I noticed he didn’t call for an abolition of federal anti-cannabis law.
trump is a liar it does not matter what he said.
I hate accusations of flip floping in politics… Trump absolutely is an unreliable asshole but it is reasonable and good for people’s views on different topics to evolve following receiving new information.
There’s a big difference between an evolving view and just saying whatever you think the people in front of you want to hear and pretending you’ve always thought that.
Yeah dude cracked down on marijuana usage during his 4 years. AG Colonel Sanders went on a little crusade.
I don’t disagree, I just loathe that term after the bullshit usage against Kerry.
But why so desperate to give trump air cover? There’s what’s obvious and then Kerry?
Sorry, I can’t quite parse your comment?
Please explain why Kerry has anything to do with giving trump leverage.
Oh, I just hate critizing people for changing their minds… there are so many things wrong with Trump that I’d rather see more of the other angles. Trump is also extremely inconsistent from day to day so calling him a flip flopper just seems like a weak attack - he holds whatever position is politically expedient (see abortion)… so his “stance” on an issue (other than the bizarre ones he fabricates like building a wall or excessive tariffs) don’t really mean anything.
So the TL;DR I’d prefer the campaign focus on their own policies and just let the weird senile old man shout at the wind without giving him any media attention.
But we aren’t talking about “people”, we are specifically talking about Trump. Trump didn’t “evolve”, he’s a swindler who will say whatever to whoever when it benefits him.
So let’s not take normal people finding out more info on a topic and pretend like that has anything to do with nonsense he happened to say one day or another.
In general, I agree. But if someone is saying different things every other week, going back and forth, it shows that they really have no stance. Flip flopping isn’t evolving your understanding, it’s constantly changing your “view” to appeal to whatever crowd you’re in front of.
thing is he does not really flip flop as much as talk out of both sides of his mouth.
I think we’re safely past the point of having to give Trump and any of his views the benefit of the doubt.
The article didn’t mention harris’ stance on the issue. Is she for legalization?
Nothing on record that I know of, but some people in her circle has said she’s open to legalization
For legalization, but historically toed the party line.
For legalization, but historically toed the party line
It’s sadly a common theme with her: she claims to be progressive on many subjects, but when push comes to shove, she almost always toes the party line.
I hope she’ll buck that trend when she’s president, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Yeah, my feelings exactly
Depends if the lobbyists want it legal.
Yeah, that’s a given, since the owner donors decide where the party line is more than anyone else…
I wonder how many people she pursued possession charges on as a DA.
Edit:
But at different junctures of her time in office, she has been an enforcer of cannabis laws and an opponent of legalized use for adults in California.
Though she defended marijuana’s use for medicinal purposes as district attorney, her prosecutors in San Francisco convicted more than 1,900 people on cannabis-related offenses.
1900 people were convicted, but only 45 of them went to prison. The rest were referred to addiction services and work release programs.
That’s still a lot of people with criminal records whose lives are much more difficult for it, for something she’s now antagonizing her opponent for flip flopping on as well.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m voting Harris and donating to get campaign. But I find this particular attack vector to be massively hypocritical.
Oh, those people have definitely had a conviction on their records impact them. Although I’m fairly sure the ones that didn’t go to prison were misdemeanors, so not felonies. But regardless, I just think it’s important context to know more about the 1900 number. Is it still not the best? Yeah. But it’s also not as black and white as she sent 1900 people to prison for weed.
It’s also not really a prosecutor’s job to decide what the law should be.
That’s a bit of a cop out. Was she “just following orders”?
Anyone enforcing laws they don’t believe in is IMO a bigger ethical issue than agreeing with controversial laws.
People’s willingness to follow through on what the government decides should absolutely be a check and balance on government power IMO.
Edit: she’s still a far better choice than Trump and would have to have a lot more issues to change that, just to be clear.
It’s literally a prosecutor’s job to enforce the law. I’m sure she had many opinions on whether the laws were just or not…and that’s probably something that moved her to want to go into politics, where she can help shape the law. It’s fine if you object to someone having been a prosecutor but I don’t think you can accept that she was a prosecutor and then object to the fact that she…did her job.
