Posted on 04/23/2019 8:48:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
For cripes sake, if you’re going to waffle your way through an answer to this question, at least serve up a tastier waffle than a trite, vaguely condescending dismissal about having a national “conversation.” In fact, don’t waffle at all: You should be able to formulate a firm position on whether incarcerated felons should retain their voting rights or not. Join Team Bernie in the conviction that voting is a sacred privilege of citizenship and prisoners remain citizens no matter how evil their actions. Or join Team Buttigieg in the belief that choosing to plant bombs in a crowd means you forfeit certain civil rights, like getting to choose the next leader of the free world.
Or at least muddle through with some compromise position in which nonviolent felons get to vote but the violent don’t.
Harris has a special problem in answering questions about prisoner rights, though, because she’s a former prosecutor, which is both an asset and a liability to her. It’s an asset among centrist Dems and potentially in the general election; you can imagine some “return to law and order” pitch at Trump’s expense. But it’s a liability to progressives who want to hear contrition from her for, among other things, locking up nonviolent drug offenders. However she answered on the Boston bomber question would have been treated as a small proxy for that — if she’s Team Bernie then she’s pissing away her tough-on-crime cred but if she’s Team Buttigieg then clearly she hasn’t made as much “progress” on how to treat convicts as she claims. As you’ll see, she shrewdly used the question to emphasize her commitment to voting rights generally, which you would think would have given her enough cover to say, “But Bernie’s wrong in this case.” The fact that she decided to punt shows you how insecure she is about her record as California’s AG vis-a-vis the left.
Says Andrew Pollack, whose daughter was murdered in the Parkland massacre, “Should my daughter’s murderer be allowed to keep the rights that she’ll never have?” Maybe CNN can ask her that one next time she’s on.
In a better world she would have said what she really feels, which is that Bernie must have a head injury to insist on making terrorist voting rights a hot topic in the Democratic primary. But that’s his blessing and curse as a politician, that he seems to feel obliged to state his honest opinion when asked a policy question even when it’s a gift-wrapped Election Day present for Trump.
Two clips here, one of her answer on prisoners voting, the other of her answer on gun control. Jazz mentioned the latter earlier but you should watch the clip to see how far Harris goes. She talks about issuing an ultimatum to Congress to do what she wants on gun-grabbing or else she’ll do it via executive order. That’s a direct descendant of Obama suddenly deciding after five years in office that he could grant temporary amnesty to DREAMers because Congress wouldn’t act legislatively and Trump deciding after two years in office that he could appropriate funding for the border wall via emergency declaration because Congress wouldn’t give it to him. We have presidential candidates, credible ones, openly vowing to dictate to the national legislature what U.S. policy will be and expecting — correctly — that that’ll appeal to voters in what’s supposed to be a republic. It’s a nightmare in the making.
Kamala Harris: “We should have that conversation” about allowing the Boston Marathon bomber to vote from prison. pic.twitter.com/TOqIlKYuQY
— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) April 23, 2019
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris says she wants to ban “assault weapons,” which means all semi-automatic firearms
Harris says she “will give” Congress 100 days to pass radical gun control laws or else she will use executive action to ram through her agenda pic.twitter.com/Ly8dpQisld
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) April 23, 2019
“We should have that conversation”
- -
People who use the word “conversation” don’t want a conversation.
She says denying ex-felons the right to vote came from Jim Crow laws. BULLS###!
Felons, once released, were denied to the right to vote since the Constitution was ratified.
And it applied to mostly WHITE men, because slaves, Indians and women couldn’t vote at all.
After the Civil War, many former slaves could vote in the South, but once Reconstruction was over, those Southern states passed Jim Crow laws to prevent ALL blacks from voting, not just blacks who were ex-felons!
So many democrats have no idea of history, and wind up getting so much wrong.
If they thought about how many white Americans DIED in the Civil War, maybe they’d see reparations were actually done, in BLOOD!
The real issue is what district will he vote in. Prison or elsewhere ?
Let’s have a discussion about having him executed.
Democrats are sworn enemies of America.
They should be hunted down as such.
Right to the very last one.
I used to think she was a contender for the nomination. If she can’t handle a question like that she has no chance.
“national conversation” = “Dammit I told you not to ask about this! Next question!”
Ditto. Those words:
“Let’s have a conversation . . . “
And. “That’s not who we are.” Sickens me everytime I hear them.
They are totally fake and filled with intended malicious manipulation.
No. End of discussion.
Probably this in response to a letter to the Senate from the Bomber asking who he would have to sleep with to get voting rights.
Kamala, Let’s have a conversation about you using sex to advance your career.
Let’s have a conversation about you being ineligible.
The Democrat Primary has become a competition on how much the candidates hate America and how much they can poke normal voters in the eye.
They are chasing every America-hater in this country to get out the marginal leftist voter.
Just record everything they say, to be replayed next year.
The only vote I’d give that little musloid twat is his choice of lethal injection, electric chair, gas or firing squad.
Let’s not and execute him already.
Yep.
I think we need to have a conversation about the presidential ineligibility of Kamala Harris.
“Have a conversation” how I hate this jargon phrase that has infiltrated the world of politics and business. It is all about the triumph of subjectivity over objectivity i.e. feelings over facts - fantasy over reality.
Everything is up for “conversation” including the most vile perversions.
Sure, let’s have that conversation.
Begin conversation.
No.
End conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.