this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
57 points (90.1% liked)

News

22838 readers
3762 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I don't think there's anything special that Gabbard did in that debate to make Kamala selfdestruct. She just asked her about the laughing about smoking weed after locking people up for smoking weed. Kamala had no answer prepared and in general isn't great at thinking on her feet. Kamala's prep needs to be better this time, otherwise it could be a repeat of the dem debates which could be catastropic in a close race.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Honestly the whole thing that she "eviscerated" her in the debate (as the New York Times put it) is a bunch of horseshit.

Here's the exchange. I think Harris was a little taken aback because it was at least 50% complete fabrications, and that's harder to deal with in a debate setting than in a prosecutorial setting. It's fair to say she handled it a little poorly and Gabbard did a good job at landing the dishonest attacks. But most of what it accomplished, at the end of the day, was to accelerate the putting of those lies into the public discourse in a big way as talking points, alongside the idea that if anyone in Harris's office was prosecuting people who broke the law at the time, that represents a fair reason to attack Harris today because obviously what she should have been doing was letting them go and instructing every prosecutor in California to do the same, and that wouldn't have caused any problems.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

I think Harris was a little taken aback because it was at least 50% complete fabrications.

Hopefully Harris is prepared for that, because a heap of fabrications (or blatant lies as most people would call them) is exactly what she will be getting from Trump.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

FYI it's pretty normal for DA's to juat say were not gonna prosecute a crime. This is just the first result when I searched for examples with weed:

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/nashville-da-will-no-longer-prosecute-minor-marijuana-possession-charges

Also if she has trouble countering lies, she'll get smoked by Trump so prep is really important here.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nashville had already decriminalized weed as of 2016. I only find one other case (Houston) where it was a prosecutor making a policy decision not to prosecute weed, ahead of the rest of the government. Honestly, just read the rest of the article you cited -- it matters that a lot of the rest of the city government was on board for it, but it still left a little bit of a confusing way to go about it even after decriminalization, which the chief of police among some other people pointed out, along with the idea that yes weed should be legal so maybe it's a good thing.

Left unsaid in among all of that is that selective enforcement by police and prosecutors in almost every case works out, in practice even up to the modern day, to be racist selective enforcement. Honestly it's better for the legislature just to make it legal. I'm not trying to throw cold water on any prosecutor who wants to take the initiative to do a good thing if they can make sure it'll work out right, but generally, the prosecutorial portion of the government isn't where you want to be making your creative departures from the law the way the legislators wrote it down.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I do see that Nashville had decriminalized it in 2016, but it's kinda weird since the article I posted definitely acts like it was still criminalized in 2020. I can't find where the chief of police says anything about it being decriminalized, in the article he just says

“I agree that General Funk, as District Attorney, has the authority to determine what cases to prosecute,” Chief Anderson said. “Marijuana possession remains a violation of Tennessee law, and we cannot be in a position of telling our officers to begin ignoring lawful statutes passed by the legislature. Nashville police officers continue to be encouraged to use their discretion in carrying out their duties, as guided by MNPD policy.”

Maybe a bad article or it had be recriminalized?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It sounds to me like the Nashville city government (mayor and prosecutor and part of the city council) sort of decriminalized it on their own unofficially, even with it being still illegal by state law. Which is… kind of fine. It’s messy but whatever if it keeps people out of jail I’m fine with it. I mean that’s what the states did already that got us to this point.

My whole point was just that having the DA lead the process isn’t the normal way to do it, and that’s not how it happened even in Nashville, and attacking Kamala Harris for this wide variety of half-truthful bullshit including that it’s all her fault that California still had some level of criminalization when she was DA and that makes her automatically a bad person, is IMO a variety of half truthful bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Ah I get what you're saying, I think the smart money would have been to lie about whether she smoked weed. Could have avoided all of this lol.

[–] Voroxpete 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"Decriminalization" doesn't mean "its legal", it means "Its illegal but the state is not obligated to prosecute."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Typically it means there is no criminal offense to prosecute. It turns it into the equivalant of a speeding ticket.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

She wasn't a District Attorney, she was Attorney General for the state of California.

AGs don't have the same prosecutorial discretion that DAs have.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Harris better be ready this time because I assume Trump will be coached to try that jab too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

It's an easy question to answer. "I smoked weed in college, my position on cannabis as AG followed both the Democratic and Republican party positions at the time, and I advocate today for recreational legalization and restorative justice for those who suffered under the war on drugs."