kamala Harris, as a da, locked people up and refused parole to keep them as slaves fighting fires.
mod says it’s misinfo (probably without fact checking) and removes the comment
kamala Harris, as a da, locked people up and refused parole to keep them as slaves fighting fires.
mod says it’s misinfo (probably without fact checking) and removes the comment
Disputing the early release of prisoners is different than ‘locking people up’ and people in her office advocating against early release is something that can be attributed to her because she is ultimately reponsible, but is not the same as her refusing to let them be paroled.
What you said is that she put people into jail and forced them to fight fires, which is not what happened.
What you posted was literally misinformation. YDI.
Also, fuck Kamala Harris.
as a da, then as ag, she sent people to prison.
she kept them there specifically to exploit their labor.
what I posted was true.
She didn’t send people to prison. The judges did that. She just successfully argued that they should do it. What you posted was not true.
when a da runs for reelection, they do it on their conviction record. you’re splitting hairs
No, you are. A person who’s job it is to convince judges to put people in jail runs on their record of convincing the judges to do so is … unsurprising.
this is splitting hairs
deleted by creator
No, you do. It is an adversarial system. Prosecuting attorneys… prosecute. Defense attorneys… defend. It is the jury that decides factual guilt or lack thereof, and the judges who sentence. ALL of these roles put the furtherance of justice as their #1 priority, or should at least.
If you want to argue she is responsible for some sort of prosecutorial misconduct, I will listen. To say she put people in prison without a guilty verdict and judge’s sentence gives her authority she doesn’t and shouldn’t have and to argue otherwise is a “fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system”.
deleted by creator
You know you’ve lost the argument when you need to resort to insults. What’s it like losing to a ‘child’ at your age?
Edit: oh, and here’s something that might cause your head to explode so read with caution.
You forget that she has survived many primaries in the past, to get elected as DA in the first place, and then to get elected as senator. The problem as I see it is that there was no primary for her to run in in the first place; it’s entirely possible that, had there been a primary, she still would have been chosen. (I for one am very fucking glad that Gavin Newsom didn’t end up being the nominee.)
As far as the election went, the biggest problem that Harris had was the perception of the economy that people had under Biden, and the fact that she was a VP that couldn’t throw Biden under the bus. You can talk about the genocide in Gaza, but the fact is that there are very, very few Dems that could have run competitively that aren’t also staunch supporters of Israel, right or wrong (and Israel is most definitely wrong here). Harris also had a problem with immigration; a majority (53%) of the US approves of how Trump is handling immigration. source 1, source 2.
deleted by creator
Would you care to place a wager on that?
Except she didn’t keep them there because the effort by her office was denied in court, and her job was to lock people up. She didn’t prosecute people with the intent to make them fight fires and she didn’t get to deny them parole.
She sucks because of being in favor of shitty laws and being pro punishment for non-violent crime, but this specific thing you said is not accurate.
you know I can see how there is some nuance, and how my statements were vague enough to be misinterpreted as misinformation, but the words I chose were true.
No, they were not true.
they absolutely were.
She sent them there for crimes
like truancy. she’s a fucking Nazi.
Well in that case she will have a pace on the current administration
Stop diluting the word “Nazi.” All it does is water down the meaning and provide cover for the real Nazis.
Being an authoritarian does not make someone a Nazi.
no, thank you. I’m not going to distinguish between fascist or Nazi, either.
Then you’re literally just helping them by playing their game of co-opting terms with definite meanings.
Congratulations on helping Nazis. You are part of the problem.
I don’t know how you think calling a cop whose excuse is they’re just doing their job dilutes the term Nazi for you, but I’m most definitely not helping nazis
That’s not what a Nazi is. That’s an authoritarian. All Nazis are authoritarians but not all authoritarians are Nazis. Nazis didn’t and don’t do the horrible things they do because they’re authoritarians, they do them because they’re extremist ideologues; their particular brand of authoritarianism emerges from that ideology.
Authoritarianism, on the other hand, could come from a genuine place of wanting to keep people safe. That doesn’t make it right or admirable, but the impetus behind it is not harmful, only the way in which that desire is enacted.
By saying they’re the same thing, you’re playing their game where Nazis can hide behind the less extreme term.
You can be anti-authoritarian without being needlessly hyperbolic to the detriment of the point you’re trying to make.
Oh yeah the American legal system and prison-industrial-complex are notorious for arresting only criminals and not just anyone off the street for say existing while black.