this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
61 points (73.3% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3461 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Whatever Harris did as a prosecutor seems reasonable given both the context of the time she during which was a prosecutor, and her overall political alignment. I would rather have a progressive presidential candidate like Bernie (too late), or AOC (maybe 2028 or later). But choosing Harris means that the overall “liberal” agenda stays on the table

Some highlights from the article

Harris, as part of her previous presidential campaign, also released a criminal justice reform plan that seeks to scale back incarceration, end the death penalty and solitary confinement, ban private prisons, and get rid of cash bail. Biden also backs a fairly aggressive criminal justice reform plan, despite his own mixed record on criminal justice issues.

A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions. She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.

But what seem like contradictions may reflect a balancing act. Harris’s parents worked on civil rights causes, and she came from a background well aware of the excesses of the criminal justice system — but in office, she played the role of a prosecutor and California’s lawyer. She started in an era when “tough on crime” politics were popular across party lines — but she rose to national prominence as criminal justice reform started to take off nationally. She had an eye on higher political office as support for criminal justice reform became de rigueur for Democrats — but she still had to work as California’s top law enforcement official.

Harris also pushed for more systemic reforms. Her most successful program as district attorney, “Back on Track,” allowed first-time drug offenders, including drug dealers, to get a high school diploma and a job instead of prison time. Adams, Harris’s previous spokesperson, noted that the program started in 2005, “when most prosecutors were using a ‘tough on crime’ approach.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 60 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah bruh, idgaf. Harris 2024. Fuck the republican traitor filth.

Also: appreciate Biden’s true patriotism. That’s a goddamn patriot, not that fucking orange shitcunt traitor.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I am not saying she’s a bad candidate, and definitely not versus Trump

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 41 points 3 months ago (1 children)

CAN WE GET FIVE F**KING MINUTES

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Wait, what’s the complaint? I read a lot of comments complaining about her prosecutorial record, so I was like what’s her record exactly? Then I shared the article. Are…are you complaining about how the internet works?

Edit: I also think she’s a reasonable prosecutor given she had to work during the “tough on crime” era. I can’t judge for what she did when everyone was doing the same wrong thing. In fact, I think she tried to be better? The question is what would she do differently now.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 27 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Ha. It’s not you, it’s just the instant spin-up of the “why not to vote for the Democrat” machine is gonna make people touchy about even a perfectly reasonable article that starts to cast about through the years for reasons to evaluate Harris poorly, with its implied pretense that we need to evaluate her for any length of time before deciding that voting for her is better than the alternative who is very literally worse than letting rabid dogs loose in a children’s hospital.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 months ago

Honestly, if the choice was trump or let rabid dogs loose in one children's hospital, I'd feel bad for the kids when I voted, but that's still a better option. Now, if it's All children's hospitals, I may have to think a bit.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Yes, mozz said it better - That.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

FWIW, I don’t think the article portrays her in a bad light.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The complaint is that there is no time to do anything different. She's not a bad candidate just because she's not checking all your boxes. She's a great candidate for this situation.

If you want to complain about your lack of options, time travel back about 60 years. Ther rest of us are living here right now.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I agree, I think the article puts her work in context. For whatever reason people think this article is against her. It’s just telling things how it is. I think she’s a reasonable presidential nominee, and is definitely far better than the alternative

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So what we she doing while she was prosecutor?

“Prosecuting crimes”

What the fuck, that’s outrageous. She should have been legislating for better laws and refusing to enforce the ones that I personally don’t agree with, now, in the modern day. Well. Anyway. What was the other guy doing during this time?

“Raping children”

Well I can’t see how putting him in charge of the most powerful country in the world, with an army of followers already organized to disable its democratic safeguards, could go wrong. Did anything go wrong with it last time? The more I think about it the more I feel like this election might be the perfect time to do some pointless grandstanding.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 31 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (15 children)

From what I can make out, she's got some hits and some misses in her history, but overall a pretty progressive record.

Edit: By "pretty progressive", I mean relative to the arternatives and what's to be expected from any Democrat. Which is to say of course not nearly progressive enough and tainted with bad choices. But certainly good enough to vote for instead of Trump.

[–] Lemmeenym@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

She covered up that a state crime lab employee was falsifying evidence leading to hundreds of false convictions. She opposed police reform including opposing body cameras. Her office, she claims without her knowledge, argued that prisoners eligible for parole shouldn't be released from prisons so overcrowded that a judge ruled them cruel and unusual because it would reduce the availability of prison labor. She argued on two separate occasions that prisoners who had had their convictions overturned on the basis of actual innocence shouldn't be released from prison because they hadn't filed the motion for release quickly enough.

Her record is staunchly pro establishment and she has participated in acts of overt corruption to maintain the status quo.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 24 points 3 months ago (14 children)

The other guy rapes children and wants to shoot protestors with live ammunition

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thanks to both of you.

This is what I wanted: more information (actual, not FauxNews) about this person.

How bad she's been, how she's played the political ropes, her origins. Things she's stood up for.

All of it!

I know if she wins candidacy, I'll vote for her. Because fuck another 4 years of the self aggrandizing Putin puppet.

I'd like to know what I can about the lesser evil I'll be supporting.

[–] Timii@biglemmowski.win 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How bad she’s been

The article shows her performance as a PA is actually really good all things considered. Very compassionate where she can affect change and does her job well otherwise (during a tough on crime period in society)

[–] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Keeping people in jail that have had their case thrown out is bad, in my book.

She's done some good. She's also done some detestable things.

Hope she'll listen to Bernie, though the voting record shows she votes closer to him than anyone else does. Hope!

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Fades@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I've already seen people try to attack her for putting pot smokers in jail, you know, like how the law requires??

Then, when they are shown the fact that she was part of the effort to reschedule marijuana and they call her a hypocrite... Why didn't she then go and reverse all those cases... THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 9 points 3 months ago

Biden pardoned every prisoner in federal prison for possession (which wasn’t many; most are in prison at the state level, but if you’re one of them, it’s significant.) And, the Democrats introduced multiple bills to legalize marijuana.

Because voting’s not important and the Democrats aren’t good enough, though, there were enough Republicans in place that a couple of tepidly oppositional Democrats were enough to defeat the legalization bills.

[–] EnderWiggin@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

People change ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I am hopeful she has changed since her days as a prosecutor.

I am sad that I have no other choice.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So, she was literally reflecting the will of the voters with some of her decisions. Given that, I think her choices make sense.

In one instance — her handling of California’s “three strikes” law — Harris was arguably ahead of the time. Under the law, someone who committed a third felony could go to prison for 25 years to life, even if the third felony was a nonviolent crime. But Harris required that the San Francisco district attorney’s office only charge for a third strike if the felony was a serious or violent crime.

California voters in 2004, the year that Harris took office, rejected a ballot initiative to implement a similar reform statewide — though the ballot proposal had some pushback on the details, leading to Harris’s own opposition. It wasn’t until 2012 that voters approved the change.

“There’s been incredibly rapid change in public opinion, in attention to criminal justice,” Silard said, citing his decades-long experience in the criminal justice system and current experience as president of the reform-minded Rosenberg Foundation. “Bringing a reverse lens to that is not fair, and also doesn’t recognize folks who were courageous at that time.”

Emphasis mine

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah that's not really what I'm worried about.

Admittedly this is from her time as an Attorney General, not a prosecutor, but that was more recent and therefore more worrying to me:

”Harris’s office launched into a campaign of all-out obstruction, refusing to answer why they could not simply release low-risk, nonviolent inmates to conform to the Supreme Court’s request."

From: https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/

Bias rating: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-american-prospect/

All that to say, I want her as my president. This is just a pretty big stain on her record, and I hope she has continued to grow and change so that the Harris we see today isn't the Harris that would fight to keep people in prison at any cost.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Who's wrong? About what?

load more comments
view more: next ›