Democratic Primary News Thread

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

"Hates Trump" is setting the bar for decency at ankle height. Anyone who's spent more than a few seconds listenign to him or looking at his smug face should hate Trump.

[Yukaphile]

It's like I said, I think most people are bad, very few are rarely "good," and there are absolute evils, yes. I think so. I define myself as "bad, somewhat good."

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

BridgeConsoleMasher- Mm, so you're saying she subscribes to the Nordic model?
1. I dunno, she also routinely denied trans-specific healthcare to trans prisoners. The dehumanization there is casual, I'm gonna be suspicious of her motives until she shows improvement.
2. Nordic Model is basically bunk anyway. In the abstract it doesn't do anything meaningful except make law enforcement even more dangerous to sex workers and remove the ability of sex workers to safely screen clients. And if local law enforcement gets a bug up its ass (it usually does), well, such laws can be read to mean that, say, accepting rent from a sex worker who brings clients home, or at all, or sex workers working in pairs, all qualify as profiting from sex work, meaning they'd be charged as pimps.
(I'm having trouble finding specific cases of those at the moment, but I follow enough people on social media that I know cases have crossed my feed.)

I wouldn't say that she subscribes to it particularly. It was a program initiated in response to disproportionate criminalization of female sex workers compared to the male customers that her DA's office took part of. There was no blunder involving hostile treatment of sex workers, but did weigh heavily on Latinos through stings. It became an issue of its own, as it should, but I don't think the selective enforcement aspect is really indicative of the program's principle failure as you're saying the case is with the Nordic. I'm not sure how the Nordic model was enforced.

As far as the trans prisoner. I'm not fully understanding the severity of the decision she or her office made on the matter. It was an inmate that had been experiencing gender dysmorphia for 20 years and as I understand it she put it subject to a hearing. So, like there wasn't immediate treatment of it. I'm reading the brief and she wasn't exactly coming off as flippant in the matter.

Needless to say she does take full responsibility for the matter despite it apparently not coming to her attention as she declares. It seems as though she agreed to the decisions per the brief and signed it, but contends that she would have treated the situation differently if it had been brought to her attention. Also it seems that this was a matter of her defending a separate agency/department within State of California, which accounts for her not acting against her wishes, but how all that comes together exactly I'm not sure.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

AOC says Democrats need a "transformational" candidate.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/dems-real-ris ... ories.html

Can you believe this woman?

[Yukaphile]

The sad fact here is I'm 31. I'm never going to live to see a woman elected to the White House legitimately by the people on her own terms. No, I'm calling it now. We're going to see some man just "hand" the role to her via the Vice-Presidency, and then the bastard will have the nerve to die or resign from office, leaving us with a female President who wasn't elected via popular vote, but by cheating. The injustice against women in the world runs deep...

[TGLS]

The sad fact here is I'm 31. I'm never going to live to see a woman elected to the White House legitimately by the people on her own terms.

Why? Because you're not going to live past the next decade? Sure, I can't predict the next couple of elections in detail. 10 years ago, no woman won the nomination of a major party. 20 years ago, no woman led her party in congress. 30 years ago, no woman was secretary of state. 40 years ago, no woman ever sat on the supreme court. If you don't believe in the next 40 years, no woman is going to be elected president, then that's on you.

[Yukaphile]

I mean elected by the people, winning the primaries, and then taking the Oval Office for eight years. It's four years between each term, and from what I've seen, the pendulum always seems to swing towards the other party at some point. I just think if I do see it, I'll probably only be 80 or something, and by that point, I can't enjoy it, because I'll be very close to death. If not dead.

[Yukaphile]

That's my dream, but dreams don't exist in this reality. It's a place where dreams come to die.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I mean elected by the people, winning the primaries, and then taking the Oval Office for eight years. It's four years between each term, and from what I've seen, the pendulum always seems to swing towards the other party at some point. I just think if I do see it, I'll probably only be 80 or something, and by that point, I can't enjoy it, because I'll be very close to death. If not dead.

So you changed what you mean from seeing a woman president to seeing a woman president that serves for 8 years? And it's somehow more miraculous that she gets voted for in doing so?

Ironic about that last part is that I'm pretty sure you've been of the mind to post that you should probably just vote for HRC etc.. solely because they're a woman.

And what are you talking about with a pendulum? Every DNC president in the last 30 years has served their maximum term allowance.

[Yukaphile]

No, she was the most qualified for the job. I want somebody qualified, but I don't want them reaching the White House through the man just handing them the Vice-Presidency. That's more of the same patriarchal bullshit Democrats should be better than. Sadly, many of them have gone too hard left, like my mom, prioritizing the "We MUST beat Trump at ALL costs" slogan rather than thinking about what's best for women. It's not just policy, because for every step forward, we seem to take two steps back. It's about optics as much as anything. And a woman is never going to reach the White House on her own as long as people keep focusing on distractions.