thursday, 17 January 2019 01:12 (five years ago) link
interesting to know there's another definition, though
― Dan S, Thursday, 17 January 2019 01:15 (five years ago) link
Lol I forgot about this
whenever i see the name kirsten gillibrand i automatically think of her lehman sisters quote pic.twitter.com/hXF5sl40xD— aída chávez (@aidachavez) January 16, 2019
― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, 17 January 2019 02:54 (five years ago) link
Thats so good
― Trϵϵship, Thursday, 17 January 2019 03:03 (five years ago) link
I dont understand why people are afraid warren will be hillary 2.0 but not gillibrand, who is much more similar
― Trϵϵship, Thursday, 17 January 2019 03:04 (five years ago) link
because warren has been attacked by the right wing since she first was a candidate for the senate, while they've spent comparatively little time attacking gillibrand?
― A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 17 January 2019 03:40 (five years ago) link
Gillibrand is terrible
― Rhine Jive Click Bait (Hadrian VIII), Thursday, 17 January 2019 03:55 (five years ago) link
terrible?
don't agree
― Dan S, Thursday, 17 January 2019 04:03 (five years ago) link
Ha, "Lehman Sisters" is actually what I usually think of wrt Gillibrand too.
― Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Thursday, 17 January 2019 04:10 (five years ago) link
I have little doubt we'll be listening to a year+ of pablum like that from her
― Rhine Jive Click Bait (Hadrian VIII), Thursday, 17 January 2019 04:13 (five years ago) link
from everybody
― Dan S, Thursday, 17 January 2019 04:17 (five years ago) link
well yeah
― Rhine Jive Click Bait (Hadrian VIII), Thursday, 17 January 2019 04:20 (five years ago) link
http://carrollspaper.com/Content/Local-News-Archive/Local-News/Article/Double-the-recipe-fun-Twins-share-a-cooking-bond/1/1/15544
― velko, Thursday, 17 January 2019 04:41 (five years ago) link
on Harris' prosecutorial record
Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent. Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.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.
Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.
Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.
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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, 17 January 2019 14:34 (five years ago) link
I'm still not sure that a Dem party that has largely embraced Robert Mueller as a savior is going to see Harris' prosecutorial past as a disqualifier
― We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Thursday, 17 January 2019 15:40 (five years ago) link
you are probably correct
― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, 17 January 2019 15:42 (five years ago) link
that is an unfair comparison on many levels imo
― k3vin k., Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:13 (five years ago) link
will be interesting to see if AOC endorses anyone and how much that changes the numbers
― frogbs, Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:17 (five years ago) link
Surprising there's no talk of Washington governor Jay Inslee here. I like him as the only candidate so far that forwards climate as a major issue (as it is the paramount moral predicament of our era), but otherwise know little. He's going to have gobs of tech money backing.
― Sanpaku, Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:29 (five years ago) link
he's got my vote
― frogbs, Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:33 (five years ago) link
If Harris running means we get to have serious discussions about prosecutorial overreach and her bungling of the deal she made with the banks over foreclosures I welcome all of it
― officer sonny bonds, lytton pd (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:41 (five years ago) link
I know it's still super early but it's hard for me to envision someone winning who is totally off the national radar at this point. Biden, Warren, Beto, Bernie, Harris, Booker, Gillibrand -- I feel pretty certain the nominee is going to be from that list.
― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:47 (five years ago) link
god, looking back at polling in past elections conducted around this time in the cycle is both hilarious and grim. to remember a time when a plurality of Dems favored Joe Lieberman, or when Rudy G was the Republican on top.
― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:52 (five years ago) link
It would be funny to watch the reaction if Sanders ran and AOC endorsed him
― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:55 (five years ago) link
it's gonna happen!
― Effectively Big Jim with a beard. (bizarro gazzara), Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:56 (five years ago) link
2016 really was an abberation. In a normal cycle, a red carpet wouldn't have been laid out for one candidate in a situation where a sitting Veep wasn't running. Most of the time, it's a boxing match.
― Johnny Fever, Thursday, 17 January 2019 16:57 (five years ago) link
I also remember back in 2002 or so there was CW that John Kerry would be the next Dem nominee, and then that seemed to go out the window until about the time that it actually happened.
― We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:01 (five years ago) link
Didn't she work on his campaign? More surprising if she didn't, I would think?
― Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:10 (five years ago) link
lol bloomberg
The new NPR/PBS/Marist poll finds that a majority haven't heard of or were unsure about these 2020 DemocratsBeto O'Rourke (52%)Kamala Harris (54%)Kirsten Gillibrand (65%)Amy Klobuchar (71%)Julian Castro (72%) pic.twitter.com/kgMeYLNQad— David P Gelles (@gelles) January 17, 2019
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:11 (five years ago) link
tbrr here the Dem coalition demographics that care the most about criminal justice reform are minority (african americans, latino, etc.) activists, and I don't think the African American community will be willing to turn on Harris over her work as DA or AG, in fact I think the opposite is much more likely - they will close ranks.
xp
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:12 (five years ago) link
African American women aren't going to respond well to being lectured by white liberals that one of their own has failed a purity test on the basis of m/l doing her job, i.e. what prosecutors do
please bear in mind I am not defending her actions as DA or AG, although I do dispute the characterization that her settlement with the banks was "bungled". she got the state a shitload of money.
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:13 (five years ago) link
Did she? At any rate I'm not sure she'll bother endorsing anyone
― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:15 (five years ago) link
xpost yeah, I'm wondering which of the other candidates are going to feel comfortable attacking Harris about her DA work.
― We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:19 (five years ago) link
I don't think the heat on that will come from the other candidates if it comes at all
― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:23 (five years ago) link
a purity test, huh
― k3vin k., Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:29 (five years ago) link
I agree with Simon. Attacks on Harris based on her prosecutorial record will not come from other candidates. I could see Russian socks using it to stir up dissent within the left and some lefties taking the bait, because Russian socks use wedges to split apart coalitions.
― A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:35 (five years ago) link
jesus
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Thursday, 17 January 2019 17:37 (five years ago) link