Thank You, Eris.You in another thread:Eris wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 1:35 pm Just a friendly note that while talking about Harris' record is perfectly legitimate, let's not let this conversation devolve into insulting people over their choice to vote or not vote for any particular person. I hate to have to say this, but it's happened so many times in the past that I feel a need to be proactive here.
As I am someone whom has complained about Harris I found it insulting to be called misogynistic and racist.The people complaining about her are just being misogynistic and racist.
It was pretty clear to me, from the context and from the article referenced in the OP, that Eris was talking specifically about Harris aids that have complained about her being too meticulous and detail oriented. She was saying the complaints were misogynistic and racist because those would be seen as positive qualities in a white man.BKinzey wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:48 pmYou in another thread:Eris wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 1:35 pm Just a friendly note that while talking about Harris' record is perfectly legitimate, let's not let this conversation devolve into insulting people over their choice to vote or not vote for any particular person. I hate to have to say this, but it's happened so many times in the past that I feel a need to be proactive here.
As I am someone whom has complained about Harris I found it insulting to be called misogynistic and racist.The people complaining about her are just being misogynistic and racist.
Forgive me, I was unclear. I mostly meant the Republicans complaining about her. I've been seeing a lot of stuff lately about her "personality", like the recent article about how people who work in the VP office complain that she alwways wants to know "why" they tell her she should do something, and how she is always "prepared" and has lots of "questions" as if those were bad things. Those traits are considered good in white men, but as soon as a non-white woman shows those traits suddenly she's being unreasonable.BKinzey wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:48 pmYou in another thread:Eris wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 1:35 pm Just a friendly note that while talking about Harris' record is perfectly legitimate, let's not let this conversation devolve into insulting people over their choice to vote or not vote for any particular person. I hate to have to say this, but it's happened so many times in the past that I feel a need to be proactive here.
As I am someone whom has complained about Harris I found it insulting to be called misogynistic and racist.The people complaining about her are just being misogynistic and racist.
Agree, Eris. I have lots of criticisms of her policies. But I find the questions and preparedness to be attributes. Nobody knows everything and asking questions is sort of critical to the position.Eris wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 5:21 pmForgive me, I was unclear. I mostly meant the Republicans complaining about her. I've been seeing a lot of stuff lately about her "personality", like the recent article about how people who work in the VP office complain that she alwways wants to know "why" they tell her she should do something, and how she is always "prepared" and has lots of "questions" as if those were bad things. Those traits are considered good in white men, but as soon as a non-white woman shows those traits suddenly she's being unreasonable.BKinzey wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:48 pmYou in another thread:Eris wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 1:35 pm Just a friendly note that while talking about Harris' record is perfectly legitimate, let's not let this conversation devolve into insulting people over their choice to vote or not vote for any particular person. I hate to have to say this, but it's happened so many times in the past that I feel a need to be proactive here.
As I am someone whom has complained about Harris I found it insulting to be called misogynistic and racist.The people complaining about her are just being misogynistic and racist.
I too have lots of complaints about her prosecutorial record, and if I weren't trying to stay neutral in here I could pile on her too.
And trump has a monopoly on lying? Harris' lies about microstamping as Attorney General are why we had a 10 year ban on new handgun models. She's all over the record with support for bans, even confiscating. I, for one, believe her record over her platitudes. I've lived with it.TrueTexan wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 11:05 pm I watched the debate tonight and I heard Harris state that she and Walz are both gun owners and that she would not support taking away anybody’s guns. Take it as it was stated on national TV.
My wife said the same thing about debates. Agree with you and featureless. Her actions and record have more meaning than election trail sound bites.highdesert wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2024 7:51 am As political scientists have told us for decades, debates don't change anything. Harris supporters and Trump supporters each heard what they wanted to hear from their candidate. I agree with featureless, Harris might say she owns guns, but I'm more concerned with her history of gun control in court after court in California as AG and as a US senator and VP. Politicians of both sides say a lot of things especially during a close election. Hope everyone enjoyed probably the only debate of this election cycle.
featureless wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 11:33 pmAnd trump has a monopoly on lying? Harris' lies about microstamping as Attorney General are why we had a 10 year ban on new handgun models. She's all over the record with support for bans, even confiscating. I, for one, believe her record over her platitudes. I've lived with it.TrueTexan wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2024 11:05 pm I watched the debate tonight and I heard Harris state that she and Walz are both gun owners and that she would not support taking away anybody’s guns. Take it as it was stated on national TV.
DAs and AGs have the ability to reform the law or offer leniency thereunder. It is central to criminal justice reform. Some do, some don't. Telling of the character if they do what's right at personal cost of votes or tow the line. We in California have most certainly perceived (and received) the results of that!CDFingers wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2024 9:44 am DA's and AG's are hired to enforce existing law. Then things get appealed. We perceive the results of that.
CDF
Good summary featureless. Harris might have backed away from supporting mandatory gun buyback of AR-15 type rifles since she was nominated this summer, but she still supports an assault weapons ban.featureless wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2024 9:41 am Character does matter. Honesty is part of that.
Here's an amicus brief Harris participated in on the 2008 Heller case as San Francisco DA arguing handguns can be banned as the 2A only confers a militia right to keep and bear, no individual right.
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/u ... orneys.pdf
In 2014, Harris intervened on the state's behalf in
Peruta v. San Diego. The state was not a party to the suit challenging "good cause" CCW denials by San Diego Sheriff. Plaintiff had won the case at CA9 and the sheriff had decided not to appeal, opening the door for CCW in restrictive counties. Harris entered and CA9 accepted. Went all the way to SCOTUS and was not granted cert. Harris ensured no real right to CCW in California (and other restrictive states under CA9) continued.
I'm 2013, Harris' office triggered the microstamping portion of the CA handgun roster, effectively banning new handgun models from being sold in CA form 2013 until 2024 when the requirement was no longer defended by the State in the ongoing Boland case (lodged firmly at CA9). Harris' certification of microstamping was based on expired patents not impeding the technology, not that the technology was actually feasible and available. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 3LjKIqwlbi
Harris statements on AWBs and buybacks or confiscation are easily found, so no need to dig them up.
The point is, Harris believes and has legally opined that there is no individual right to keep and bear. That is one of her "values." She has litigated that belief in court, on the record, and the real results have been a partial ban on keep and bear in CA. That she now says she owns a gun and won't take them is either a total reversal of all of her previous actions, values and legal work or a lie.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... lt-weapon/We asked the Harris campaign whether she still supports mandatory assault weapons buybacks. She does not. A campaign spokesperson pointed to a comment the campaign gave to The New York Times that, like President Joe Biden, Harris wants to ban assault weapons but not require people to sell them to the federal government.
Thanks for this summary. She has a history and people need to be realistic and accept it. I have no doubt she will do everything possible at the first change to push an anti gun agenda. The current president didn’t harp on guns during his election, but it was one of the first issues he saw as important within months of taking office. I expect harris to do the same. By all means everyone should evaluate their own metric for their vote and vote for her if inclined. But, don’t be naive concerning her positions on guns and the right to bear arms. She doesn’t believe it exists as an individual right. She will have armed security for the rest of her life. Most of all of us won’t.highdesert wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2024 11:11 amGood summary featureless. Harris might have backed away from supporting mandatory gun buyback of AR-15 type rifles since she was nominated this summer, but she still supports an assault weapons ban.featureless wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2024 9:41 am Character does matter. Honesty is part of that.
Here's an amicus brief Harris participated in on the 2008 Heller case as San Francisco DA arguing handguns can be banned as the 2A only confers a militia right to keep and bear, no individual right.
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/u ... orneys.pdf
In 2014, Harris intervened on the state's behalf in
Peruta v. San Diego. The state was not a party to the suit challenging "good cause" CCW denials by San Diego Sheriff. Plaintiff had won the case at CA9 and the sheriff had decided not to appeal, opening the door for CCW in restrictive counties. Harris entered and CA9 accepted. Went all the way to SCOTUS and was not granted cert. Harris ensured no real right to CCW in California (and other restrictive states under CA9) continued.
I'm 2013, Harris' office triggered the microstamping portion of the CA handgun roster, effectively banning new handgun models from being sold in CA form 2013 until 2024 when the requirement was no longer defended by the State in the ongoing Boland case (lodged firmly at CA9). Harris' certification of microstamping was based on expired patents not impeding the technology, not that the technology was actually feasible and available. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 3LjKIqwlbi
Harris statements on AWBs and buybacks or confiscation are easily found, so no need to dig them up.
The point is, Harris believes and has legally opined that there is no individual right to keep and bear. That is one of her "values." She has litigated that belief in court, on the record, and the real results have been a partial ban on keep and bear in CA. That she now says she owns a gun and won't take them is either a total reversal of all of her previous actions, values and legal work or a lie.https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... lt-weapon/We asked the Harris campaign whether she still supports mandatory assault weapons buybacks. She does not. A campaign spokesperson pointed to a comment the campaign gave to The New York Times that, like President Joe Biden, Harris wants to ban assault weapons but not require people to sell them to the federal government.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest
