Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Kamala Harris running for President in 2020

Knock_Twice said:
Breh,

Don't worry about it breh. It's V-day, make your reservations with your ole lady before 7, it'll be packed
Click to expand...
nah nigga

you trying to pit me in a corner

I asked you to find where you are accusing me of those things

but you cant, which is why you trying to get out the convo
 
5th Letter said:
The solution is to find and thoroughly vet some politicians and get people who have the same interests as you do and build him up. Whoever funded Kamala and Cory Booker those are the people they’re going to do stuff for, black people didn’t put them up there in the first place.
Click to expand...
not mad at this take at all
 
AP21 said:
real talk, i stopped right here b/c you got this wrong

Envy asked her what/who does she listen to

Charlamagne asked her who did she listen to while she was high

so see, even in your attempt to discredit her, you didnt get the facts right.

I, like @Inori, and many others, concluded she was answering Envy's question

or, just ask Charlamagne and the Huffington post



now if you watch this and come away with the same thoughts, then you sir, have done what everyone else has done who thinks she is pandering to black people via hip hop
Click to expand...


I can see your point a little more, but you can't just act like it was solely an "answering Envy" type thing. Look at the clip you yourself posted. Verbatim the sequence went like:

Envy: What did Kamala Harris listen to?
CtG: I want to know what Kamala Harris listened to when you were high. Was it Snoop?
Harris: Oh yeah, definitely Snoop.

Yes, Envy brought up the question, but are you denying that her first response was directly to what CtG said? And we don't have to ask anyone anything. We have the clip right there for all to hear. I don't need to hear CtG's damage control to make a decision.

In the end, it doesn't matter. She panders like all politicians pander. If you're denying that, you're being incredibly naïve.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
I can see your point a little more, but you can't just act like it was solely an "answering Envy" type thing. Look at the clip you yourself posted. Verbatim the sequence went like:

Envy: What did Kamala Harris listen to?
CtG: I want to know what Kamala Harris listened to when you were high. Was it Snoop?
Harris: Oh yeah, definitely Snoop.

Yes, Envy brought up the question, but are you denying that her first response was directly to what CtG said? And we don't have to ask anyone anything. We have the clip right there for all to hear. I don't need to hear CtG's damage control to make a decision.

In the end, it doesn't matter. She panders like all politicians pander. If you're denying that, you're being incredibly naïve.
Click to expand...

so you view the man giving the interview doing damage control even after ANOTHER article that has no dog in the fight came to the same conclusion?

lol

this is wild
 
Fact is, she was looking up and to the right for every question they asked, even the ones that didnt require her to to recollect from memory.

She obviously lied numerous times during the interview.
 
Black_Samson said:
Dawg...

Elizabeth Warren is currently in the process of having every shred of her credibility shredded a la Rachel Dolezal.

Thats one right there.
Click to expand...



Yeah, she picked the wrong hill to die on when she let herself get baited by Trump and went all in on claiming she was Native American.



All Trump had to do to throw her off her game was call her Pocahontas.



Now she's apologizing for claiming to be Native American, when just a few months ago she was adamant about having Native blood.


Even went so far as to take a DNA test to prove it.


Funny that she never disclosed the details of that test.


Just that it indicated she had Native American blood, but not the percentage she had.


That's enough to let me know that the percentage was probably so low that it was negligible at best.


Simply because.......if the test indicated she had 10-20% or more Native American blood.......she'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
 
AP21 said:
i'ma ask you the same question i asked Deadeye

why cant you ever admit you are wrong?
Click to expand...


Her own words prove we aren't though.


She literally said she used to listen to Tupac and Snoop while she was in college......despite the fact that she was in college in the early 80's when Snoop and Pac hadn't even come out yet.
 
deadeye said:
Her own words prove we aren't though.


She literally said she used to listen to Tupac and Snoop while she was in college......despite the fact that she was in college in the early 80's when Snoop and Pac hadn't even come out yet.
Click to expand...
She didn't say that man
 
AP21 said:
so you view the man giving the interview doing damage control even after ANOTHER article that has no dog in the fight came to the same conclusion?

lol

this is wild
Click to expand...

Why do I care what another article from a writer that had nothing to do with the interaction had to say? His/her opinion is no more valid than yours or mine. We all see the clip of what happened. We can all come to our own conclusion. You throwing up a "but he said..." type of argument in this case is weird. Again, this isn't some shit that's hearsay. We all can see the video. I posted exactly what was said. Are you denying that Kamala's "Definitely Snoop" was a direct response to CtG's "Was it Snoop?"

Bruh, you can truly believe that she wasn't pandering. If that's your opinion, then fine, but quit acting like we're coming out of left field when we say what we're saying.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
Why do I care what another article from a writer that had nothing to do with the interaction had to say? His/her opinion is no more valid than yours or mine. We all see the clip of what happened. We can all come to our own conclusion. You throwing up a "but he said..." type of argument in this case is weird. Again, this isn't some shit that's hearsay. We all can see the video. I posted exactly what was said. Are you denying that Kamala's "Definitely Snoop" was a direct response to CtG's "Was it Snoop?"

Bruh, you can truly believe that she wasn't pandering. If that's your opinion, then fine, but quit acting like we're coming out of left field when we say what we're saying.
Click to expand...
You right
 
AP21 said:
@Inori, another video brah

but, but, but she pandering
Click to expand...

She has pandered and will again but that has nothing to do with the confusion of which question she was answering on the breakfast club.

Like said before I like the videos the breakfast club are doing on her behalf. Cause white people don't get to try to shit on her regardless of the fact she ain't getting my vote and that has nothing to do with her musical preference or when she actually listened to Pac and Snoop.
 
DMorgan said:
She has pandered and will again but that has nothing to do with the confusion of which question she was answering on the breakfast club.

Like said before I like the videos the breakfast club are doing on her behalf. Cause white people don't get to try to shit on her regardless of the fact she ain't getting my vote and that has nothing to do with her musical preference or when she actually listened to Pac and Snoop.
Click to expand...

agree with you brotha

all im saying is, she may very well be pandering...and if there is a blatant attempt at her doing so, then by all means, call her out on it, BUT this shit with the mixup on the questioning at the breakfast club aint it
 
AP21 said:
agree with you brotha

all im saying is, she may very well be pandering...and if there is a blatant attempt at her doing so, then by all means, call her out on it, BUT this shit with the mixup on the questioning at the breakfast club aint it
Click to expand...

I agree with that
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

SAN FRANCISCO — With the growing recognition that prosecutors hold the keys to a fairer criminal justice system, the term “progressive prosecutor” has almost become trendy. This is how Senator Kamala Harris of California, a likely presidential candidate and a former prosecutor, describes herself.

But she’s not.

Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent. Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.

Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.

Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.

habitually truant in elementary school could be prosecuted, despite concerns that it woulddisproportionately affect low-income people of color.

Ms. Harris was similarly regressive as the state’s attorney general. When a federal judge in Orange County ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in 2014, Ms. Harris appealed. In a public statement, she made the bizarre argument that the decision “undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants.” (The approximately 740 men and women awaiting execution in California might disagree).

In 2014, she declined to take a position on Proposition 47, a ballot initiative approved by voters, that reduced certain low-level felonies to misdemeanors. She laughed that year when a reporter asked if she would support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Ms. Harris finally reversed course in 2018, long after public opinion had shifted on the topic.

In 2015, she opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate shootings involving officers. And she refused to support statewide standards regulating the use of body-worn cameras by police officers. For this, she incurred criticism from an array of left-leaning reformers, including Democratic state senators, the A.C.L.U. and San Francisco’s elected public defender. The activist Phelicia Jones, who had supported Ms. Harris for years, asked, “How many more people need to die before she steps in?”

Worst of all, though, is Ms. Harris’s record in wrongful conviction cases. Consider George Gage, an electrician with no criminal record who was charged in 1999 with sexually abusing his stepdaughter, who reported the allegations years later. The case largely hinged on the stepdaughter’s testimony and Mr. Gage was convicted.

Afterward, the judge discovered that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence, including medical reports indicating that the stepdaughter had been repeatedly untruthful with law enforcement. Her mother even described her as “a pathological liar” who “lives her lies.”

In 2015, when the case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, Ms. Harris’s prosecutors defended the conviction. They pointed out that Mr. Gage, while forced to act as his own lawyer, had not properly raised the legal issue in the lower court, as the law required.

The appellate judges acknowledged this impediment and sent the case to mediation, a clear signal for Ms. Harris to dismiss the case. When she refused to budge, the court upheld the conviction on that technicality. Mr. Gage is still in prison serving a 70-year sentence.

That case is not an outlier. Ms. Harris also fought to keep Daniel Larsen in prison on a 28-year-to-life sentence for possession of a concealed weapon even though his trial lawyer was incompetent and there was compelling evidence of his innocence. Relying on a technicality again, Ms. Harris argued that Mr. Larsen failed to raise his legal arguments in a timely fashion. (This time, she lost.)

She also defended Johnny Baca’s conviction for murder even though judges found a prosecutor presented false testimony at the trial. She relented only after a video of the oral argument received national attention and embarrassed her office.

And then there’s Kevin Cooper, the death row inmate whose trial was infected by racism and corruption. He sought advanced DNA testing to prove his innocence, but Ms. Harris opposed it. (After The New York Times’s exposé of the case went viral, she reversed her position.)

All this is a shame because the state’s top prosecutor has the power and the imperative to seek justice. In cases of tainted convictions, that means conceding error and overturning them. Rather than fulfilling that obligation, Ms. Harris turned legal technicalities into weapons so she could cement injustices.

In “The Truths We Hold,” Ms. Harris’s recently published memoir, she writes: “America has a deep and dark history of people using the power of the prosecutor as an instrument of injustice.”

She adds, “I know this history well — of innocent men framed, of charges brought against people without sufficient evidence, of prosecutors hiding information that would exonerate defendants, of the disproportionate application of the law.”

All too often, she was on the wrong side of that history.

It is true that politicians must make concessions to get the support of key interest groups. The fierce, collective opposition of law enforcement and local district attorney associations can be hard to overcome at the ballot box. But in her career, Ms. Harris did not barter or trade to get the support of more conservative law-and-order types; she gave it all away.

Of course, the full picture is more complicated. During her tenure as district attorney, Ms. Harris refused to seek the death penalty in a case involving the murder of a police officer. And she started a successful program that offered first-time nonviolent offenders a chance to have their charges dismissed if they completed a rigorous vocational training. As attorney general, she mandated implicit bias training and was awarded for her work in correcting a backlog in the testing of rape kits.

But if Kamala Harris wants people who care about dismantling mass incarceration and correcting miscarriages of justice to vote for her, she needs to radically break with her past.

A good first step would be to apologize to the wrongfully convicted people she has fought to keep in prison and to do what she can to make sure they get justice. She should start with George Gage.
Click to expand...
 
Inori said:
Click to expand...


LMAO. Seriously?

Unless she classifies police shooting of unarmed black people as lynching this is a pandering fail to the utmost. How many black people woke up today thinking... "damn I sho hope I don't get lynched"?

FOH with this 100 years too late shit.

I could give a shit about her rap trivia skills but this is exactly the type of shit that makes me distrust her and consider her to be out of touch and possibly elitist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top