|
Grouchio posted:Hopefully Bernie still decides to run; it's just that Warren doesn't strike me as winning against Trump, and Gillibrand doesn't want to run. her statement was a perfectly normal pre-midterms one, all it means is that she's not absolutely, definitely running Did we ever cover why Sherrod Brown is Good or Bad? sexpig by night posted:yea Harris is painfully slow to realize what the actual good policies are yet she's also the only mainstream dem who's even trying. It's incredibly frustrating and I hate that I'm probably gonna wind up voting for her in the general. for me Harris is just on the "would be actually somewhat happy voting for her" side of the line vs "would grit teeth and vote against the big orange baby" (booker, biden) Hieronymous Alloy posted:I always get Sherrod Brown confused with Shirley Sherrod so . . . . good? I'd vote for Shirley Sherrod a compelling argument Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Nov 2, 2018 |
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:her statement was a perfectly normal pre-midterms one, all it means is that she's not absolutely, definitely running I always get Sherrod Brown confused with Shirley Sherrod so . . . . good? I'd vote for Shirley Sherrod
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
just in case anyone needed a reason to renew their dislike for Cory Booker: https://twitter.com/elivalley/status/1058371989231017984
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:her statement was a perfectly normal pre-midterms one, all it means is that she's not absolutely, definitely running Sherrod is mostly good, but kinda dumb. But yea if Harris keeps on her trend of slowly figuring out 'waaaait a second...people LIKE progressive ideas???' it'll help make 'I'm voting for a loving cop who wanted to throw people in jail if their kids skipped school and thought trans inmates getting hormones was a bridge too far' less of a bitter pill. She's still got time in her slow journey to the new DNC favorite and she at least is smarter than Clinton was about it so far so that's a plus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
I'll fuckin vote third party before I vote Biden or Booker though
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:just in case anyone needed a reason to renew their dislike for Cory Booker: https://twitter.com/jacremes/status/1058373150344396800  He's not appealing to American jews.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
At this point the only things that matter to me are student loans, anti gerrymandering, climate change, renewables, mental healthcare and public works. So I'm a bit of a sucker here
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
I love this tweet. I wonder what a President Bernie would do about other countries that are now fascist hellholes? Sanctions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Sherrod is mostly good, but kinda dumb. I hadn't heard of the transgender thing. This seems to be a decent article on it / her LGBT stuff in general: https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/10/25/kamala-harris-rises-as-lgbt-favorite-for-2020-theres-just-one-thing/ Tldr: like the truancy thing, the transgender prisoner stuff arguably falls under "could not ethically refuse to advance the case", for reasons, and the article produces decent arguments for and against that interpretation. also based on the article they were providing hormones, part of her / her office's argument was that the hormones were sufficient to meet their medical mandate and surgery was unnecessary axeil posted:I love this tweet. training and equipping international socialist revolution 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
That's always how prisoner medical treatment cases work. The relevant standard is "deliberate indifference to serious medical need" under the 8th amendment -- in effect, a *gross* negligence requirement, where the prisoner has to have a "serious" medical need and the prison also has to "deliberately" ignore said need. What prisons do to evade such lawsuits is provide de minimis care and argue that they were providing some care so were not "deliberately" ignoring the prisoner's needs. You can translate such arguments to "this was just normal negligence, just gross negligence, and prisoners have no right to non-negligent care, only a right to care that is not grossly negligent." Legally that argument is correct but morally it is reprehensible. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Nov 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's always how prisoner medical treatment cases work. The relevant standard is "deliberate indifference to serious medical need" under the 8th amendment -- in effect, a *gross* negligence requirement, where the prisoner has to have a "serious" medical need and the prison also has to "deliberately" ignore said need. What prisons do to evade such lawsuits is provide de minimis care and argue that they were providing some care so were not "deliberately" ignoring the prisoner's needs. Yeah, that's more or less how the case went (and they eventually settled and gave the plaintiffs surgery). The interesting to me and boring to everyone who isn't a giant nerd argument from the article is that what distinguishes the transgender surgery cases from other LGBT stuff that she chose not to fight was that she had an actual separate client (the Department of Corrections) rather than just acting as the Attorney General, which imposes upon her additional ethical responsibilities to not throw the case. quote:“The core of Ms. Norsworthy’s complaint is that Defendants have not provided the particular treatment she wants sex-reassignment surgery and unspecified ‘additional treatment,'” Harris writes. “But the Constitution ‘does not guarantee to a prisoner the treatment of his choice.’ The Eighth Amendment requires that an inmate be afforded ‘reasonable measures to meet a substantial risk of serious harm to her,’ not that she be given the specific care she demands. The ‘essential test is one of medical necessity and not one simply of desirability.'” edit know what fine i'll quote a bunch more of the relevant bit of the article quote:Zbur said criticism of Harris’ role in the litigation, however, is “really misplaced” because as attorney general she was compelled to represent the position of her client, which in this case was the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Nov 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
If lawyers want to argue they had an ethical obligation to defend a client, ok sure, I'll buy that as a reason to think she is a good lawyer, just don't run for political office afterwards. I would much rather vote for an unethical lawyer with a clear moral vision. edit: Like take "I had a clear professional duty to delay this person's medical treatment" versus "I was disbarred/fired because it was clear to me this person's medical treatment was more important than the legal rights of a government agency" twodot fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
I think there's also an argument that government attorneys have a generalized duty to the public as their ultimate client.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:If lawyers want to argue they had an ethical obligation to defend a client, ok sure, I'll buy that as a reason to think she is a good lawyer, just don't run for political office afterwards. I would much rather vote for an unethical lawyer with a clear moral vision. Sure. The best possible interpretation of Kamala Harris' less savory choices as an Attorney General is still that she didn't resign instead of making them. That's a significant part of why she's at the bottom of the bin for candidates I somewhat like, and I'm not going to get too annoyed with people who rank her lower than that after having at least as much information as I do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/jacremes/status/1058373150344396800 The Israeli ambassador to the US both sides’d when questioned about antisemitism in the wake of Pittsburgh. (Eg he claimed he wasn’t just a right wing neonazi/nationalist/Steve King problem, he said it was also leftists who were guilty.) Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Nov 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think there's also an argument that government attorneys have a generalized duty to the public as their ultimate client. Transgendered prisoners are part of "the public"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Transgendered prisoners are part of "the public" Yes? Exactly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
axeil posted:I love this tweet. Realistically there is not much America can or should do in these situations. One could argue that some sort of positive intervention might be possible in some alternate universe where the US government/military were completely different than they are (and Bernie being president wouldn't suddenly change that), but in our current reality it isn't. And I don't trust any sanctions (except for stuff like "freeze the foreign-held accounts of specific individuals") to not cause more harm to poorer people in the targeted countries. I realize there's an instinct that you have to do something about bad countries, but the issue with the framing is that the US is also a bad country and can't be trusted to do anything that is likely to help. The sold exception might be stuff like defending countries against the invasion of other countries, or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:training and equipping international socialist revolution The Iraq War has made me pretty skeptical of any international adventurism but I feel like the next POTUS needs to do something to impede the rise of fascism 2.0, I just don't know what would actually work. It's an actual threat to the world in a way that Islamic extremism never is/was. Ytlaya posted:Realistically there is not much America can or should do in these situations. One could argue that some sort of positive intervention might be possible in some alternate universe where the US government/military were completely different than they are (and Bernie being president wouldn't suddenly change that), but in our current reality it isn't. And I don't trust any sanctions (except for stuff like "freeze the foreign-held accounts of specific individuals") to not cause more harm to poorer people in the targeted countries. Yeah, this pretty well sums up my thoughts. I feel like we need to do something but all the options of what we can do seem like they'll only make things worse or punish the common people instead of the actual evil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yes? Exactly? Ah I misinterpreted your argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
How is fascism specifically a bigger threat than Islamist extremism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
axeil posted:I love this tweet. Real answer: not much can be done aside from public denouncements and, if possible, removing ourselves from doing business/supporting them. Sanctions are a fairly regressive tool no matter who uses them, either they're so narrow and targeted they're pointless because anyone powerful enough to get a sanction aimed at literally just them is probably able to ignore it safely, or they're broad and wide reaching that wind up hurting regular people most. Fun answer: GreyjoyBastard posted:training and equipping international socialist revolution
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:To the left, this is basically like if chattel slavery existed and a political party had made a shift towards giving slaves a path to non-slavery and more strictly enforced laws related to the treatment of slaves, and then people started proudly talking about the progress being made. This analogy likely sounds very extreme to you, but I think it's useful to get some idea of why many on the left find opinions like the one you're expressing here bizarre. Basically, to us, the current state of the country/world is one of utterly grotesque inequality, where millions (or billions if you're talking about the whole world) suffer and even die while a tiny minority hordes the vast majority of wealth/assets. And that's not even getting into things like the urgency of addressing global warming, or the impacts of bigotry (which is also barely addressed - our nation is still just as heavily segregated as it was years ago). You're inventing an intent in my words that is simply not there. I'm not saying you need to be happy with Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or whatever. I would urge you to hold your nose for them in GE should they win, but I'm personally expecting to vote for the farthest left candidate and I'm expecting you will too. I am also part of the left at this point. Since my own shift took some time, I have to give others the same benefit, and that includes electeds. Your example is extreme and also dumb, but continuing it for a minute - would you not see that as improvement over the same party, 14 years earlier arguing over whether it's OK to kill their slaves for fun or if it's only OK if it increases profits? A system can be better than it was while still being bad. I think it's also more than a bit unfair to compare modern capitalism, as bad as it is, to actual slavery. Especially if you're comparing a post 2020 dem world with slavery. It's actually pretty gross. Ytlaya posted:This is bizarre to the extent that I'm not even sure how to address it. There is no rational reason to think that people in positions of power, political, or otherwise, in our nation secretly have left-wing beliefs, and many, many reasons to believe they feel the opposite. The default assumption, based off history, should obviously be that they aren't secretly left-wing, because that has never been the case for the overwhelming majority of US politicians. I believe this because that's pretty much the way it is with all people I've ever met. Nobody is a moderate because they think moderate is correct. Or at least, very few. Almost everyone you'll meet is either a socialist, a theocrat, or a libertarian, and want society as far in their preferred direction as they think they can get away with. A "reasonable republican" is only so because he feels he can't say "yes actually pollute everything and strip women of the vote." I don't personally know any elected officials but I know that in my own history of candidate choosing and in my discussions with friends, pretty much everyone has personally been much farther towards either socialism or theocracy or libertopia than their candidate choice suggests. So I'm simply extending that same truth to electeds. I admit that it's conjecture - as is your belief that they aren't really embracing the left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind, I don't want to be baited into doing the exact thing I said I wasn't doing.
Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Nov 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:How is fascism specifically a bigger threat than Islamist extremism? there are some pretty hard, and extremely strong soft, limits on the successful exportation of Islamist extremism, even if you ignore the bit where the extremer Islamist nutters (other than, perhaps, Saudi scholars) are, well, nutters and bad at plans fascism is exportable to more or less any country on earth if things go sour
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I believe this because that's pretty much the way it is with all people I've ever met. Nobody is a moderate because they think moderate is correct. Or at least, very few. Almost everyone you'll meet is either a socialist, a theocrat, or a libertarian, and want society as far in their preferred direction as they think they can get away with. A "reasonable republican" is only so because he feels he can't say "yes actually pollute everything and strip women of the vote." I don't personally know any elected officials but I know that in my own history of candidate choosing and in my discussions with friends, pretty much everyone has personally been much farther towards either socialism or theocracy or libertopia than their candidate choice suggests. So I'm simply extending that same truth to electeds. I admit that it's conjecture - as is your belief that they aren't really embracing the left. You've never met any outright fascists? I have, and some have been elected Republican officeholders. They weren't theocrats, they just believed very strongly in the superiority of the white race, and wanted to make sure the system as it stood was rigged and rigged hard in their own favor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You've never met any outright fascists? I have, and some have been elected Republican officeholders. They weren't theocrats, they just believed very strongly in the superiority of the white race, and wanted to make sure the system as it stood was rigged and rigged hard in their own favor. i knew a brazilian monarchist in college i unironically wonder how she feels about bolsonaro
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You've never met any outright fascists? I have, and some have been elected Republican officeholders. They weren't theocrats, they just believed very strongly in the superiority of the white race, and wanted to make sure the system as it stood was rigged and rigged hard in their own favor. Yes, them too I suppose. The point is, most people who are halfway fascist, or halfway theocrat, or halfway libertarian only ever moderate their views because of what the believe is possible, not because they think the middle ground is actually better. And the same goes with people halfway to the left, or who were formerly halfway to the left and moving close and closer there. Moderation is rarely a deeply held belief.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
the vast majority of people don't have a coherent politics at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
*edit* wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
So, just taking one example, same sex marriage. A ton of big time dems, Clinton, Obama, etc, all said no way in 2008 but were on board by 2016. So there's three possibilities here: 1) They didn't really oppose it in 2008, but thought they couldn't get away with publicly supporting it. 2) Genuine personal movement from opposition to support 3) They didn't really support it in 2016, but felt they had to say they did. I don't have any evidence to support this, but it seems to me like option 1 is the most plausible of the three.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Did we ever cover why Sherrod Brown is Good or Bad? Doesn't support Medicare for All
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:So, just taking one example, same sex marriage. A ton of big time dems, Clinton, Obama, etc, all said no way in 2008 but were on board by 2016. So there's three possibilities here:
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
ChipNDip posted:Doesn't support Medicare for All Brown has supported single payer for longer than almost anyone in the senate. I'm not sure why he hasn't cosponsored Bernie's bill, but it's 100% NOT ideological opposition to single payer healthcare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2XYVBZYH0k
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I believe this because that's pretty much the way it is with all people I've ever met. Nobody is a moderate because they think moderate is correct. Or at least, very few. Almost everyone you'll meet is either a socialist, a theocrat, or a libertarian, and want society as far in their preferred direction as they think they can get away with. A "reasonable republican" is only so because he feels he can't say "yes actually pollute everything and strip women of the vote." I don't personally know any elected officials but I know that in my own history of candidate choosing and in my discussions with friends, pretty much everyone has personally been much farther towards either socialism or theocracy or libertopia than their candidate choice suggests. So I'm simply extending that same truth to electeds. I admit that it's conjecture - as is your belief that they aren't really embracing the left. Yeah but not all conjectures, as you put it, are created equal. There is every reason to assume that people with wealth/power stand opposed to the goals of the left. They always have historically. While you can't read minds, it's possible to decide upon what the most reasonable default assumption is, and it is not even remotely reasonable to assume that "powerful people who only recently started to tentatively support some mild social democratic reforms" actually have always secretly held left-wing ideology. Maybe you can come to this conclusion once said politicians have not only demonstrated reliable support for these things, but done so in situations where they have a high/realistic chance of passing. Currently there isn't much of a downside to someone voicing support for something like MfA, since there are still more than enough conservative Democrats to sink it even if Democrats return to power. As a result, it is logical to be skeptical towards anyone who only recently came to the right side of this issue. If their convictions actually lead to the policy being passed, or they demonstrate some actual strong efforts to make it pass when/if Democrats regain control over the government, then maybe it might make sense to adjust that perception. edit: Also, pragmatically speaking, there is zero benefit to being a gullible person who always assumes the best about politicians, even if you ignore the fact that doing so doesn't logically make sense. There is a real downside to being quick to assume that politicians' intentions are genuine, and basically no downside to not trusting them until they've actually proven themselves to be reliable on the issue. Hellblazer187 posted:So, just taking one example, same sex marriage. A ton of big time dems, Clinton, Obama, etc, all said no way in 2008 but were on board by 2016. So there's three possibilities here: The key reason this is a bad analogy is that re-distributive leftist policy, like MfA, fundamentally runs counter to the interests of people with wealth/power. There is nothing that really directly threatens wealthy people/businesses about same sex marriage, so there's room for genuine disagreement among the wealthy on that issue. There isn't the same huge amount of corporate money pushing against it; Democratic politicians don't stand to lose a bunch of funding if they support same sex marriage in the same way as they might if they support MfA. (Honestly all of this just kind of makes it worse that it took them as long as they did to support it) axeil posted:Yeah, this pretty well sums up my thoughts. I feel like we need to do something but all the options of what we can do seem like they'll only make things worse or punish the common people instead of the actual evil. Yeah, when I said that there's a feeling like people should do something I didn't meant it in a condescending way or something; I genuinely understand why someone would feel that way. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Nov 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:So, just taking one example, same sex marriage. A ton of big time dems, Clinton, Obama, etc, all said no way in 2008 but were on board by 2016. So there's three possibilities here: Obama was definitely 1, and I think Clinton was 2. quote:In 1996, as he ran for Illinois state Senate, Chicago’s Outlines gay newspaper asked candidates to fill out a questionnaire. Tracy Baim, the co-founder and publisher of Outlines, dug up a copy of the questionnaire in 2009, cataloging the president-elect’s shift.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado is giving some signs that he might run for president. Signs like saying, "I am governor of Colorado, I'm going to run for President," while campaigning in New Hampshire. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Nov 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Brown has supported single payer for longer than almost anyone in the senate. I'm not sure why he hasn't cosponsored Bernie's bill, but it's 100% NOT ideological opposition to single payer healthcare. He has not co-sponsored Bernie's bill, and he's repeatedly pushed for a tepid "Medicare at 55 buy-in" option. That is the "civil unions, not marriage" equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
ChipNDip posted:He has not co-sponsored Bernie's bill, and he's repeatedly pushed for a tepid "Medicare at 55 buy-in" option. That is the "civil unions, not marriage" equivalent. This is disappointing but not surprising to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado is giving some signs that he might run for president. Doesn't Hickenlooper have an ethics probe against him going on right now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 00:38
|
|