I’m guessing all that pot found in that bag in the white house that one time was hers then.
In all seriousness, I’m not surprised but still not thrilled. This is becoming a dilemma in of itself and I feel like I disagree with the majority (not that it changes anything). People will say they’re choosing the lesser of two evils “to vote the other person out”, but that just grossly perpetuates a dictatorial system that we deserve better from and it becomes your fault we don’t have it, according to the same democratic logic championed in politics. I’m not voting for this hypocrite.
Her smoking pot herself is irrelevant, it’s bad that people were prosecuted for using drugs.
The hypocrisy doesn’t matter, all politicians are lying hypocrites, I’m voting for the one that ain’t supported by Nazis trying to drag America backwards a hundred years.
So you won’t vote for someone supported by Nazis but will vote for someone supporting Nazis.
I guess hypocricy really doesn’t matter.
So, how’s the weather in Moscow?
They’re not a Russian operative, they’re using Nazi as shorthand for Zionist in an attempt to point out that Israel’s actions in Palestine are utterly abhorrent and the genocide happening there should be regarded with similar disdain as the genocides of Nazi Germany.
But it’s a clumsy shorthand, it’s ineffective in communicating to American voters, as it lumps two different groups of white supremacists into the same group when there’s material distinctions that affect people living in America.
It’s meant to be glib against Israelis who would shudder at being compared to the genociders of their ancestors, but it isn’t Israelis voting in this election, so it mostly comes off as overly bitter.
It’s an easy trap to fall into as a leftist in America, as there’s so much abhorrently wrong with our political system, but that kind of vitriol isn’t often pragmatic and using disdainful shorthand isn’t useful in radicalizing the plurality of Americans necessary to revolutionize politics in this country.
I’d love to engage you in your point but that would make both of us sound like complete idiots.
Prosecutors don’t write the law, and prosecutorial discretion is only actually meaningful when circumstances are unusual.
She didn’t have an option to just not do drug charges.
I think she is undeniably a better choice for the presidency than Donald Trump, that’s for sure
I think it’s great. That’s one more person in power who will not demonize it more than it deserves.
To be clear, I am not a “If everyone was high, the world would be perfect!” kind of guy. There is a time and a place, and many people should not touch it at all.
It’s ignorant to expect a prosecutor to not do their job just because of their own preferences. I’ve had jobs where I had to do things I didn’t truly believe in, but you gotta do the job as it’s defined.
I was at a Walz rally last night, and while looking at all the security, my wife asked “How many of these cops do you think are Trump supporters?”
I would hope that a Republican cop would do his job to protect a Democratic candidate, and not have assholes online saying “How do you feel about Officer So and So stopping the attack on Kamala even though he claims to be a Republican?”
Mainly I don’t care. I’m voting to keep trump out.
But since you asked, my judgement on that is the same on any crime. If you get caught, you’re not good enough to be doing it. She didn’t get caught, they did. Do you expect a, “sorry, I can’t work this case. It’s a conflict of interest because I get high too.” or something? Workers don’t turn themselves in when they steal from Walmart.
Care to tell what you are even talking about?
Much has changed since then. She sponsored a comprehensive federal legalization bill in the Senate, and she’s called for ending prohibition altogether as recently as this March, at a roundtable event with pardon recipients where she also called on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to quickly reschedule cannabis, as the Justice Department has since formally proposed.
If elected, Harris would become the first president who openly supports marijuana legalization. And the list of potential running mates that she’s reportedly considering also includes a majority who share that position, as well as some who have signed legalization into law in their state.
While Harris has a complicated history with cannabis policy, she has come out in full support of legalization in recent years, sharing that “the War on Drugs was an abject failure. It’s time to legalize marijuana and bring justice to people of color harmed by failed drug policies.”
There are things I disagree with Harris about, but this cycle, I’m a single issue voter.
That issue is “never having to experience Trump in any office ever again.”
Hopefully my politics can be a little more nuanced next time.
I’m voting against worsening climate change. Outside of that they’re both neo liberal shitheads.
It’s hypocritical, and I don’t like it. With that said, most politicians are hypocrites, which is why I generally dislike politicians.
Most of the liberals on here just want to be back at brunch. So those are the feelings you’re getting.
Personally, her hypocrisy over weed means little to me compared to the children she’s planning to help murder.
And, I’ll still vote for her because more children will die from climate change under Trump.
I wish she just banned public smoking, smokers are disgusting
I think that, in a country that is becoming more and more fascist by the day, it’s more alarming than people would be willing to admit that Harris built her prosecutorial career around targeting truants and non-violent drug users.
Her prosecutorial career is a microcosm of the fundamental problems in the US criminal justice system, which observably and disproportionately oppresses the poor and makes vast concessions for the wealthy. Her presidency, should it happen, will not change that.
I’ve been reading her book, the truancy thing is interesting. She had data that showed that kids that weren’t showing up at school, particularly young ones, didn’t learn how to read sufficiently well, and then fell behind in school and struggled to catch up, they then ended up struggling later in life, and often ending up either as victims or perpetrators of crime.
So, she used the California DA’s office to enforce truancy laws across California, encouraged reaching out to fix the problems at home if at all possible, and also encouraged reaching out to folks that had been written off as “not caring” (she cites an example of a father that hadn’t been paying child support but upon learning that his daughter wasn’t going to school, started taking his daughter to school every morning, and volunteering in her classroom).
Of course this is all by her account, but that sounds overall quite positive to me.
Like you, I’d expect Kamala to paint herself in a positive light in her own book.
Personally, though, the notions that incarcerating someone for a victimless crime is positive or that our prison system is a proper answer or reformatory for victimless crimes is either exceedingly naive or euphemistically fascist. (And both of those, to me, disqualify someone for the presidency.)
I mean there’s quite clearly a victim here, the child.
Agreed.
I hate the idea of handing her the reigns of government and the power to create untold victims with her authoritarian and selfish approach to the law.
(Problem is, that’s our choice either way you vote.)
