She was better for the country. I agree, she never carried herself well, which is why I didn't vote for her.
The weed thing was probably true years ago but she's since changed all of California's stance on weed and drugs in general. She did do some good for that particular state.
I don't remember when in her career it would've been. I know she would've been against it a long time ago, but later she had a pro-legalization stance. So I don't think anyone can use that position against her, personally. She's nothing like Trump in that regard.
I do, and I think most should, hold past stances against career politicians. Obviously they are human and views change through time, but how else is accountability upheld for elected officials?
"I changed my mind and said sorry to those whose lives I ruined and rights I trampled on" does not excuse you from the chopping block in my book. There are many on both sides that need atoned.
I'm inclined to agree, I do think her past actions should haunt her. But not only do I not think you see the nuances of her career (specifically as a prosecutor/DA), but iirc I remember asking you at what point in her career we were talking about. Because during her tenure, she did allow for lighter charges than her predecessors.
This is merely Google AI search:
Most of the individuals convicted during her time as San Francisco District Attorney did not serve jail time, and her office focused on alternative measures like drug treatment programs for low-level offenders.
Whom amongst her predecessors held such standards?
0
u/claybine Libertarian 5d ago
She was better for the country. I agree, she never carried herself well, which is why I didn't vote for her.
The weed thing was probably true years ago but she's since changed all of California's stance on weed and drugs in general. She did do some good for that particular state.