What's new
By:

Why do we restrict the voting rights of felons?

Any drug that turns human beings into fiends at a physiological level (meth, cocaine, opiates, alcohol [wait...]) should remain illegal but sentencing should be varying levels of misdemeanor (saying nothing of the peripheral crimes that should be treated on their own merit) and not a felony. So, fines that feed into social and rehabilitation programs relevant to the substance abuse and SOME jail (/rehab) time.

Marijuana should be a legal substance with controls similar to alcohol and tobacco.

I'm not sure about the initial question. I can appreciate the IDEA that it's a deterrent, or that you could argue that felons don't deserve to have their say in a law-abiding democracy, but I don't agree that these two things resonate with the idea of free and democratic society. I definitely lean that they should be able to vote.
 
I love how dems bash republicans for voter id's. If you guys would do it honestly instead of trying to rig the system so often, it wouldn't be an issue. But democrats breaking the law when it comes to voting becomes a republicans hate you crusade.

Back to the Hispanic vote. This is a HUGE problem in this country. Salty sits there and says that Republicans have disenfranchised Hispanics by not actively targeting them. How do democrats target Hispanics? Show me one piece of advertising/promotion/bill/legislation that the left puts out there other than "Republicans hate you because they want to get rid of food stamps".

It is silly that Republicans should have to "target" a group, when a good policy benefits EVERYONE. Again, a major difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to make Americans dependent on themselves. You don't need government (other than for some roads and military), you just need yourself, your family and your community.

Democrats want to make everyone dependent on them. You can't do anything yourself. You need ME to help you survive.

The ironic thing is, Democrats are the smart ones. If you make everyone dependent on you, you will always have the power. Also, Democrats (see, Bono, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, most of Wall Street) can become absolutely disgustingly rich, live in houses that use more power than some cities (see Al Gore) and they aren't called out on the carpet for it. Mitt Romney gets ripped for not paying enough taxes when over 30% of his income goes to taxes and charities, and Al Gore and Bono get away with only giving 1-2% of their income to charities, but they are seen as the charitable ones.

You want to be a very, very wealthy person and escape all the heat? Be a democrat.

p.s. Democrats run around talking about how "trickle down economics" doesn't work, history shows that, blah, blah, blah. Michigan was supposed to show the world how the liberal way was the correct way. How did that work out? How is California doing? Look at real world examples. Look at conservative states: Utah, Texas, and their economies compares to Michigan and California.
 
TroutBum said:
And then there's this. Wow, a hispanic who hates black people -- who would've seen THAT one coming? In one post you make absurd and racist assumptions about an entire race of people, demean people who don't have a degree that's up to your standards, and then tow the GOP line while throwing an entire party into one negative bucket. Congrats, you are The Thriller and KKKarolina Jazz's bass turd child. Pat yourself on the back, because that is some sort of accomplishment.
Click to expand...

Obama? When you have nothing to stand on, throw out insults. Prove me wrong. Show me where I am wrong. But...wait...you can't. It has nothing to do with racism. It is factual.

Typical left wing dumbass. We wonder why nothing has been accomplished the past two years, here is a perfect example. Instead of trying to have an intelligent conversation, you prove you lack it and jump right to insults.
 
Michigan's problem is that their car manufacturers over-pensioned employees and made products that were not competitive with the world market. OR ITS A BIG COMUNIST PLOT
 
NUMBERICA said:
Michigan's problem is that their car manufacturers over-pensioned employees and made products that were not competitive with the world market. OR ITS A BIG COMUNIST PLOT
Click to expand...

Michigan's problem is when they realized their mistake, they were not allowed to bankrupt out of it due to pressure from Unions.
 
I googled it, https://www.google.com/search?q=Why+do+we+restrict+the+voting+rights+of+felons.

This thread was the first link. :-)

The second link was procon.org, which usually has good stuff. https://felonvoting.procon.org/

Here are the two sub-pages with the most applicable info for those who are interested.
https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001319
https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000283

I personally don't especially lean towards either side on this topic, but from reading a bit on the procon.org site, it seems to me like the two main rationales for restricting the right to vote of felons are as follows:

1. People who are serious lawbreakers shouldn't have a say in the people who make/execute the laws, even after they have spent their time in prison. (quotes taken from the first sub-page link):

Roger Clegg said:
"Individuals who have shown they are unwilling to follow the law cannot claim the right to make laws for the rest of us. We don't let everyone vote, not children, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. We have certain minimum standards of trustworthiness before we let people participate in the serious business of self-government, and people who commit serious crimes don't meet those standards."
Click to expand...

Washington Times editorial said:
"Even in nearby Massachusetts, no stranger to progressivism, voters in 2000 supported a constitutional amendment to bar inmates from voting. The reason is clear: Most people think perpetrators of serious crimes have violated the public trust and cannot be permitted to help determine the future of the communities they harmed. [F]or the time being, the voters' good sense about the possible scenarios - the advent of new constituencies of prisoners whom politicians court for votes, for instance - still prevails. As does the sense that most of the time, in most of the country, serious lawbreakers should not help elect the country's lawmakers."
Click to expand...

2. Serving time in prison in and of itself does not fully "pay the debt" that a felon has incurred.

George Brooks said:
When someone commits a crime, he commits it not just against the victim, but against our entire society. Protests that time served is enough, and that society should prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of felons should fall on deaf ears.
Click to expand...

Rob McKenna and Sam Reed said:
"We believe a rational basis does exist for the Legislature to deny felons the right to vote until they have completed their entire court-ordered sentences, including payment of criminal penalties, victim's restitution, and legal fees
Click to expand...


As mentioned, I'm not sure I buy those arguments, but I do think they are worth considering.

I also found it interesting that such laws date back literally thousands of years. And in the U.S. state laws typically date back to the establishment of state constitutions in the early 1800s. So race-related politics seems to have had nothing to do with establishing these laws. (Of course, it may well be related to the continuing of the laws.) See here:
https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000285
 
SaltyDawg said:
Um....
Click to expand...

I know in your undying quest to hotbox 24 hours a day in your car while driving that you need to make alcohol and tobacco as villainous as possible, but I have seen little evidence that nicotine is as practically addictive as opiates, cocaine, or meth.

But you caught me, tobacco is physiologically addictive. I just can't imagine a lot of people murdering people to get their fix. Call me crazy.

Anyway, nitpicking aside, you and everyone else got my point.
 
green said:
Show me one piece of advertising/promotion/bill/legislation that the left puts out there other than "Republicans hate you because they want to get rid of food stamps".
Click to expand...
The rest of that nonsense was way too long for me to read. This was as far as I could get. But as for this part...

Did you not read my previous several posts in this thread?

How about the dream act which republicans filibustered? How about suing Arizona to get that "papers please" law overturned? How about Obama's executive order to stop deporting productive immigrants, and to stop deporting kids who have been here their whole life (after republicans filibustered the dream act)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top