Not just denied.
If they had denied it then, hey, that’s their prerogative, the party is a private entity that can do whatever the fuck they want.
What was fucked is they strung protestors along telling them they’d get to speak, then pulled out at the last second when there wasn’t enough time to react.
If they weren’t going to let them speak, they should have said it.
But bald faced lying to avoid the optics of a protest is billshit, and why people don’t trust Kamala. She shot herself in the foot and then got mad her boot has a hole in it.
And they were going to endorse her at the speech.
What speech?
That group already endorsed her weeks ago essentially saying:
This is the best we can get, it sucks but this is who we should vote for
It’s what progressives almost always do. Look at the exit polls as far back as you want, we show up and hold our noses come November, but we spend the rest of the time (before/after) trying desperately to pull the party left.
Anyone telling you different is uninformed or trying to divide the party.
Edit:
My bad, I think.
Did you mean to say they were planning to enorse her at the DNC? I think I misunderstood your comment as a question.
That group already endorsed her weeks ago
You mean with the statement…
Vice President Harris’s unwillingness to shift on unconditional weapons policy or to even make a clear campaign statement in support of upholding existing U.S. and international human rights law has made it impossible for us to endorse her https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/19/uncommitted-no-endorsement-harris-third-party-trump-00180002
Is that the one in which they endorsed her, the one ending “impossible for us to endorse her”?
Impossible to directly endorse, but then explains she’s the only option to stop trump…
From the second and third paragraphs of your link:
But the Uncommitted National Movement, which arose out of organizing efforts to get people to vote “uncommitted” in Democratic primaries earlier this year in protest of President Joe Biden’s handling of the Israel-Gaza war, also said in its lengthy statement that it opposes Donald Trump. It said the former president’s “agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing.” And it urged against votes for any third-party candidates in November, which leaders say would help a Trump victory in key swing states.
“We urge Uncommitted voters to register anti-Trump votes and vote up and down the ballot. Our focus remains on building a broad anti-war coalition both inside and outside the Democratic Party,” the group said in a statement.
They flat out say what matters is stopping Trump and that third party votes are a waste…
Who do you think that leaves?
I feel like my summary was accurate:
This is the best we can get, it sucks but this is who we should vote for
But details matter so thanks for linking their full comment for those who haven’t read it.
I bet she learned that move from her time in the police force.
Criticizing someone for being a DA alone makes zero sense.
Most are bags of shit. But if only bags of shit take the job, nothing gets better.
There’s lots of valid criticisms of Kamala that talking about may result in real change to her platform. Not only helping stop trump but ensuring we have a good president instead
Lol, she’s a cop
Isn’t helping anything.
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.
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.
Where are you getting that from?
I hear it from Republicans fairly often, but it doesn’t seem backed up by reality…
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/22/us/politics/kamala-harris-prosecutor.html
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.
You said:
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.
Your source disagrees:
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.
So…
Do you acknowledge you were wrong?
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.
The good thing about cops is that they are picked and trained to be x100 times better than random people.
It can still be way better, but can we stop with the police=bad?100x better at stealing private property, shooting dogs and people, and escaping justice.
Police=bad
Trump gave the Palestinian protesters the whole stage for 39 minutes the other day!
My bad, that was just a groove sesh.
Trump will definitely help the Palestinians 🤡