Jump to content
Tywin et al.

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Trump's aggregate disapproval literally says otherwise.

Trump's aggregate disapproval is because of senate obstruction from 2010 to 2016? That's an interesting hypothesis. 

Quote

The GOP electorate turning on its party is not the same as the public at large expressing disapproval.  When are you guys gonna get this through your head! 

Independents matter much less in senate races than in POTUS races. As long as McConnell gets reelected it's pretty clear that the public 'disapproval' doesn't matter to the senate. Partisan lean is going to matter a whole hell of a lot more in states. And as Trump pointed out, his disapproval didn't seem to matter that much in the 2018 senate race, given that they gained a net 2 seats and more Dem incumbents lost than has happened in something like 75 years. 

Quote

And, again, that link is about the Supreme Court.  That is fundamentally different than lower court and executive branch appointments, and I think you know that.  At least I hope you do. 

It certainly is different, but it's still important to people, and its importance is increasing. 

Quote

I could continue to argue this but I really don't care.  Sure.  You're right.  People thought Gabbard was the bees knees.  That's why she got so much attention upon her rollout. 

I didn't say that. To say that she was some kind of nonentity is obviously wrong. 

Quote

Anyway, it's irrelevant.  My point there was agreeing with you that such old data doesn't really matter.  But that doesn't change the fact that recent data has shown an increased level of instability among congressional majorities.  That's what the evidence suggests.  Bottomline.  Honestly no reason to continue arguing.

Yeah, you don't know this forum very well at all. 

8 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

So there is no trend, or if anything the trend is ups and downs, which means there is no extrapolation to be had; we might just as well be due for a swing to a ton of split state delegations. but even that is hard to see happening because, 

There's actually a trend, it's just not an insane one. But the trendline is towards single-party states. 

Quote

Perhaps we are not thinking about this senate election correctly, perhaps Republicans are in a uniquely vulnerable position because such a large proportion of their single state caucuses are exposed?

They're vulnerable this election, but not crazily so. Dems were considered super vulnerable but at the end of the day most of the seats were defended and fairly easily; it was only the seats in Republican states that ended up being losers. 

Edited by Kalbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

She came out against the airstrikes on Assad and said that she had evidence that the US was arming the rebels in Syria. 

And? This doesn’t contradict what I’ve said in regards to her.  This demonstrates her being against the US doing a regime change in the Middle East(something entirely reasonable). Something, again that draws some people to her . Something I’ve already stated she does.

And the US did arm Syrian rebels. It’s not a secret https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/7/25/16025136/trump-syria-cia-twitter-program-end-covert Are you for the US trying to oust Assad? Your pointing to her being against bombing of the man seems to imply it’s a bad thing for her to do.Is her being against  the US ousting dictators with the justification of them(the dictators) having committed crimes against humanity one of her shit policies? I’m genuinely curious what your point in bringing it up is if not. I think you’re wise enough to recognize the US playing world’s policeman is not a good thing. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kalbear said:

Trump's aggregate disapproval is because of senate obstruction from 2010 to 2016? That's an interesting hypothesis. 

Uh, what?  This is you ridiculously extending logic well over the breaking point. 

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Independents matter much less in senate races than in POTUS races.

That's not true.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As long as McConnell gets reelected it's pretty clear that the public 'disapproval' doesn't matter to the senate. Partisan lean is going to matter a whole hell of a lot more in states. And as Trump pointed out, his disapproval didn't seem to matter that much in the 2018 senate race, given that they gained a net 2 seats and more Dem incumbents lost than has happened in something like 75 years. 

Why are you comparing the Senate group that ran in 2018 to the Senate group that will run in 2020?  That's an incredibly ignorant thing to do.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It certainly is different, but it's still important to people, and its importance is increasing. 

Ok, so you have no actual evidence beyond the Supreme Court.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have any feelings on Bill Weld jumping in an primarying (I think this should be a word) Trump?  I barely know this guy, and I consider myself something of a political junkie.  

Still wondering if Kasich gives it a shot but also thinking that Kasich hopes Trump goes down and then tries to be the next Republican.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Trump will be significantly primaried, no.  Doubt Kasich will bother, and even he would just be a sideshow.  Honestly can't think of anyone that could legitimately challenge him right now.  If he goes down, he goes down.  But we're very far from there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lokisnow said:

If Kal is wrong and DMC is right, the following are the seats that should be flipable for Democrats in 2020:

I agree with six of those.  I wouldn't go as far as four of them, for different reasons - KY, MT, SC, and TX.  Also, this goes both ways.  Michigan (Peters) and New Hampshire (Shaheen) are potential GOP pickups as well as the assumed Alabama.

9 hours ago, lokisnow said:

But if Kal is right and DMC is wrong there is zero path to a majority because only Maine, Colorado and Arizona are the only possible seat flips and democrats will lose Alabama, giving republicans a 51-49 majority.

Competitive states even in a tough environment will still be dependent on the candidates.  Abrams could still have a shot against Perdue, for example.  But yeah, it's very unlikely the Dems could pickup the Senate in 2020 if we're working off an EVEN generic ballot or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The US overthrowing another government in the Middle East that’s that’s keeping a cap on religious extremists(for example fighting ISIS)? Yes pretty unpopular.A scary thing. Few people are complaining about the US bombing the hell out of ISIS. Hell plenty of support of even keeping troops in Syria to combat IS. But fighting ISIS is not something Gabbard has come out against. Hell she cites Assad’s opposition to the group as reason for why he shouldn’t(like Gaddafi and Saddam), be ousted by the US.


Yea, Gabbard is an Assadist, and she's also a huge fan of Modi, who is a hard right authoritarian. She's pure trash. She doesn't care about Syrian civilians, she loves dead muslims. 

She's also homophobic & anti choice. Horrible person and horrible candidate.


Lets put it this way, Steve Bannon loves her and wants to work with her. She considers him a friend

 

Oh, and anyone, let alone a politician, that cites that the syphilitic dick sore that is Jimmy Dore, who is so ignorant he had no clue what the hell the Kurds were doing in Syria or the autonomous region they set up in northern syria, all while trying to pass himself off as some expert and bringer of truth, and also praises that white supremacist Tucker Carlson, should be ignored.

Edited by Bonnot OG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The US overthrowing another government in the Middle East that’s that’s keeping a cap on religious extremists(for example fighting ISIS)? Yes pretty unpopular.A scary thing. Few people are complaining about the US bombing the hell out of ISIS. Hell plenty of support of even keeping troops in Syria to combat IS. But fighting ISIS is not something Gabbard has come out against. Hell she cites Assad’s opposition to the group as reason for why he shouldn’t(like Gaddafi and Saddam), be ousted by the US.

The Syrian government fighting ISIS? Buddy, you are quite misinformed. The Syrian government and the Russians were quite happy to ignore ISIS entirely for years on end so ISIS and the rebels would fight each other. Assad and company only ever focused their efforts on non-ISIS rebels. It was left to the Kurds, Iraqis, the US (mostly air power) and a few rebel groups to fight ISIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 11:38 AM, larrytheimp said:

You're cherry picking the most sensational part (Duke/Harris), and he didn't even say Duke = Harris.  Probably a stretch but the rest of that post isn't so unreasonable.

It's not?  Let's review:

On 2/15/2019 at 9:38 AM, Bonnot OG said:

The issue with Harris is she has shown zero ability to admit she fucked up or held horrible positions. She goes and brags about smoking weed while also locking people up for such.

She didn't "brag about smoking weed," she was asked if she ever had and she didn't lie.  Also, blaming her specifically for "locking up" weed smokers based on the laws at the time makes absolutely no sense.  This is an objectively unreasonable complaint.

On 2/15/2019 at 9:38 AM, Bonnot OG said:

Justifies slave labor in prisons and has no issues with overpopulating them because she felt the labor their provided was valuable to the state.

What he's referring to here actually is a reasonable and valid complaint.  It's the AG's office backing the use of cheap labor and horrible rationale for keeping non-violent offenders incarcerated.  She's apologized for this, and was not personally a part of that effort.  To hyperbolize this into "justifying slave labor" is, again, undoubtedly unreasonable.

On 2/15/2019 at 9:38 AM, Bonnot OG said:

Let's also talk about how she's put sex workers at risk with that anti sex trafficking bill thanks to it being highly flawed.

This complaint is based on this:

Quote

Last year, Harris, the former Attorney General of California, helped champion the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), a piece of legislation sex workers and advocacy groups warned would have a disastrous impact on sex workers’ lives—and they were right. FOSTA passed in April 2018 with Harris’s support, and she released a statement touting how proud she was to have helped move this bill through Congress, saying she has “witnessed firsthand the difficulty of charging sex trafficking sites—even for crimes as egregious as pimping minors.”

Harris and other FOSTA supporters claimed its passage would allow authorities to shut down websites like Backpage.com—an escort advertising site that was an alleged hotbed for trafficking activity. It was also a primary source of income for many independent sex workers. Backpage and other advertising sites allowed sex workers to be financially independent and find and screen work for themselves, off the streets and away from actual traffickers or abusive “managers” and pimps.

But five days before President Trump even signed FOSTA into law, the FBI seized Backpage, proving that law enforcement never needed the bill to shut it down in the first place. But FOSTA became law anyway, and has hurt sex workers. Sex workers remember Harris’s support of FOSTA, and her prosecutorial past as Attorney General of California.

Ok, so she tried to pass a bill on sex trafficking in the US Senate and it wasn't perfect.  I'm shocked.  While complaining about this bill is not unreasonable, posing as if she was attacking sex workers - or even that this was an "anti sex trafficking bill" is, because it blatantly ignores reality.

On 2/15/2019 at 9:38 AM, Bonnot OG said:

Oh, and she's a transphobic individual as well.

This does have reasonable basis:

Quote

Kamala Harris says that she takes “full responsibility” for writing legal briefs opposing multiple incarcerated trans women’s court-ordered surgeries when she was the attorney general of California.

In a news conference hosted at Howard University — Harris’ first since announcing her intention to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 — Washington Blade reporter Chris Johnson asked Harris how she would address concerns about seeking to deny surgery for trans prisoners. While defending her actions as a matter of obligation, Harris suggested that she privately disagreed with what her office required of her and said that she takes “full responsibility” for the legal briefs in question.

I don't think that makes her transphobic, but I understand if others feel differently.

 

To conclude, yeah, the rest of his post IS so unreasonable, excepting one sentence. @Tywin et al. wasn't cherrypicking.  Et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 last night (free if you have Amazon Prime!), and like many of Moore's films, it's a lot of fun. I know he gets dodgy with the facts sometimes, but some of the things he brings up are a bit concerning. I take it as a kind of warning tale on how the Democratic Party should stop doing business in the primaries.

Moore claimed Bernie won all of West Virginia, for example, but the super delegates there, despite the people voting for Bernie, gave the state to Hillary. Here's an article that goes into more detail:

However you feel about Moore, he's an interesting person who kind of has his finger to the pulse of Americans. Most people thought Trump had no shot against Hillary, but Moore was loudly decrying this up to the election. He said people were really misreading the signs of people from places like Flint, Michigan. Most people kind of laughed him off. He has a reputation for being a sensationalist, and all his warnings were silly.

Within the film, Moore compares Trump to Hitler, which isn't new, but Moore really evaluates the similarities in the two men's rise to power. Moore claims that Trump will seize long term Presidential power, that the protections of our government won't stop him (if we don't act soon), and he'll start by declaring a national emergency. Now Moore's national emergency seemed more in line with a terrorist attack or something that would cause people to be afraid, but Trump's "emergency at the border" seems wildly prescient for Moore. He notes how the new emergency broadcast system implemented by Trump to go to all cell phones is another small indicator of how Trump will create fear within Americans.

Right now, the border "emergency" seems so clearly a false narrative, but I can't rely on what seems logical any longer. Trump's support dropped a ton during the shutdown, but those same "independent" voters seem to have come back to him since the shutdown ended, giving him their support once again.

If Dems were to push their person again (I know, I know, the superdelegates have been stripped of power, but other issues plagued the primaries), I really think we're in trouble.

Is Joe Biden their guy? Is he the one that gets the push? He could be a disaster, and is definitely a MeToo waiting to happen. That's really troubling seeing the images in that article. 

Kamala Harris has a history of being harsh on working class people, single moms, etc. from her prosecutor days.

Beto gets big money from big corporations.

I worry about these things as these could be just as hamstringing to the democratic nominee as Warren's Native American "controversy" or Bernie's...whatever people hate about him. 
 

The issues seems to really show a growing divide in the party. Will progressive democrats get out and vote for Beto if he's the guy? Will moderate dems get out and vote for Bernie? I'd say there could be big issues with both those examples. If MeToo allegations come out against Biden, will he forced to withdraw (after he's theoretically won the nomination)? What would happen in that case and could Dems recover in time for the Presidential election?

I think someone like Warren perhaps could get both sides though. I don't think her Native American controversy is enough to get the voters we need riled up. We won't gain Republican votes, probably, but we never would have anyway.

The problem with Warren is if a third party candidate runs, like the Starbucks guy (don't even know his name), and strips away crucial moderate votes.

I have a lot of fear going forward, but I know, I'm listening more closely to Michael Moore this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Ok, so she tried to pass a bill on sex trafficking in the US Senate and it wasn't perfect.  I'm shocked.  While complaining about this bill is not unreasonable, posing as if she was attacking sex workers - or even that this was an "anti sex trafficking bill" is, because it blatantly ignores reality.

It wasn’t just not perfect. The bill was utterly absurd  and directly harmful to many sex-workers who relied on sites like BP to earn a living. There was no good that could reasonably be expected from the bill. And she clearly says she thinks this bill will clamp down on sex-trafficking. 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

She didn't "brag about smoking weed," she was asked if she ever had and she didn't lie.  Also, blaming her specifically for "locking up" weed smokers based on the laws at the time makes absolutely no sense.  This is an objectively unreasonable complaint.

Agreed. I put this objection in line with complaining that Hillary once represented a man accused of rape, as a defense Attorney, yeah she is expected to do that sometimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Bernie's...whatever people hate about him. 

Giving an economic excuse towards racism, and supporting a very  pro-life mayoral candidate who would crackdown on woman’s reproductive rights I’ve reasonable complaints against the man. He also didn’t modify his rhetoric when speaking to non-white working class people to address problems unique to them

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Moore claimed Bernie won all of West Virginia, for example, but the super delegates there, despite the people voting for Bernie, gave the state to Hillary. Here's an article that goes into more detail:

The rabid misunderstanding of superdelegates is something I've had to pause and address in many lectures.  Suppose might as well do it here too.  Superdelegates are insanely misunderstood by the general public.  Even wikipedia, which usually is good about these things, mischaracterizes its founding.  The idea gained steam after McGovern got his ass kicked in 1972.  This was during a time when Dems had experienced MLK and RFK being assassinated, the 68 DNC protests, and were undergoing Watergate.  All after Democratic dominance for the past 40 years sans Ike being president for two terms before Nixon won.  That's a really damn important context.

But superdelegates still didn't actually get implemented until 1984.  What was the result?  It was the second time in 12 years, or 4 election cycles, that the Dems got their ass handed to them to the toon of 49 states.  To contextualize:

Quote

These superdelegates would consist of party leaders and elected Democrats who would come to the 1984 convention untethered to any candidate. Party leaders believed that these superdelegates, perceived as more moderate and more politically seasoned than pledged delegates, would provide a counterweight to more "insurgent" forces.

The first year that superdelegates were used, in 1984, they helped Walter Mondale secure the nomination on the first convention ballot, over Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. But this moderating force did not have the overall effect Democratic leadership had envisioned; Mondale went on to lose 49 out of 50 states to incumbent President Ronald Reagan.

So, between 1984 and 2016 we had "superdelegates" as a protection against any "radical" nominee.  Has this attempted check ever been used to any effect?  NO!  Which is why it's ridiculous to bitch about it in the first place.  If you want to bitch about something or somebody, bitch about "superdelegate" numbers being counted by the media.  Those aren't pledged delegates and have nothing to do with the actual count.  The media never should have reported that bullshit.  It pissed me off in 2008 and still annoyed me in 2016, even though it didn't matter then.  

If anything, those counts are endorsements.  You wanna count endorsements?  Fine.  But describe them accurately.  Anyway, even the potential power of superdelegates that they never, ever used has been stripped away for 2020.  Hopefully we can all stop talking about this non-issue that apparently a lot of people - even otherwise supposedly educated people - fundamentally misunderstand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It wasn’t just not perfect. The bill was utterly absurd  and directly harmful to many sex-workers who relied on sites like BP to earn a living. There was no good that could reasonably be expected from the bill. And she clearly says she thinks this bill will clamp down on sex-trafficking. 

The bill was aimed at shutting down sites for sex workers.  That's a bad thing?  If you want to legalize prostitution, I'm not going to object.  But if we're not, trying to regulate those sites is exactly the type of public safety concern I think legislators should be interested in targeting and trying to limit sex trafficking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DMC said:

The bill was aimed at shutting down sites for sex workers.  That's a bad thing? 

Already vulnerable people having things that are crucial for them to make a living stripped away from them, and dramatically limits their ability to do their craft safely is a bad thing?  Yes.

50 minutes ago, DMC said:

If you want to legalize prostitution, I'm not going to object.  But if we're not, trying to regulate those sites is exactly the type of public safety concern

This makes no sense. You won’t object to prostitution being legal, but so long as it is these sites are a public safety concern why? These sites aren’t anymore dangerous to the public by virtue of prostitution being illegal than  it would be illegal.  And honestly 

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think legislators should be interested in targeting and trying to limit sex trafficking.

And I think legislators should be concerned about making sure kids are getting a proper education. Doesn’t mean I’d jail parents for their children missing too much school like Harris. Having stated benign mission doesn’t mean whatever you do in pursuit of that goal is justified. I think legislators do need target and limit sex-trafficking. Through productive ways that don’t violate people’s  rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Giving an economic excuse towards racism, and supporting a very  pro-life mayoral candidate who would crackdown on woman’s reproductive rights I’ve reasonable complaints against the man. He also didn’t modify his rhetoric when speaking to non-white working class people to address problems unique to them

Here's a good article on the issue of Bernie supporting racism (it's not true, if anything you could argue he has a blindspot and thinks that by solving issues of class, this too will fix issues of race--a very traditional Marxist take. I think this is one of the most legitimate criticisms of Marxism). 

As for supporting bad people, yeah, I don't like it either. But we could go through other candidates (like Hillary and how she shielded a man in her campaign from sexual misconduct allegations) and show these issues are true everywhere. For Bernie, he did some moral gymnastics to explain why this was an okay thing to do (you need democrats in office to protect abortion rights), but I am dissatisfied with this reasoning too. I'm sure Mello's constituents, I think his support for regulating abortion rights has more to do with his electability in that area, but nonetheless, he does not support women's rights.

I think that if you run someone is who pure in their political philosophy like AOC, she wouldn't win in Omaha. She wouldn't win in a lot of places, but she'd stick to her guns. When you get to the presidential level, these people begin making concessions against their values. What will come out about Warren (who is my choice)? Her Republican roots are already being dug up, and I'm sure she'll have connections to things I find abhorrent. I don't know what to do about this though.

But, I will say, the argument that Bernie supports racism in some way doesn't resonate with me. To him, the working class is the working class--he isn't arguing for the traditionally white working class. Bernie was the only candidate I've ever heard speak out about police brutality and come firmly down on the issue that modern police are really a problem.

It is interesting that Sanders is so associated with whiteness. The article I linked talks about that, but it's an image he will nonetheless carry and be unable to shake. I think he'd be great for the country, but I do not know if he'd win. I think moderate Dems are still angry with him for so many various reasons, that they would vote third party if he got the nomination. 

Kamala Harris is someone you can demonstrate as hurting people of color. This prosecutorial past of hers really worries me, but I think the partnership between prosecutors and the police is a particularly important (and scary) issue that needs dealt with. I may never vote for a former prosecutor (unless it was a prosecutor vs. Trump). 

I don't see how democrats reconcile these issues. I've been a member of the party since 2005, and I'm now viewed as a Bernie Bro outsider who is hijacking the party. These in-fights will continue to fester at the worst possible time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Already vulnerable people having things that are crucial for them to make a living stripped away from them, and dramatically limits their ability to do their craft safely is a bad thing?  Yes.

Stripped away?  Major eyeroll there.  Not to mention "dramatically limits."  This is just hyperbole, at best.

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This makes no sense. You won’t object to prostitution being legal, but so long as it is these sites are a public safety concern why?

Because of sex trafficking.  Which was the point of the sex trafficking bill.

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And I think legislators should be concerned about making sure kids are getting a proper education. Doesn’t mean I’d jail parents for their children missing too much school like Harris.

Why not?  That actually seemed to work pretty well, and she didn't actually jail anybody.  The theoretical objection to that idea is again overridden by the practical application.  Is it philosophically right to threaten parents for their kids' truancy?  Probably not.  But if it gets results, and doesn't actually imprison anybody, I don't care.  And don't tell me it "put more stress" on certain parents.  Any parent that both had a kid with truancy problems and was worried about that law had about two dozen avenues to fix it.

7 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

No you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW - the bill in question passed the House 388-25 and the Senate 97-2. Every single MC that is running for president - Booker, Castro, Gabbard, Gillibrand, or Warren - voted for it.  If anyone tries to make this an issue with Harris they are entirely full of shit.

Edited by DMC
25 not 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

Stripped away?  Major eyeroll there.  Not to mention "dramatically limits."  This is just hyperbole, at best

Yeah, no. Having one ad on one of these sites means that sex-workers won’t have to walk out in the public’s rundown areas(putting them at more risk for being assaulted) and hopefully catch a Jon willing to pay them. It’s way harder to advertise yourself on the street  and having to continually move to avoid the police, than it is for just posting an ad online . So yeah I would it stripped away   something that was crucial for sex-workers’ to make a living. And Sex-workers can largely use these sites to screen clients. Contact other escorts who can vouch for a potential client or warn them of the potential risks of meeting said client. A escort may find  this guy“tried to rob me and kill meyou probably shouldn’t meet him”. ” to be something another escort has said. That was possible because of those sites. A major benefit. One that without yes. dramaticlly limits the ability for sex-workers do their craft safely. If you disagree that the existence of these sites didn’t do a lot to help sex-workers earn money, or conduct their business safer, please actually make a case. Please, let me know why an escort not being able to contact another escort to verify if a potential client isn’t a violent out of control psychopath  isn’t a particularly useful thing for them to be able to be safe.

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Why not?  That actually seemed to work pretty well, and she didn't actually jail anybody.  The theoretical objection to that idea is again overridden by the practical application.  Is it philosophically right to threaten parents for their kids' truancy?  Probably not.  But if it gets results, and doesn't actually imprison anybody, I don't care.  And don't tell me it "put more stress" on certain parents.  Any parent that both had a kid with truancy problems and was worried about that law had about two dozen avenues to fix it.

The evidence of it having any positive affect is murky at best and it’s existence almost guarantees its use at some point. And It doesn’t actually address the reason for the absent in it of itself.  Kids, who are bullied, disabled, and don’t feel safe are the most apt to actually skip school, the poor more likely to be late. Honestly, I expect such instances of harshness are going it very hard for people of color to actually get behind her. And Harris herself  didn’t jail anyone pursuant to the law she pushed, a woman was indeed jailed and died in custody over it. There are other less draconian, and certainly less risky ways to improve this issue. 

But, to be clear me bringing Harris’ truancy record was mainly to illustrate the absurdity of excusing banning escort sites as fine so long as the stated goal is combating human trafficking.

Benigh stated intent doesn’t justify everything done for your goal of reaching. 

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Because of sex trafficking.  Which was the point of the sex trafficking bill.

 This doesn’t answer the question. These sites would be “public safety concern”regardless of whether or not prostitution is legal if they are. The illegality of the profession does not mean anything to whether or not promoting it online becomes a health risk. And honestly, no, these bills did not probably anything to curb it. Sex-traffickers still have custody of their victims. Now they wouldn’t fall into the trap of posting ads on public platforms that literally anyone could see and could be easily monitored by law-enforcement. And it really must be noted such bills create a slippery slope. It’s precedent for platforms  being legally liable able for the inappropriate  postings on them that come from third parties. 

2 hours ago, DMC said:

No you can't

Yes you can. Her tough on crimes stances are counterproductive and did hurt minorties  as “tough on crime” stances from those in power in the justice system  often tend do. I find it likely she’ll have a hard time resonating with communities of color as more and more people come to be aware of how she’s often  been on criminal Justice. 

45 minutes ago, DMC said:

BTW - the bill in question passed the House 388-25 and the Senate 97-2. Every single MC that is running for president - Booker, Castro, Gabbard, Gillibrand, or Warren - voted for it.  If anyone tries to make this an issue with Harris they are entirely full of shit.

And they deserve criticism for it as well. Harris is not excused however by virtue of the majority going along with the bill she championed.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah, no. Having one ad on one of these sites means that sex-workers won’t have to walk out in public’s rundown areas(putting them at more risk for being assaulted) and hopefully catch a Jon willing to pay them. It’s way harder to advertise yourself on the street  and having to continually move to avoid the police, than it is for just posting an ad online . So yeah I would it stripped away sex-workers’ ability to make a living.

This is not reasoning for why it "stripped away" the sex workers' opportunities.  If a sex worker actually has that much independence, then they can market somewhere else.  In the overwhelming likelihood they do not, it helps to target those that are victimizing them.

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And Sex-workers can largely use these sites to screen clients. Contact other escorts who can vouch for a potential client or warn them of the potential risks of meeting said. Risks such as well this guy “tried to rob me and kill me, you probably shouldn’t meet him”. That was possible because of those sites. A major benefit. One that without yes. dramaticlly limits the ability for sex-workers do their craft safely.

This is incredibly detailed, and specific.  I do not have the personal experience you apparently are advocating for.  However, I also do not understand how using different illegal means will mean they can't screen clients, or be able to have cohorts vouch for johns, or anything else you said.  It does not make sense that getting them off some websites will result in this.

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If you disagree that the existence of these sites didn’t do a lot to help sex-workers earn money, or conduct their business safer, please actually make a case.

No, YOU make a case.  How did they make them safer?  There are shitloads of arguments, studies, etcetera that say otherwise.  You saying it makes them safer is against the common wisdom.  Certainly doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but the burden is on you.

14 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The evidence of it having any positive affect is murky at best and it’s existence almost guarantees its use at some point.

Except..it never was used.  So we can throw that one out the window.

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And It doesn’t actually address the reason for the absent in it of itself.

..Uh, who said it did?

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Honestly, I expect such instances of harshness are going it very hard for people of color to actually get behind her.

How is that an instance of "harshness."  Because she was trying to get kids to go to school?

20 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And Harris herself  didn’t jail anyone pursuant to the law she pushed, a woman was indeed jailed and died in custody over it.

Please cite.

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But, to be clear me bringing Harris’ truancy record was mainly to illustrate the absurdity of excusing banning escort sites as fine so long as the stated goal is combating human trafficking.

It doesn't illustrate anything.  If that was your effort you failed.

22 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

These sites would be “public safety concern”regardless of whether or not prostitution is legal. Sex-trafficking on these sites wouldn’t totally completey end of prostitution being legal. Why are they public safety concern only when prostitution is illegal?

Uh, they aren't.  They are a concern regardless.  They also are a concern for a whole lot of other crimes.  That's why they're a public safety concern.  This approach makes no sense.  Basically arguing X wouldn't end if Y was legal.  Sure, even if I agreed Y should be legal, that doesn't mean I still wouldn't be opposed to X.  Does that make sense?  Probably not, but I'm done explaining basics.  This is why I laugh when anyone suggests I teach high school.

28 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And honestly, no, these bills did not probably anything to curb it. Sex-traffickers still have custody of their victims. Now they wouldn’t fall into the trap of posting ads on public platforms that literally anyone could see and could be easily monitored by law-enforcement.

My god the bill didn't lead to an end in prostitution.  We need to alert all the presses!  As for whether it curbed it or not, I don't know.  Do you?  Because it doesn't sound like you really have any idea.

30 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And it really must be noted such bills create a slippery slope. It’s precedent for platforms  being legally liable able for the postings on them that come from third parties. 

I don't even know what this means.  It's precedent for what now?

31 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Her tough on crimes stances are counterproductive and did hurt minorties  as “tough on crime” stances from those in power in the justice system  often tend do.

No, they didn't.  What "tough on crime" stances, exactly, "hurt" minorities?  With in mind that as a DA and AG she only had limited ability to change anything, particularly as a black woman with political ambitions.  I'll wait.

34 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I find it likely she’ll have a hard time resonating with communities of color as more and more people come to be aware of how she’s been on criminal Justice. 

Heh.  I find it way more than likely you're totally and hilariously wrong.  That's fun.

35 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And they deserve criticism for it as well. Harris is not excused however by virtue of the majority going along with too.

So then who are you gonna vote for?  Jill Stein again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×