Essential HL Random Thoughts Thread

[Macallik86]

That could be double talk for "by the time they figure it out, it won't be my problem"

But here's an article on her weed stance as well.

With her prosecutorial record under fire, Kamala Harris changes her tune on weed

I read the article. She was on the same side as 53% of Californians (read: the majority) and the 2010 bill on Marijuana didn't pass. A politician looks at the numbers and sides with the majority on a recreational drug being legalized. That just doesn't hold weight for me personally as a major issue.

I for one think there is something wrong with Tulsi Gabbard being anti-gay back in the day and changing her tune recently. There are plenty of innocent people that suffered. I don't see how Kamala being previously anti-marijuana in 2010 and currently pro-legalization is a hill to die on in terms of picking a presidential candidate.

 

[intra vires]

One thing that has been bouncing around in my head is how the public has become accustomed to judging actions taken 5-10 years ago with morality formed in 2019.

I think it is frustrating because Kamala Harris was more progressive than most AGs in the country 5-10 years ago and has only gotten more progressive since then:

ProgressivePunch: Senate Members by score / All issues

Back in the day, she made decisions that are viewed more harshly in 2019 but I think it is ironic that she isn't given the opportunity to progress like the average American has. The average American was against Same Sex Marriage and Marijuana Legalization 5-10 years ago but side-eye Kamala for enforcing policies that were supported at the time. It is Hillary Clinton-esque imo

Your framing is about how progressive she was or wasn't leads me to believe you're unaware of the actual critiques of her record. Her posture was in align with a tough on crime approach, so no she wasn't progressive by any reasonable stretch. This was all covered in her 2020 thread, the 2020 primary thread, and easily found using your search engine of choice.

There’s no problem with people evolving on issues; however, politicians need to explain why they moved from one position to another otherwise it looks politically expedient. Why do you think Gillibrand gets so much flack for her metamorphosis that took place when she moved from the House to the Senate? Likewise, Harris isn’t explaining her change she’s just pretending like the issues with her record don’t exist, which is perplexing. Then you also have her supporters pretending she wasn't punitive or that she was merely being a cog in the machine as if she didn’t have wide-ranging discretion.

 

[Macallik86]

Your framing is about how progressive she was or wasn't leads me to believe you're unaware of the actual critiques of her record. Her posture was in align with a tough on crime approach, so no she wasn't progressive by any reasonable stretch.

I think there is more nuance then you are allowing for:

Years before ending mass incarceration became a bipartisan cause, she started programs to steer low-level drug offenders away from prison and into school and jobs. At the same time, she touted her success in increasing conviction rates, and as attorney general remained largely on the sidelines as California scrambled to meet a federal court order to reduce its swollen prison populations. She also repeatedly sided with prosecutors accused of misconduct, challenging judges who ruled against them.

‘Progressive Prosecutor’: Can Kamala Harris Square the Circle?

I think there are instances when she has proven to be progressive and there are instances where she was moderate/conservative. Given the change in the climate and her consistent voting record as a Senator, I have reason to believe that her thinking has evolved and she has been pulled further to the left. Her voting records show that she is more progressive than expected even after factoring in how liberal her state is:

 

[ineedsleep212]

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I just looked at my followers list for the first time and saw that someone I've had on ignore for three years is actually one of my followers.

Has he been following me around rebutting my posts for three straight years and I haven't noticed cause he on ignore? Or does he actually like what I have to say and I've had him all wrong?

My mind is boggled.

 

[ineedsleep212]

 

[intra vires]

I think there is more nuance then you are allowing for:

‘Progressive Prosecutor’: Can Kamala Harris Square the Circle?

I think there are instances when she has proven to be progressive and there are instances where she was moderate/conservative. Given the change in the climate and her consistent voting record as a Senator, I have reason to believe that her thinking has evolved and she has been pulled further to the left. Her voting records show that she is more progressive than expected even after factoring in how liberal her state is:

Spoiler

Harris is the one who likes to frame herself as a progressive prosecutor. Her time as DA and AG are a ledger card that demonstrates she was more tough on crime and punitive than she was progressive. The Lara Bazelon article that was posted in the other threads already addressed which is what this first wave of criticisms are about. Harris apparently thinks she’s above addressing the critiques of her record while also attempting to whitewash it. There are also questions concerning her willingness to fight against the abuses of the financial sector. People have ample reason to be skeptical of her progressive bona fides, which can be largely attributed to the entire party shifting left rhetorically. There’s also the political theatre aspect of congressional voting, especially when you’re in the minority. If/when she faces resistance from the GOP, centrists, Wall Street, and her donors where will she stand? That’s the question asked of all politicians, especially those lacking a proven track record. I like Gillibrand but I’m skeptical of her in that regard which is why I don’t support her campaign. I’ve seen nothing that indicates Harris is any better.

 

[ineedsleep212]

Get Dianne tfoh

 

[ineedsleep212]

 

[ineedsleep212]

This charlatan somehow is taken seriously

 

[DEAD7]

Unpopular Opinion:
Black History Month was/is a slick a rip off because had it been made a national holiday, we'd have the luxury of sales, promotions, time off work, etc.
Integrating ideas w/ capitalism will always yield greater overall public acknowledgment to said idea

 

[Secure Da Bag]

Unpopular Opinion:
Black History Month was/is a slick a rip off because had it been made a national holiday, we'd have the luxury of sales, promotions, time off work, etc.
Integrating ideas w/ capitalism will always yield greater overall public acknowledgment to said idea

The entire month is a holiday?

 

[Macallik86]

Pure conjecture but:
NFL insider Adam Schefter says Robert Kraft 'is not the biggest name involved' in Florida prostitution sting

"There are people down there in that area, I'm told, who say that this story is going to heat up and get a lot worse," Schefter said, adding, "I'm also told that Robert Kraft is not the biggest name involved down there in South Florida."

Who is bigger than Robert Kraft?

My guess is they have to be in government and have a LOT of clout for the police to blab about a billionaire but keep this other person under wraps...

Spoiler

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Mar a Lago in south Florida?

 

[DEAD7]

The entire month is a holiday?

A single day I meant

 

[intra vires]

It started in a pub. A handful of people, hunched over beers in Toledo, Ohio, were talking about a water crisis that had plagued the city in 2014. The pollution of Lake Erie had gotten so bad that it had taken a serious toll on their lives. The government, they felt, wasn’t doing enough to protect the lake. And so they wondered: What if the lake could protect itself?

The idea they hatched that night ultimately resulted in a special election, which had the citizens of Toledo voting Tuesday on a very unusual question: Should Lake Erie be granted the legal rights normally reserved for a person?

The measure passed easily, which means citizens will be able to sue on behalf of the lake whenever its right to flourish is being contravened — that is, whenever it’s in danger of major environmental harm.

Lake Erie just won the same legal rights as people