You’re leaving out the part of the exchange where I specified exactly what you were failing to show.
Furthermore, even if I’m the worst person in the world, that does nothing to explain your refusal to provide a cite for the exact same assertion to all the other people asking nicely for it.
I can find a cite that the sun rises in the morning. But I have the sneaky suspicion that you can’t find one for your assertion because a normal person would have done so by now.
Here:
Your turn.
I appreciate that, but I wont give them the satisfaction. Lance will continue to play silly cite demands, etc. Lance and Bear disqualified themselves from getting any serious replies or cites.
*Show, dont tell. *
So, just come up with that full list of “credible death threats starting with 1990”.
However will this thread continue if DrDeth takes his ball and goes home?
Peace.
A quick Google search shows at least one death threat which led to arrest against Senator Harris in the last year. It’s pretty obvious that there are more death threats, but I don’t feel like doing a ton of Googling on “Kamala Harris death threat” so I’ll withdraw the claim.
Your turn.
Look, man, I am saying I went looking on your behalf. Your contention sounded reasonable and quite likely to be true. But that pdf I linked earlier that explains how to get something on the ballot in San Francisco? I went through the whole thing. There is no mention of the DA having to sign off on its legality. At this point, I have to assume you’re wrong.
Yes, that would be a good start. As near as I can tell from reading the California Election Code (here is the part dealing with municipal initiatives and referendums], the elections official of the city (who was not Kamala) is charged with verifying legality as to form (did the petitions contain at least the right number of signatures? was it turned in by the deadline? etc.), and the city attorney (also not Kamala) has the duty of preparing a ballot title for and summary of the proposed measure. However, NOTHING I have seen provides support for your assertion that ballot initiatives must be approved as to legality of the contents, and NOTHING I have seen supports your assertion that the district attorney has any formal role whatsoever in getting an initiative on the ballot.
I think we all agree she was DA at the time. The question is: so what? What role does the district attorney play in the process, and what cite can you provide that she fulfilled that role by determining this particular proposition to be legal?
But that’s not “credible death threats starting with 1990”, is it?
Fine, I withdraw my claim, since i dont feel like playing your stupid cite game… which you now have found isnt so fun, is it?
Next time, play square and fair and dont play stupid games.
Wow.
Even if I wasn’t on his side of the argument, I’d agree with him that you’ve debated disingenuously in this thread.
Yes, I agree. Lance has debated disingenuously in this thread.
Refusing to substantiate your core criticism of Harris isn’t exactly the height of honest debate neither. You must have heard this “DA must sign off” somewhere. Tell us!
As to having credible threats - the position itself is considered one that comes with such threats.
DAs have been murdered; those murders make the news. Threats against DAs are routine and usually do not make the news.
It is very reasonable for her to have long felt that she is under greater than average American risk of attempted murder.
You can go through my entire posting history and you won’t find a post as disingenuous as this one…
Presumably the same place where this came from. 
DAs do not certify city wide ballot initiatives. The city attorney will attest to the requirements being met, and the city leadership will then place the matter on the ballot working with the county and state election process.
There’s a pretty high bar to denying a voter referendum to be placed on the ballot. Obvious conflict with superior law is a valid reason for not placing something on the ballot. SF city government should have done that, but they didn’t. Harris wouldn’t be the one to do that.
She was the one acting as attorney general to certify that non existent microstamping technology was commercially available triggering inclusion on the CA roster. For that, she’s pretty terrible.
But really, these are somewhat trivalities. It’s quite obvious Harris is anti. No need to reach for anything greater than that.
Her status as a former peace officer doesn’t give her any greater ability or confer any additional privilege either. 9th circuit ruled on that in Silvestri.
If she wants to possess and even carry a firearm for personal protection as she sees fit, good for her. I’d like to see her fight for the rest of CA to do the same in the manner they see fit. I’m not holding my breath.
I haven’t see anything about wanting to carry a firearm. I haven’t seen anything that says she wants more rights than any other Californian.
This is an idiotic comparison. Kamala Harris has made no secret of the fact that she owns a gun, unlike the publicly homophobic conservatives who desperately try to keep their gay-sex escapades secret.
The attitude “I’m going to publicly denounce a particular thing as evil and wrong but secretly engage in it myself and hope nobody ever finds out” is hypocritical. The attitude “I’m going to publicly advocate for changing the laws that allow a particular thing while publicly acknowledging that I’m currently legally doing the thing that the laws allow” is not.
I’m surprised at you, DrDeth: that was a really dumb attempt at a false equivalence.
Me either, hence the “if”. I was thinking more like Bloomberg with his armed security. But that’s another thread. In any event, Harris owning a firearm or many isn’t going to persuade anyone one way or the other. I’m much more interested in her actions in her official capacity.