politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
He pardoned hundreds of people for nonviolent weed offenses and nobody bat an eye, but I'm sure every little bit helps.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajherrington/2024/11/26/nonprofit-group-calls-on-biden-to-pardon-cannabis-prisoners/
He should definitely do more.
Something about their wording kind of turns me off. If there are people still behind bars for only Marijuana, and no history of violence, then certainly Biden should set them free.
Is your argument that their tone is wrong?
No, I'm expressing the nuance that I wouldn't support immediate release of everyone whose crimes include but explicitly are not limited to Weed. I'm just expressing nuance. I think people with multiple crimes should be considered for commuting sentences or parole but I don't think releasing them all as a blanket statement is uh... sane.
That's not Tone. That's having a different stance altogether, unless they're simply failing to convey their stance.
The quoted section in particular is referring to people with cannabis related offenses. It doesn't say anything about releasing people with more serious offenses in addition to cannabis related offenses.
That isn't nuance it's just putting words in their mouth.
If you release every single person with cannabis related offenses then you're going to release people with many other crimes as well. Rather than putting words in their mouth I'm pointing out their stance is subjectively bad with the low number of words they are using.
I have to be critical of this because the world we live in absolutely has people who would release every single person, unironically.
These are the not the same statements. No one is arguing for releasing every single person with cannabis offenses no matter what other crime they also committed. These are people with cannabis related offenses and nothing else.
It's clear because they specified a number, 3000. Your argument isn't being critical because it doesn't address what they actually wrote.
The Forbes Article that you linked me to 7 comments up the chain says "He can extend clemency to every person still serving time for federal cannabis offenses, many of whom have already spent decades behind bars."
They might have a good point if they mean what is implied and not what they are explicitly saying.
That's a quote from representative Ilhan Omar, not LPP. Regardless, it's evident that she meant people who are in federal prison for cannabis offenses only. She was not referring to the intersection of people with cannabis offenses and every other possible crime.
The phrases "While cannabis is now legal in Minnesota and many states across America, thousands remain behind bars in federal prisons for the same substance" and "cannabis legalization and expungement can move hand in hand" make it clear what she meant.
No one can seriously look at this and reasonably conclude she meant something like serial killers who were also convicted of cannabis offenses. That's not a position anyone is taking. That's a bizarre interpretation given what was explicitly said.
Common Democratic PR fumble.
I swear to God, the Dems PR team is all Republican undercover agents.
More like the Dems pr is aimed at their potential donors, not their potential voters.