Previous post
Here comes the massive pandering. CNN, in an attempt to re-create Fox News’s success, gave us not one, not two, but FIVE presidential primary candidates in town halls on one night. And Bernie Sanders continued his own brand of crazy by saying yes, felons should be able to vote while incarcerated.
Bernie Sanders says terrorists like the Boston Marathon bomber, rapists, and murderers should be able to vote from jail. pic.twitter.com/PL0fpMSGwo
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) April 23, 2019
Even CNN went “huh?” on this one.
A student asked whether he really believed that incarcerated Americans should be allowed to vote, including the Boston Marathon bomber. Showing Democrats the kind of direct, straightforward rhetoric that helped him win over so many voters in 2016, he answered with an unequivocal yes.”
The Vermont senator said he wants to see America have the highest voter turnout on earth, and part of that is preserving the right to vote even for the most “terrible people.”
“If somebody commits a serious crime — sexual assault, murder — they’re going to be punished. They may be in jail for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole lives. That’s what happens when you commit a serious crime,” Sanders said. “But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime; not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that; not going to let that person vote. You’re running down a slippery slope.”
CNN’s Chris Cuomo noted that Sanders was essentially writing a 30-second opposition ad against himself “by saying you think the Boston Marathon bomber should vote.”
“Well, Chris,” Sanders answered, “I think I have written many 30-second opposition ads throughout my life. This will be just another one.”
And just how bad is this attempt at pandering? Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor, actually said that she wanted to “have a conversation” about felons voting.
Kamala Harris: “We should have that conversation” about allowing the Boston Marathon bomber to vote from prison. pic.twitter.com/TOqIlKYuQY
— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) April 23, 2019
This answer is indicative of just how poorly Harris has been performing in the polls. She’s been hounded by her political past as a prosecutor who had no problem locking people up, and now she’s trying to soften that image by saying “well, let’s talk about letting those felons vote.”
Pete Buttigieg, who is clearly staking out the “I’m progressive but I’m not insane” ground in the Democratic primary race, gave an instant no to this felon voting proposal. The other two candidates, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, both came on before the question on felon voting was posed to Bernie, so they didn’t participate in that question by default.
But leave it to Lindsey Graham 2.0 to really put the screws to Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris.
I look forward to hearing his explanation — in South Carolina — why Dylan Roof should be allowed to vote in the upcoming elections.
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) April 23, 2019
Go knock yourselves out, Bernie and Kamala. Let us know how that goes in Boston and in South Carolina. We’ll be waiting, with popcorn, for your continued explanations.
Featured image via Pixabay, Pixabay license free for commercial use
CaptDMO says: Um, No. Incarcerated, or parolled Felons should NOT vote, and Mr. Sanders should NOT be “in charge”,
of ANYTHING even SMELLIING like a tax dollar. including a paycheck.
Wfjag says: So, because voting is a right, it isn’t affected by a criminal conviction.
Will that apply to other rights, including the right express in the Constitution to bear arms?
GWB says: If they can exercise those rights while in prison, then why can’t they have guns in there?
GWB says: “have a conversation”
A way of saying “me too” with plausible deniability.
“I’m progressive but I’m not insane”
Gonna have to work a lot harder than he currently is to achieve that!
why Dylan Roof should be allowed to vote in the upcoming elections
Heck yeah! “Sen. Sanders, why should all the locked-up KKK members be allowed to vote on civil rights measures?”
Look, it’s a stupid argument, but it’s not an inherently un-American one. But, the response is this:
They gave away fundamental rights when they committed a crime against the communities within which they live, including the one that lets them help shape and guide those communities into the future. Once they’ve fully paid their debt to society, they can petition to have their rights fully reinstated: guns, voting, etc. (And I would default to reinstating those rights, only holding them back if there was some question as to recidivism.)
Wfjag says: “have a conversation” is Progressive-Speak for “I’ll tell you what to think”, and should you disagree, I’ll call you a racist, homophobe, sexist, etc., and am free to destroy your life, career, family, etc., by whatever means necessary, including false accusations, prosecution for thought crimes, bullying, doxing, or group feeding frenzy. It’s a veiled threat telling you are expected to obey, or else . . .
GWB says: In the case of a SJZ, yes. But context determines meaning, and this is the politician phrase, not the SJZ one. IT means “sure I want on that train, but I’m retaining the ability to jump off as soon as some token is achieved.” It’s often used to walk the line between what’s necessary for a primary win (appealing to the SJZ vote) and a general election vote (where there aren’t enough SJZs to win).
John C. says: I have no problem with convicted felons voting, once they have completed their sentences. It is called “paying their debt to Society” after all. If they haven’t paid their debt, why are they out? If they have, what is the justification for not renewing their rights? But while in prison, they have many rights curtailed by their own choices, as no one forced them to commit felonies that made it necessary for Society to remove them from that Society. The most obvious one is Liberty, with Life taken from some because of the harm they did. Pursuit of Happiness is still theirs, as one can pursue happiness under any situation. So, let them vote, after they have completed their sentences, including parole. But not a minute earlier.
Skillyboo says: Need to find replacements for the middle class and just walk away crowd. Still won’t be enough but then again the voter fraud crowd might fill the void.
sound awake says: this is not a checkpoint on the road to 270
its a checkpoint on the road to like 190 or maybe even less
9 Comments