Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:28 PM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Oy. She doesn't "look black"? Does Valerie Jarrett "look black"? Not only is Jarret black, in the common parlance of race in America, but she's one of the few blacks whose "family lore" of some Native American ancestry is proven out by DNA testing.

Anyway, it would be a mistake for the Democrats to nominate her as their presidential candidate in 2020. I think she's just too liberal for the role given the realities of the Electoral College. The Democrats need to remember: It's the Electoral College, stupid!
If she ran for a Precidicney of the "Pacific coast states," I think she would have a real shot to get the nomination, but her brand of politics won't play at all in the Midwest, which is where Trump won the election.

Harris is not long term type of candidate. Old Joe Biden is the best of the lot.
  #52  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:01 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Item the forth: Harris straddles several of the channels. With a big field dividing the channels that may play to her advantage.
She's also won three statewide elections in CA which holds it's primary March 3rd. The big field just saw getting a share of CA's delegates become potentially a lot harder.
  #53  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:08 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Harris takes office in 2017. The voters deserve a Senator that will actually represent them instead of using the office as a platform for bigger things.
Yeah, Harris quit in the middle of her term as CA AG to run for senate, now she's barely got her feet wet in the Senate and she wants to be president.

Ancient Erudite make a good point that her platform wont run well in the Rust belt.
  #54  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:24 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,136
don't all these Dems pretty much agree on 90% of issues? There may be minor variations but I think most likely the choice of voting for one vs. another probably comes down who can win vs. Trump or whoever is on the ballot in 2020.
  #55  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:26 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
don't all these Dems pretty much agree on 90% of issues? There may be minor variations but I think most likely the choice of voting for one vs. another probably comes down who can win vs. Trump or whoever is on the ballot in 2020.
Well, Harris wants to ban all handguns. Few dems agree with her on that.

So, we know she can't win vs Trump.
  #56  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:40 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Harris takes office in 2017. The voters deserve a Senator that will actually represent them instead of using the office as a platform for bigger things.

Im not seeing it. I mean, yeah, I want one wholl represent me, in the sense of voting how I would on stuff; but unless Im missing something, Harris would just get a replacement and, things being what they are in her state, said replacement would presumably vote how I would about as often as Harris would.

To the extent that Im right about that, why would I care whether its Harris or someone else doing it?
  #57  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:44 PM
aceplace57 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 25,638
Harris will be out on the campaign trail for the next 18 months. She may pop in for important votes but she won't be in the Senate for day to day business.

It's not unusual for politicians to pursue other offices. But they should at least serve one term and get actual experience in the Senate before climbing that ladder.

Last edited by aceplace57; 01-21-2019 at 03:47 PM.
  #58  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:45 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yeah, Harris quit in the middle of her term as CA AG to run for senate, now she's barely got her feet wet in the Senate and she wants to be president.

Ancient Erudite make a good point that her platform wont run well in the Rust belt.
Obama was only in office as a senator for 2 years when he started to run for president, same as Harris.
  #59  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:47 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Harris will be out on the campaign trail for the next 18 months. She may pop in for important votes but she won't be in the Senate for day to day business.
Good.
  #60  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:57 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,136
If she is running 18 months from now that means she is the Dem nominee. Most of the candidates won't last beyond next winter. Some won't even make it to Iowa.
  #61  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:59 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
...they should at least serve one term and get actual experience in the Senate before climbing that ladder.
Should? Why?
  #62  
Old 01-21-2019, 04:04 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,136
before Obama the last senator elected president was JFK. The trend for 50+ years is to elect someone from outside DC such as Carter, Bush Jr, Clinton, Trump, Reagan.
  #63  
Old 01-21-2019, 04:37 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
before Obama the last senator elected president was JFK. The trend for 50+ years is to elect someone from outside DC such as Carter, Bush Jr, Clinton, Trump, Reagan.
Unless this is an attempt to pull a Youre No Jack Kennedy, not really seeing how it makes a ton of sense to say we dont want a JFK type or an Obama type; we want someone like, uh, George Bush Jr, or maybe Richard Nixon.
  #64  
Old 01-21-2019, 05:13 PM
aceplace57 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 25,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Should? Why?
They're using their title to add gravitas to their next election.

Senator so and so is running for President.

Voters should consider what they've accomplished. What legislation have they sponsored or worked on? How active were they on their committee assignment? What's their Senate voting record?

But, in real life many voters never inform themselves. They just accept the title in front of the name.

Last edited by aceplace57; 01-21-2019 at 05:15 PM.
  #65  
Old 01-21-2019, 05:28 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,301
Quote:
Quoth DrDeth:

Well, Harris wants to ban all handguns.
Is it worth bothering to point out again that this is incorrect, given that you apparently didn't remember any of the other times it was pointed out?
  #66  
Old 01-21-2019, 05:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Is it worth bothering to point out again that this is incorrect, given that you apparently didn't remember any of the other times it was pointed out?
Ok, she did want to ban all handguns in the areas under which she had control, and she hasn't announced any other position.

Can you show me that she doesn't?

And no, it was never disproved. She supported a handgun ban in SF when she was DA, and has instituted a partial ban as AG of CA.

The GOP and the NRA will come out with her actions and statements showing she was in favor of such a ban.

She will then have the choice of saying she still is, or a flip-flop. Neither will help.

Here's where we discussed this before:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...andguns&page=4

and you pointed out: "There's still a big difference between banning guns in San Francisco and banning them everywhere." which is true. But it didnt disprove that harris wanted to ban handguns.

Last edited by DrDeth; 01-21-2019 at 05:42 PM.
  #67  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:16 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,301
And can you show me that you don't support using Irish babies as a food source?

You're the one making the claim, here, so you're the one who needs the evidence. And the actual evidence is that she wanted to ban all handguns in San Francisco, and some handguns in California. Neither of those comes anywhere close to "all handguns".
  #68  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And can you show me that you don't support using Irish babies as a food source?
How does that reference make any sense whatsoever? Did she ban handguns in SF ironically?
  #69  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:07 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yeah, Harris quit in the middle of her term as CA AG to run for senate, now she's barely got her feet wet in the Senate and she wants to be president.

Ancient Erudite make a good point that her platform wont run well in the Rust belt.
As opposed to the guy who's currently in the White House--a guy whose feet were bone dry because he'd NEVER held political office and, in fact, knew very little about the Constitution or how the government worked? Yeah, not so sure that's going to work against her.

Here's her stance on gun control as of August 29, 2017, according to OnTheIssues:

Quote:
Harris said she wants to bring a rational approach to issues such as drug policy and gun control that doesn't cast them as all-or-nothing choices, though she was took liberal positions on those issues. "It's just pretty simple, reasonable stuff. If somebody has been convicted of a felony that proves them to be a dangerous person, they should not be able to own a gun. If somebody has been found by a court to be mentally ill to the point that they are danger to themselves or other people they should not be able to own or possess a gun," she said.
No guns to felons or seriously mentally ill folks? Radicalism! You can bet, though, that the GOP will paint her as "wanting to take away all our guns!" because her voting record gave her only a 7% rating by the NRA, but more because it worked so well when they tried it on Obama. Oh, wait, he won anyway.
  #70  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:07 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,301
I was trying to point out the absurdity in DrDeth asking us to prove a negative. How do we know that she doesn't want to ban handguns everywhere in the whole world? The correct answer is "what makes you think she does?". Just as I have no actual reason to think that DrDeth wants to eat babies, so too does he have no actual reason to think that Harris wants to ban guns everywhere.
  #71  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:18 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,100
Frankly, any discussion of what the NRA is going to say about a Democratic candidate is absurdum infinitum anyway. A Democratic candidate could run on a platform of the US government sending a free AK-47 to every man, woman and child in the US (white citizens only!) on a weekly basis, and the NRA would still run ads against them.
  #72  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:20 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,314
Harris has acted consistent with someone who wants to ban handguns. She supported the effort in SF, in direct contradiction of state preemption law. As AG, she was responsible for adding magical microstamping non existent technology to the requirements to get on the CA not unsafe roster.

As far as anyone who cares about gun rights is concerned, she is a gun banner. If you are sympathetic to that view, then she's probably fine. To me, I'd rather have Trump. I'd also rather have the office vacant. I'd also rather have a platypus as president.

The good thing is I think she has no chance at all, so the more attention she gets the better. I hope the dems nominate her. Watching her get crushed would be entertaining. Of course, I thought Clinton would win so my predictions are totally valuable.

Last edited by Bone; 01-21-2019 at 07:20 PM.
  #73  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:24 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Harris has acted consistent with someone who wants to ban handguns. She supported the effort in SF, in direct contradiction of state preemption law. As AG, she was responsible for adding magical microstamping non existent technology to the requirements to get on the CA not unsafe roster.

As far as anyone who cares about gun rights is concerned, she is a gun banner. If you are sympathetic to that view, then she's probably fine. To me, I'd rather have Trump. I'd also rather have the office vacant. I'd also rather have a platypus as president.

The good thing is I think she has no chance at all, so the more attention she gets the better. I hope the dems nominate her. Watching her get crushed would be entertaining. Of course, I thought Clinton would win so my predictions are totally valuable.
This makes me so, so sad. Trump is moving America steps further in the direction of misogyny, racial hatred, a polluted environment, and much more. Maybe Harris would move the country a bit in the direction of more gun control. Stopping the latter shouldn't be more important than stopping the former. It's hard for me to imagine what sort of moral compass could guide a decent person to such a conclusion.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #74  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:26 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And can you show me that you don't support using Irish babies as a food source?

You're the one making the claim, here, so you're the one who needs the evidence. And the actual evidence is that she wanted to ban all handguns in San Francisco, and some handguns in California. Neither of those comes anywhere close to "all handguns".
She wanted to ban all handguns in SF. She ruled it was legal and Constitutional. Has she mollified or changed her stance?
  #75  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I was trying to point out the absurdity in DrDeth asking us to prove a negative. How do we know that she doesn't want to ban handguns everywhere in the whole world? The correct answer is "what makes you think she does?". Just as I have no actual reason to think that DrDeth wants to eat babies, so too does he have no actual reason to think that Harris wants to ban guns everywhere.
Since the current discussion has nothing to do with satire, Ireland or Swift I can confidently say you did a rather lame job of pointing out someone else's absurdity.

His position isn't remotely absurd even if it's a little overreacting. Harris used two different jobs to push for gun control, one of which was a pretty sweeping ban. The rather pedantic "debunking" of his position isn't very impressive and will utterly fail if that is the route Harris uses to defend herself from these charges.

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-21-2019 at 07:30 PM.
  #76  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:36 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Of course, I thought Clinton would win so my predictions are totally valuable.
You're cute, though. So you got that going for you, anyway.
  #77  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:39 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,314
I know right? I thought she'd get 330+ electoral votes. I lost a few beers on that one.
  #78  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Of course, I thought Clinton would win so my predictions are totally valuable.

Dont feel too bad, so did almost everyone else.

Now, if you thought Kerry was gonna win....
  #79  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:30 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Dont feel too bad, so did almost everyone else.
Including Trump.
  #80  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:14 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, Harris wants to ban all handguns. ...
Do you think that continuing to state something false will make it true?

1. Her stated position:
Quote:
Im in favor of the Second Amendment. I also want smart gun safety laws. Assault weapons shouldn't be walking the streets of a civilized country. We should have universal background checks. It makes sense.
In debate she celebrated her record at confiscating guns in the hands of those who had no legal right to them and support measures to prevent dangerous people from obtaining guns, enhance background checks laws and renew the assault weapons ban. (understood that the latter won't play well in many circles). She explicitly believes that " it's a false choice to suggest you are either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away."

2. Before Heller several cities were testing the theory that it was constitutional to ban handguns in their localities. SF was one of them and there it did not get past state constitution level. Heller has made that moot. Agree or disagree with their ruling SCOTUS has spoken and thoughts about banning handguns held before Heller are now informed by new facts. There is NO risk that handguns will be banned, no possibility of slipping down any slope to there no matter how much lard greases the hill.

3. Gun rights will simply NOT be the deciding factor for any significant number of swingable votes. Whatever we each may think of the so-called "smart gun safety laws" that pretty much every Democrat running will endorse, it is baked in and the risk will be more to the candidate who less strongly supports them than to one who panders to those who can be swayed by false claims of what someone really thinks. Yeah those whose votes are primarily determined by fears regarding gun rights will falsely call her a "gun grabber" ... but those who in today's world are most concerned about preserving gun rights are solidly in the GOP camp already and turnout of many others on the other side would be negatively impacted more by being insufficiently in favor of stricter gun regs.
  #81  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:20 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Is far as anyone who cares about gun rights is concerned, she is a gun banner. If you are sympathetic to that view, then she's probably fine. To me, I'd rather have Trump. I'd also rather have the office vacant. I'd also rather have a platypus as president.
So you'd pick a president based on their position on something they don't have the power to enact.

Over someone who is actively harming our country with the powers he does have.

That doesn't make sense. You're not stopping the banning of guns by not voting for her. You're just letting Trump run amok.

Trump who has actually banned some guns.

Last edited by BigT; 01-21-2019 at 09:25 PM.
  #82  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:26 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,209
That last line is a contradiction, because Trump didn't ban any guns. He just signed some stuff into law. But it was Congress, not he who had the power. And that power is not to ban all guns, which is impossible due to the Second Amendment.

It would have been simpler to leave that line out, but I didn't delete it in time.

Last edited by BigT; 01-21-2019 at 09:31 PM.
  #83  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:06 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, Harris wants to ban all handguns.
Good.

Quote:
Few dems agree with her on that.
Few Dems can win the Presidency, either.

Quote:
So, we know she can't win vs Trump.
Even if Trump be on the ballot in 2020, we know no such thing.
  #84  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:15 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Do you think that continuing to state something false will make it true?

1. Her stated position:In debate she celebrated her record at confiscating guns in the hands of those who had no legal right to them and support measures to prevent dangerous people from obtaining guns, enhance background checks laws and renew the assault weapons ban. (understood that the latter won't play well in many circles). She explicitly believes that " it's a false choice to suggest you are either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away."

2. Before Heller several cities were testing the theory that it was constitutional to ban handguns in their localities. SF was one of them and there it did not get past state constitution level. Heller has made that moot. ...
3. Gun rights will simply NOT be the deciding factor for any significant number of swingable votes. Whatever we each may think of the so-called "smart gun safety laws" that pretty much every Democrat running will endorse, it is baked in and the risk will be more to the candidate who less strongly supports them than to one who panders to those who can be swayed by false claims of what someone really thinks. Yeah those whose votes are primarily determined by fears regarding gun rights will falsely call her a "gun grabber" ... but those who in today's world are most concerned about preserving gun rights are solidly in the GOP camp already and turnout of many others on the other side would be negatively impacted more by being insufficiently in favor of stricter gun regs.
You are correct that Heller has made that moot. But it did stop her as AG from, with a simple signature, banning all new manufacture models of handguns, did it? And there was no real point to it, as of course, yes, there are still quite a few handgun models you can still buy. But she still did it and that shows she still would like to ban all handguns. There was no other reason to do it.

She also Oked several new gun laws, including one that would ban the possession of any gun with a magazine over 10 rounds, and the magazine also. That one is helpd up in Court.

But in your last point, you are completely wrong: sure the rabid NRAers will always vote GOp. But there are only 5 Million of them- if that. There are 100 million adult gun owners in this nation, almost all of whom are registered voters. 95 million non-rabid gun owners. Only 138 million people even voted in 2016, so certainly many moderate gun owners- the one the NRA guys call "Fudds"- voted Dem. But if those moderate gun owners think someone is gonna take their guns away- they will come out and vote against them- and if so, whoever scares them liek that can NOT win. It is impossible.

You have to mollify those 95 million moderate gun owners. You can NOT piss them off or scare them. I am one of them, someone who has voted pretty much straight Dem all his life (Ok, I voted for Schwarzenegger, sue me). But Harris scares me. Cleary she will do everything in her power to squash as many gun rights as possible. Her actions with the SF handgun ban, the CA ban on new models, and the most recent ban on magazines has made that clear. Actions speak louder than words.
  #85  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:36 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,301
[b]DrDeth[b], what you don't realize is that a lot of people care very passionately about gun rights, and, like Kamala Harris, we are fighting as hard as we can for gun rights. The #1 gun right, which Harris supports and the NRA opposes, is the right to not get shot.
  #86  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:46 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
It's not unusual for politicians to pursue other offices. But they should at least serve one term and get actual experience in the Senate before climbing that ladder.
God only knows what kind of disaster it would be if someone with no governmental experience at all became president. You got lucky with Eisenhower, but you can't count on that.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #87  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:56 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
It's a long stretch to say Ike didn't have government experience.
  #88  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:22 AM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,136
The birthers are back and going after Harris because of when her parents came to the US
  #89  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:04 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
don't all these Dems pretty much agree on 90% of issues? There may be minor variations but I think most likely the choice of voting for one vs. another probably comes down who can win vs. Trump or whoever is on the ballot in 2020.
They're going to agree on most issues, sure, but they're going to have different priorities among them. And realistically, there will be only a few big things one can get through the Senate in 2021-22. (Assuming Dem control and elimination of the filibuster. Without both of those, nothing will get accomplished.) So it's gonna make a difference.

For someone to get my (primary) vote, climate change better be in their top two or three issues.
  #90  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:31 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Harris will be out on the campaign trail for the next 18 months. She may pop in for important votes but she won't be in the Senate for day to day business.
How much business is the Senate going to be doing in this Congress? It seems that Mitch's approach is to avoid votes on anything controversial.
  #91  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:49 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,311
And the birther accusations start.
  #92  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:01 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
2. Before Heller several cities were testing the theory that it was constitutional to ban handguns in their localities. SF was one of them and there it did not get past state constitution level. Heller has made that moot. Agree or disagree with their ruling SCOTUS has spoken and thoughts about banning handguns held before Heller are now informed by new facts. There is NO risk that handguns will be banned, no possibility of slipping down any slope to there no matter how much lard greases the hill.
This is misleading as to Harris's position on firearms. First, Heller didn't make Harris's position in SF moot. Existing CA law at the time did that. Yet she still supported the city ordinance even though it directly contradicted exiting state law.

Second, Harris was directly responsible for banning all new model semi auto handguns for sale in CA. To say that there is no risk that handguns will be banned is overstating the case. But for a small change in the fact pattern, Gorsuch switched with Garland, Trump switched with Clinton, and we could see this magical woo that Harris endorsed become a requirement nation wide.

And sure, gun rights will be a minor issue for many, probably the majority. But it is a significant if not only issue for a large number of people. People who only come out to vote if they are motivated by gun issues. Can you say with certainty that those less than 100K people across the three states WI, PA, and MI would have been as energized to vote for Trump if Clinton had been less gun banny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
So you'd pick a president based on their position on something they don't have the power to enact.
This is also not accurate. Legislation is enacted by the president signing it into law (notwithstanding veto overrides). To say that a president doesn't have the power to enact something is not consistent with our system of government. The president also nominates judges. And on that score, I'm pretty damn pleased with Trump's nominations to both SCOTUS, and the appellate courts. Not all are winners, but they are infinitely better than anyone a Democrat would have picked. It's not merely about the laws that are on the table now, but it's about creating a generation of judicial pedigree that will shape the law going forward.
  #93  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:13 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This is misleading as to Harris's position on firearms. First, Heller didn't make Harris's position in SF moot. Existing CA law at the time did that. Yet she still supported the city ordinance even though it directly contradicted exiting state law.

Second, Harris was directly responsible for banning all new model semi auto handguns for sale in CA. To say that there is no risk that handguns will be banned is overstating the case. But for a small change in the fact pattern, Gorsuch switched with Garland, Trump switched with Clinton, and we could see this magical woo that Harris endorsed become a requirement nation wide.

And sure, gun rights will be a minor issue for many, probably the majority. But it is a significant if not only issue for a large number of people. People who only come out to vote if they are motivated by gun issues. Can you say with certainty that those less than 100K people across the three states WI, PA, and MI would have been as energized to vote for Trump if Clinton had been less gun banny?

This is also not accurate. Legislation is enacted by the president signing it into law (notwithstanding veto overrides). To say that a president doesn't have the power to enact something is not consistent with our system of government. The president also nominates judges. And on that score, I'm pretty damn pleased with Trump's nominations to both SCOTUS, and the appellate courts. Not all are winners, but they are infinitely better than anyone a Democrat would have picked. It's not merely about the laws that are on the table now, but it's about creating a generation of judicial pedigree that will shape the law going forward.
I'm sure that all the trans service men and women booted from the military, the kids separated from their families (often permanently) and/or thrown in cages, the black and brown people brutalized and threatened by emboldened white supremacists, the abuse victims who are more likely to be silenced or ignored because we have a credibly accused sexual abuser in the WH, the federal workers out of a job and a paycheck, and many more decent folks directly and indirectly harmed by President Trump's policies and rhetoric, will feel better about their suffering because the alternative might be a country that moves slightly in the direction of more gun control.

Almost all voting is a trade-off, of course. Hopefully you understand that, if you vote for Trump (especially if you do it in 2020, after seeing him in office for 4 years), you bear some personal responsibility for all of that human suffering and injustice that's aided or caused by Trump's policy and rhetoric.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-22-2019 at 12:14 PM.
  #94  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:20 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,136
what does where her parents were born and came to the US have to do with Harris being a citizen? Or was she secretly born in Kenya too?
  #95  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:22 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
It isn't about the facts. It's about signaling "she's not really one of us", as if her skin color weren't enough.
  #96  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:24 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,760
Counterpoint: There are many potential voters who would be motivated to vote for gun control, who are not represented at all in most US states, because of conventional wisdom set down a generation ago in parties that are now generally detached from the concerns of the masses. Do they have the numbers to put Kamala in the White House? I don't know. But I don't assume that everyone voting on the issue is voting the same way.
  #97  
Old 01-23-2019, 08:49 AM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,106
I was all excited about Harris until I read this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/o...l-justice.html

I have a special loathing for win-at-all-costs prosecutors. I've seen one too many wrongful conviction documentaries. I'd be interested in hearing any refutations of the NYT op Ed.
  #98  
Old 01-23-2019, 10:19 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I was all excited about Harris until I read this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/o...l-justice.html

I have a special loathing for win-at-all-costs prosecutors. I've seen one too many wrongful conviction documentaries. I'd be interested in hearing any refutations of the NYT op Ed.
Nope that's her. She hates to lose. And she needs to be viewed as a Law & Order type.
  #99  
Old 01-23-2019, 10:19 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I was all excited about Harris until I read this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/o...l-justice.html

I have a special loathing for win-at-all-costs prosecutors. I've seen one too many wrongful conviction documentaries. I'd be interested in hearing any refutations of the NYT op Ed.
Me, too. Here's a good summary quote if the article's behind a pay wall (emphasis mine):
It is true that politicians must make concessions to get the support of key interest groups. The fierce, collective opposition of law enforcement and local district attorney associations can be hard to overcome at the ballot box. But in her career, Ms. Harris did not barter or trade to get the support of more conservative law-and-order types; she gave it all away.

Of course, the full picture is more complicated. During her tenure as district attorney, Ms. Harris refused to seek the death penalty in a case involving the murder of a police officer. And she started a successful program that offered first-time nonviolent offenders a chance to have their charges dismissed if they completed a rigorous vocational training. As attorney general, she mandated implicit bias training and was awarded for her work in correcting a backlog in the testing of rape kits.

But if Kamala Harris wants people who care about dismantling mass incarceration and correcting miscarriages of justice to vote for her, she needs to radically break with her past.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #100  
Old 01-23-2019, 01:07 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And she needs to be viewed as a Law & Order type.
Why? This is 2019, not 1994. Being a L&O type is probably a wash at best with the electorate as a whole, and is a big strike against you with many Dems these days. Especially since, even though it's not 1968 anymore either, it's still often a code word for "keeping white people safe from those scary blacks and browns."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017