Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”

Theo’s stance sounds 110% reasonable to me. What’s the issue?

The issue is that PDT and her supporters portrayed Stamos as a vengeful republican and party traitor for objecting to Terry’s poorly written and executed order. And gullible arlingtonians believed them.

I think it’s a mistake to say voters will ill-informed. This strikes me as a simple case of political consequences stemming from a position she took while in office. Maybe it was reasonable for her to go against her own party and join the republican chorus in opposing McC, but it was unpopular and didn’t sit well with many voters. If you’re in an elected position you risk being voted out by going against the party that helped bring you to office. I, like many of my fellow voters, read plenty about her reasons for not supporting McC’s efforts to restore voting rights and I just wasn’t persuaded that it justified her signing on with Republicans like that.

Read your last sentence. As you wrote it, it wasn’t that Stamos had reasonable objections to Terry’s bill that led you to vote against her, because you simply disagreed with her. It was her “signing on with Republicans like that.” That is blind partisanship and exactly what I described as animating this election. Think for yourself.

I’m sorry if it sounds like “blind partisanship.” It’s my well-informed political belief that restoration of voting rights is important and I don’t support a prosecutor who actively frustrates the governor’s efforts to accomplish that goal. I am a democrat and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that I care about the issue enough to vote accordingly. Dismissing it as blind partisanship is nonsense. It’s annoying that the Republicans actively work to prevent the restoration of voting rights, but they’re generally not expecting me to vote for them. If someone actually expects my vote, they shouldn’t be surprised that my political beliefs factor in.

Sad that so many people would rather get the deed done "right NOW" than get the deed done thoughtfully and well. Hmm...I'm wondering why people have so many complaints about APS then.....

Anonymous wrote:Not snarky: Hi everyone. I addressed the political issue in the announcement. AEM is OK with political posts.

Snarky: Did you not read my post? (Or something like that)

The majority of respondents want politics gone or relegated to single posts (like our awesome board separation here). I guess that touched a nerve. I also feel bad for the 2nd mod bc everyone acts like she doesn’t exist.

Side note: What do you think teachers think when they see some of those last names on their class list? Plenty of APS employees are members, but they don’t post.

I agree with your assessment. There was definitely an edge there.

Some people will always drag politics into AEM if allowed, election or no, so if the mods don’t institute some limits I guess I’m out. I don’t want that ugliness in my face on a daily basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”

Theo’s stance sounds 110% reasonable to me. What’s the issue?

The issue is that PDT and her supporters portrayed Stamos as a vengeful republican and party traitor for objecting to Terry’s poorly written and executed order. And gullible arlingtonians believed them.

I think it’s a mistake to say voters will ill-informed. This strikes me as a simple case of political consequences stemming from a position she took while in office. Maybe it was reasonable for her to go against her own party and join the republican chorus in opposing McC, but it was unpopular and didn’t sit well with many voters. If you’re in an elected position you risk being voted out by going against the party that helped bring you to office. I, like many of my fellow voters, read plenty about her reasons for not supporting McC’s efforts to restore voting rights and I just wasn’t persuaded that it justified her signing on with Republicans like that.

Read your last sentence. As you wrote it, it wasn’t that Stamos had reasonable objections to Terry’s bill that led you to vote against her, because you simply disagreed with her. It was her “signing on with Republicans like that.” That is blind partisanship and exactly what I described as animating this election. Think for yourself.

I’m sorry if it sounds like “blind partisanship.” It’s my well-informed political belief that restoration of voting rights is important and I don’t support a prosecutor who actively frustrates the governor’s efforts to accomplish that goal. I am a democrat and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that I care about the issue enough to vote accordingly. Dismissing it as blind partisanship is nonsense. It’s annoying that the Republicans actively work to prevent the restoration of voting rights, but they’re generally not expecting me to vote for them. If someone actually expects my vote, they shouldn’t be surprised that my political beliefs factor in.

Opposition to terry’s order was bipartisan. It’s the partisan in you that says, no it’s not, those Democrats aren’t “real” dems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”

Theo’s stance sounds 110% reasonable to me. What’s the issue?

The issue is that PDT and her supporters portrayed Stamos as a vengeful republican and party traitor for objecting to Terry’s poorly written and executed order. And gullible arlingtonians believed them.

I think it’s a mistake to say voters will ill-informed. This strikes me as a simple case of political consequences stemming from a position she took while in office. Maybe it was reasonable for her to go against her own party and join the republican chorus in opposing McC, but it was unpopular and didn’t sit well with many voters. If you’re in an elected position you risk being voted out by going against the party that helped bring you to office. I, like many of my fellow voters, read plenty about her reasons for not supporting McC’s efforts to restore voting rights and I just wasn’t persuaded that it justified her signing on with Republicans like that.

Read your last sentence. As you wrote it, it wasn’t that Stamos had reasonable objections to Terry’s bill that led you to vote against her, because you simply disagreed with her. It was her “signing on with Republicans like that.” That is blind partisanship and exactly what I described as animating this election. Think for yourself.

I’m sorry if it sounds like “blind partisanship.” It’s my well-informed political belief that restoration of voting rights is important and I don’t support a prosecutor who actively frustrates the governor’s efforts to accomplish that goal. I am a democrat and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that I care about the issue enough to vote accordingly. Dismissing it as blind partisanship is nonsense. It’s annoying that the Republicans actively work to prevent the restoration of voting rights, but they’re generally not expecting me to vote for them. If someone actually expects my vote, they shouldn’t be surprised that my political beliefs factor in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”

Theo’s stance sounds 110% reasonable to me. What’s the issue?

The issue is that PDT and her supporters portrayed Stamos as a vengeful republican and party traitor for objecting to Terry’s poorly written and executed order. And gullible arlingtonians believed them.

I think it’s a mistake to say voters will ill-informed. This strikes me as a simple case of political consequences stemming from a position she took while in office. Maybe it was reasonable for her to go against her own party and join the republican chorus in opposing McC, but it was unpopular and didn’t sit well with many voters. If you’re in an elected position you risk being voted out by going against the party that helped bring you to office. I, like many of my fellow voters, read plenty about her reasons for not supporting McC’s efforts to restore voting rights and I just wasn’t persuaded that it justified her signing on with Republicans like that.

Read your last sentence. As you wrote it, it wasn’t that Stamos had reasonable objections to Terry’s bill that led you to vote against her, because you simply disagreed with her. It was her “signing on with Republicans like that.” That is blind partisanship and exactly what I described as animating this election. Think for yourself.

Not snarky: Hi everyone. I addressed the political issue in the announcement. AEM is OK with political posts.

Snarky: Did you not read my post? (Or something like that)

The majority of respondents want politics gone or relegated to single posts (like our awesome board separation here). I guess that touched a nerve. I also feel bad for the 2nd mod bc everyone acts like she doesn’t exist.

Side note: What do you think teachers think when they see some of those last names on their class list? Plenty of APS employees are members, but they don’t post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do I understand this correctly?

A member created a poll to gauge how people felt about political posts and the moderator responded a snarky post about checking her pinned post. When checked, the reference was a post about, if you don't like it, you can leave." Am I correct? She is posting a response in the poll, that seems to have people from different backgrounds responding politely, that she doesn't give a hoot and she would rather show you the way out that let a civil discussion continue.

She was referencing the part of the pinned comment that says it is OK to be political:
"I don't have all the answers but the goal of this page is for us to bring issues to light, gain insights from members of our community, be political (yes) and be a helpful resource to many parents struggling or who even want to find a fun activity for their child. I think overall this is happening."

I don't think it was meant to be snarky.

I think it was snarky.

Then apparently you should leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do I understand this correctly?

A member created a poll to gauge how people felt about political posts and the moderator responded a snarky post about checking her pinned post. When checked, the reference was a post about, if you don't like it, you can leave." Am I correct? She is posting a response in the poll, that seems to have people from different backgrounds responding politely, that she doesn't give a hoot and she would rather show you the way out that let a civil discussion continue.

She was referencing the part of the pinned comment that says it is OK to be political:
"I don't have all the answers but the goal of this page is for us to bring issues to light, gain insights from members of our community, be political (yes) and be a helpful resource to many parents struggling or who even want to find a fun activity for their child. I think overall this is happening."

I don't think it was meant to be snarky.

I think it was snarky.

Anonymous wrote:Do I understand this correctly?

A member created a poll to gauge how people felt about political posts and the moderator responded a snarky post about checking her pinned post. When checked, the reference was a post about, if you don't like it, you can leave." Am I correct? She is posting a response in the poll, that seems to have people from different backgrounds responding politely, that she doesn't give a hoot and she would rather show you the way out that let a civil discussion continue.

She was referencing the part of the pinned comment that says it is OK to be political:
"I don't have all the answers but the goal of this page is for us to bring issues to light, gain insights from members of our community, be political (yes) and be a helpful resource to many parents struggling or who even want to find a fun activity for their child. I think overall this is happening."

I don't think it was meant to be snarky.

Do I understand this correctly?

A member created a poll to gauge how people felt about political posts and the moderator responded a snarky post about checking her pinned post. When checked, the reference was a post about, if you don't like it, you can leave." Am I correct? She is posting a response in the poll, that seems to have people from different backgrounds responding politely, that she doesn't give a hoot and she would rather show you the way out that let a civil discussion continue.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, the race even made Politico:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/10/soros-prosecutor-arlington-county-227101

At the risk of getting burned by identity politics, how does some one "identify" as a woman of color?

I don't know and to me this is really disengenuous, even dishonest, and insulting to those who truly are "of color." Parisa is very clearly white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”

Theo’s stance sounds 110% reasonable to me. What’s the issue?

The issue is that PDT and her supporters portrayed Stamos as a vengeful republican and party traitor for objecting to Terry’s poorly written and executed order. And gullible arlingtonians believed them.

I think it’s a mistake to say voters will ill-informed. This strikes me as a simple case of political consequences stemming from a position she took while in office. Maybe it was reasonable for her to go against her own party and join the republican chorus in opposing McC, but it was unpopular and didn’t sit well with many voters. If you’re in an elected position you risk being voted out by going against the party that helped bring you to office. I, like many of my fellow voters, read plenty about her reasons for not supporting McC’s efforts to restore voting rights and I just wasn’t persuaded that it justified her signing on with Republicans like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”

Theo’s stance sounds 110% reasonable to me. What’s the issue?

The issue is that PDT and her supporters portrayed Stamos as a vengeful republican and party traitor for objecting to Terry’s poorly written and executed order. And gullible arlingtonians believed them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”

Theo’s stance sounds 110% reasonable to me. What’s the issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”

It gets even better:

“McAuliffe went much further than his predecessors with his April 2016 executive order that restored voting rights to more than 200,000 felons who had completed their sentences. Republicans were incensed that the order included violent offenders and those who had not yet paid restitution to victims, and they accused McAuliffe of trying to help his friend and political ally Hillary Clinton by adding Democratic voters to the rolls.


Adding to the controversy was a botched implementation of the order; the governor’s office mistakenly restored rights to 132 sex offenders still in custody, as well as several convicted killers on probation in other states.”
“