Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Cher Goes MAGA Over Bernie Saying Imprisoned Terrorists, Murderers and Rapists Should Get to Vote

Cher Goes MAGA Over Bernie Saying Imprisoned Terrorists, Murderers and Rapists Should Get to Vote


Just last week, Cher made headlines by tweeting something that was surprisingly in line with Trump. She didn’t like the idea of sending a flood of migrants to the sanctuary city of Los Angeles when they can’t even take care of their own homeless people, many of whom are veterans.

Trump even screen capped Cher’s tweet and shared it on his feed:

Now Bernie Sanders has pushed Cher to the right after he said during a CNN town hall event that criminals, including murderers, rapists, and even Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, should have the ability to vote.

Cameron Cawthorne of the Washington Free Beacon has the details:

Sanders Supports Allowing the Boston Marathon Bomber to Vote: My Campaign Wants to Create a ‘Vibrant Democracy’

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) on Monday night said he supported the voting rights of felons, including the Boston Marathon bomber who killed four people and injured 264 others during the 2013 attack.

Anne Carlstein, a Harvard University student, asked Sanders at a CNN town hall in Manchester, N.H. about recent comments supporting felons and sex offenders voting while in prison.

“Does this mean you would support enfranchising people like the Boston Marathon bomber, a convicted terrorist and murderer. Do you think those convicted of sexual assault should have the opportunity to vote for politicians who could have a direct impact on women’s rights?” Carlstein asked…

“Anne to answer your question, as it happens in my own state of Vermont, from the very first days of our state’s history, what our Constitution says is that everybody can vote,” Sanders said. “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, but I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people.”

Here’s the video:

Cher’s reaction to this was surprisingly rational and although she has already deleted her tweet, Stephen Miller made a copy:

Cher must have gotten some blowback from the left for saying that because she also deleted a related follow-up tweet which read:


Most people reacted to Bernie’s comments the same way Cher did. This was not a garden variety gaffe. In a sane world, something like this blows a candidate’s chances completely.

Last word goes to Jim Geraghty:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s not clear that this is a Right-Left thing.

Bernie bases his notion on the NH Constitution (or at least his own reading of it). A very logical position.

Cher bases her position on The Feelz. She soesn’t “feel” that various sorts of criminals should have the right to vote. Whatever its virtues, this is an arbitrary, and not a terribly logical, notion.

Normally, the modern American Right is relatively strict and uncompromising about civil rights (which of course include the rights of the accused and of criminals), easily distinguised from the (rather Stalinist) Left position that rights can be sacrificed ad-hoc for the sake of transient expediency.

    healthguyfsu in reply to tom_swift. | April 24, 2019 at 7:47 am

    There’s no reversal here.

    Conservatives support punishment for crimes committed that includes forfeiture of several rights guaranteed to non-criminal citizens. Voting is just one of those rights.

    Liberals are the ones trying to undermine criminal justice codes while recruiting voters from among the ranks of convicted criminals.

      DaveGinOly in reply to healthguyfsu. | April 24, 2019 at 10:34 am

      Spot-on (you beat me to it).
      We have the right to not live in a cage, but we take that right away as punishment for crimes. We take away other valuable rights as well. Why should the right to vote be sacrosanct?

    Valerie in reply to tom_swift. | April 24, 2019 at 8:22 am

    Bernie isn’t being “logical” at all. He is hostile to the entire notion of a Constitutional republic, and he will undermine it in any way he can.

    The point of the vote is to allow We The People to choose our leadership. We want good picks. Convicted felons are a class of people recognized for their bad choices.

    The same is true of 16-year-olds, and Nancy Pelosi wants to give them the vote, too.

    It’s all about finding people who can be used.

    Merlin01 in reply to tom_swift. | April 24, 2019 at 8:36 am

    By Bernie’s logic criminals in prison should be allowed to own guns. It’s a right granted in the constitution…

The Dems are so far off the rails that their last desperate hope to avoid being completely blown out of the game in 2020 is to allow non-citizens and criminals to vote. Apparently, they don’t think bribing off millenials’ by paying off their college debt is going to be enough.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE nominate Grampa!!! And it only gets worse as you go down the list of alternatives! How did the Dems get so lost? Which country do they think they live in?

I don’t know about New Hampshire, but it’s not anything new for felony convictions in most of the USA to lead to curtailment of otherwise inalienable civil rights. Voting, being able to serve on juries, gun ownership to name a few. Or the Big One, the right to not be in jail at all. Many states have a process to enable restoration of those rights, ranging from simply serving out your sentence to applying to a board for restoration based on years of not being a criminal douchebag any longer.

This is not “transient expediency” based on “feelz”, this is red letter Law long in practice and enshrined in many State Constitutions.

The logic is not so hard to follow, the idea is that citizenship entails obligations to not be a criminal douchebag. You don’t necessarily have to be a “nice” person, but you can’t make your living criminally preying on others, or otherwise be guilty of major crimes like murder, attempted murder, rape or (say) mass murder. If you can’t handle following those fairly simple obligations, you can’t be trusted to not use those (curtailed) citizen rights in furtherance of new criminal activity. The gun part is the most obvious line of thought, but voting and jury duty are just as logical once you remember historical situations such as when Cook County was being run by Capone et Alia, and it was neigh impossible to convict connected crooks or elect honest governance.

In fact if Bernie’s Wet Dream of enlisting the (convicted) professional criminal class as a new and large Democrat voting block (to join their unconvicted brothers and sister) ever takes place, I can well imagine the next step – civil rights lawsuits vis a vie employment discrimination. Given the premise that boys/girls will be boys/girls and past misdeeds should not be held against convicts citizenship rights, there’s no logical reason a released past rapist/embezzler/thief/whatever should be denied full employment rights. You’re a convicted pedophile who wants to teach grade Schoolers? A convicted carjacker who always wanted to go into law enforcement? A convicted thief who wants a job handling money transactions of some sort? There’s a class action suit out there just waiting for you. Pile on Citizen, pile on…..

By Bernie’s logic criminals in prison should be allowed to own guns. It’s a right granted in the constitution…

Morons, all morons!

because no higher power ever said anything about voting, it is NOT a right. it is a PRIVILAGE granted by governments.
convicted felons have had their voting privilage removed by something called DUE PROCESS.

    txvet2 in reply to xtron. | April 24, 2019 at 9:42 pm

    “”That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…..” Voting is not a privilege granted by government, at least not in this country. Exactly the opposite.

I wouldn’t claim Cher as a DJT supporter, but her libertarian streak goes ‘way back.

smalltownoklahoman | April 24, 2019 at 8:43 am

Crazy Bernie at it again! *Sigh* Man Bernie, do you even understand why people lose certain rights when they are sent to prison for felony level offenses? A good part of it is because we as a society have said “we can no longer trust this person”. This includes not entrusting them with the right to vote because by their deeds they have expressed that they do not have respecting the rights and/or good of their fellow citizens at heart, at least in specific circumstances anyway. This is especially true of the Boston Marathon Bomber whom by his deeds it’s pretty easy to say he is actively malicious to our society in general!

Obviously it’s too early in the AM for some to get their cognitive faculties in gear. The point is NOT that incarcerated persons have some of their civil rights curtailed. D’uh. They can’t move about as they please, for one thing—that’s the essential feature of incarceration. The question here is exactly which rights, and why—what connection do they have to the sentence, or to crime & punishment in general? Other rights may be curtailed as an act of the legislature, or by bureaucratic whim. After serving the sentence, some may remain curtailed, some will be restored; again, as per legislation or whim. Exactly which rights suffer these fates is generally arbitrary. None (except the freedom to move about at whim) have anything to do with a sentence of incarceration. Whether a prisoner votes or not, he’s still a prisoner and still serving his sentence.

Bernie claims to have some basis in law for his opinion. I’m not sufficiently interested to investigate whether he’s right about that or not. Cher cites no legal authority whatever for her opinion, nor any philosophical justification. Just the “feelz”, which, to be fair, is of course sometimes all we have.

    BobM in reply to tom_swift. | April 24, 2019 at 9:59 am

    To be fair to Cher, she doesn’t have to “cite legal authority” to buttress her opinion, her personal opinion is also the current Law’s “opinion”. She’s merely stating she concurs with it for practical and logical reasons.

    There’s an old saw to the effect that extreme claims require extreme proofs. Cher is not the outlier or extremest here, Bernie is. It is thus Bernie’s job to make his case that it is both historically, legally and practically justified that we should trust those who prey on society to help decide society’s direction.

This should surprise exactly no one. Since the 1960s (if not before) the Left has toyed with the idea that murderers, rapists, and thieves locked behind bars are really political prisoners victimized by a racist judicial system. According to the proponents of this theory, the REAL criminals who should be in the slammer are the Enemies of the People (read: anyone who will not bow the knee to our self-anointed Progressive betters).

What is new about Sanders’ and Harris’s latest pronouncement is that they now feel sufficiently powerful enough to put their mad plans into action in such a public way. They may be right about being beyond the reach of the Deplorables. A combination of the far Left Deep State, an education system that openly preaches communism, near absolute control of entertainment and media, and voting fraud schemes such as ballot harvesting means voters have an ever shrinking role in determining who rules them.

We do not take crime seriously enough. Our criminal justice system criminalizes too many things as a means of controlling the population at large. We need three types of punishment (forget rehabilitation) 1) misdemeanor – 3 months, 2) felony – 1 to 5 years and 3) felony – death. Restructure our laws accordingly.

Want to make it illegal to braid hair without a license or to urinate on Jane Fonda’s grave? Go ahead, but keep in mind that we’re not going to be able to punish according to the severity of the offense.

Do we risk innocent lives when employing the death penalty? We sure do, but no more than we risk lives in the military. It is a price that must be paid if civilization is to be maintained.

    filiusdextris in reply to stablesort. | April 24, 2019 at 2:07 pm

    If this lifetime was all the existence we had, that would make sense, but this lifetime is short compared to eternity. We should be hoping and praying and working to ensure that as many as can be saved will be saved, even killers. While the death penalty may be necessary in some cases to protect innocent lives, more widespread (and somewhat more indiscriminate) use will likely mean that for many felons, their time for repentance is reduced. God can still work to change their hearts within the shortened timeline we create, but I’m not sure that we should be putting God to that test.

      God can deal with them as God see’s fit.

      Arguing we need to give them more time for God to do his work is perhaps the silliest argument against the death penalty I’ve ever heard.

      By your own logic, God has infinity to do rehab as He sees fit after the sucker is executed.

JusticeDelivered | April 24, 2019 at 10:15 am

I wonder if cher has figured out that all those illegals already in LA suck up resources which should be going to our own people. Cher should embark on a campaign to repudiate sanctuary and to start expelling all those illegals. In the meantime we should dump illegals there until California understands that all illegals should be expelled.

Does anyone know how many states allow felons who have completed their sentences to vote? I know conservative Texas does.

    txvet2 in reply to Texasyankee. | April 24, 2019 at 9:56 pm

    And is right in doing so, given that the perp in question has paid his debt to society, and by the mere fact of being released is recognized as being eligible to resume his place in society. Arguments can be made either way for parolees.

Like every dem candidate but especially whitey Bernie has to show minorities that he talks the talk and walks the walk.

Harris just wants to make sure her nephew Jussie will still be able to vote for her in case he goes to the big house.

    Milhouse in reply to floridaman. | April 24, 2019 at 10:10 pm

    Jussie Smollett is not related to Kamala Harris. It’s a stupid stupid LIE that some idiot came up with because Harris is such a rare name that all Harrises must be related. And anyone who repeats it is just as stupid.

The trend is to restructure what is a crime. In California , auto theft under $15K is a misdemeanor but police will not investigate. Theft in Dallas below $750 isn’t a crime. Lawlessness is a mindset.

This is an infantile position… what other “Constitutional” rights are we going to give back to incarcerated felons? They lost the right to vote via due process. There is a reason we don’t want rapists, terrorists, murderers, arsonists etc. voting. If the left can’t figure it out, I say they should put it in as a plank in their platform and see what happens. These people are absolutely f-ing insane.

Trying to understand how cher is even taken seriously by anyone.
So here’s my take on Clan Cher, stolen shamelessly from the internet.

Don’t feel bad, I got kicked under the table at a restaurant by my wife when she asked what trans fats were and I answered Chaz Bono.

This isn’t a democracy. We don’t want everyone to have the franchise, it’s too broad as it is. If I murder, rape, or kidnap someone take away my voting rights for life.

Perhaps some Leftard’s have a few brain cells left to think and reason with.

Noval Idea anyone on welfare should not have a right to vote. This would restore political integrity. Politicians could no longer buy votes with welfare.

If all prisoners had a right to vote politicians would spend more money on prison comfort. Imagine prison communities with 3 or 4 thousand votes in one lump sum.

Speak of prison reform Republicans would be pushing prisoners out right and left. Democrats would be the new tough on crime party. Talk about an upside down world.