Chaos in the VP's Office? (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    GrandAdmiral

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages
    3,124
    Reaction score
    4,217
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Offline
    This is not the first time something like this has happened with Harris. Many say it helped ruin her presidential campaign before it started and now it seems to be happening again. Whether true or overblown, it's not a good look at all for Harris IMHO

     
    I'd read more than once that she was probably better suited for Attorney General
    That was most people's guess for her in a hypothetical Biden administration before he'd asked her to join the ticket as his VP. She'd have been a pretty good fit considering her experience as basically a lifelong prosecutor in CA before getting elected to the Senate. Not many people go straight from law school to working as a prosecutor and make a career out of it because ADAs tend to burn out after being a cog in the machine that is the "justice" system for a few years. From her Wikipedia bio:

    She began her career in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, before being recruited to the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and later the City Attorney of San Francisco's office. In 2003, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco. She was elected Attorney General of California in 2010 and re-elected in 2014.

    That's a lot of years making a lot less than she could have on the other side of the aisle or if she'd joined some massive firm that specializes in appellate work for the insurance industry or something like that. Then again, it's not like she spent 27 years slugging it out in the trenches. If you read the long part of her bio about her career, you can tell that she was tapped as a rising star in 1990 at her first job out of college in the Alameda County DA's Office. From there, every position she held was a step up from her previous stop. All of the stupid talking points about how she locked up black people for marijuana possession with life sentences is because that was quite literally her job title as the "Head of the Three Strikes Division." CA law says that your third felony conviction earns you a life sentence, even if it's for felony possession of marijuana. Of course, with the national attitude towards marijuana being what it is today, you can make her out to be the Big Bad Wolf who locked up pot heads for life because they got caught with a joint, ignoring that her job's function was specifically to prosecute third strike felons. It's not her fault that most states have stupid laws like the three strikes = life sentence law and she'd have been derelict in her duties as a prosecutor if she was to try to be an advocate for defendants from the prosecutor's table.

    I think that Garland was going to get the AG position regardless of who beat Trump to make up for him being robbed of his seat on SCOTUS.

    I know of a few people doing life in Angola for three non-violent strikes, and some of them even have a felony possession of marijuana conviction as one of their three strikes. Thankfully, we've come a long way in the past twenty-five years regarding how we treat marijuana possession in the criminal justice system. The NOPD doesn't even blink if you're smoking pot walking down the street downtown. If they do choose to mess with you for smoking pot, they still aren't going to arrest you unless you're carrying distribution weight on your person (which I believe is anything over an ounce). The most that is going to happen 99/100 times is the reefer smokers will get a summons to appear in municipal court where you'll either pay a fine or have the case dismissed. Then again, we've shut down the entire traffic division of the NOPD in favor of red light and speeding cameras to enforce traffic laws. We also elected a district attorney who's under indictment by the feds and reportedly chooses not to prosecute the majority of misdemeanor charges that his office receives, which is emboldening repeat offenders to do whatever they want because they tell the cops that they'll be out of jail before their shift is over and they aren't lying. Cops claim that they are re-arresting the same people for the same crimes over and over again because they never actually pick up the charges after the arrest. That's at least the excuse given by Ferguson as to why the crime is so out of control in Orleans Parish. He says his officers are demoralized knowing that the criminals they arrest aren't going to face any consequences for their crimes, so they're now just going to stop arresting people altogether instead just to make a point. I don't buy that the murder rate is up like 150% from last year because cracker jack criminals aren't being charged with smoking pot, urinating in public, vagrancy, punk in drublic, simple possession (of any substance) and other dumb arse charges that do more to clog the system with stupidity which prolongs the real deal, violent as hell criminals from being brought to trial and put away for good. When I last read the numbers for violent crime in New Orleans like six weeks ago, I can't recall there being any category of violent crime that hasn't gone up in 2021 from what it was in 2020. So the crimes keep skyrocketing but the police aren't arresting people in protest. That's such a typical New Orleans solution to a pretty serious problem.
     
    That was most people's guess for her in a hypothetical Biden administration before he'd asked her to join the ticket as his VP. She'd have been a pretty good fit considering her experience as basically a lifelong prosecutor in CA before getting elected to the Senate. Not many people go straight from law school to working as a prosecutor and make a career out of it because ADAs tend to burn out after being a cog in the machine that is the "justice" system for a few years. From her Wikipedia bio:



    That's a lot of years making a lot less than she could have on the other side of the aisle or if she'd joined some massive firm that specializes in appellate work for the insurance industry or something like that. Then again, it's not like she spent 27 years slugging it out in the trenches. If you read the long part of her bio about her career, you can tell that she was tapped as a rising star in 1990 at her first job out of college in the Alameda County DA's Office. From there, every position she held was a step up from her previous stop. All of the stupid talking points about how she locked up black people for marijuana possession with life sentences is because that was quite literally her job title as the "Head of the Three Strikes Division." CA law says that your third felony conviction earns you a life sentence, even if it's for felony possession of marijuana. Of course, with the national attitude towards marijuana being what it is today, you can make her out to be the Big Bad Wolf who locked up pot heads for life because they got caught with a joint, ignoring that her job's function was specifically to prosecute third strike felons. It's not her fault that most states have stupid laws like the three strikes = life sentence law and she'd have been derelict in her duties as a prosecutor if she was to try to be an advocate for defendants from the prosecutor's table.

    This is the "It's not personal. It's business." defense. It works fine for a job interview, but not politics. She chose to work in that field. It's the same way Pete fairly takes heat for working at McKinsey. The fact your ok with the unfair application of drug laws to lock away a much larger portion of minority populations does say something about you. We are talking about ethics, not what's permitted under the law. You mention "stupid talking points". You must not understand the point those talking points are making.
     
    This is the "It's not personal. It's business." defense. It works fine for a job interview, but not politics. She chose to work in that field. It's the same way Pete fairly takes heat for working at McKinsey. The fact your ok with the unfair application of drug laws to lock away a much larger portion of minority populations does say something about you. We are talking about ethics, not what's permitted under the law. You mention "stupid talking points". You must not understand the point those talking points are making.
    I think a huge issue no one seems to bring up is as follows.

    "Tough on crime" is an easy sell with all neighborhoods. Especially with older folks sick of seeing certain "garbage" on their streets. That might be violent crime, petty crime, or drugs. There may be a shift in the view point towards Marijuana and drug treatment vs criminalization, but the reality is that no one wants a drug addict around. Often, they turn to theft to keep the high coming. Sometimes the drug charges are add on crimes. When, the theft or similar was the main crime.

    It's almost like homelessness. Many Want to help. But many don't want to see it on their street.

    It's similar to the argument that republican policies don't change until it affects them. Then suddenly their view shifts. That's not unique to them. There might be a better and more holistic view of how to deal with certain drugs, and addiction, and many support that... just not on my street.

    You also have to remember how violent the 1990s were and one technique was to hurt the Gangs, and drugs was what they figured was the easiest way. Possession is easier to book and get a judgment on vs intent to sell. So, too many buyers got caught up in it, which wasn't the intent (unless they wanted to just hurt sales).

    You also can't underestimate the desire for Black politicians to want to show that they can champion a cause for white America. That it's about crime, not race. Or a desire to fix stereotypes.

    I just think the mood has shifted back towards social justice.

    In the end, it will be a balance. The community needs to step up and policing needs to step up and not be so on edge. We all want safety. It's why America pretty much has all the money. Rich people (really all people) value safety.

    It's why the argument about raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to move away is sorta bunk. Where are they going to go? Europe mostly isn't lower taxes. They can move to south or Central America and hope those gangs/ cartels don't cut off their hands to steal their Rolex.

    Safety and security (the general Welfare) is a key component to a society. We have to always keep that in mind. But, that doesn't mean we need to lock everyone up. But in practice, most people are vindictive and want criminals punished a lot more. They don't want rehabilitation.

    So, do you give then what they want or what should be done, even if they don't want it? It's not easy when you're the leader.
     
    As an add on. I'm not up on her specific issue as an ADA/AG, so I'm not necessarily defending a particular action. Just an overall portrait of where the wind blows.
     
    I think a huge issue no one seems to bring up is as follows.

    "Tough on crime" is an easy sell with all neighborhoods. Especially with older folks sick of seeing certain "garbage" on their streets. That might be violent crime, petty crime, or drugs. There may be a shift in the view point towards Marijuana and drug treatment vs criminalization, but the reality is that no one wants a drug addict around. Often, they turn to theft to keep the high coming. Sometimes the drug charges are add on crimes. When, the theft or similar was the main crime.

    It's almost like homelessness. Many Want to help. But many don't want to see it on their street.

    It's similar to the argument that republican policies don't change until it affects them. Then suddenly their view shifts. That's not unique to them. There might be a better and more holistic view of how to deal with certain drugs, and addiction, and many support that... just not on my street.

    You also have to remember how violent the 1990s were and one technique was to hurt the Gangs, and drugs was what they figured was the easiest way. Possession is easier to book and get a judgment on vs intent to sell. So, too many buyers got caught up in it, which wasn't the intent (unless they wanted to just hurt sales).

    You also can't underestimate the desire for Black politicians to want to show that they can champion a cause for white America. That it's about crime, not race. Or a desire to fix stereotypes.

    I just think the mood has shifted back towards social justice.

    In the end, it will be a balance. The community needs to step up and policing needs to step up and not be so on edge. We all want safety. It's why America pretty much has all the money. Rich people (really all people) value safety.

    It's why the argument about raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to move away is sorta bunk. Where are they going to go? Europe mostly isn't lower taxes. They can move to south or Central America and hope those gangs/ cartels don't cut off their hands to steal their Rolex.

    Safety and security (the general Welfare) is a key component to a society. We have to always keep that in mind. But, that doesn't mean we need to lock everyone up. But in practice, most people are vindictive and want criminals punished a lot more. They don't want rehabilitation.

    So, do you give then what they want or what should be done, even if they don't want it? It's not easy when you're the leader.

    The war on drugs was always meant to be applied unequally to minorities. That was the point. There was never a good intention. The classification of drugs is even racist. Why is marijuana still a schedule 1, and cocaine/meth a schedule 2? Why is crack cocaine penalized harsher then powder? I've never even heard a good reason as to why drug users are criminals at all. From what I understand, it's extremely hard to get a job once you're a felon. It's why Kamala's DA work does come under fire. It wasn't just drugs, she personally pushed for a truancy program. That again somehow magically ended up affecting minorities/disabled children more then anyone else. At the heart of it, you wont' fix drug addiction, or children missing school with jail time.

    The truth is you don't get as much clout/money from being a public defender then you do from a DA. You make your bones, and your name on the back of black scalps.

    How did Tupac put it?

    Made a G today
    but you made it in a sleazy way

    Edit to add: Klobuchar also took a lot of heat over her work as a DA.
     
    Last edited:
    The war on drugs was always meant to be applied unequally to minorities. That was the point. There was never a good intention. The classification of drugs is even racist. Why is marijuana still a schedule 1, and cocaine/meth a schedule 2? Why is crack cocaine penalized harsher then powder? I've never even heard a good reason as to why drug users are criminals at all. From what I understand, it's extremely hard to get a job once you're a felon. It's why Kamala's DA work does come under fire. It wasn't just drugs, she personally pushed for a truancy program. That again somehow magically ended up affecting minorities/disabled children more then anyone else. At the heart of it, you wont' fix drug addiction, or children missing school with jail time.

    The truth is you don't get as much clout/money from being a public defender then you do from a DA. You make your bones, and your name on the back of black scalps.

    How did Tupac put it?

    Made a G today
    but you made it in a sleazy way

    Edit to add: Klobuchar also took a lot of heat over her work as a DA.
    I agree. But I'm saying, some Minorities wanted this too.
     
    yep, there is a very good argument to be made that ol' mary jane was made illegal due to racism.
    I’m not sure the reason it was/is (check local listings) illegal was because of racism, but the enforcement has been uneven along racial lines, for sure.
     
    I’m not sure the reason it was/is (check local listings) illegal was because of racism, but the enforcement has been uneven along racial lines, for sure.

    I'll just copy and paste since it does a better job than I ever could:

    At the turn of the 20th century, cannabis—as it was then commonly known in the United States—was a little-used drug among Americans.
    With the start of the Mexican Revolution in 1910, however, many Mexicans began moving to the United States, and they brought with them the tradition of smoking marihuana. Amid a growing fear of Mexican immigrants, hysterical claims about the drug began to circulate, such as allegations that it caused a “lust for blood.” In addition, the term cannabis was largely replaced by the Anglicized marijuana, which some speculated was done to promote the foreignness of the drug and thus stoke xenophobia.

    In the 1930s Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, turned the battle against marijuana into an all-out war. Some believe that he was motivated less by safety concerns—the vast majority of scientists he surveyed claimed that the drug was not dangerous—and more by a desire to promote his newly created department. Whatever the impetus, Anslinger sought a federal ban on the drug, and to this end he initiated a high-profile campaign that relied heavily on racism. Anslinger claimed that the majority of pot smokers were minorities, including African Americans, and that marijuana had a negative effect on these “degenerate races,” such as inducing violence or causing insanity. Furthermore, he noted, “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” Perhaps even more worrisome to Anslinger was pot’s supposed threat to white women’s virtue. He believed that smoking pot would result in their having sex with black men.

    Aided by an eager news media—and such propaganda films as Reefer Madness (1936)—Anslinger eventually oversaw the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, which effectively made the drug illegal across the United States. Although declared unconstitutional in 1969, it was replaced by the Controlled Substances Act the following year. That legislation classified marijuana—as well as heroin and LSD, among others—as a Schedule I drug. Perhaps unsurprisingly, racism was also evident in the enforcement of the law. According to some studies, African Americans in the early 21st century were nearly four times more likely than whites to be arrested on marijuana-related charges—despite both groups having similar usage rates.
     
    To me, Harris has become what I hoped and prayed that Obama would not; a complete and utter disappointment. I feel like her serving as VP is tarnishing her real accomplishment as an AG in California and Senator.

    Once the glow of being the first Asian/Black/Female VP wears off, what are you left with? I know it hasn't even been a year but I think I'd like to continue to not hear anything about her unless she's casting the tie-breaking vote to end the filibuster and passing voter rights legislation.
     
    I think a huge issue no one seems to bring up is as follows.

    "Tough on crime" is an easy sell with all neighborhoods. Especially with older folks sick of seeing certain "garbage" on their streets. That might be violent crime, petty crime, or drugs. There may be a shift in the view point towards Marijuana and drug treatment vs criminalization, but the reality is that no one wants a drug addict around. Often, they turn to theft to keep the high coming. Sometimes the drug charges are add on crimes. When, the theft or similar was the main crime.

    It's almost like homelessness. Many Want to help. But many don't want to see it on their street.

    It's similar to the argument that republican policies don't change until it affects them. Then suddenly their view shifts. That's not unique to them. There might be a better and more holistic view of how to deal with certain drugs, and addiction, and many support that... just not on my street.

    You also have to remember how violent the 1990s were and one technique was to hurt the Gangs, and drugs was what they figured was the easiest way. Possession is easier to book and get a judgment on vs intent to sell. So, too many buyers got caught up in it, which wasn't the intent (unless they wanted to just hurt sales).

    You also can't underestimate the desire for Black politicians to want to show that they can champion a cause for white America. That it's about crime, not race. Or a desire to fix stereotypes.

    I just think the mood has shifted back towards social justice.

    In the end, it will be a balance. The community needs to step up and policing needs to step up and not be so on edge. We all want safety. It's why America pretty much has all the money. Rich people (really all people) value safety.

    It's why the argument about raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to move away is sorta bunk. Where are they going to go? Europe mostly isn't lower taxes. They can move to south or Central America and hope those gangs/ cartels don't cut off their hands to steal their Rolex.

    Safety and security (the general Welfare) is a key component to a society. We have to always keep that in mind. But, that doesn't mean we need to lock everyone up. But in practice, most people are vindictive and want criminals punished a lot more. They don't want rehabilitation.

    So, do you give then what they want or what should be done, even if they don't want it? It's not easy when you're the leader.
    Not all South and Central American countries are like Argentina, Venezuela with failing, corrupt governments/economies with dangerous cartels and gangs roaming the streets looking for gringos to hold up, loot, hold hostage, or kill them. There's many countries in Latin America which have strong functional, working governments and economies that have a lot of promise and if some billionaires want to move or relocate to Costa Rica, Belize, Guatemala, Chile, or Peru or even Thailand to avoid paying higher income taxes here, they'll do it even if violent crime rates might be a tad higher in Lima, Peru, Santaigo, Chile, Bahamas, Cayman Islands, or Jamaica. Its not.bunk when you stop trying to exagerrate or amplify issues in certain countries or regions billionaires could flee to to avoid paying higher taxes. Just because Venezuela is having a political, socio-economic breakdown doesn't mean that applies to Brazil, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Paraguay.

    Switzerland has higher income taxes on above-average income earners then lets say France, Germany, but that hasn't stopped many American or other European ex-pats from setting up duel citizenship or establishing permanent residency status there. Or in Italy, for that matter.
     
    To me, Harris has become what I hoped and prayed that Obama would not; a complete and utter disappointment. I feel like her serving as VP is tarnishing her real accomplishment as an AG in California and Senator.

    Once the glow of being the first Asian/Black/Female VP wears off, what are you left with? I know it hasn't even been a year but I think I'd like to continue to not hear anything about her unless she's casting the tie-breaking vote to end the filibuster and passing voter rights legislation.

    :(

    You're dissing my long time girlfriend.
     
    I think she's a very attractive politician. I just think she's not very good at being Vice President.
    I think she's been tasked as VP to be "bad cop" to enhance Biden's role as "good cop." Kind of like how on a Navy ship the Captain is often "good cop" and the XO is "bad cop." It's an effective team leadership method.

    In that I think she's been very effective. She's been an effective foil to keep the immigration issue from adversely impacting Biden directly, and he sure needs that kind of help with the New York Daily News and Fox News taking pot shots at them at every turn.

    Immigration is a no win situation, Biden's administration has to enforce laws which he would rather not enforce, and his party would rather he not enforce, Too many people on our side seem unaware of the facts involved with that.

    A court has required that Biden start back up that asinine "Remain in Mexico" thing Trump dreamed up, and despite that many Democrats blame Biden for that.

    So I think she's doing fine. There's a reason she's my girlfriend you know.

    :)
     
    I think she is being judged very harshly by the same press that helped demonize Hillary. Women get judged much differently than men do, and she is a POC on top of that.

    She apparently did a great job of smoothing things over with Macron a few weeks ago.

    I’m not falling for the current crop of bad articles. I suspect they reflect some institutional bias.
     
    And this morning I see this article from Reuters:

     
    I think she is being judged very harshly by the same press that helped demonize Hillary. Women get judged much differently than men do, and she is a POC on top of that.

    She apparently did a great job of smoothing things over with Macron a few weeks ago.

    I’m not falling for the current crop of bad articles. I suspect they reflect some institutional bias.
    I completely agree with this. There are articles pointing to this. Unfortunately, they don't attract the clicks.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom