• jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, damning how she locked up fewer people than her predecessors and how the “she locked up 1500 people for weed” thing is a blatant lie?

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            Oh sugar…

            Amidst the dichtomous choice that presents itself, I’m going to go out on a limb and say if you don’t like that, then you certainly won’t like what Trump has in store for you.

            • curiousaur@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s not about my vote. She’s unelectable. Putting her in as the nominae would be handing it to Trump. Same way the DNC handed it to him in 2016 by putting in Hillary.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                Right, the most progressive candidate we’ve ever had is unelectable. For a thing the administration she was part of decriminalized.

                That doesn’t make sense.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Right, the most progressive candidate

                  Exactly. She has to win not just in the deep blue progressive states. She also has to win the competitive states. She can’t just coast to a victory; She has to actually compete against Trump. ~~~~

                  If “most progressive” was something that the swing states voted for, they wouldn’t be swing states; they would be blue. “Most progressive” will win her the popular vote, and lose the election. Just like it did with Hillary.

                  Contrast with Mark Kelly, a solid blue candidate with a known record of being able to win in red states. Kelly would poach votes from Trump, turning the competitive states blue, and some of the red states competitive.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You’re confusing “most progressive candidate” we’ve ever had with “democratic socialist”.

                    Mark Kelly is a great politician but he would be starting from behind her on this. Newsome who was already prepping for a 2028 run would be the more logical choice if you want to replace Harris.

                • BigFatNips@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  But they didn’t though? Gonna vote for Kamala either way but you don’t have to lie. At best the administration she was part of nicely suggested that we should reschedule it to a lower but still very criminal schedule 3. Please don’t give them credit for shit they didn’t even do, or promise to do.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I did think they got it lower than that. But schedule 3 can be prescribed and some are available behind the counter at the pharmacy. So it’s a way better position than it was.