Remember when Donald Trump was some dumb celebrity?
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
To be clear, while I love Bernie for being probably the most honest candidate I’ve ever seen, I can’t support many of his policies.
I hate that Biden is viewed as the “front runner” just because hes been VP. I think there are other candidates that are much hungrier than him and hes running for president as a “just cuz” I think Trump would put him in a body bag. I also want a President from this generation... someone who actually understands us.
I hate that Biden is viewed as the “front runner” just because hes been VP. I think there are other candidates that are much hungrier than him and hes running for president as a “just cuz” I think Trump would put him in a body bag. I also want a President from this generation... someone who actually understands us.
Nah, man. They are in the bag.
You realize Donald wasn't a politician until he ran for president, right? Get ready for #Beyonce2024.
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, what are the policies of Bernie’s you’re not a fan of?
Ill keep it simple,
Bernie stands for helping young people.
I will be taxed another 8% under him than Trump and I’m 22 years old. Sorry but I’ll keep my money, the government has enough.
I'm glad her stance has evolved over the past couple decades. <3
FYI increased bail was only for gun crimes, because there was a gun crime epidemic in SF at the time. Not homeless black disabled 16 year olds caught with weed (or whatever the go to pity-fishing demographic is for you guys).
Last edited:
huh?
Unless you're making 500k+, your taxes seem to be the same. Also, your argument makes no sense. Taxes can be raised while also helping people. I don't think bernie's platform is about "helping young people". Should an 18 y/o billionaire not be taxed more...?
You were also taxed more under Obama than trump. The tax cuts that trump implemented will cost the American people billions over the long term. It's not as simple as X tax goes up under this candidate, I won't vote for x candidate. Voting for people based on your take home income is an awful way to vote, no matter the candidate.
I mean there’s what is proposed on a campaign website and then there’s what would be needed to pay for his policies. Bernie has openly admitted most people will in actuality pay more in taxes under his administration (if he is able to sign any bills into law). It’s just that many of his policies will also help people out in terms of paying less on healthcare, for prescription medication, on education, etc.
And before anyone says that what’s on his website is his plan go look at Trump’s website and tell me with a straight face that is his plan. Bernie talks about what he wants to do every single day, and no honest reckoning of what free college tuition, free healthcare, etc. would cost allows for no tax increases on those making under 250k. The reality is that everyone would pay for these programs, not just the wealthy. But these programs would also provide value to everyone, particularly the underprivileged.
Most people making less than 500k will see a net benefit from Bernie’s policies, and the vast majority making under 100k will see an improvement - assuming that the economy chugs along at the same pace. Whether that happens with higher corporate tax rates no one knows, but I agree that a 22 year old will almost certainly see a net benefit.
It's even worse than UncleSam's excellent analysis in the reality. It's a naked class warfare between the 9% managerial class and 90% worker class. The 1% ultrawealthy have resources to relocate and evade any tax policy installed. Don't believe me? The 1950's 90% tax rate never worked out in the reality. The wealthy dodged the taxes.
The reality is that the 9% managerial class will end up shouldering the burden, as that they have the exact right overlap of not enough wealth to obtain resources to dodge the tax codes and having enough wealth to fall in higher tax brackets under Sanders' plan. Sanders' plan won't accumulate enough money to successfully pay all of his desired policies.
The reality is that the 9% managerial class will end up shouldering the burden, as that they have the exact right overlap of not enough wealth to obtain resources to dodge the tax codes and having enough wealth to fall in higher tax brackets under Sanders' plan. Sanders' plan won't accumulate enough money to successfully pay all of his desired policies.
Sanders is the only one who has a chance in hell at beating Trump. Warren will lose because she's a status-quo-hugging DNC-fellating shill (although admittedly she doesn't have Hillary's history or abrasive personality, so she could potentially have a shot, although I wouldn't bet a dollar on it), Biden will lose because he's a creepy piece of shit, the rest of these clowns are nobodies. Sanders might lose because muh socialism, but at least he's more progressive than Warren, not a potential sex offender like Biden, and can pull some independent fence sitters and moderate republicans by playing populist, unlike pretty much any of the other democratic candidates. Vote Sanders or vote Trump, because realistically, those are your choices.
Okay, that's enough politics on a Pokemon website for 2019. See you in 2020 folks.
Okay, that's enough politics on a Pokemon website for 2019. See you in 2020 folks.
Sorry, but I don't drink Monster. Maybe post him with a glass of water?
Tbh. Good for her. This could turn out to be what wins her the election. You heard it here first
I think however, she needs to TODAY come out and admit she was wrong abt marijuana and apologize for her part in locking up people. Otherwise, it's going to read like hillary. Hillary was grilled several times by trump in the debates on her past and never admitted guilt, and it (imo) was the one thing that never-hillary people couldn't shake off. The sooner harris rips off the bandaid the better for her campaign.
I think however, she needs to TODAY come out and admit she was wrong abt marijuana and apologize for her part in locking up people. Otherwise, it's going to read like hillary. Hillary was grilled several times by trump in the debates on her past and never admitted guilt, and it (imo) was the one thing that never-hillary people couldn't shake off. The sooner harris rips off the bandaid the better for her campaign.
This sounds a little dicey. Employ people in the industry that they got bopped for? I'm all for giving the "stolen" money back to incarcerated people in the form of legal defense, job training, etc...I have never liked small-business-sponsoring. It reads like a "vote for me if you own a dispensary, I'll give you free* cash!" and these subsidies are always a nightmare to take away.
Can someone actually cite Kamala's contribution to marijuana incarcerations? Serious question.
Weed possession was decriminalized in California in 1975. A 3-strikes rule was established for all drug violators in 2000. In 2010, weed possession was further demoted to an infraction.
How many people did Kamala lock up for the civil offense of possessing weed?
Weed possession was decriminalized in California in 1975. A 3-strikes rule was established for all drug violators in 2000. In 2010, weed possession was further demoted to an infraction.
How many people did Kamala lock up for the civil offense of possessing weed?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...war-on-drugs-starts-with-legalizing-marijuana
"It's the smart thing to do. It’s the right thing to do. And I know this as a former prosecutor. I know it as a senator,” Harris said at the time. “The fact is marijuana laws are not applied and enforced the same way for all people. African-Americans use marijuana at roughly the same rate as whites, but are approximately four times more likely to be arrested for possession. That's just not fair."
Quoting a fairly out there website:
"Possession of small quantities of marijuana (up to an ounce) for personal use has been decriminalized in California since 1975. However, sales of the drug remained illegal until 2018, when the commercial licensing portion of Proposition 64—the ballot measure that legalized weed state-wide—was implemented. That means that the state still arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned people for marijuana-related offenses."
Harris had the power to direct her office to not cooperate with federal prosecutors, and did not. She could have made literally any effort to push for decriminalization, and did not. When asked about legalization, she laughed it off. To say that 'she knows as a prosecutor that it's the right thing to do' is extremely disingenuous as she did not make any effort to stop prosecuting people
Kamala Harris, operating in her capacity as District Attorney, was openly against California's Proposition 19, a 2010 initiative that would have legalized recreational marijuana in the state of California. In an interview with Capitol Weekly, a newssite in California, her campaign manager stated that: "Spending two decades in court rooms, Harris believes that drug selling harms communities. Harris supports the legal use of medicinal marijuana but does not support anything beyond that." In a follow up to this in 2014, rather than coming out to support or even attempt to show leeway, she straight up laughed at the mere prospect of her AG opponent (Ron Gold) saying that recreational should be legal.
To answer your question, an infraction still means an arrest, which still often means they are arrested and held in lockup while the DA deliberates on whether to pursue or not. In knowing this, and still ignoring infraction numbers past 2011, we can go year by year. In 2017, 6,085 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 2,086 were felonies. In 2016, 13,810 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 7,949 were felonies. 2015 data could not be found. In 2014, 19,711 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 13,300 were felonies. In 2013, 20,346 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 13,799 were felonies. In 2012, 21,202 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 7,768 were felonies. In 2011, 21,846 marijuana related arrests occured, of which 14,082 were felonies. The numbers in this are much lower than they would appear to be depicted to accurately portray but are still worrying, as infractions are not counted in the DOJ's arrest total. A gentle reminder that even if all you get is an infraction, you still go to lockup and get arrested, the number just isn't counted in the total. In addition to this, the total number of prisoners in the state of California that are locked up for marijuana-related offenses are fourteen times the total of prisoners in 1980 (at the height of the war on drugs). That total doesn't even take into account federal prisoners, which serve a minimum of five years for medical marijuana related charges, such as Dr. Mollie Fry, or Dave Schafer. source). Also interesting in that source is the showing of complete disproportionality of race of offenders, with Hispanics comprising well over 40% of marijuana related offenses, and Blacks second at around 25-30%.
I would also like to remind that Kamala Harris's job as top cop, aka Attorney General, grants her the privilege of dictating which crimes to focus on and which crimes to pursue. Additionally they are often outspoken, politically, such as when Eric Holder voiced his opinions and stances on waterboarding and issues concerning Gitmo. Thus Kamala Harris had every opportunity throughout the years to take a stand and showcase her true colors, and the colors she chose to show were entirely blue. She would rather appear tough on crime (her stances against recreational, her stances on truancy) than to make a stand for her people, and would instead rather use her own people as props to accelerate her political career (such as her downright idiotic claims that she "smoked in college while listening to tupac" despite 2pacalypse coming out several years after she finished her degree at Howard University or UC Hastings source)
There is something to be said about evolving stances politically and growing over the years. I am all for this and there are certainly instances where something egregious might be said twenty years ago that holds no relevance in today's society, however when the political stance of a certain someone is roughly only a year old with decades of the opposite stance in the receipts it calls into question whether she is truly advocating for it or whether she is just being politically expedient. Based on her previous positions, defending dirty cops, being extraneous with respect to school truancy, her stances on recreational like where she straight up laughs at the idea of defending it, I don't see how she genuinely believes that this is the correct direction to go, and is merely not attempting to die on this hill and to concede for political points. Great initiative if it passes, it's much needed legislation, but I for one would much prefer someone who is consistent in their ideals and stances and can articulate any evolution in a much clearer manner than Kamala Harris has shown. If she's just evolved her stances to match the needs of the people she's a demagogue in my eyes, and the world needs less of those and more of progressively, forward thinking individuals; not leeches who jump ship when convenient.
To answer your question, an infraction still means an arrest, which still often means they are arrested and held in lockup while the DA deliberates on whether to pursue or not. In knowing this, and still ignoring infraction numbers past 2011, we can go year by year. In 2017, 6,085 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 2,086 were felonies. In 2016, 13,810 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 7,949 were felonies. 2015 data could not be found. In 2014, 19,711 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 13,300 were felonies. In 2013, 20,346 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 13,799 were felonies. In 2012, 21,202 marijuana related arrests occurred, of which 7,768 were felonies. In 2011, 21,846 marijuana related arrests occured, of which 14,082 were felonies. The numbers in this are much lower than they would appear to be depicted to accurately portray but are still worrying, as infractions are not counted in the DOJ's arrest total. A gentle reminder that even if all you get is an infraction, you still go to lockup and get arrested, the number just isn't counted in the total. In addition to this, the total number of prisoners in the state of California that are locked up for marijuana-related offenses are fourteen times the total of prisoners in 1980 (at the height of the war on drugs). That total doesn't even take into account federal prisoners, which serve a minimum of five years for medical marijuana related charges, such as Dr. Mollie Fry, or Dave Schafer. source). Also interesting in that source is the showing of complete disproportionality of race of offenders, with Hispanics comprising well over 40% of marijuana related offenses, and Blacks second at around 25-30%.
I would also like to remind that Kamala Harris's job as top cop, aka Attorney General, grants her the privilege of dictating which crimes to focus on and which crimes to pursue. Additionally they are often outspoken, politically, such as when Eric Holder voiced his opinions and stances on waterboarding and issues concerning Gitmo. Thus Kamala Harris had every opportunity throughout the years to take a stand and showcase her true colors, and the colors she chose to show were entirely blue. She would rather appear tough on crime (her stances against recreational, her stances on truancy) than to make a stand for her people, and would instead rather use her own people as props to accelerate her political career (such as her downright idiotic claims that she "smoked in college while listening to tupac" despite 2pacalypse coming out several years after she finished her degree at Howard University or UC Hastings source)
There is something to be said about evolving stances politically and growing over the years. I am all for this and there are certainly instances where something egregious might be said twenty years ago that holds no relevance in today's society, however when the political stance of a certain someone is roughly only a year old with decades of the opposite stance in the receipts it calls into question whether she is truly advocating for it or whether she is just being politically expedient. Based on her previous positions, defending dirty cops, being extraneous with respect to school truancy, her stances on recreational like where she straight up laughs at the idea of defending it, I don't see how she genuinely believes that this is the correct direction to go, and is merely not attempting to die on this hill and to concede for political points. Great initiative if it passes, it's much needed legislation, but I for one would much prefer someone who is consistent in their ideals and stances and can articulate any evolution in a much clearer manner than Kamala Harris has shown. If she's just evolved her stances to match the needs of the people she's a demagogue in my eyes, and the world needs less of those and more of progressively, forward thinking individuals; not leeches who jump ship when convenient.
What the fuck were you expecting? Footage of harris riding along in a cop car, handcuffing people? As leader of the justice dept of the state, she is responsible for the arrests that happen under her.
You clearly weren't interested in a "serious answer". FOH with this petty "debunked" attitude. Kamala harris prosecuted people (including arresting them) for marijuana weather you like it or not.
This is different than his plan from 2016? What I looked at had a lot more brackets.
I didn't say anything about Kamala personally arresting people. I don't know where you got that from.
I asked for a source that her office locked anyone up for possession of marijuana. You couldn't find one. Case closed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I appreciate the effort you put into your comment, but it was entirely tangential to my original point (i.e. "locking up poor black kids with a dime bag" is a baseless smear).
God forbid an elected official change their views over the course of a decade!
And let's not pretend her opposition to prop 19 was unique. A solid majority of voters and state officials opposed the bill for a variety of reasons: conflict with federal anti-weed laws, economic concerns, studies that it wouldn't curb cartel activity, and increased regulatory burdens on medicinal growers. Considering the majority of the country, including Kamala, is sincerely on board with legalization now, it's silly to single her out as an opportunistic liar. Do you think every person who's changed their mind on weed is an opportunistic liar?
Besides, it's not like prop 19 would have been an end-all-be-all. It's still illegal at the federal level, and even after Cali's recent legalization, yearly weed arrests only fell by about half (as you kindly pointed out). In fact, things have been ramping up since legalization, with the black market more rampant than ever. Guess she was right that prop 19 was an iffy plan for reducing drug "crimes". After medical legalization, there were still frequent federal raids of providers, which, being an advocate for medical marijuana, Kamala did oppose (whereas the AG at the time was outspokenly in favor).
Heck, even Warren was outspoken against recreational legalization at the time! Everyone has their reasons.
This is blatantly false.
"In California, an infraction is a public offense, but arguably not a crime, and is not punishable by imprisonment. Any person convicted of an infraction may only be punished by a fine, removal and/or disqualification from public office."
and
"Infractions are less serious offenses than misdemeanors. They are punishable by a maximum fine of $250. Unlike misdemeanors, they do not subject an offender to incarceration."
and
"Most traffic tickets you get are considered 'infractions' which means you cannot go to jail for these violations. A traffic infraction is considered a minor offense and you cannot be punished with jail for a traffic infraction or placed on court probation. Typically, the punishment for an infraction is a court fine. If you fail to appear in court on your first court date for an infraction, the court will not issue a warrant for your arrest but will place a hold on your license."
Side note: let's not equivocate being imprisoned with being briefly detained following an arrest, k?
"Her people" strongly opposed recreational marijuana. Besides, being a prosecutor isn't supposed to be a political job. Barr is a great example of why.
Plus, as "top cop", she outright said:
"I am not opposed to the legalization of marijuana. I’m the top cop, and so I have to look at it from a law enforcement perspective and a public safety perspective. I think we are fortunate to have Colorado and Washington be in front of us on this and figuring out the details of what it looks like when it’s legalized."
and
"I'll tell you what: Standing up for the people also means challenging the policy of mass incarceration by recognizing the war on drugs was a failure. Now is the time to end the federal ban on medical marijuana. Let me tell you what California needs, Jeff Sessions. We need support in dealing with transnational criminal organizations and dealing with human trafficking – not in going after grandma’s medicinal marijuana,”
Calling the truancy thing an example of being "tough on crime" is total bullshit (not to mention unrelated), but w/e.
Breakfast Club already debunked this themselves, but go off.
Those previous 2 quotes I posted are from 5 years ago. Like I said, even Warren wasn't "open to" legalizing weed until 2015, and even "in August 2016, Warren would not commit to voting yes to the ballot question that legalized marijuana in Massachusetts that year in an interview with MassLive."
Kamala's signed on to practically every legalization effort since she became a senator (for example: introducing the bill you're responding to) on top of being in favor of legalization in her last AG term. All that considered, if you think she'd flip her position out of nowhere when elected, then I urge you to check your bias, mate. lol Because that's dumb as shit.
What do you think would happen if she were president? She'd null her sponsorship on those legalization bills? She'd veto a pro-weed bill that made it through Congress? Come on.
Edit: let's just take a moment to recognize how fucking stupid it is to see "Kamala Harris wants to decriminalize weed, expunge records, and use the tax revenue to boost minority communities" and immediately jump to "lulz guys remember that clip in 2014 when she laughed about weed? Fuk that bitch amirite??"
Last edited: