Kamala the hypocrite

[Loren Pechtel]

Derec, Backpage specifically DID promote trafficking of minors. Backpage DID specifically provide boilerplates for adverts that clued in clients looking for underage girls that the girls were too young.

Backpage did NOTHING to ensure that those whose services were being advertised, whose services were being used to fund the existence of Backpage, whose services were being used to PAY Backpage were in fact, willing participants and of legal age. It's called due diligence and Backpage not only did not perform due diligence, but actively helped to promote sex trafficking, including trafficking of minors.

If it was easy for the johns to tell then the cops could also tell. Having them all in one place would help catch them. Forcing bad guys into hiding isn't the same thing as getting rid of them.

Since the shutdown of Backpages was not instantaneous, do you have a link to law enforcement using Backpages (while it was in operation) to shut down anyone?

You think they would say if that's how they did it???

 

[laughing dog]

Since the shutdown of Backpages was not instantaneous, do you have a link to law enforcement using Backpages (while it was in operation) to shut down anyone?

You think they would say if that's how they did it???

The police in the US reveal all the time how they apprehend criminals. Especially when the case goes to trial.

And if closing Backpages was such a disaster for law enforcement, they would have publicized its effects and how it would hurt their ability to catch these people.


I take from your response that,once again, you conflate your opinion with fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since the shutdown of Backpages was not instantaneous, do you have a link to law enforcement using Backpages (while it was in operation) to shut down anyone?

You think they would say if that's how they did it???

The police in the US reveal all the time how they apprehend criminals. Especially when the case goes to trial.

And if closing Backpages was such a disaster for law enforcement, they would have publicized its effects and how it would hurt their ability to catch these people.


I take from your response that,once again, you conflate your opinion with fact.

The police indicate the evidence they have. They don't need to indicate what got them looking for the evidence unless someone claims a search warrant was improper.

They make an appointment, they find it's an underage girl, they bust them. How they knew to make the appointment is irrelevant.

 

[Opoponax]

The police indicate the evidence they have. They don't need to indicate what got them looking for the evidence unless someone claims a search warrant was improper.

Actually, oftentimes they do have to justify what got them looking for evidence. It's called a Terry Stop.

A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk. When a cop has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing. The cop must be able to provide articulable reasons for why he approached the defendant.

Just an FYI.

Anyway, I read an article earlier about the different standards Democrats are held to (e.g. what constitutes a scandal for a Dem as opposed to the monstrosities of Republicans/Trump). The Democrats need to stop playing that game. The example the article used was Elizabeth Warren and the thing about her Native American background. She won't shut the fuck up about it. Nobody whose smart enough to vote against Trump gives a flying fuck about it, so stop trying to answer for it. Do what Trump does: "Nobody cares about that, so I'm not going to answer." That's it.

Same thing with this manufactured outrage about Kamala Harris. The GOP/Trump fears her, so they're going after her early. All she has to say is that it's stupid and she's moving on.

The point is that Democrats allow shit to stick to them whereas GOP'ers just don't give a fuck. Dems need to stop giving a fuck about stupid things.

 

[laughing dog]

The police in the US reveal all the time how they apprehend criminals. Especially when the case goes to trial.

And if closing Backpages was such a disaster for law enforcement, they would have publicized its effects and how it would hurt their ability to catch these people.


I take from your response that,once again, you conflate your opinion with fact.

The police indicate the evidence they have. They don't need to indicate what got them looking for the evidence unless someone claims a search warrant was improper.

They make an appointment, they find it's an underage girl, they bust them. How they knew to make the appointment is irrelevant.

Your word is insufficient. I know for a fact that defense attorneys do tend to ask about how the police obtained their information.

More importantly, if closing Backpages was such a hinderance to the police, they would have made a big deal. Do you have any evidence that happened?

 

[Derec]

Derec, you aren't dumb. Please don't treat me as though I am dumb.

You are not dumb, but you are very misguided on this issue.

Such tactics and more were widely reported during the case against Backpages.

Anti-BP crusaders like Harris are anti-sex work in general, but know they can get more press by going "won't anybody think of the children".
In particular, the WaPo article you posted says nothing about BP helping advertisers use language about underage postings. So please do not continue to pretend it does.

I understand that you have a personal stake in all of this

If a gay person is for legalization of gay sex/marriage do we use the fact that they have a personal stake as an argument against their position?
If a woman of reproductive age is for abortion rights, do we use the fact that she has a personal stake against her?
And note that in both these instances children are being used as a rhetorical and legal cudgel, just like you and Harris are doing against consensual, adult sex work.
The propaganda of linking gay people with pedophilia was very widespread. And of course, women who choose abortion and doctors who perform them are still often abused as "baby killers". And now the same tactic is being used to link all sex work with horrible child exploitation.

but it's a lot less personal or important than what happens to all those underage girls who have no choice about being prostituted.

Yes, that is indeed horrible and of course I am against anybody, esp. minors, being forced into sex work. Perpetrators of such involuntary servitude should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I do not see what that has to do with sex work in general any more then pederasty has to do with gay sex in general.

Also, we should differentiate minors being forced into sex work and say a 16 year old posting an ad herself. I do not that think that's right, but she is not exactly a victim either.

[links, including Moonie Times]
Seriously, Derec, just google underage girls and backpage. It's really disgusting and heart rending.

Before I read any of the links provided, can you at least admit that the WaPo article you first posted does not say what you claimed it said?
Also, nobody disputes that there isn't child exploitation. The problem is that you want to muddy all sex work just because there are instances of abuse.
Should all gays be condemned because pederasts exist?

 

[Derec]

I think there is evidence that backpage was promoting trafficking of minors and I think maybe you are having issue with the word "promoting."

There is evidence that trafficking of minors took place. And there are allegations that BP did not do enough to combat it, although those alleging that wanted BP to combat it by removing all adult listings, even though vast majority are by consenting adults.
I have seen no credible allegations that BP actually promoted child or other forms of trafficking. So yes, I have issue with that word. It is a crucial word in that sentence.

If you respond to an ad for a house cleaner, and somebody posting ads on the site is forcing women to be maids against their will, should the whole site be shut down? Should the whole domestic cleaning industry be outlawed? Should you risk going to jail for hiring a maid?
That's basically the argument of prohibitionists like Toni and Kamala Harris - because there exist people trafficking children, and people interested in having sex with children, consenting adults having sex for money must be outlawed.

- - - Updated - - -

That and the actual facts still pale in comparison to inconvenience that closing of Backpage caused to some prostitutes and those seeking to hire them to the eyes of people who feel like Derec. After all, some sex trafficking of underage minors should not make it more difficult for some people to literally get their rocks off.

You have not shown why persecuting consenting adults is necessary to fight trafficking of minors.

 

[Derec]

I bet that if a liberpublican had said it, Derec would be telling us all about how super correct it is that politicians should not tell women what to do with their bodies. Unless, of course, that same liberpublican opposed some sort of sex slavery...

Sigh. Opposition to consensual sex work is a bipartisan disease.
But at least conservatives/Republicans do not pretend to believe that politicians should not be telling men and women what to do with their bodies. They admit they want to control what people do in the bedroom in the name of morality.

Libertarians, both l and L variety, generally do not think consensual adult sex work should be outlawed. They are consistent in thinking that politicians should not be telling people what to do with their bodies.

 

[Derec]

It did start with criticism of an elected woman of colour.

So elected officials should not be criticized if they are women and/of "of color"? I am not criticizing her for her gender or hue, but for her statements and positions.
You must be confusing me with this guy:

 

[laughing dog]

You have not shown why persecuting consenting adults is necessary to fight trafficking of minors.

Because I don't have to prove stupid straw men. Like it or not, prostitution is illegal in most parts of the USA. That is the law, and, until that changes, law enforcement is not necessarily being hypocritical by trying to enforce the law. Get the law changed, and your position becomes reasonable.

On the other hand, you have failed to make any case why law enforcement needs avoid inconveniencing people who knowingly and willingly are breaking the law in order to prevent underage sex trafficking (which is also against the law).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To review, Kamala Harris is a hypocrite for being a prosecutor who thinks a legal procedure shouldn't be impeded by Government and an illegal act is well... illegal.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To review, Kamala Harris is a hypocrite for being a prosecutor who thinks a legal procedure shouldn't be impeded by Government and an illegal act is well... illegal.

No, she made a statement about what she claimed was a base position. If she determined her positions based on what was legal or illegal, then one would assume that she would be arguing against abortion if that were illegal and in favour of prostitution if that were legalized. There's nothing about anything she's said which would indicate that either of those would be the case.

If someone said "I'm in favour of people being free to make their own choices" and you responded "Well, that's somewhat hypocritical of you since you currently have twenty kidnapped women chained up in your basement whom you're selling as sex slaves", his answer of "You're wrong to call it hypocritical because you're ignoring the context I was using. That was in regards to one's ability to operate a business without government interference" would be an unsatisfying answer because the statement he made spoke to a basic principle he had. If that claimed basic principle only actually applies to specific instances and is completely ignored in other instances, then it is hypocritical of him to claim he actually has it as a basic principle.

It's the same with Harris's statement. Her objection was based on her saying that she holds a basic principle that the government shouldn't be telling women what to do with their own bodies. If that only applies in certain instances and is completely ignored in other instances, like if women want to use their bodies to make money having sex, and she helps enact legislation which makes it more difficult for them to do this in a safer and more secure manner, then it's hypocritical for her to claim she actually has it as a basic principle. If she'd supplied context to her statement and said that the government shouldn't be able to tell women what to do with their bodies as it involves this one specific medical procedure, it would be fine. If she states it in a way that it implies this isn't an abortion-specific stance she holds, but actually believes it to be true in any other situations where government actions and women's control of their bodies come into potential conflict, then it's correct to call her out on this mis-statement that she just made.

 

[Elixir]

To review, Kamala Harris is a hypocrite for being a prosecutor who thinks a legal procedure shouldn't be impeded by Government and an illegal act is well... illegal.

No, she made a statement about what she claimed was a base position. If she determined her positions based on what was legal or illegal, then one would assume that she would be arguing against abortion if that were illegal and in favour of prostitution if that were legalized. There's nothing about anything she's said which would indicate that either of those would be the case.

If someone said "I'm in favour of people being free to make their own choices" and you responded "Well, that's somewhat hypocritical of you since you currently have twenty kidnapped women chained up in your basement whom you're selling as sex slaves", his answer of "You're wrong to call it hypocritical because you're ignoring the context I was using. That was in regards to one's ability to operate a business without government interference" would be an unsatisfying answer because the statement he made spoke to a basic principle he had. If that claimed basic principle only actually applies to specific instances and is completely ignored in other instances, then it is hypocritical of him to claim he actually has it as a basic principle.

It's the same with Harris's statement. Her objection was based on her saying that she holds a basic principle that the government shouldn't be telling women what to do with their own bodies. If that only applies in certain instances and is completely ignored in other instances, like if women want to use their bodies to make money having sex, and she helps enact legislation which makes it more difficult for them to do this in a safer and more secure manner, then it's hypocritical for her to claim she actually has it as a basic principle. If she'd supplied context to her statement and said that the government shouldn't be able to tell women what to do with their bodies as it involves this one specific medical procedure, it would be fine. If she states it in a way that it implies this isn't an abortion-specific stance she holds, but actually believes it to be true in any other situations where government actions and women's control of their bodies come into potential conflict, then it's correct to call her out on this mis-statement that she just made.

Well explained, but probably an exercise in futility. The alt-white propaganda machine will grind on with little regard for reality when it comes to potential 2020 threats to their iron grip on power. AOC will be the color with which ALL Democrats will be thickly painted with a broad brush. But Harris and Klobuchar pose special threats, and as such will need to be finely detailed with criticisms - valid or otherwise - of everything they say. As a rule, that means that any string of 3 or more words they utter, will be taken out of context and used to tar their character, their accomplishments, and of course to warn of the dire consequences should either of them be elected.
I have joked to friends, that the DNC should select some unknown who they could introduce in September 2020, spending all their money in 2 months instead of 2 years, and limiting the time that the Trumpovich propaganda machine has to Hillarize (read: destroy) them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The police indicate the evidence they have. They don't need to indicate what got them looking for the evidence unless someone claims a search warrant was improper.

Actually, oftentimes they do have to justify what got them looking for evidence. It's called a Terry Stop.

A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk. When a cop has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing. The cop must be able to provide articulable reasons for why he approached the defendant.

That's a variation on challenging the validity of the warrant.

 

[blastula]

Please. It has nothing to do with her being a "black woman" (half-black really). I dislike her, but certainly not because of her skin color but because of her illiberal positions.

Maybe this will change your mind about her.



It's from a mailer she sent out when running for DA. That's more like the kind of illiberal you like.

 

[Derec]

Maybe this will change your mind about her.

Not really. I mean I agree with her on this, but that does not compensate for her wanting to put me in jail for consensual sex.

It's from a mailer she sent out when running for DA. That's more like the kind of illiberal you like.

I think we can all agree that murder and gang violence are real crimes that need to be tackled. Unlike people having consensual sex for money. So I do not think that particular position is illiberal.

 

[Patooka]

I have joked to friends, that the DNC should select some unknown who they could introduce in September 2020, spending all their money in 2 months instead of 2 years, and limiting the time that the Trumpovich propaganda machine has to Hillarize (read: destroy) them.

Last time I checked, that was called swiftboating and it's been around for a while. The republicans are ninja good at it and have been for decades. Better to plan for it than around it.

 

[Opoponax]

The police indicate the evidence they have. They don't need to indicate what got them looking for the evidence unless someone claims a search warrant was improper.

Actually, oftentimes they do have to justify what got them looking for evidence. It's called a Terry Stop.

A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk. When a cop has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing. The cop must be able to provide articulable reasons for why he approached the defendant.

That's a variation on challenging the validity of the warrant.

No, it isn't. Go read Terry v. Ohio.

 

[laughing dog]

It's the same with Harris's statement. Her objection was based on her saying that she holds a basic principle that the government shouldn't be telling women what to do with their own bodies.

That is simply unproven. She was responding to a demand for making late term abortions illegal. There is no evidence she holds that as a general position. And I seriously doubt any thinking politician holds that as a general principle, since few, if any, people, let alone politicians, think it should be legal to permit women or men to get drunk and drive (and that is but one example). Hence the attempt to portray her as a hypocrite requires more information about her positions - something no one in this thread has bothered to attempt. Furthermore, acting to stop sex trafficking is not the same as violating the general principal of not telling women what to do with their bodies even if the attempt is ham-handed.

All in all, the OP position is a poorly reasoned childish swipe at a politician for making it more inconvenient for the poster to commit illegal acts.

 

[Elixir]

I have joked to friends, that the DNC should select some unknown who they could introduce in September 2020, spending all their money in 2 months instead of 2 years, and limiting the time that the Trumpovich propaganda machine has to Hillarize (read: destroy) them.

Last time I checked, that was called swiftboating and it's been around for a while. The republicans are ninja good at it and have been for decades. Better to plan for it than around it.

How does one "plan for" ninjas? Wouldn't it be easier/more effective to avoid them altogether?