Elections Kamala Harris Vows To Bypass Congress If Not Appeased On Gun Laws

[Cubo de Sangre]

i'm not a constitutional scholar or anything like that, i was just citing the law as i understand it.

Now that you've gotten new information it's ok to admit you were wrong when you contradicted me.

If you want to maintain they lacked the votes to bring it to a vote then I'll take your word for it. From my memory they didn't even try.

 

[IGIT]

hi Cubo,

Now that you've gotten new information it's ok to admit you were wrong when you contradicted me.

lol.

i'm not keeping score, but its ok with me if that's your thing. i have President Trump on my side (which doesn't bolster my confidence), but yeah, my understanding is that you need 60 votes - and unless this somehow becomes a budget issue, my point stands.

If you want to maintain they lacked the votes to bring it to a vote then I'll take your word for it. From my memory they didn't even try.

Mr. McConnell has been shown to be loathe to bring something to a vote when he knows it won't pass. he did it during the shutdown, and he did it last week when he told the POTUS to stop freaking talking about the GOP's miraculous replacement for Obamacare (since Mitch grasps that this replacement does not exist).

even at Ammoland, the writers are acting all baffled as to why Mitch didn't move on the bill when the answer is staring them right in the face.

i don't know what else to tell you, Cubo.

- IGIT

 

[Madmick]

hi Madmick,



anyway, that's not what Mrs. Harris said. you may not like her, but really, you don't need to make things up.

here's what she said;

HARRIS: I agree that the right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship and it is something that people should not be stripped of needlessly, which is why I have been long an advocate of making sure that the formally incarcerated are not denied a right to vote, which is the case in so many states in our country, in some states permanently deprived of the right to vote.

And these are policies that go back to Jim Crow. These are policies that go back to the heart of policies that have been about disenfranchisement, policies that continue until today, and we need to take it seriously.

LEMON: But people who are in — convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault, they should be able to vote?

HARRIS: I think we should have that conversation.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...estore-boston-marathon-bombers-voting-rights/

Mr. Sanders was the one who said that the Boston Marathon Bomber should be allowed to vote from his cell. his justification was the State Constitution of Vermont, which specifies that everyone can vote. so for him, its just a "law thing".

sorry for the context, but i had some time to kill.

- IGIT

IGIT,

Your belated and humorously inadequate attempt to defend Harris indicates to me that you are irritated with the lesson in superfluous speech you just received, but the emboldened in red was a clear indication that she sought to advocate for felons to vote, or no conversation would be needed (since they currently aren't allowed to vote). She flip-flopped on the issue when later pressed:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/kamala-harris-felon-voting


Her later comment renders her original comment unnecessary thereby contradicting its thrust. They shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is a flip-flop, or she would have parsed the "death row" murderers and terrorists from those guilty of sexual assault in her original comments. Hope this clarifies this simple reversal, and spares you from further confusion.


- Madmick

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

i'm not keeping score, but its ok with me if that's your thing. i have President Trump on my side (which doesn't bolster my confidence), but yeah, my understanding is that you need 60 votes - and unless this somehow becomes a budget issue, my point stands.

Expect to never get a response from me in the future.

 

[IGIT]

IGIT,

Your belated and humorously inadequate attempt to defend Harris indicates to me that you are irritated with the lesson in superfluous speech you just received, but the emboldened in red was a clear indication that she sought to advocate for felons to vote, or no conversation would be needed (since they currently aren't allowed to vote). She flip-flopped on the issue when later pressed:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/kamala-harris-felon-voting


Her later comment renders her original comment unnecessary thereby contradicting its thrust. They shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is a flip-flop, or she would have parsed the "death row" murderers and terrorists from those guilty of sexual assault in her original comments. Hope this clarifies this simple reversal, and spares you from further confusion.


- Madmick

ahoy Angrymick,

i didn't know alot about Mrs. Harris, so i'm enjoying this thread.

i know she is black, she was an AG in cali and is in congress. so now i know more.

in terms of her role reversal, you created a quote (which i assume you were attributing to candidate Harris) and that quote was a fictive one.

like, totally made up.

the person who asserted, forcefully, that the Boston Bomber should not be deprived of his right to vote was Bernie - and since Bernie is not Kamala, i thought that this was a distinction worth mentioning.

Mrs. Harris wants to have a conversation. that's a non-committal position, designed to offend the least amount of people (so, yes, i agree with the gist of your post), but that's all it is.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Expect to never get a response from me in the future.

hi Cubo de Sangre,

i'm sorry i illuminated you to the reality that Mr. Trump is only the POTUS and not King and is bound by the laws our founders set for us.

President Donald Trump, during a meeting with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Wednesday, shut down Republican Congressman Steve Scalise when he pitched lumping in a pro-concealed carry measure in with a broader gun control measure.
Scalise was touting a House-passed measure that would loosen gun regulations and allow those with permits to carry concealed weapons to legally travel with those firearms to other states, a top priority of the National Rifle Association.
But Trump told Scalise bluntly that it will "never" pass as part of a broader package due to Democratic opposition, where such a proposal would need at least 60 votes to advance.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/concealed-carry-steve-scalise-donald-trump/index.html

go on and continue being jilted over legislation that couldn't be passed. keep imagining that "if only the Republicans just had more backbone" *presto* all would be right in the world.

its okie dokie with me!

*high fives*

- IGIT

 

[splendica]

She's trying to show how tough she is because saying she smoked a doobie only got her so much cred.

 

[IGIT]

She's trying to show how tough she is because saying she smoked a doobie only got her so much cred.

hi splendica,

she's just saying whatever she thinks is the right thing to say.

i'm not knocking her for it - we get to see the same bullshit every year when Democrats and Republicans descend on Iowa and tell us all what a hard-on they have for ethanol - its the way things are. and its not new.

*sigh*

i can see her in the final four. i hope she's not the nominee.

- IGIT

 

[splendica]

hi splendica,

she's just saying whatever she thinks is the right thing to say.

i'm not knocking her for it - we get to see the same bullshit every year when Democrats and Republicans descend on Iowa and tell us all what a hard-on they have for ethanol - its the way things are. and its not new.

*sigh*

i can see her in the final four. i hope she's not the nominee.

- IGIT

I know what you're saying. In both cases, I was poking fun at her, but when she said she smoked a doobie she was on that radio program and it seemed like the cool thing to say given the show. Similar thing IMO.

 

[Lead]

hello Lead!

i'm not sure i like that.

due to Mr. Trump's unusual proclivities as a candidate and as POTUS (all of which appears to be supported by the GOP electorate), there is a rich lode of "whataboutism" to be mined, aye?

i think that avenue should be left open, both legislatively and rhetorically.

- IGIT

As fun as whataboutism can be to some, most can acknowledge the flaw in using it. Like I said, you either can be okay with Trumps actions now and be okay with this later or you can condemn his actions and when those in the future do it. Anything more is hypocrisy.

hola once more Lead,

with the way the court is currently comprised, along with the age of the Supreme Court Justices, 2nd amendment enthusiasts should rest easy for the next 2 or 3 decades or so.

rightwingers should build a monument for Mitch McConnell. the maneuver he pulled when he stiffed Merrick Garland was masterful. i was severely depressed about what went down, but politically speaking, you gotta admire it.

- IGIT

Is your point here that it would get overused simply because the court is conservative? It would be less about the 2nd amendment and more about whether a president could bypass congress (at least initially). To pretend all court rulings at that court are just partisan isn’t healthy nor true.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Still hasn't been asked about Willie Brown. Not once.

From the same people having a prime time special on Stormy Daniels's unproven allegations and not an acknowledged affair. Revolting hypocrites.

 

[BudKing8806]

She could declare a national emergency to get it done but not sure if there is precedent for that sort of thing...

She does that and you'll see chaos like you've never witnessed before.

 

[Islam Imamate]

She does that and you'll see chaos like you've never witnessed before.

Doubtful. Most likely it would be stopped at the courts if its anything significant and allowed if its something minor like banning bump stocks. I know some gun nuts fantasize about the civil war where they get to shoot leftists and "thugs" but its just that, a fantasy.

 

[BudKing8806]

Doubtful. Most likely it would be stopped at the courts if its anything significant and allowed if its something minor like banning bump stocks. I know some gun nuts fantasize about the civil war where they get to shoot leftists and "thugs" but its just that, a fantasy.

I hope you are right. But with the country headed the direction it is, you never know. If it actually made it through the courts, it would get very bad.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I hope you are right. But with the country headed the direction it is, you never know. If it actually made it through the courts, it would get very bad.

Again, doubtful. People are not going to abandon their creature comforts to spark a civil war over a principle no matter how much they may boast about doing so. And that's not necessarily good, there are principles and policies worth fighting over but that doesn't mean people will.

 

[BudKing8806]

Again, doubtful. People are not going to abandon their creature comforts to spark a civil war over a principle no matter how much they may boast about doing so. And that's not necessarily good, there are principles and policies worth fighting over but that doesn't mean people will.

Likely, but how many would it really take? How many people were involved in Sri Lanka? Imagine even 10k people aiming to cause chaos like that across the country.