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.
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.
Good.
Few Dems can win the Presidency, either.
Even if Trump be on the ballot in 2020, we know no such thing.
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. *
DrDeth, 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.
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.
It’s a *long *stretch to say Ike didn’t have government experience.
The birthers are back and going after Harris because of when her parents came to the US
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I was all excited about Harris until I read this:
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.
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.
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.”