Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
*****Official Kamala Harris Thread***** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
Jackstraw
Footballguy
That taxes part is tricky. The reality is there is some combination of taxes going up and their personal costs like premiums and deductibles going down. In fact that’s basically the argument. Not to mention damn near every business in the country doesn’t have to deal with jag off health insurance companies and regulations. SO inefficient.
People are already paying a ton for medical care, something like $11,000 per person per year, so it is not like it is some extra expense that people were not paying previously. If peoples taxes go up $7000 per person, you will still have cry--babies complaining about their taxes going up even though they are saving $4000 a year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Mile High
Footballguy
You forgot the "I might have to wait an extra week to see my doctor, so screw everyone else."
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This isn't going to be well received, or whatever, I don't care. Just fer example. - In terms of principles I guess I'm not following the prison reform trend. I get it, I respect people for why they want it, but I am not sure I agree with it. - But Let's say I'm wrong, fine. I don't want to hash it out, not now. I don't think I can gear up for the next election and January 2019 vs November 2020 is way too early. - My observation is the flexibility, the elasticity of people like Harris. Ok she was 'tough on crime'. Right, wrong, whatever, she seems to be overwriting that. - Did anyone find her commentary on health care particularly persuasive? I don't mean in terms of what policy she landed on, but her knowledge of the issues. Did it say compare to the depth and reflectiveness and grasp of the details and empathy of a Barack Obama? I don't think so. I say this as a fan of Harris' work on Judiciary. Really she has been one of the best questioners in Congress and I'm an admitted geek of that kind of thing. - Harris is well spoken, attractive (sorry, yes), and I'm not really sure what she is about. As always, I'll keep an open mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
Me three. My buddy (with whom I'm pretty closely aligned politically) is falling head over heels for her. I'm not against her, but I'm still waiting to see "it". Until I do, no need to commit to anyone. It's still super early.Slapdash said:
In her defense, did Obama sound like Barack Obama in his first week on the campaign trail?SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think she has good tools and I'm waiting to see what she does with them. But I'm in no rush to make a decision.
ren hoek
Footballguy
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
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.
Ms. Harris also championed state legislation under which parents whose children were found to be habitually truant in elementary school could be prosecuted, despite concerns that it would disproportionately 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.
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.
Ms. Harris also championed state legislation under which parents whose children were found to be habitually truant in elementary school could be prosecuted, despite concerns that it would disproportionately 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.
timschochet
Footballguy
The more I consider this the more I suspect it won’t be close. It’s Kamala’s to lose.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
I'll give you Harris and I will take the field. How much and at what odds are you giving? I think I already gifted hundreds by not making you pay me off on Michael Sam.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Other than she’s a liberal very concerned about climate change I have no idea. It’s going to be a personality contest anyhow.
timschochet
Footballguy
Also I don’t remember that wager. But I’ve never shirked a bet in my life. Do I owe you money? Let me know and I will pay you this instant.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
That’s where she will lose. Wasn’t #heelsupharris or something like that trending on Twitter?
I want in on the field action.
I love how Trump supporters want to make an issue of Harris(who was single at the time) having an affair with a married man in an open marriage while they would go to the grave to support a guy who has cheated on all three wives and just used their campaign donations to pay off a porn star he barebacked. This is next level hypocrisy. 
Were you a Clinton supporter?I love how Trump supporters want to make an issue of Harris(who was single at the time) having an affair with a married man in an open marriage while they would go to the grave to support a guy who has cheated on all three wives and just used their campaign donations to pay off a porn star he barebacked. This is next level hypocrisy.
I don’t think you have thought this through. No matter the answer it doesn’t change the hypocrisy
Ketamine Dreams
Footballguy
I don't think the main issue with her is the infidelity with a (still) married man, but more so that: she was then given prominent positions that advanced her career and helped her climb the ladder, those positions were lucrative financially, and the one position came with a nice car.I love how Trump supporters want to make an issue of Harris(who was single at the time) having an affair with a married man in an open marriage while they would go to the grave to support a guy who has cheated on all three wives and just used their campaign donations to pay off a porn star he barebacked. This is next level hypocrisy.
I don't think the average person can hear Harris speak and think that she's ever have to sleep with anyone to gain a position. Sometimes two people just want to **** each other.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ketamine Dreams
Footballguy
Maybe so, but it looks very suspicious when she is appointed to those desirable positions by the guy with whom she was having an intimate relationship.
timschochet
Footballguy
Seems to me this thread is pretty representative: so far the opposition to Kamala Harris comes from Bernie types who will only be happy with a candidate that tears the Democratic Party down, amd Trump supporters who fear, correctly IMO, that she will absolutely destroy him if that is the matchup.
Shes the one.
Shes the one.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
She doesn't have a chance to win the general election. She's even more unlikable than Hillary and I don't think the fly over states will bite on her politics.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You have no idea her policies as stated above but definitively state she's the one. That seems weird.
timschochet
Footballguy
I know she’s liberal on most issues. I know her policies- the question was what would her platform emphasize- amd beyond climate change I’m not sure about that. I thought it would be Medicare for All, which concerned me a little, but she’s since backtracked on that.
Again, personality and charisma is more important.
timschochet
Footballguy
Based on your posts and positions I don’t think you’re really the best judge of this. I suspect you thought the same thing about Obama.
To you, unlikeable means Democrat. Highly unlikeable means female Democrat. Excuse me if I pass on considering your opinion.
She was obviously qualified. Again, sometimes people just ****. Maybe she was attracted by his position of power. Men of wealth and power are somehow attractive to a lot of women. You think someone as disgusting looking as Trump would be landing porn stars and Playboy bunnies otherwise? Doesn't mean they are looking for career advancement. I know it's hard for some to get past ancient stereotypes about women having to sleep their way to the top. But the combination of her being probably ten times more intelligent than Trump and much more well-spoken would make her absolutely destroy him in debates. And she's sassy enough that he wouldn't dare take it into the mud because she would let him have it with both barrels.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s really not much of a scandal. They’re going to have to come up with something else.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Policy wise, she wouldn’t be my first choice. I’m pretty sure I would be closer to somebody like Booker or Klobuchar (provided she runs) who are more centrist and business minded. And of course I’ll vote for whoever the candidate turns out to be.
But it’s my impression that Harris has it whatever “it” is- the same thing that Obama had: that magic that makes you a special candidate. Difficult to define. I could be wrong about this, or things could change, but that’s what I think.
But it’s my impression that Harris has it whatever “it” is- the same thing that Obama had: that magic that makes you a special candidate. Difficult to define. I could be wrong about this, or things could change, but that’s what I think.
Mile High
Footballguy
Exactly. The "She slept her way to the top, so I'm going to vote for the ##### grabber instead", where never going to vote for her, no matter the reason.
They're already grasping at straws. The same people who are A-OK with Trump's lifetime of adultery. lol Fun to watch.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well based on your posts over the last year, you’ve undergone a remarkable conversion.
In any case, when you assert that Kamala is as unlikable as Hillary, I have trouble thinking you’re really paying close attention to what’s going on.
Beto has it too. Amazing how close he came ti unseating Cruz in Texas. I think being well-spoken and classy is always important. But never more so than it will be in 2020. After hearing the egomaniacal manchild embarrass the country on the global stage, having someone who can form a sentence and not resort to grade school bullying and namecalling every other sentence will be a huge breath of fresh air. It's actually depressing when I see an old video of Obama speaking. How far we've fallen as a nation in such a short time. We need the office to be respected again. Something we can be proud of.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
timschochet
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I underestimated how much people disliked her, that’s true. And who knows? I could easily be wrong again.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I think you live in a California bubble. The rest of America, northeast notwithstanding, doesn't like her or her politics. That is my opinion of course.
ETA: She comes across as just a big of a bully as Trump. Now Amy Klobuchar on the other hand would have a real chance.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Harris isn't running against Trump. She's running against Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, and about 25 other Democrats. We're a year (!) away from the Iowa caucuses so we have a really long way to go, and we'll undoubtedly learn more about skeletons in other folks' closets, but this particular part of Harris's career understandably comes across as kind of gross. Why hitch your wagon to somebody with baggage when there are other highly-qualified candidates with the same policy preferences without the character flaws? (I made this same argument about Brett Kavanaugh FWIW).
timschochet
Footballguy
I really don’t care about this. The greatest leader of the 20th Century, Winston Churchill, was infamous for being abusive towards his staff.
timschochet
Footballguy
Could be. But it was the way people in Iowa responded to her that impressed me the most.
Well, I only posted it because it was kind of funny that JohnnyU called Harris a bully and praised Klobuchar on the exact day that article came out.
But as for the charge itself, not sure how I feel about it. I think management style is a highly underrated criterion for evaluating presidential candidates (it was one thing that really attracted me to Obama), so if it's actually true that she has trouble retaining staff, that is a mark against her. But I also recognize that this article could very well be an oppo dump by one of her primary opponents meant to undercut her "Minnesota nice" image.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I agree completely with this but the admiration for the "alpha male" leader who kicks around underlings continues to be widespread. See: football coaches.
Similar threads
