So you’re just full of shit then huh

See this is the actual relevant critique here. Scrolling through cringing at all these replies about how it models bad behavior (so what?) when really the problem is that it often comes off as hacky.

Have you considered that the point of art is not necessarily to “send a positive message?”

That would be pretty wild if it were true or if there were any evidence of it. But I think you’re just making stuff up on the internet.

My understanding is the “collectively” part could in fact be illegal but they’d have to frame GARM’s brand safety guidelines as binding for its members and with the intent of harming competition and/or customers (as opposed to being totally voluntary and focused on brand safety). So, pretty weak.

🫡

What do you believe this proves?

Not trolling. Go ahead and block if you want.

I don't even like CA's recall framework. Generally think officials should serve out the term they are elected for.

I just don't think it's in good faith to insist that the problems with her office aren't legitimate targets for criticism.

All of those stories were covered in multiple outlets.

Your position seems to be
> Unflattering news reports are in themselves evidence of a conspiracy against her
> As such, the unflattering reports are inherently bogus
> And by the way, the other person probably did it too...

That's MAGA logic.

The media was plenty critical of Nancy O'Malley. Be serious. They didn't report on her losing her grip on the case backlog bc no one ever alleged it.

www.courthousenews.com/grand-jury-s...

www.sfchronicle.com/politics/art...

eastbayexpress.com/da-omalley-t...

www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/e...

Still don’t get why you’re hung up on the O’Malley thing.

If a public servant is dropping the ball — as every expert who weighed in on this said quite emphatically — voters have a right to take issue. Even if their predecessor might have done something similar… Which again, no evidence of that!

It’s plausible that some of the cases could have expired soon after the transition. But it’s not plausible that it was a huge share of them. If anything that’s a pretty wild conspiracy.

We do know that Price’s team blew off O’Malley’s during the transition. Might have helped to take that meeting!

You’re treating a lack of evidence that O’Malley let a big pile of cases expire as evidence that she likely did, which is pretty wild considering it took a whistleblower to get word out under Price!

Yes, again, any DA is going to have a backlog and any new DA is going to inherit some. The issue is with letting them expire. Has anyone alleged that O’Malley allowed 1,000+ cases to expire because of a lack of admin bandwidth? Seriously — has anyone shown this?

Has anyone alleged that O’Malley let 1,000+ cases expire purely out of administrative incompetence?

Here’s the Chronicle, contextualizing.

Any DA is going to have a running backlog, including when they leave office. Their statutes of limitations expired during Price’s term. No one is alleging that O’Malley let a bunch of cases expire just because “oops, missed em.”

1. Whistleblowers are an important part of accountability for public servants. There’s a good reason the law protects them.

2. Price didn’t deny it!

3. The question put to voters wasn’t whether Price was better/worse than O’Malley. It was whether price should be recalled.

I don’t find it persuasive that the media, corporate or otherwise, would have neglected the missed filings story (in a county with surging crime), or the hiring-her-boyfriend story, if it weren’t for the recall.

Nor do I think it should matter to voters how that info came to light.

Have you seen any polling around motivations for recall voters? My sense is that many voted based on perceptions around basic competence and alleged corruption as opposed to the politics of her approach to criminal justice.