Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

  1. #21
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,025

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I see no problem with denying felons the right to vote. They became felons because they infringed or took away other peoples rights, that is the basis for something being a crime, or at least should be. The potential loss of certain rights when convicted should help deter people from committing crimes in the first place. But then again, so many Americans who have the right to vote don't exercise it, so does it really deter anything?

    The biggest effect I can see from letting prisoners/convicted felons vote is they would probably tend to vote for candidates who are weak on crime and who want to spend lots of taxpayer money on luxuries for prisoners instead of more prisons and guards, aka liberals.
    What a bunch of nonsensical drivel.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #22
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    What a bunch of nonsensical drivel.
    that isn't a debate reply in the slightest.

  3. #23
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I see no problem with denying felons the right to vote. They became felons because they infringed or took away other peoples rights, that is the basis for something being a crime, or at least should be.
    But in practice, it's often not. Most of the people in prison aren't bad people, they're just stupid.

    The potential loss of certain rights when convicted should help deter people from committing crimes in the first place. But then again, so many Americans who have the right to vote don't exercise it, so does it really deter anything?
    Of course not. If being locked in a cage and subjected to state-sanctioned rape doesn't deter crime, then taking away voting rights certainly won't.

    The biggest effect I can see from letting prisoners/convicted felons vote is they would probably tend to vote for candidates who are weak on crime and who want to spend lots of taxpayer money on luxuries for prisoners instead of more prisons and guards, aka liberals.
    And why is that a problem? If residents of the state are dissatisfied with their living conditions, it's perfectly legitimate to petition their government to do something about it. That's no different than soldiers voting for candidates who support higher military pay, or unemployed voting for candidates who they think will bring more jobs to their state, or feminists voting for candidates who they think defends women's rights. Everyone has their own issues that they care about, the incarcerated are no different.

    In fact, prisoners probably have MORE at stake than anyone else, since the government has a much bigger involvement in their lives than in the lives of the average citizen. The states that incarcerate huge numbers of their citizens in grotesque conditions (e.g. California and Texas) would have to answer to a lot of angry voters, as they should.

    The fact that YOU might disagree with how (you assume) they would vote is not a valid reason to deny them the right to vote.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-08-12 at 03:11 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    07-12-12 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    494

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    Whoa. I agree with Hatuey here.
    So do I. People that served their time and complete their probation deserve to have their right to vote restored.

    However, people that are doing time do NOT deserve to vote.
    Last edited by Sparky; 03-08-12 at 03:49 PM.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,025

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    that isn't a debate reply in the slightest.
    When there is something to debate, maybe I'll take the time? Assumptions based on nothing more than partisan hackery are not something I care to debate.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #26
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    But in practice, it's often not. Most of the people in prison aren't bad people, they're just stupid.
    Ah, so you admit that most of them are liberals/socialist!!!

    Of course they are stupid, they are criminals. But being stupid doesn't give them any excuse to escape paying for what they have done. And if it was a serious enough crime to rate a felony conviction, then let them lose their right to vote, own guns, etc. They have demonstrated the inability to abide by the common laws of the land and will forever be under suspicion that they may do so again. If they want the right to vote, fine, come up with some measurable means that proves that they will never commit crimes again. Until you can prove that all of them will become law abiding, responsible citizens, then all of them lose certain rights, period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Of course not. If being locked in a cage and subjected to state-sanctioned rape doesn't deter crime, then taking away voting rights certainly won't.
    State-sanctioned rape? Really, there are laws against it, even in prison. Of course any prisoner who is dumb enough to actually try to file charges would probably find him/herself subject to much worse. But, the state does not "sanction" it, they just have no viable way to prevent it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And why is that a problem? If residents of the state are dissatisfied with their living conditions, it's perfectly legitimate to petition their government to do something about it. That's no different than soldiers voting for candidates who support higher military pay, or unemployed voting for candidates who they think will bring more jobs to their state, or feminists voting for candidates who they think defends women's rights. Everyone has their own issues that they care about, the incarcerated are no different.
    Except that the incarcerated are criminals who have committed crimes against other citizens. Incarceration is just one means of punishment, and it is supposed to be that, punishment. If you don't like what happens to you in prison, then don't do something that gets you tossed in there. Prisons should run a lot differently than they are currently. Military prisons have the right of it, discipline, regimented rutines and hard labor. No cable television, no gym stocked like the local health club and they should only be fed a vitamin/protein fortified tasteless gruel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    In fact, prisoners probably have MORE at stake than anyone else, since the government has a much bigger involvement in their lives than in the lives of the average citizen. The states that incarcerate huge numbers of their citizens in grotesque conditions (e.g. California and Texas) would have to answer to a lot of angry voters, as they should.
    They wouldn't have anything at stake if they were not criminals. As far as "grotesque conditions", really, get real. Our prisons are too soft and too comfortable with the prisoners having too many "rights", privileges and benefits now. Too many people cosider the rights and "humane treatment" of the prisoner after convition and don't bother to think of what the victims go through or went through. Frankly, we don't employ the death penalty near enough. Commit pre-meditated murder or kill someone in the commision of another felony, take them out back and double-tap a .22 into the back of their heads. Commit forcible rape, same. Sell or give drugs to minors, same. Commit sexual crimes against a minor, same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The fact that YOU might disagree with how (you assume) they would vote is not a valid reason to deny them the right to vote.
    No, I wouldn't deny them based upon how I think they would vote, I would deny them based upon the fact that they are convicted criminals, a group in our society that I have absolutely no love or pity for. Once again, if you don't like losing your right to vote, fine, don't become a criminal. But now that you mentioned it, what the hell, the basis of liberalism/socialism is to steal from the self-reliant productive citizens to give to the lazy non-productive ones, perhaps liberalism/socialism should be a crime also, since their philisophy is just a bunch of nonsense to justify theft. Heck, I would even vote to make it a capital crime, but then I could see where some wouldn't want to go that far.

  7. #27
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,777

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    that isn't a debate reply in the slightest.
    The post he was responding to wasn't a debate post, so I don't see the problem.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #28
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I see no problem with denying felons the right to vote. They became felons because they infringed or took away other peoples rights, that is the basis for something being a crime, or at least should be. The potential loss of certain rights when convicted should help deter people from committing crimes in the first place. But then again, so many Americans who have the right to vote don't exercise it, so does it really deter anything?

    The biggest effect I can see from letting prisoners/convicted felons vote is they would probably tend to vote for candidates who are weak on crime and who want to spend lots of taxpayer money on luxuries for prisoners instead of more prisons and guards, aka liberals.
    This post is asinine. 1) only 16% of the criminal population are what we consider to life long criminals, 2) a large percentage of felonies are drug related 3) you really dont know anything about sentencing guidelines is you think felony status is only restricted to serious crimes


    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by xpiher; 03-08-12 at 08:03 PM.
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  9. #29
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The post he was responding to wasn't a debate post, so I don't see the problem.
    the post he was responding to laid out a policy position with a logical explanation of why he had that position. It didn't deserve the troll response it received.

  10. #30
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,025

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    the post he was responding to laid out a policy position with a logical explanation of why he had that position. It didn't deserve the troll response it received.
    A logical explanation would mean there is some reasoning. Saying convicted felons would vote for people who aren't tough on crime isn't reasonable. It relies on partisan hackery.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 03-09-12 at 03:30 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •