her that rubs me the wrong way. I don't trust her.

but anyone.. of whatever sex/race whatever that has been a prosecutor just makes me uneasy.. as a minority that lived in the inner city & never was a fan of the police or the criminal justice system in general because of it's obvious biases.. I get your unease..

Link to tweet

intentionally taking ppl out of context etc. - this is not that..

Actually my primary post was really about CNN's coverage, the horse race aspect of it all is quite fascinating at time.. corporate media is so predictable though..

Your only predicate was that she was a member of the justice system. Not her. Not her policies. Not her positions. Absolutely no context.

That is unjustified criticism.

I said exactly what she was & my opinion of it.. if that was a "smear" my goodness the definition has shifted

...something against prosecuting people who commit crimes?

More significant, this is a woman of color in that role. That's a significant advance, Kamala having broken several barriers (race and gender) in several of her legal roles in California.

I openly said as much - America incarcerates more people than the rest of the world;

" (CNN) Year after year, the United States beats out much larger countries -- India, China -- and more totalitarian ones --Russia and the Philippines -- for the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the world."

[link:https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/us/mass-incarceration-five-key-facts/index.html|

Race/sex has nothing to do with it...

...just general ignorance, then.

And claiming her race or sex isn't an issue with the nonsense you've posted is stunningly ignorant.

Bouncing all over the thread digging more holes... just stop.

IT WON'T MAKE IT SO..

I'm a minority, stop the nonsense...

Even progressive prosecutors run into a wall where obeying laws may run afoul of their personal wishes. She could have resigned instead of enforcing one law that she may have hated, but that would mean that she could no longer fight for the causes which she felt were also important. Smearing someone means that hairs are split finely to show that person on a bad light, when reality is something else.

or refuse to enforce them, which she did when the laws were unjust.

your position is that we should have less POC as cops and prosecutors.

I'm a minority who lives in the inner city and I want MORE people of color in these positions, not less. And I'm not sure where you live, but the people of color where I live appreciate tough, strong police and prosecutors because we are all too often the victims of crime that plagues our communities. We just want the laws and the enforcement to be fair. But the idea that anyone who has ever been a prosecutor should be looked at with suspicion just doesn't make any sense.

because I saw my "colored" community harassed, profiled & the like.. How do you think all these prisons got filled up?? So no, I don't appreciate overzealous cops & prosecutors who target my community under the guise of protecting us.. I don't care what color you are - progressives at all levels is what is needed, this guy in my neck of the woods is a step in the right direction;

[link:https://www.thenation.com/article/progressive-change-is-rocking-one-of-the-most-unlikely-places-in-philadelphia-the-das-office/|

"The conservative movement is committed to two mutually reinforcing policies: plutocratic giveaways that empower the ultra-wealthy, and law-and-order crackdowns that target the poor, people of color, immigrants and the working class."

My perception has been cast - my hope is that my son doesn't grow up feeling the same way I did about law enforcement in general..

worth their attention and that black crime victims deserved the same concern as whites.

So, I think there has to be a balance. And I would rather have more blacks in policing and prosecution than discouraging them from participating out of fear of being seen as sellouts. The only way to change and improve the system is to diversify it.

like I said, my "perception" has been cast - I hope for future generations like my son that it does change for the better - heck he said he wanted to be a cop when he was a bit younger, other than military I would not dissuade him from any career paths even law enforcement. I think it needs to be a collective of community policing of all ethnicities to clean up deserved perceptions and undeserved perceptions - the militarization has to be scaled back.

(as well as head of a review panel that head up a scathing investigation of the police), and she just took most votes in a crowded field in the Chicago mayoral race. (She will face a runoff with another black female, a former school teacher turned alderman, turned county board president).

But I respect the idea that a lot of people think as you do: Lightfoot garnered the majority of her votes from the liberal white enclaves on the northern lakefront of the city, and didn't do terribly well in the poorest black communities on the south and west sides. (Well, there's a story about that, but not entirely pertinent here).

That said, I don't think we should rule out candidates because they once served as prosecutors. After all, prosecutors who do their job well, and with discretion, can do a great public service. People don't want crime in their neighborhoods, and they want the bad elements prosecuted; they also don't want indiscriminate prosecution of people based on scant or false testimony or simply the color of their skin. A good prosecutor can affect both these goals.



?w=763

I find it funny how people think somehow we were "tricked" by the Clintons, Biden and other Dems (like Kamala Harris) who were part of the "get tough" movement of the 80s/90s/00s, that came about in reaction to violent crime which was at epidemic levels.

Big city mayors and contituencies were begging for solutions to crime, and when Bill showed up, as a Dem who wanted to be "tough on crime, but good for civil rights" he was exactly what PoC and others were clamoring for... and that approach then influenced a generation of Dems like Kamala Harris.

There was overreach and reform is needed, but hindsight is 20/20. The leaders like Harris who actually had to deal with the problem didn't have the benefit of hindsight, they had to save lives and protect communities then and there.

By reducing sentencing guidlines to a baseball metaphor.

Crime reductions were achieved due to innovative policing strategies not mandatory sentencing.

The Three Strikes component of the crime bill was stupid, in particular given the nature of some laws at the time. A kid could have been arrested for selling crack twice and caught with a penalty amount of weed the third time and could get a maximum sentence, even if he had reformed. The law took discretion away from Judges (good and bad, depending on the judge).

What the bashers left unsaid was that communities that were being shredded by violence were begging for policies that helped them combat the crime and drive-by shooting (with little kids being shot and some killed while sitting outside their home), people were afraid to go outside at certain times of the day. The crime bill that Bill Clinton signed brought resources of all types to those communities, while holding police chiefs responsible for the conduct of their officers. Mistakes from the past are easy to find in the future, but people in the moment of that past era did what they believed would solve critical issues.

of the candidate that actually voted for the crime bill?

Hillary said some things publicly in favor of the bill, but she had no hand in approving it. The bill, given the times was not a bad bill, democrats went along with some things that they should not have to get something done that communities that were being hammered were crying out for. Bill Clinton also started Midnight Basketball, that gave kids that might have been hanging out of streets where crime took place an outlet. Unfortunately, Bush the Lesser defunded MB when he took office.

during the election in 2016.

Anyone who grew up during that era knows how violent things were, the most violent in US history, and people were begging for solutions.

The passing of the Crime Bill was not a controversial moment, it had widespread support, including amongst PoC.

The whole "superpredator" thing was also mischaracterized, as what Hillary said had nothing to do with race, as violence was out of control amongst white kids as well.

she was talking about violent people that preyed on ANYONE, they did not care about the victim's race or age. Several kids during that time were shot dead when just sitting on their front stoops. The term that Hillary used, like you pointed out, had no racial connotation to it at all.

a city cop. I also have many black and brown (and very liberal) friends who are prosecutors, police officers and judges.

I am proud of them, the work they do/did, and the humanity, fairness and change they bring/brought to their professions. The idea that they should be smeared as biased or corrupt or that those positions somehow disqualify them from elective office makes ME uneasy.

Criminal Justice Reform has been an issue lately.. it doesn't speak on your family directly, but unfortunately communities of color have been targeted - the statistics are quite evident..

should be looked at with suspicion is just wrong.

just my personal opinion.. nothing to do with anyone else's perception - just my own. I discussed this w/ effeblack up thread..

Not that I ever thought they were liberal to begin with.

I forgot about her.. I am surprised they would allow for such an obvious PR problem..

And of course CNN is going to turn on EVERY single woman running in this election.

even Republicans.

It's election season so just go with it.

Amy criticism at all of their candidate can set people off.

cover anything from a negative standpoint when it comes to Kamala.. non coverage can also apply

IMO, this is helpful because she has very little recent experience on defense, but it would be a massive requirement during a fall campaign against Donald Trump.

I have not seen CNN do anything negative on her prior to this. But this is basic normalcy. She can't expect to smile and skate to the nomination.

BTW, the lady who will be in charge of CNN 2020 has not started yet. It is ridiculous to conclude this as part of a switch in course. And as long as CNN maintains the same nightly lineup it will be very much impressive and helpful to our cause. Nobody calls out Donald Trump as a liar like Don Lemon.

I like Don Lemon.. one of the few

CNN shouldn't have reported it ? I don't get the turning part .

let us not be naive to the fact that all corporate media doesn't have some sort of agenda.. Maybe they thought Kamala was going to be the better horse race candidate & now maybe they are seeing Beto or Biden as that candidate.. just interesting timing..

& non Kamala suporter..

Watching corporate media coverage of the various candidates..

would highlight one of their stories, particularly about a candidate you don't support.

How come?

"Democratic Primary Forum"??

Well, there you go..

highlighting the coverage of an outfit that you are not a fan of, and one who accuse of corporate coverage.

Especially when you are are not a supporter of the Democratic candidate who is the subject of the article.

Seems odd.

...followers or posts. Most are bots/trolls trying to stir the flames and divide us.

Breathless 24/7 Noise to fill airtime between ads for big pharma.

The narrative is designed to keep everyone worked up, agitated and distracted, worried that "their" candidate is up or down according to the polling and lasted whatever. It is rarely if ever a discussion of the issues. It is offers a wide variety of what-ifs, conjecture and high pitched noise.

It goes like this......

This week She is up until there is a hiccup of some small issue blown way out of proportion in the Breathless 24/7 Cable Noise Infotainment. Next Week He's up and doing well in some obscure poll with 12 people and a cat responding, but Oh Noes, by week end a new face has entered the run and all the oxygen is taken out of the room. Followed by the discovery that as a child the fresh face pushed another kid in the hall way in grammar school so that will take several news cycles between the pharmaceutical ads to discuss. Week 4 She will make a strong speech and return to the top of the polling, but will it be enough to overcome the whispered stories of her 3rd cousin 14 times removed being addicted to Snickers Bars? In the meantime He will get tongue tied during an interview having not had enough sleep and there will be questions of his age and can he really serve? The Fresh Face will suddenly soar to the top on word of a fundraiser far exceeding its goals of $12.47.

Rinse and repeat but be sure to allow time for more ads for drugs we never knew we needed and the anchors hawking their latest books on The Crisis in the Media.

The horse race will be fully exploited.. $$$$$

Yesterday it was clear that asking questions was a good thing and Sanders needed to be tough enough to handle it. It's a primary.

Now it's bad?

A single Gabbard supporter saying CNN is turning on Harris is a narrative?

I don't see folks up in arms over it, I see a single post started by an opposing candidate's supporter.

are talking about how CNN is not supportive of Dems. That was not the consensus opinion here about the people that CNN had asking questions of Sanders and how they were identified.

No, not remotely.

It certainly isn't just me making up that position. Though I fully understand that any reason to hate Sanders is enough. Not speaking of you specifically.

and nothing in this thread has thing one to do with "hating Sanders."

the last 3 years attack other Democrats but then is exempt from her own standards. She doesn’t have just one script. She doesn’t insist on transparency for others, but not herself. It’s the double standards, and hard to see this has to be explained yet again.

indeed.

When you dig down into the story it is not so open an shut.

them doing what they are there to do, Make Money for the shareholders. Once you come to the realization that they are Infotainment and not a news organization you can make better decisions about what they present to you. In my case I simply have turned them and the rest of cable "news" off.

You have to curate your own news these days and multi source your information. It's unfortunate that is the case, but it is very much the way things are anymore.

one way or another..

They're able to be -- and should be -- critical of all candidates, as long as they're fair about it and back up their reporting with facts.

The fairness doctrine went out the window during the Reagan Era, which led to the rise of Talk (Hate) Radio and Cable "News". They are under no obligation to be fair or back up their reporting (which is mostly opinion and conjecture) with anything resembling facts.

It is simply infotainment as I have described in my post above.

some posters here whenever they see anything remotely critical of Democratic candidates by any media outlet. The idea of holding a candidate's positions "up to the light" is so offensive to them, as is digging into a candidate's past stances.

I'm not claiming CNN always gets it right in regards to balance and fairness, but I'll continue to read and watch them as well as other non-right-wing media.

Just like posts here on DU. Juries decide what's fair and what's not. And jurors don't always agree.

Ha ha. I kid.

CNN gets a lot of facts right. The vast majority of them, I'd wager. They, like any other media, should be called to account when they're in error. You have an inaccuracy based on the OP that you'd care to cite?

I made it clear I was joking.

I invited you to make clear what CNN got wrong based on the OP. You disengage. Hardly convincing.

I'm too stoopid to see the forest for the trees. Easier to make insinuations than to make a simple point. But it's not so simple is it?

It's actually much, much easier to make sweeping statements like "CNN's not fair" and then duck when you're called upon to provide a concrete example.

Fooling no one here.

I much prefer DUers who have something of substance to add to the conversation.

Tuck yourself in nicely!

how would you know??

If the divisions aren't strong enough they will seek to create them.

I don't see any of our media being trustworthy in regards to our primary candidates.

have to deal with right wing civil unrest. These folks have been primed by Trump to not accept a Democratic President. I think Kamela's toughness would be necessary. Reaching across the aisle or placating these neo-nazis will not work.

To the con's.. CNN is a total liberal hit tank.
To many of us liberals and progressives, we've had many problems with CNN..
BS's people think CNN are in it for the Democrats..

Here's the scoop:
CNN is all about the click bait.
They don't support Republicans, or Democrats, or BS, or Conservatives, or liberals..

For them, it's ALL about the sensationalism. Whatever will get the most clicks, views, channels tuning in.

Someone seems to be breaking away from the pack? Knock 'em back.

It's what they do.

It's how they get paid.

Good grief, are we going to have conspiracy theories on DU every time a news outlet reports something their supporters don't like?

I sincerely doubt the CNN bigwigs got together and decided they prefer another candidate and chose to make up stuff about her.

probably

She couldn't make, propose, support or enact immigration policies.

I'm more interested to see how she responds to being fact checked.