anime was right posted:

lol someone went in and cleaned up her wikipedia article on criminal justice and changed language from things her office did to things she did 2 days ago...

it came from a wealthy d.c. suburb.

Concerned Citizen posted:

Harris will co-sponsor Medicare for All when Sanders introduces it.

anime was right posted:

lol she took money from the trump cabinet member she let off the hook w/r/t illegally foreclosing on middle class homeowners

mastershakeman posted:

what exactly did mnunchin do anyways, was it something that people actually think he could've been convicted of considering how easy it is to get away with white collar crime?

mastershakeman posted:

what exactly did mnunchin do anyways, was it something that people actually think he could've been convicted of considering how easy it is to get away with white collar crime?

loquacius posted:

I mean, it's easy to get away with white collar crime because people you gave money to will let you off the hook

anime was right posted:

Note: I'm a right-leaning neoclassical liberal, and I don't know a ton about Harris, but there's my overview from her wikipedia page.

Gun control: She opposes Heller. I'm not a fan of her here

Death Penalty: She opposes (and notably refused to seek it in the case of the murder of a cop, provoking criticism from Diane Feinstein, not a known right-winger). I'm ardently in favor of capital punishment, so this doesn't endear her to me.

Immigration: Unsure what her views are. She claimed that "an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal" - although I'm in favor of liberalizing immigration law (basically open borders), I'm fairly sure that this is just not accurate legally speaking, but I might be wrong...

Abortion: She seems okay on this (pro-choice). This is a little weird, though: "In 2016, after hidden-camera videos were released accusing healthcare provider Planned Parenthood of illegally selling fetal tissue, Kamala Harris authorized the seizure of an anti-abortion activist's laptop, ID cards, and some other property."

Education: Uh...?

Environment: ?

Healthcare: BOO SINGLE PAYER BOO

Foreign policy: ????

I'm not a huge fun/not on board the hype train, but I could be convinced to support her against cheetoman.

Phone posted:

he's an irl saturday morning cartoon villain

look at him for gently caress's sake, he's a fuckin lizardman

Concerned Citizen posted:

Seems like a lot of work for a single $2000 donation 3 years after the memo was written

loquacius posted:

"This apparent bribe is obviously not a bribe because it's not enough money" is something people said about HRC a lot too, seems pretty handwavey to me

I dunno though it doesn't really have to be tit-for-tat corruption for me to be mad about it

mastershakeman posted:

yeah

anyways I read the intercept coverage of the memo but not the memo itself and lol his company was backdating every single loving document. nice.

Concerned Citizen posted:

Well it just seems pretty enormously dumb for someone to be like, I'm gonna tank this year long investigation I previously authorized so that a guy gives me less than half of a max out donation 3 years from now when I run for Senate. It sort of stretches plausibility to call it a bribe.

docbeard posted:

Also, any time you see someone describe themselves as anything that sounds at all like a "classic liberal", you're dealing with a libertarian.

deadgoon posted:

and when u see someone describe themselves as an anarchist they probably mean anarcho-capitalist, which also means libertarian

now, if someone calls themselves a libertarian, that means they're a libertarian socialist, which is a real anarchist

Concerned Citizen posted:

Concerned Citizen posted:

Well it just seems pretty enormously dumb for someone to be like, I'm gonna tank this year long investigation I previously authorized so that a guy gives me less than half of a max out donation 3 years from now when I run for Senate. It sort of stretches plausibility to call it a bribe.

Frijolero posted:

This is after you argued with me that she totally had already endorsed it lol

Go troll somewhere else n00b

Concerned Citizen posted:

She had. You just chose to read it in the narrowest possible sense when it was blatantly obvious she telegraphing that she was going to co-sponsor this bill.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

It would be more understandable if she axed any prosecution for quid-pro-quo than if she protected Mnuchin's bank for personal convictions.

Either way she should have never gotten even close to a Senate seat.

Concerned Citizen posted:

It's cool to be suspicious, but we only have the one memo arguing for taking civil action. We don't know what the rest of the investigation produced. I find it hard to believe she was "protecting" him when she authorized the investigation in the first place.

Frijolero posted:

SHE SAID IT WAS "KINDA COOL" IN A loving PODCAST

That's not an official endorsement you idiot. You bill yourself as a politics genius, but can't seem to understand what an endorsement is.

loquacius posted:

still waiting on you to syq though

SKULL.GIF posted:

it's not too hard to dig up sources, it's from here

quote:

I agree with both Kantian and Hegelian arguments for the death penalty. The Kantian argument is quite complicated, but the Hegelian argument (put very briefly) is very intuitive.

Put very briefly, I think that the purpose of punishment is retributive: we punish people because they deserve it, and only when they deserve it. This means that guilt is the most important (in fact, decisive) factor in determining whether or not to punish someone (it would be wrong to 'punish' an innocent man, even were a good outcome to result from this). Getting into why punishment in general is justified along these lines would involve getting into my views on the nature of law, but tldr I think that punishment is part of upholding a legal order.

A key tenet of our current political societies is that all citizens are free and equal, and this means that nobody should be allowed to subject someone else's rights or freedoms to their own private will (slavery is paradigmatically incompatible with living in a liberal society). Crimes with victims are crimes because they involve this sort of subjugation - one person invades the rights of another and tries to become that other person's master by subordinating that person to their will (through, e.g. assault, rape, murder).

I think that punishment's retributive purpose is, in part, about negating this subjugation and reversing it in order to reaffirm the equality of the criminal and victim before the law. E.g., if a rapist were simply told not to rape again, even if this could guarantee he would not (and even if this had no further effect of reducing deterrence), we would in effect be saying that he and his victim are not equals, because he was effectively entitled to invade her rights without any consequence. We can only ensure that they are both equals before the law if his violation of her right as a citizen comes with a reciprocal restriction on his own rights, which is punishment.

The key part, though, is that this punishment has to be proportional because of the egalitarian requirement. Putting a rapist in prison for one day would obviously be ridiculous - again, even if there were no bad consequences for doing so. It offends our moral sense because we think there is a relevant inequality between raping someone and incarcerating them for a single day. So, for this reason, we think that he needs a harsher punishment, simply because we need to recognize and repudiate his crime.

I think that there are a select list of crimes for which nothing short of death can be the appropriate punishment. There is reasonable debate to be had as to what should belong on this list (should rape of a child warrant capital punishment? Both Obama and McCain believed so, but the SCOTUS said it was cruel and unusual. I'm unsure), but I think that first (and second) degree murder is a paradigmatic case: since there simply is no value commensurate with that of a human life, there is nothing short of a human life which could be taken as retaliation for a murder. Otherwise, we would be equating the value of a citizen's life before the law, with the value of some finite amount of suffering (reduced freedom, financial penalties, pain, etc.) of his murderer.

Concerned Citizen posted:

What the gently caress does an "official endorsement" even mean? She said we should do Medicare-for-all, apparently not enough of an endorsment to be official. Did you want some balloons to fall from the ceiling, or like a signed statement? Did you not think that might kinda sorta indicate she was going to co-sponsor the bill?

SKULL.GIF posted:

it's not too hard to dig up sources, it's from here

loquacius posted:

yeah makes sense

holy poo poo though the number of words that guy wrote on why the death penalty is good because Kant


Put very briefly,

Frijolero posted:

She never endorsed it. The NYT said she hadn't endorsed it. Someone at VOX said she hadn't endorsed it. And yet you were posting saying that she had.

Now you're bragging that you called it all along, when you were loving wrong the first time.


Not gonna keep arguing with you because you already got owned the first time and you only doubled-down. gently caress off thx

Frijolero posted:

She never endorsed it. The NYT said she hadn't endorsed it. Someone at VOX said she hadn't endorsed it. And yet you were posting saying that she had.

Now you're bragging that you called it all along, when you were loving wrong the first time.


Not gonna keep arguing with you because you already got owned the first time and you only doubled-down. gently caress off thx

docbeard posted:

In fairness, that is quite brief where anything that invokes Hegel is concerned.

loquacius posted:

"This apparent bribe is obviously not a bribe because it's not enough money" is something people said about HRC a lot too, seems pretty handwavey to me

I dunno though it doesn't really have to be tit-for-tat corruption for me to be mad about it

Frijolero posted:

You got owned, you got owned I continue to insist as I. User loses posting privileges for 6 hours

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)