Trump’s motion to dismiss based on his claims of presidential immunity is now due Nov. 7, while the government’s reply is due on Nov. 21. Whether the case ultimately goes to trial depends on the outcome of the election.

I have zero idea why Jack Smith waited so fucking long to bring this to trial. Maybe I’m missing something, but it feels like election interference to postpone court proceedings to give a candidate criminal deniability until after the election is over. If Trump really is guilty, the public deserves to know now, not after we all vote.

Yeah I definitely misspoke and should’ve said “convicted” rather than “locked up”, but she still had far more nonviolent cannabis convictions than the previous DA, as the article also points out. And every single one of those people convicted by her will still be affected when they have to check “yes” on a felony conviction at work and elsewhere.

Do you see the problem that I’m getting at though? She’s refusing to seriously lean into an issue that would only help her campaign, due to a long standing history against cannabis legalization. This race is close after all, so her doing so just seems like a huge mistake.

This Forbes article from 4 years ago covers the general feel of the issue, and has been updated recently.

To quote more directly from the Mercury article, This SF Gate article briefly covers the relevant actions taken by Harris over her career:

Harris oversaw at least 1,956 marijuana convictions in San Francisco during her 8-year tenure as the district attorney, and a Mercury News analysis of those figures found that marijuana arrests under Harris led to a higher rate of conviction than did arrests made under her predecessor. Very few of those convictions actually resulted in jail time, but convictions can still impact a person’s life even if they aren’t incarcerated. It wasn’t until she was a member of the United States Senate and widely considered a 2020 presidential contender that Harris came out publicly for legalizing marijuana, but that announcement probably seemed disingenuous to those who had followed her career in California politics up to that point. She actively fought a 2010 ballot measure that would have legalized recreational cannabis in the state, going so far as to author an opposing argument in the California voter guide. Then, when she was running for a second term as the state’s attorney general in 2014, she replied to a question about her opponent’s support for legalizing recreational marijuana use by saying, “He’s entitled to his opinion,” and then laughing.

Also I can’t read that article bc of a paywall, sorry for not being able to respond to any relevant info, but feel free to give me the important parts if you’d like.

She is directly responsible for locking up thousands of nonviolent drug offenders when she had the ability to reduce, expunge, or never take to trial many trivial cases, yet she chose to.

Also that was a jab about cops being liars. Cops lie on the job all the time, otherwise we wouldn’t need to ever record them.

Police=bad

Is there a name for the subject you’re speaking of, or do you just mean as a general part of political science? Like I’ve seen memes referring to the subject, but I don’t take it as fact. I do know a bit about the multi-party Parliament and local governance of Sweden, but admittedly nothing deep. What would you suggest I further read up on in their system? And what study of Germany do you suggest I read in relation to this?

My own experiences in studying Vietnam have actually led me to the opposite position, where despite a voter turnout of 99%+, the country is still quite socially conservative.

I bet she learned that move from her time in the police force.

That seems like a bit of an oversimplification based on the frequency of Dem wins to the voting percentage.

If true though, wouldn’t the US have been the more right wing under 2012 Obama than Trump since he had a lower voter turnout?

You can’t use evidence of a trend as evidence of political motivations is kinda what I’m getting at.

If that’s the case then there should be no argument from Dems about leftists voting third party in swing states.

We cannot continue to rely on fear to propel turnout. Fear and anxiety lead to paralysis and electoral withdrawal. Arguing “We’re not going to hurt you like they are” is no longer sufficient.

This has been such a massive failure on the Dems part, especially after seeing the excitement that Tim Waltz was able to generate after joining the race. I can’t stand to watch a Kamala rally or speech nowadays because it’s nothing but Trump fearmongering, and I don’t even know which parts are real worries considering the guy couldn’t even build a fucking wall.

It even backfires a bit too, because now I think more about how her office is going to come after our civil liberties. Obama created mass surveillance programs and went after whistleblowers, so what is her office inevitably going to do?

Nguyen Hoa Binh translates roughly to “Nguyen Flower Troops”, lol. It should be Nguyễn Hòa Bình. It’s kinda like mixing up “Steve” and “steed” in English.

Likely because it wouldn’t be reported to the government as thoroughly as hunting tags are. Politicians tend to be against policies that don’t directly give them clout when policies exist that could.

Exactly what I mean. There is zero organizing going on for PSL in this area, so it doesn’t feel nearly as important to push for a socialist vote compared to other issues, like ranked choice voting and cannabis legalization.

Tbh, I don’t expect any culture that considers tattoos to be taboo to be cool with weed.

Yeah, she’s been on my radar and I’ve heard some pretty good ideas and beliefs espoused by her and her running mate. Building leftist movements in a deep-red state is very much a “step lightly” action though, so I have worries that any overt socialist growth here will mean more attempted attacks on pride festivals by neo-nazis, and such. Hell, even mention of “antifa” brings out the crazies to roam the streets with rifles.

This is the #1 reason I have a hard time considering voting for Kamala in a non-swing state. We’ve got ranked choice voting in the ballot, so I’ll definitely be voting, but idk if I’ll cast a presidential vote or not.

I don’t endorse her, so why should I vote like it?

There IS a full scale war going on. 31,000 confirmed dead Ukranian soldiers, and up to 120,000 dead Russian soldiers. We don’t even have a good idea how many civilian deaths, but the total death toll could be as high as 500,000.

And no, before you start - Mutually Assured Destruction isn’t “a full scale war”. Its Annihilation of both sides, and has no precedent in the history of war.

As an official anonymous house democrat, I’d like to say that I’m very scared of hearing words come from my constituents’ mouths. It’s a very violent act I’d like to see the police peacefully resolve with batons, tasers, and pepper spray. #IStandWithIsrael

Okay. So what’s your solution? Or have you already decided Trump has won, and have chosen to give up?

Softcore gilf porn created by an AI to sell state lottery tickets wasn’t on my cards for 2024, but here we are.