As President Joe Biden faces a growing drumbeat of pressure to drop his reelection bid, most Democrats think his vice president would make a good president herself.
A new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 6 in 10 Democrats believe Kamala Harris would do a good job in the top slot. About 2 in 10 Democrats don’t believe she would, and another 2 in 10 say they don’t know enough to say.
The undecided can be convinced during the campaign.
But I doubt I’ll start thinking Kamala would be a good president…
I do think that she’ll be able to beat Trump in the election at least. Which is better than Joe.
Exactly. I’m pretty sure she’s a psychopath with a bunch of ties to some horrible people, but it beats the other psychopath who has a bunch of ties to horrible people that specifically want to kill me for the variety of ways in which I am not a suitable barefoot and pregnant housewife. Also she’s not aggressively geriatric with a stiff gait and a vacant stare and could just be completely bodied by catching a common cold.
What has she done to make you feel she is a psychopath?
psychopath
/sī′kə-păth″/
noun
A person who engages repeatedly in criminal and antisocial behavior without remorse or empathy for those victimized.
A person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, heedlessness, arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual promiscuity, low self-control, disregard for morality, lack of acceptance of responsibility, callousness, and lack of empathy and remorse. Such an individual may be especially prone to violent and criminal offenses.
A person diagnosed with antisocial or dissocial personality disorder.
I don’t know the thoughts of the other user and idk if this makes her a psychopath, but she did oversee an effort to deny prisoners parole just to keep them in California’s prisoner firefighter program to combat wildfires.
The program itself is fairly repugnant to begin with, as the prisoners don’t really have a choice in the matter, it’s tantamount to slavery, and her trying to keep people locked up to bolster it is vile. While California needed more firefighters to combat their wild fire issues, I don’t think slavery is the right solution.
Does that make her a psychopath? I’m not sure. Our definition of anti-social behavior is fairly restricted to what is legal and what isn’t and what she did was legal. But it damn sure is without empathy or remorse and, in a just world, promoting slavery would be considered antisocial behavior, in my humble opinion.
promoting slavery would be considered antisocial behaviour
Slavery as a punishment for crime is legal as per the american constitution. Which absolutely vile, but america refuses to change their bit of paper.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Is that what sentencing typically involves, terms of slavery? I.e you are to serve X years at Y penitentiary? Does it need to be more specific or is that good enough for Y to “loan” out to do whatever?
I’m just wondering if, during sentencing, slavery is already being part of the punishment, or of it has to be tacked on separately or explicitly. I.e are convicts being sentenced to slavery, explicitly, or do they have a choice in any of the slavery stuff? I’m asking about what is actually happening today.
So you don’t have to wait 40 minutes again, I googled:
Kamala firefighter prison
And got a whole bunch of results…
The intransigence of this legal work resulted in the presiding judges in the case giving serious consideration to holding the state in contempt of court. Observers worried that the behavior of Harris’s office had undermined the very ability of federal judges to enforce their legal orders at the state level, pushing the federal court system to the brink of a constitutional crisis. This extreme resistance to a Supreme Court ruling was done to prevent the release of fewer than 5,000 nonviolent offenders, whom multiple courts had cleared as presenting next to no risk of recidivism or threat to public safety.
Despite a straightforward directive from the Supreme Court to identify prisoners for release over a two-year period, upholding a 2009 ruling that mandated the same action over the same timeline, the state spent the majority of that period seesawing back and forth between dubious legal filings and flagrant disregard. By early 2013, it became clear that the state had no intention to comply, leading to a series of surprisingly combative exchanges.
That article says Harris was acting on behalf of Govenor Jerry Brown as defense attorney. So just like OJ Simpson’s lawyers had to defend him because that’s their job regardless of their feelings. Lawyers can’t make decisions for their clients. They just argue on their behalf in court.
The call to relocate the overpopulated prisoners to the firecamps was not made by Harris but other lawyers that worked in the same office. They only suggested it as a temporary solution after the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept their solution to build another prison to address the overpopulation.
The Supreme Court suggested Govenor Jerry Brown release nonviolent prisoners to address the overpopulation. To be clear, this includes sex offenders, white collar criminals and arsonists just to name a few “non-violent” crimes.
Any decisions Harris made in this role were her job as a lawyer defending the previous attorney general’s decisions Govenor Jerry Brown. At least that’s what the article says. I can’t verify any of the claims because I don’t see any citations for them. But maybe that’s because I read it on mobile.
Attorney generals represent the state and state agencies in federal court. In this example Jerry Brown was the govenor and Harris was representing him in federal court because that is the job of an attorney general.
You can’t just say “source?” at me like I’m some kind of search engine. We are two people having a conversation. Why not look around yourself before barking a command at another human? Do you talk like this to people in real life? This isn’t reddit, this isn’t debate club, I’m not doing that shit here.
Look something up, find out how I misremembered details of an event from years ago. Tell me the nuance I’ve missed. Notice the true elements and mention how you find them disturbing, but it’s not as bad as my fallable brain recalled. Yanno, like how people talk? Jeez!
No. If you make a claim, you back it up or get disregarded. It’s that simple. This is how we prevent misinformation from being spread. Stop being indignant over being lazy/irresponsible.
Fair, politeness is definitely the way to go. I was more reacting to the apparent reluctance to actually provide a source to back up what they were saying after making some pretty serious allegations; it feels like with the times we live in, people ought to be more sensitive to the potential spread of misinformation. But you’re right, the replier certainly could have been nicer about it.
If that other user couldn’t infer what “Source?” meant in response to their comment, then I they’re an idiot. Saying it nice is more PC, but clarity was definitely not the issue.
I want to point out that psychopathy is a colloquial term, not a clinical one. The most popular set of criteria, the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, is not empirically reliable or valid. Its creator Robert Hare has made a lucrative career out of convincing the world (and the prison system) that psychopaths are Definitely Real. The PCL-R is used to justify harsher punishments and longer prison sentences, and it’s completely made up.
Honestly at this point I just assume by default that of all politicians at that level. They’re all basically evil its just a matter of sorting out which ones are evil in ways that will hurt me more or less.
Also psychopath isn’t a clinical or legal term in modern usage, which is the only situation in which the linguistic prescriptivism you’re advocating for makes sense.
One of the things that I think does go for her is that she’s been a part of a team that has actually done some amazing things, even with the Republican courts (SCOTUS and other) actively combatting them. How much of the development and running of that team has she been involved with? Maybe more than normal with a president halfway in the retirement home, but maybe not at all either. If her influence and proximity to the cabinet has done or taught her anything meaningful then we need more of that. He may be old, but he and his team have had a lot of wins.
The undecided can be convinced during the campaign.
What campaign? The election is in 3.5 months. Every day that Biden doesn’t step down is one less day for Harris to start ramping up her campaign efforts.
Also, please someone do a poll of the undecided who have strong feelings towards…
women
minorities
prosecutors
Although most may fall firmly in the Trump camp, I’m betting there are some undecided who think that women absolutely should not be president.
Not to mention waffling Republicans may be more incentivized to vote if the Democrat isn’t an old white dude.
The undecided can be convinced during the campaign.
But I doubt I’ll start thinking Kamala would be a good president…
I do think that she’ll be able to beat Trump in the election at least. Which is better than Joe.
Exactly. I’m pretty sure she’s a psychopath with a bunch of ties to some horrible people, but it beats the other psychopath who has a bunch of ties to horrible people that specifically want to kill me for the variety of ways in which I am not a suitable barefoot and pregnant housewife. Also she’s not aggressively geriatric with a stiff gait and a vacant stare and could just be completely bodied by catching a common cold.
What has she done to make you feel she is a psychopath?
psychopath
/sī′kə-păth″/
noun
I don’t know the thoughts of the other user and idk if this makes her a psychopath, but she did oversee an effort to deny prisoners parole just to keep them in California’s prisoner firefighter program to combat wildfires.
The program itself is fairly repugnant to begin with, as the prisoners don’t really have a choice in the matter, it’s tantamount to slavery, and her trying to keep people locked up to bolster it is vile. While California needed more firefighters to combat their wild fire issues, I don’t think slavery is the right solution.
Does that make her a psychopath? I’m not sure. Our definition of anti-social behavior is fairly restricted to what is legal and what isn’t and what she did was legal. But it damn sure is without empathy or remorse and, in a just world, promoting slavery would be considered antisocial behavior, in my humble opinion.
Slavery as a punishment for crime is legal as per the american constitution. Which absolutely vile, but america refuses to change their bit of paper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution?wprov=sfti1
Is that what sentencing typically involves, terms of slavery? I.e you are to serve X years at Y penitentiary? Does it need to be more specific or is that good enough for Y to “loan” out to do whatever?
I do not understand what you are asking?
Slavery as a punishment for a crime is enshrined in the constitution.
Thats all.
I’m just wondering if, during sentencing, slavery is already being part of the punishment, or of it has to be tacked on separately or explicitly. I.e are convicts being sentenced to slavery, explicitly, or do they have a choice in any of the slavery stuff? I’m asking about what is actually happening today.
No. They are sentenced to time in prison. Most work slave jobs at the prison for a pittance so they can buy some ramen noodles.
Source?
So you don’t have to wait 40 minutes again, I googled:
And got a whole bunch of results…
https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/
Especially with Lemmy being so much smaller, you really shouldn’t just wait for someone to do it for you. “Teach a man to fish” and all that.
That article says Harris was acting on behalf of Govenor Jerry Brown as defense attorney. So just like OJ Simpson’s lawyers had to defend him because that’s their job regardless of their feelings. Lawyers can’t make decisions for their clients. They just argue on their behalf in court.
The call to relocate the overpopulated prisoners to the firecamps was not made by Harris but other lawyers that worked in the same office. They only suggested it as a temporary solution after the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept their solution to build another prison to address the overpopulation.
The Supreme Court suggested Govenor Jerry Brown release nonviolent prisoners to address the overpopulation. To be clear, this includes sex offenders, white collar criminals and arsonists just to name a few “non-violent” crimes.
Any decisions Harris made in this role were her job as a lawyer defending the previous attorney general’s decisions Govenor Jerry Brown. At least that’s what the article says. I can’t verify any of the claims because I don’t see any citations for them. But maybe that’s because I read it on mobile.
AGs are elected in California. She wasn’t a Jerry Brown employee.
Attorney generals represent the state and state agencies in federal court. In this example Jerry Brown was the govenor and Harris was representing him in federal court because that is the job of an attorney general.
You can’t just say “source?” at me like I’m some kind of search engine. We are two people having a conversation. Why not look around yourself before barking a command at another human? Do you talk like this to people in real life? This isn’t reddit, this isn’t debate club, I’m not doing that shit here.
Look something up, find out how I misremembered details of an event from years ago. Tell me the nuance I’ve missed. Notice the true elements and mention how you find them disturbing, but it’s not as bad as my fallable brain recalled. Yanno, like how people talk? Jeez!
No. If you make a claim, you back it up or get disregarded. It’s that simple. This is how we prevent misinformation from being spread. Stop being indignant over being lazy/irresponsible.
I mean, there’s asking politely after specifying what you would like a source for…
Or you could reply to a paragraph of text with:
And hope the person both guesses what you’re asking for and puts the time in to Google something for you and provide the link.
Asking nicely is more likely to get the help you’re asking for.
Fair, politeness is definitely the way to go. I was more reacting to the apparent reluctance to actually provide a source to back up what they were saying after making some pretty serious allegations; it feels like with the times we live in, people ought to be more sensitive to the potential spread of misinformation. But you’re right, the replier certainly could have been nicer about it.
Fair point. I’m all for sources and requesting sources, but doing it in a polite manner is valuable to the overall health of the platform.
Thank you
If that other user couldn’t infer what “Source?” meant in response to their comment, then I they’re an idiot. Saying it nice is more PC, but clarity was definitely not the issue.
So you made it up. Got it
deleted by creator
I want to point out that psychopathy is a colloquial term, not a clinical one. The most popular set of criteria, the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, is not empirically reliable or valid. Its creator Robert Hare has made a lucrative career out of convincing the world (and the prison system) that psychopaths are Definitely Real. The PCL-R is used to justify harsher punishments and longer prison sentences, and it’s completely made up.
Honestly at this point I just assume by default that of all politicians at that level. They’re all basically evil its just a matter of sorting out which ones are evil in ways that will hurt me more or less.
Also psychopath isn’t a clinical or legal term in modern usage, which is the only situation in which the linguistic prescriptivism you’re advocating for makes sense.
Yeah, “not 20 years past retirement age” is a pretty low bar to clear, but at least we did it.
One of the things that I think does go for her is that she’s been a part of a team that has actually done some amazing things, even with the Republican courts (SCOTUS and other) actively combatting them. How much of the development and running of that team has she been involved with? Maybe more than normal with a president halfway in the retirement home, but maybe not at all either. If her influence and proximity to the cabinet has done or taught her anything meaningful then we need more of that. He may be old, but he and his team have had a lot of wins.
What campaign? The election is in 3.5 months. Every day that Biden doesn’t step down is one less day for Harris to start ramping up her campaign efforts.
Also, please someone do a poll of the undecided who have strong feelings towards…
Although most may fall firmly in the Trump camp, I’m betting there are some undecided who think that women absolutely should not be president.
Not to mention waffling Republicans may be more incentivized to vote if the Democrat isn’t an old white dude.
deleted by creator