• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kamala Harris Election Campaign

Ziggurat said:
DA's have significant discretion in what they choose to focus on and how they want to prosecute. She could have gone easy on marijuana prosecutions while doing her job. She chose not to.
Click to expand...

Why should she have? Maybe not everybody smokes the devil's lettuce or thinks the law ought to bend for the convenience of dirty hippies. Man.
 
carlosy said:
I'm not bitching about anything. I don't care who uses marijuana or crypto. I just hope that these talking points won't get through to the people who are not meant to read it, because they might see it as naive as I depicted it. And in the end it could hurt more than it might help Harris.
Click to expand...

Or, hopefully, those same people will take the time out of their day to research why she's saying what she's saying. How it will help people like them and not immediately assume she's being racist or derogatory by introducing policy meant to help them. It's not like she's promoting a bucket of fried chicken and a whole watermelon for every Black man. They're economic policy ideas. I can't imagine people viewing it as racist, unless they go out of their way to make that connection.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm also amused by her new marijuana stance, given how many people she prosecuted in California for marijuana crimes. I doubt we'll see an apology for her past actions on that front.
Click to expand...

Generally, prosecutors prosecute people who commit crimes. That is not antithetical to proposing that we change those laws in the future.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
Generally, prosecutors prosecute people who commit crimes. That is not antithetical to proposing that we change those laws in the future.
Click to expand...

That's not really the way right wingers approach things. If you're against something then you have to be against it for life. Unless the person being talked about is Trump, in which case he can flip-flop and hold no actual positions because that's the type of guy they want leading!

Make sense? It doesn't to me either.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
Generally, prosecutors prosecute people who commit crimes. That is not antithetical to proposing that we change those laws in the future.
Click to expand...

Also, if Kamala did not prosecute these MJ offenders, the talking point would be: "She didn't do her job!!!"

Goal posts are attached to flying drones in MAGA world.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm also amused by her new marijuana stance, given how many people she prosecuted in California for marijuana crimes. I doubt we'll see an apology for her past actions on that front.
Click to expand...

I understand she didn't pursue jail time if it was just possession. People who went to jail for possession also went away for more serious crimes. It's not great, but far better than right-wing smooth brains portray it.
 
Ziggurat said:
DA's have significant discretion in what they choose to focus on and how they want to prosecute. She could have gone easy on marijuana prosecutions while doing her job. She chose not to.
Click to expand...

If chatgpt is to be believed (I encourage anyone to check what it says through other sources),
Though her office prosecuted marijuana possession, the overall number of marijuana convictions dropped in San Francisco during her time in office [2004-11].

[As Attorney General] Harris did not take a strong public stance for or against marijuana legalization while serving as Attorney General, and her office continued to enforce the state’s laws as they existed at the time. [This was after Calif. legalized recreational use.]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
DA's have significant discretion in what they choose to focus on and how they want to prosecute. She could have gone easy on marijuana prosecutions while doing her job. She chose not to.
Click to expand...

More, this time from The Urban Legend (a debunking site?):
A study done by the NAACP and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) found that when looking at the top 25 major cities in California from 2006 to 2008, Black people were incarcerated for marijuana offenses at four to twelve times the rate of white people. However, San Francisco had such low marijuana arrests the city was not even included in the study. This suggests that, when Harris was DA, marijuana convictions also likely were relatively low and that, accordingly, the claim that Harris “prosecuted minor drug offenses ruthlessly” is not accurate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I'm also amused by her new marijuana stance, given how many people she prosecuted in California for marijuana crimes. I doubt we'll see an apology for her past actions on that front.
Click to expand...

The key word here is "crimes". Or do you think during her time as AG of CA, state attorneys should not have prosecuted what were crimes at the time? If so, that explains why the "party of law and order" are largely voting for a 34X convicted felon.

Additionally, "she" didn't prosecute marijuana case: state attorneys did:
Also, as attorney general, Harris would not have personally prosecuted marijuana cases. Those cases would have been handled by lower-level state attorneys.
Click to expand...

Tulsi Gabbard repeated a claim she'd read in the Free Beacon, a conservative newspaper:

"she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations."
Click to expand...

However, this is misleading:
The agency’s data shows there were 1,883 admissions to state prison on marijuana offenses during the years Harris was attorney general. There were another 92 admissions for crimes related to hashish, a drug made from cannabis resin. Notably, the figures dropped dramatically during Harris’ tenure, from 817 marijuana-related admissions in her first year in office to 137 in her last.
Click to expand...

All quotes from Politifact.

Do you think people should go to jail for simply smoking or having weed? If not, then you should be in agreement with the Biden Harris Administration's pardoning of federal and DC simple weed possession convictions.
 
Last edited:
I love how even the most toothless criticisms that Republicans level at Harris end up being moronic lies.
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
As I understand it, there's evidence black men are trending away from Harris, with speculation that the demographic doesn't trust leadership to a woman. So the Harris campaign has targeted them specifically, much as they have targeted campaigns for Hispanics, women, and other subgroups where they think they can make progress.
Click to expand...

carlosy said:
Yes, but presenting it this way looks a bit weird, imho.
Imagine you are a black woman or latino.
'Oh, nice what they will do for black men...'

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/382G6tk.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I think you are right and that was also something that Obama said recently.

Unfortunately this kind of phrasing looks like naked pandering.

In fact, it worryingly looks almost like they they had a brainstorming session titled, "How can we attract Black men?" and told the people present to be bold and not care about tripping over any stereotypes.

So after the brainstorming, it went to the committee who was supposed to tidy it up and remove the obvious pandering, but they were busy so just put the ideas in bullet points and added the words "and others" and then put it out on social media within a few minutes because the election is sooooooon!
 
angrysoba said:
I think you are right and that was also something that Obama said recently.

Unfortunately this kind of phrasing looks like naked pandering.

In fact, it worryingly looks almost like they they had a brainstorming session titled, "How can we attract Black men?" and told the people present to be bold and not care about tripping over any stereotypes.

So after the brainstorming, it went to the committee who was supposed to tidy it up and remove the obvious pandering, but they were busy so just put the ideas in bullet points and added the words "and others" and then put it out on social media within a few minutes because the election is sooooooon!
Click to expand...

Right? A politician clarifying her positions on how she plans to help people who, it is being claimed, are leaning towards not voting for her. What kind of a ******* moron would be stupid enough, degenerate enough, to do something like that? Can you imagine something so brazen? That's never happened, in the history of POTUS elections. It's also never worked! amiright? No pandering has ever worked.
 
plague311 said:
Right? A politician clarifying her positions on how she plans to help people who, it is being claimed, are leaning towards not voting for her. What kind of a ******* moron would be stupid enough, degenerate enough, to do something like that? Can you imagine something so brazen? That's never happened, in the history of POTUS elections. It's also never worked! amiright? No pandering has ever worked.
Click to expand...

It just looks as ham-handed as the time when Trump released a photo of him eating nachos saying "I love Hispanics". Remember when we laughed at the brazenness of that? It was dumb and looked insulting of the electorate's intelligence. Now maybe that kind of thing works and we really are in Idiocracy territory where someone pulls out a spreadsheet from the polls and just reduces the target demographics to stereotypes: "Oh we're doing badly with Karens, don't worry we'll be making direct phone lines to the manager a priority. Vote for us!"
 
angrysoba said:
It just looks as ham-handed as the time when Trump released a photo of him eating nachos saying "I love Hispanics". Remember when we laughed at the brazenness of that? It was dumb and looked insulting of the electorate's intelligence. Now maybe that kind of thing works and we really are in Idiocracy territory where someone pulls out a spreadsheet from the polls and just reduces the target demographics to stereotypes: "Oh we're doing badly with Karens, don't worry we'll be making direct phone lines to the manager a priority. Vote for us!"
Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to create a false equivalency, do it right. Trump had already made repeated degrading statements about Hispanics and so eating a taco salad was stupidly insulting. There isn't some data available saying Hispanics like taco salads. I would barely even classify it as a Mexican\Hispanic dish.

There is data that criminal marijuana charges disproportionately target Black men. I would assume, I haven't looked, that they also enjoy investing in crypto, and not just Black men, but men in general. I know a bunch of guys that are into crypto, I know maybe 1 female. That's why she didn't target it specifically at Black men, but included other men as well.

Anyway, whatever. We won't agree.
 
I had a local seniors class that is on the topic of elections. This was the only day the presidency was a specific topic. One senior said he will vote for Kamala, but "it would be better if she admitted her mistakes for three years." I think he was just talking about the border. Not sure what other mistakes she should admit. Fracking flipflopping has not been in the news for moths.
 
Anyone notice how quiet Zig has gone now that people have posted facts and evidence refuting his "amused" claim about Harris and marijuana prosecutions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom