Didn’t take the propagandists long to switch their targets.
Well duh. You'd have to be a pretty shitty propagandist to keep making pot-shots at a guy who's no longer on the race.
I don't care for Harris. However, since we live in a first-past-the-post two-party mess, I'll continue voting progressively (and for ranked-choice if it ever gets put to a vote) in all my local/primary elections and voting for whichever candidate is running against Trump.
Then don't vote and leave it to the rest of us to maintain your ability to post stupid shit online, legitimate though it may be.
I'll vote for someone who isn't a cop (sorry prosecutor as if that matters), that isn't complicit in genocide, that didn't put trans women in mens prisons, that isn't a total piece of fucking garbage. You voting for "lesser" evil isn't pragmatic, its selling out your values.
You don't know my values. Good luck with yours though
If you're voting for either party your values are pretty plain to see
Lmfao you people probably can't even vote in my country and half of you have no idea what you're talking about you consume news and don't actually know what is going on here.
Vote locally is the best we can do, my state has fantastic democratic nominees in most elections things are getting better. Federally it is a different ball game but I'm still supporting this party.
On top of that, you have no interest in American success, you want chaos and suffering. Go fix your own shit holes
True, but my red line was genocide. I figure this candidate might be better so I'm gonna roll the dice. 🤷♀️
She prosecuted a little under 2000, about 45 went to jail...
Op is either misinformed or lying.
The Attorney General does not keep people in prison, they only prosecute cases.. That's the parole board.
Has to do with bad crime lab evidence:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article233375207.html
"While the San Francisco Police Department was responsible for running the lab, not Harris’s district attorney office, a court ruled in 2010 that the district attorney’s office violated defendants’ constitutional rights by not disclosing what it knew about the tainted drug evidence.
Judge Anne-Christine Masullo wrote in her decision that prosecutors “at the highest levels of the district attorney’s office knew that Madden was not a dependable witness at trial and that there were serious concerns regarding the crime lab.”
Wow, a prosecutor who worked under the "hard on crime" US laws? Say it ain't so!
The laws are dumb. Corporal punishment is dumb. It's a fancy word for state sanctioned murder.
Every year US states executes people who have been put through kangaroo courts with circumstantial evidence.
This is a federal problem that has been part of US politics since the inception of CRT.
Bail and bonds were just ways of preventing Freeman to actually make any money or lives for them selves so they would end up in prison chain gangs.
Hey, here's a great idea. Lift old laws that stifle economic development "in certain areas", create more combined domestic and commercial areas, put money into public housing, and for the love of God
Petition Harris even. Organise, FFS!
I would love to see Trump try his usual attacks on Mark Kelly.
Why not Kelly for VP?
I think the Kelly/Harris ticket is stronger than Harris/Kelly. I have zero doubt that Kelly can beat Trump. I don't know about Harris.
Harris has 4 years executive experience & Kelly has the Hero status, plus he's the White Male that will make midwest socialites feel all warm & cozy.
Exactly. Harris might be the better president, but Kelly is the more electable of the two. Harris is more popular in the blue states, but those states are going to vote for Kelly all the same. Kelly is more popular in the states that actually matter to the election.
I feel like he would just make stuff up, say insulting things about him, and talk poorly and aggressively about his wife. Kinda like he did to the candidates in 2016 like Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush.
Cadet Bone Spurs insulting a high ranking military officer and astronaut isn't going to sit well with the undecideds, or those "Republicans" who have to hold their noses when they cast a vote.
Anything he says about Giffords is going to backfire spectacularly: she was severely injured; he scratched his ear.
I definitely agree, but logic isn't the strongsuit of many of his voters.
This guy is a way better person, but I can't help but think about how little it mattered when Trump was talking badly about McCain.
It's not.going to work.
Who decided that this campaign to suppress the vote was worth running? Imagine being this bad at your job. Worse yet… what donkeys are taking money to run this? I’ve worked some worthless jobs, but Christ… I’d feel awful about myself every day. Maybe it’s the same people that run the unending scams?
Source?
The only thing I can think of is the way in which her Back on Track policy functioned. From my understanding, it was created specifically with non-violent (drug) offenders in mind. This could be something as simple as possession with weed.
The Back on Track program, again from my understanding, would effectively have the convicted person admit to their felony, which would then be expunged in part of the program.
Ah, here it is: https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/BackonTrackFS.pdf
BOT participants are young adults, ages 18–30, who are facing charges for their first felony offense1 for a low-level drug sale. At charging, prosecuting attorneys refer potential participants to BOT.2 Candidates attend a program orientation and participate in an intensive community service program for a 6-week probationary period. Only defendants who complete 6 weeks of community service and decide to participate are eligible for enrollment. They plead guilty to charges and have their formal sentencing deferred and, after enrolling, start a rigorous, 12–18 month program with goals set by an individualized personal responsibility plan (PRP). The PRP mandates concrete achievements in employment, education, parenting, and child support and requires participants to perform up to 220 hours of community service. In addition, enrollees are closely supervised. They meet three times per week with a BOT case manager and appear in BOT reentry court three times per month, at which a superior court judge and prosecutor track their progress in meeting program requirements and completing the PRP.
To graduate from the program, participants must find employment, enroll in school full time, and comply with all the terms of their PRPs. At graduation, the court dismisses the original case, leaving the graduate with a clean record.3 If an individual still enrolled in the program is charged with a new crime or fails to meet BOT requirements, he or she is removed from BOT, and a judge can immediately impose a jail or prison sentence.
So some feel like it was pointed to force non-felons into a felony status. Which is true, if they didn't complete the program. But, the program also allowed for education in place of prison time. Which I'm sure happened, but I'm not sure if they would be considered in the image above. If anyone is curious, here's some bullet points on her timeline.
As San Francisco District Attorney (2004-2011):
Refused to seek the death penalty for a man who killed a police officer
Created "Back on Track," a program allowing first-time drug offenders to get education instead of prison time
Implemented a policy to only charge for a third strike if the felony was serious or violent
As California Attorney General (2011-2017):
Expanded "Back on Track" program statewide
Introduced police racial bias training
Made California DOJ the first statewide agency to require body cameras
Launched OpenJustice, a platform to track police killings
Controversies as Attorney General:
Fought to release fewer prisoners despite court orders on overcrowding
Argued against releasing some prisoners proven innocent by the Innocence Project
Appealed a judge's decision that deemed California's death penalty unconstitutional
Defended law enforcement officials accused of misconduct in some cases
Resisted some efforts to investigate police shootings
As U.S. Senator (2017-present):
Consistently supported criminal justice reforms
Introduced bail reform legislation
Co-sponsored bill to make lynching a federal crime
Voted for the First Step Act
Supported marijuana legalization efforts
For her 2020 presidential campaign:
Released a criminal justice reform plan to reduce incarceration and end the death penalty
Took responsibility for some controversial decisions made by her office as AG
Thank you! This was actually informative. I imagine the right wing will spin most of this as being easy on crime.
I was a public defender for over 4 years. From this, I don’t think she’s nearly as bad as the prosecutors I dealt with on a daily basis.