Kamala Harris' Prosecutors Sent This Innocent Man to Prison for Murder. Now He's Talking

yaxomoxay said:
honestly I had enough of political families, especially if they aim for the highest office in the land. I see many Trump lovers cheering for Don Jr saying that they want him to run in 2024.No, I don’t want that. I don’t want another bush, another clinton, another Obama, another Kennedy,etc.
Click to expand...
I agree this strategy does not always pay off by a long shot, but the idea is that we struck gold once, maybe we’ll get more of the same. Don Jr does not stand a chance in Holy Hell, the nut does not fall far from the tree. If Chelsey Clinton decided to run for office, I would have initial positive feelings because I know of her roots, but I would still have to listen to and judge her for her ideas.
 
Last edited:
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Do you support a Wall St controlled meritocracy?
Click to expand...

In my mid-late teens or early twenties, I'd probably have been a passionate Bernie supporter, that is, until I realised (as I did with the serious left crowd I used to hang out with in my late teens and early twenties) that their equivalent of the Bernie Bros had little room for a Bernie Sis, unless it was the left's version of patronising sexist stuff which ran more or less as follows: "You make the dinner and the babies, while I make the revolution."

So, my views on Wall St would have been pretty predictable.

Now, I differed from the really wildly insane left in my marked (middle class) preference for taxing capitalists, rather than over-throwing them, but I will admit that I did share the anarchist's & the arsonist's visceral thrill in the destructive delights of revolution, (safe in the sort of secure and loved middle class background where such things were surpassingly unlikely to ever happen in real life, as I came to realise, belatedly) and nursed a somewhat silly romantic soft spot for revolutions.

In those days, I viewed the word "compromise" as an outright insult, (rather than a very necessary political skill) and its near kin, flexibility, and negotiation, as noisome relatives of selling-out.

This is the heady purity of a stance that permits of no compromise, safe in the promise of salvation afforded the Righteous (whatever about attempting to arrive at a modus vivendi, in government or a legislature in order to get some of your programme enacted) where Being Right its more important than Being in Government, and a refusal to compromise is fiercely attractive (especially when you are young), and far easier than actually ever accepting that some political or socio-economic change comes at the cost of arriving at the necessary compromises - working out what is feasible for all sides - so that you actually achieve something in your legislative platform or programme (the old campaigning in poetry and governing in boring old prose again..), rather than wailing about how wrong (and imperfect) the world is.

But, I'm not in my twenties anymore, and dwelling in that left wing world was awfully reminiscent of Monty Python's Life of Brian - I've attended real life meetings like that, where our equivalent of the People's Front of Judea battled endlessly and fruitlessly with the Judean People's Front.

However, Wall St is an American problem, and I am a European and a fervent fan of the capacity of the EU to regulate in our interest (some of the time).

And, I still vote left (social democrat) - well, what would be called in Europe, boring old fashioned centre left, and am rather keen on the principle of state regulation of elements of the financial market and the labour market and the provision of some public goods (such as - at the very least - health, housing, education) that the private sector cannot deliver to the necessary standard or with the necessary reach.

Besides, I prefer a stable Wall St to one that is not stable.

Nevertheless, I do have a strongly marked preference for a robustly regulated Wall St - if memory serves, Roosevelt put some manners on it in the 1930s.

However, to me, the main priority is to remove that coarse, cruel, corrupt and viciously incompetent creature from office, and then, hold his successors to account.

Where the US is concerned, I do not seek perfection, - and I admit to liking Mr Carter probably more than any of his Democrat successors - yet it never ceases to amaze me that so many on these threads (and the threads of The Other Place) do demand perfection, philosophical consistency, and a pristine moral compass, especially when holding Democrats to account (and they should be held to account), but blithely, casually, and cheerfully forgive, ignore, or overlook what are clearly far worse transgressions when Republicans (especially, the Republican Party under the egregious Mr Trump) are in office.

As for the death penalty: I'm of the view that it is an absolute and utter disgrace - legally, morally, ethically - that such a thing is still on the statute books in the United States, and that people are put to death in accordance with it.
 
Last edited:
Scepticalscribe said:
In those days, I viewed the word "compromise" as an outright insult, (rather than a very necessary political skill) and its near kin, flexibility, and negotiation, as noisome relatives of selling-out.

The heady purity of a stance that permits of no compromise, safe in the promise of salvation afforded the Righteous (whatever about attempting to arrive at a modus vivendi, in government or a legislature in order to get some of your programme enacted) where Being Right is far more fiercely attractive (especially when you are young) than actually ever accepting that some change comes at the cost of arriving at the necessary compromises - what is feasible - so that you actually achieve something in your legislative platform or programme (the old campaigning in poetry and governing in boring old prose again..), rather than wailing about how wrong (and imperfect) the world is.
Click to expand...

Ah, the sweet discovery of Realpolitik! :love: Same here, I used to be way more idealist in nature. I also discovered that sensible, meaningful compromise is way more difficult than being idealistic.

Good post, very interesting reading.
 
jkcerda said:
HEY it's not MY fault you guys end up voting/endorsing the apparently the OPPOSITE of what you guys seem to stand for.
Click to expand...

You need to realize that "The Left" isn't really all that left. If you hang out in conservative circles enough, it's easy to come to believe that Democrats are a bunch of Limousine Liberal Bolsheviks pushing for a new October Revolution, but in Actual Reality, the party is fairly right of center. Sanders is the farthest left the Democrats go, and he's no more a communist than Roosevelt or Eisenhower. The majority of the party is far more moderate, having more in common with 70's and 80's Republicans than anything.

This is why Biden ended up becoming their presidential candidate, with Harris as his running mate. They hold the most appeal to the moderates, though sport just enough cred to begrudgingly appeal to the more progressive wings of the party.
 
yaxomoxay said:
Ah, the sweet discovery of Realpolitik! :love: Same here, I used to be way more idealist in nature. I also discovered that sensible, meaningful compromise is way more difficult than being idealistic.

Good post, very interesting reading.
Click to expand...

Exactly, - and very well said.

Actually, I have come to develop a profound respect and admiration for the sort of serious - and often, consummate - skill that allows for arriving at an agreement that can be sold as having something worthwhile for all sides or parties to the agreement - the proverbial "win/win" (in some areas, that is, because you cannot expect to be able to win in all areas, even if you have a majority, as some acquiescence from the other side will usually be needed for it to stick - which is why humiliation of your interlocutors, is unwise and unnecessary as well as uncouth), which is really about determining how much of a limited "win" you can sell to your own side, while ensuring the other also have something to bring from the table to sell to their own legislature, supporters, electorate.

Such agreements - or, rather, how one arrives at such agreements is rarely pretty, (think of those all night EU negotiating sessions), but I'll take effective over pretty - as this is often how progress is arrived at, or positive change effected. Everyone has to be convinced - to some extent - that this outcome may be in their interest.
 
Last edited:
Renzatic said:
You need to realize that "The Left" isn't really all that left. If you hang out in conservative circles enough, it's easy to come to believe that Democrats are a bunch of Limousine Liberal Bolsheviks pushing for a new October Revolution, but in Actual Reality, the party is fairly right of center. Sanders is the farthest left the Democrats go, and he's no more a communist than Roosevelt or Eisenhower. The majority of the party is far more moderate, having more in common with 70's and 80's Republicans than anything.

This is why Biden ended up becoming their presidential candidate, with Harris as his running mate. They hold the most appeal to the moderates, though sport just enough cred to begrudgingly appeal to the more progressive wings of the party.
Click to expand...
wonder how that "compromise" will work out with the current seemingly all or nothing clowns we keep seeing on TV. where is #metoo here? are they supporting Biden ? do they still believe all women? or do the ends justify the means?
 
yaxomoxay said:
(for the record, I am pointing to his friendship with Epstein, not the massage in itself which was innocent).
Click to expand...

I believe we're all going to be disappointed, given how we're all waiting with bated breath to see which president gets bagged in the Epstein scandal.

Were either Clinton or Trump about to be accused of raping underaged girls, we would've heard something about it by now. Considering the evidence we have seen, it's looking like both were closer friends with Epstein than they'd care to admit to, likely knew of his after hours activities, and didn't do anything anything to stop it, but weren't directly involved themselves.

If there's one thing I've learned watching Clinton and Trump come under fire through multiple investigations, it's that the evidence presented against our elected officials is rarely ever as damning as you'd hope, though never as exonerating as you'd like.
 
yaxomoxay said:
Maybe tonight Bill Clinton will clarify MeToo’s position. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ving-neck-massage-Jeffrey-Epstein-victim.html

(for the record, I am pointing to his friendship with Epstein, not the massage in itself which was innocent).
Click to expand...
exactly, Clinton has been parading as a beacon for the left making speeches and the guy has had a ton of accusers . HOW the hell can democrats have him & Biden/Harris "represent" them when most of their base has been against police abuse and the abuse of women?
 
Renzatic said:
I believe we're all going to be disappointed, given how we're all waiting with bated breath to see which president gets bagged in the Epstein scandal.

Were either Clinton or Trump about to be accused of raping underaged girls, we would've heard something about it by now. Considering the evidence we have seen, it's looking like both were closer friends with Epstein than they'd care to admit to, likely knew of his after hours activities, and didn't do anything anything to stop it, but weren't directly involved themselves.

If there's one thing I've learned watching Clinton and Trump come under fire through multiple investigations, it's that the evidence presented against our elected officials is rarely ever as damning as you'd hope, though never as exonerating as you'd like.
Click to expand...
BLASPHEMY, we all know the OTHER guy is guilty as fuck............. (other guy subject to change depending on what party you support).
 
jkcerda said:
HEY it's not MY fault you guys end up voting/endorsing the apparently the OPPOSITE of what you guys seem to stand for.
Click to expand...

I'm in no way supporting this, but I don't think there's any prosecutor alive with Harris' credentials to which a similar accusation can't be made.

But how does this look when juxtaposed with Trump's full-page ad calling for the death of five innocent men of color, and his refusal to apologize all these years later?

It's a valid criticism of Harris; that's perfectly fair. But its not as if that's her schtick.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
I was asking the OP because that’s pretty much what you would be supporting under Clinton, along with war. I’d say the same under Biden but we have more immediate problems we need to fix first before they go back to that.
Click to expand...
Ultimately there is still a choice, a half full glass or one filled with poison.
 
jkcerda said:
HEY it's not MY fault you guys end up voting/endorsing the apparently the OPPOSITE of what you guys seem to stand for.
Click to expand...

Trump does 1000 things wrong. His bootlicking supporters don’t notice any of them. Biden jaywalks. BIDEN IS EVIL LAWBREKAER@QQ@@!!!W!W@. BURN DOWN DELAAWARE!!!!!
 
Back
Top