| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The origin of Proposition 57 becomes a bit more clear.
| Quote: | Kamala Harris and our shameless politics
David S. D’Amato, Opinion Contributor
Vice President Kamala Harris's poor polling performance has Democrats worried about their midterm strategy, The Hill's Hanna Trudo and Amie Parnes report. The vice president has long struggled against the perception that she is inauthentic and lacking in honesty and integrity, a perception that's hinted at in the most recent survey data. As political scientist Charles Lipson wrote last week, "Polls show [Harris] is personally unpopular, and the approval numbers keep dropping as voters see more of her."
Understanding Harris's path to her current post sheds light on the reasons for her unpopularity. Even among politicians, not exactly known for their honesty and integrity, Harris appears to be uniquely unscrupulous.
Although it's an oversimplification, there are at least two types of politicians: the true believers and the power-lusters. In the former category, we might include Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the Squad on the left and former Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) on the right. Whatever one thinks of the true believers' substantive positions, you can feel their sincerity, the earnest hope that good-faith debate and public service can make our government - and, with it, our society - better.
Kamala Harris may be one of the best modern examples of the power-luster - the political careerist who loves power for its own sake, whose ultimate goal is to climb as high as possible. Americans, at least those not completely brainwashed by partisan team affiliation, know the power-luster well, the politician who will say or do almost anything to stay in power.
Harris's prosecutor past is well-known, particularly among Black Americans. As Camille Squires observed in Mother Jones, many of the best and earliest critical reevaluations of Harris emerged from "Black communities, in particular Black women." But throughout both her presidential campaign and her time running as Biden's running mate, Harris refused to take responsibility for what happened to Californians trapped in broken criminal justice and prison systems on her watch.
Harris's response was to call concerns "overblown," digging in her heels and playing the part of the pragmatic problem-solver who couldn't afford to be a naive idealist. Many of the country's most prestigious sources of news and opinion gave her an easy pass, dismissing these concerns with some version of "But she had a really tough job."
Attorney General Harris presided over a system that disproportionately targeted Black Californians with extremely harsh prison sentences and arguably used coercive plea bargain tools to deny them their constitutional rights. Perhaps most infamously, Harris resisted the constitutionally necessary release of thousands of California prisoners convicted of nonviolent offenses.
In 2011, the Supreme Court, with Justice Kennedy writing for a 5-4 majority, concluded that the "medical and mental health care provided by California's prisons falls below the standard of decency that inheres in the Eighth Amendment." Noting that "[p]risoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons," the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ordering California to depopulate its prisons to deliver livable conditions and adequate medical and mental health care to their inhabitants. Evidence presented in the case showed squalid living conditions and "exceptional" overcrowding resulting in "grossly inadequate provision of medical and mental health care."
Beyond the facts of the case, Harris's actions struck a serious blow to the rule of law in the country: As the attorney general of the nation's most populous and arguably most powerful state, Harris openly and obstinately defied an order from the highest court in the land. As attorney general, Harris's response to the Court's decision was to do everything possible (up to and including the presentation of "obstructionist, bad-faith, and nonsensical" arguments in court) to avoid complying with the order.
So ridiculous were Harris's arguments that the district court nearly held the state in contempt. Some legal experts have even argued that she could have violated her ethical obligations as a member of the bar. It would be bad enough if a kind of benign neglect of ongoing rights violations were the best we could hope for from politicians. But Harris actively sought the perpetuation of the mistreatment at issue in the case.
Still, in a way we can't really blame Harris. She wanted to be president, and she may someday get her wish. We must blame both ourselves as citizens and a host of political journalists who would rather heap praise on the powerful than subject them to meaningful scrutiny.
For people like Harris, all that seems to matter is knowing which way the wind is blowing and understanding which voters you may be able to win on Election Day. Journalists, though, are supposed to care more about the truth and speaking it to power. Indeed, many of the writers and pundits who took it easy on Harris were the very same people who (quite appropriately, it should be noted) spent the Trump years loudly lecturing on the importance of truth, our shared reality and holding people in positions of power to account.
It is, of course, great to see women of color in positions of power, but only to the extent that they undermine tiered hierarchies of power like racism. One doesn't challenge such entrenched hierarchies merely by ascending to the highest tiers of power, by becoming a prioritized beneficiary of the system of power. |
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamala-harris-and-our-shameless-politics/ar-AAMTNvg?ocid=msedgntp |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In a continuing effort to bathe his brain in the most extreme of libertarian “thought”, Techno posts an attack piece by the Heartland Institute’s D’Amato. Could it only be a coincidence that the victim of Techno’s attack, like the shoplifter who last got his panties in a twist, is black? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's telling that techno900 is all over the map regarding what is right for the folks in California's prisons. I guess it's easy for him to change your views a bit when an opportunity comes from one of his far right sources of opinion to smear and deride a person like VP Kamala Harris. Is one supposed to believe that she's not black enough to care for "her" folks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, what facts in the story do you guys disagree with?
Typical, knock the source & poster, but incapable of stating why you disagree with the story. Yes, written by a conservative with bias, but if you can't, or won't refute the facts, it says a lot about your ability do have an intelligent discussion.
Harris is becoming a huge drag on the Democrats, but if you guys want to praise her, good for you. She is helping the right big time when it comes to the midterms. Her border assignment and accomplishments are a joke. A true crisis that the liberals won't acknowledge.
| Quote: | Kamala Harris Most Unpopular Vice President in 50 Years,
Poll Finds Harris’ approval has been falling since mid-March, when she reached her highest popularity rating with nearly 50% of registered voters.
Vice President Kamala Harris has the lowest popular approval since she took office in January, according to Real Clear Politics (RCP) data. Her numbers are the lowest the vice presidency has been since Walter Mondale in the late 1970s.
As reported by the Los Angeles Times on Monday, as of July 27, 48% of voters polled had an unfavorable opinion of Harris’ performance, while 45% approve of her job. |
https://elamerican.com/kamala-harris-most-unpopular-vice-president-in-50-years/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Techno....you just nailed the problem. You refer to your post as "facts" , and put the burden on those that disagree with the "facts".. Here's a fact: the VP rarely has any impact on elections , one way or the other. But , go ahead and tag Kamala as the bogeyman, it certainly works to ruffle the minions. The author of your piece refers to Kamala as a power-luster, do you consider that a "fact"? There's nothing factual about the post, its pure opinion from someone who dislikes the VP...Go back to the Price is Right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Somehow I ended up on Mike Pence’s e-mail “news”. I have never read such a pile of vile nonsense. But it appeals to those white men afraid of losing their privilege. Lust for power? I guess he’s forgiven those that Trump sent to hang him. Facts? Techno couldn’t find one if he had the address on his GPS.
Techno—if you really believe that your posting by a conservative operative funded by big oil and the ultra rich included facts, you are sadder than I thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys are a hoot. My post had to do with Proposition 57 and how Harris's role as Attorney General generated a Supreme Court case, and the need for Prop 57. I found it interesting that her actions were in complete contrast to how you guys were hyping the benefits of the Prop - let the prisoners accused of lesser crimes out of prison.
The highlighted segment of my post:
| Quote: | Attorney General Harris presided over a system that disproportionately targeted Black Californians with extremely harsh prison sentences and arguably used coercive plea bargain tools to deny them their constitutional rights. Perhaps most infamously, Harris resisted the constitutionally necessary release of thousands of California prisoners convicted of nonviolent offenses.
In 2011, the Supreme Court, with Justice Kennedy writing for a 5-4 majority, concluded that the "medical and mental health care provided by California's prisons falls below the standard of decency that inheres in the Eighth Amendment." Noting that "[p]risoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons," the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ordering California to depopulate its prisons to deliver livable conditions and adequate medical and mental health care to their inhabitants. Evidence presented in the case showed squalid living conditions and "exceptional" overcrowding resulting in "grossly inadequate provision of medical and mental health care."
Beyond the facts of the case, Harris's actions struck a serious blow to the rule of law in the country: As the attorney general of the nation's most populous and arguably most powerful state, Harris openly and obstinately defied an order from the highest court in the land. As attorney general, Harris's response to the Court's decision was to do everything possible (up to and including the presentation of "obstructionist, bad-faith, and nonsensical" arguments in court) to avoid complying with the order.
So ridiculous were Harris's arguments that the district court nearly held the state in contempt. Some legal experts have even argued that she could have violated her ethical obligations as a member of the bar. It would be bad enough if a kind of benign neglect of ongoing rights violations were the best we could hope for from politicians. But Harris actively sought the perpetuation of the mistreatment at issue in the case. |
Boggs said: | Quote: | | The author of your piece refers to Kamala as a power-luster, do you consider that a "fact"? |
Absolutely, just look at her progression in politics, and if Biden can't keep it together for another 3.5 years, she will be President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys are pathetic. You, buggy whip, etc. are in absolute white panic about Kamala Harris being the power behind the throne, or the next President. You repeat the nonsense spread by Carlson about Biden's speech impediment being a sign of dementia. The dog whistles can be heard by more than just dogs. Pathetic.
Techno, you in particular spread nonsense about the rise in crime triggered by liberal politics. When you're exposed to information that shows your example criminal is actually in jail, and that property crimes have gone down, not up, you double down on the least credible sources available. Beyond pathetic. Panicky old man. Spend some time on the water, read something that is not supported by panicky oil companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
techno900, your idea of "facts" is laughable. I have to question whether you actually know the difference between facts and opinion.
Why do you think that I would rush to protect VP Harris when presented with a clearly biased opinion from one of your screwball right wing internet sources? If you want to have a thoughtful discussion, why not bring up some of issues and responsibilities that Harris is currently involved in as VP.
As I pointed out earlier, your choice of sources for information are telling. On the negative polling story on Harris, I took a moment to look at some of the other "stories" being featured at the site. What's being offered is a joke, but I have to think it's right down your alley. You're an easy mark for hateful right wing nonsense.
If it wasn't for the internet, your go to "news" sources wouldn't stand a chance in hell of publishing and selling to a thoughtful public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is the most vile shit imaginable. From the article that Techno so gleefully posted:
| Quote: |
Kamala Harris may be one of the best modern examples of the power-luster |
Then he doubles down, describing Harris as the most unpopular vice president in fifty years, citing Charles Lipson—another cranky old aggrieved white conservative who has a particular hatred for transgender civil rights.
Language like this is not used accidentally. A VP like Mike Pence, who shamelessly kissed Trump’s fat ass for 4 years is ambitious. But a woman of color is a power luster. This particular misogynistic dog whistle is intended to de-humanize the target. It is shameful. But not surprising. Most politicians are ambitious—but assholes choose special language to dehumanize women of color.
Last edited by mac on Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
