• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

6 Million Americans Without a Voice

I tend to agree that anyone who has been convicted of a crime, and who has fulfilled his sentence, should regain all of his full rights. If he's “paid his debt to society”, then I see no basis for society to demand more from him.

Cool.

I would be much more sympathetic to the idea of felons being treated more harshly, even after completing their sentences, if being a felon meant what it used to—someone who has willfully committed a particularly serious crime. But our body of laws has become so complex and convoluted, that the average American unwittingly commits three felonies per day. Under our corrupt legal system, the only legal difference between you and I and someone who has been convicted of a felony is that we haven't been caught.

It's a little difficult to take seriously when, if asked questions by a cop I know I should ask for a lawyer. And not because I have anything to hide, but practically speaking who the hell knows what crimes I may be confessing to by talking about something I did that I believe was perfectly legal?


Now, having said all that, I'll say this as well. Anyone who thinks that Mr. Holder's motive in proposing that ex-felons be given their voting rights is anything but blatantly partisan is an ignorant fool.

Orrr...Holden is left of center, and rehabilitation over punitive measures are legitimately representative of liberal ideals?

The Democratic party is the party of criminals.

Aaaaan I stopped reading there.
 
Last edited:
Let me ask you, Maggie: do you believe that it's acceptable that someone who's served their sentence and repaid their debt to society should never be allowed to vote again?

All rights should be reinstated, 2nd included. It gets tricky if they were a violent offender though.
 
What concerns me is the likelihood that many of these disenfranchised felons are republicons...
You know tax evaders and such...
 
Well, that's certainly the easier way to look at it. Another way, and the correct one if not necessarily the sexier one, is that rehabilitation over purely punitive/life-long exclusive measures is consistently a liberal position.

Neither has been exceptionally effective. What is effective for one does not necessarily work with another.
 
All rights should be reinstated, 2nd included. It gets tricky if they were a violent offender though.

I'm not necessarily so sure about that. let's say Bubba the murder rapist is arrested, serves his sentence and is released after twenty years. What's the worst thing that could happen now that he's allowed to vote?
 
It's a good idea to give a voice to my cat. She's not very smart, but regularly stealing meat. I think it will be good reason for Holder.
 
I'm not necessarily so sure about that. let's say Bubba the murder rapist is arrested, serves his sentence and is released after twenty years. What's the worst thing that could happen now that he's allowed to vote?

I would imagine it carries the same risk as letting him out after twenty years.

I did say it would be tricky didn't I. Personally, I have no problem reinstating all rights if they were non-violent offenders.
 
I would imagine it carries the same risk as letting him out after twenty years.

So...what? He's going to start beating people to death with voting booths?
 
So...what? He's going to start beating people to death with voting booths?

No, the worst thing is that he will rape and murder someone again. Without a firearm of course.
 
No, the worst thing is that he will rape and murder someone again. Without a firearm of course.

What? No, I asked what's the worst that can happen now that he can vote? I mean directly related to the voting, not his rape-murder hobbies.
 
Do you believe that people who've served their sentences should lose their right to vote for the rest of their lives, or are you more concerned that ex-felons might vote Democrat?
DO you actually give a **** about a bunch of convicted felons or are you just clamoring for more democrat voters?

Easy smell test. Beyond this...what exactly are you doing in your personal private time to support and engage the imprisoned and recently paroled felon population?
 
DO you actually give a **** about a bunch of convicted felons or are you just clamoring for more democrat voters?

So who pooped in your cheerios tonight?
 
Thats not much of an answer to the same question you asked of others....

Maybe you should go back and read the context in which it was asked.
 
The only reason Holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in Democrat votes.

... someday Americans are going to have to realize that they shouldn't let their political and moral beliefs that are supposed to endure 'forever' be dictated by transitory cultural conflicts.

Privacy? Pffttt. That's such a 18th century concept. Patriot Act, woot!
 
Maybe you should go back and read the context in which it was asked.
Asked with the exact same intent you asked and just as sincerely.
 
Asked with the exact same intent you asked and just as sincerely.

Would it make your head explode if you were to accept that I genuinely believe it to be unjust for felons who've served out there sentences to be blocked from voting for the rest of their lives?
 
Would it make your head explode if you were to accept that I genuinely believe it to be unjust for felons who've served out there sentences to be blocked from voting for the rest of their lives?
Nope...cuz Im certain if you actually gave a **** about this as more than a political tool and a campaign issue you would be already anxiously engaged in a good work with that population you would profess to give a **** about. Hell...I could even respect that. And it shouldnt be too hard for you to demonstrate that this was more than just a typical sad promotion of a purely political agenda.

Now...personally...I believe felons forfeit rights like gun ownership and yes, voting right. I would also be fine if there were a path for petitioning to regain all rights after a certain set period of time.
 
In that I've actually seen some (emphasis on some, by no means is "some" all or even "most") left wing types sincerely argue that currently serving military service members should not be allowed to vote, I find this thread a little funny. I suppose "don't commit a felony offense if you don't want to suffer the long term consequences of being a convicted felon" is not an obvious solution for some reason?
 
What? No, I asked what's the worst that can happen now that he can vote? I mean directly related to the voting, not his rape-murder hobbies.

I know bud. I was having a little fun with it.

So what we are telling him is that even though he has technically served his sentence, he is not really a full citizen because we cannot trust him with all his rights, just some of them. Each right is weighted differently for some Americans.

Let me ask the same question; what is the worst that could happen if he does not vote? Either we trust he is rehabilitated and treat him as a full citizen with all his rights or we don't. We treat him as a 90% or so citizen.

Can we really say some rights are worth more than others? Gets tricky....
 
Do you believe that people who've served their sentences should lose their right to vote for the rest of their lives, or are you more concerned that ex-felons might vote Democrat?

>" First, let's lay out the facts. Although some felons have been legally disenfranchised, others have not. Specifically, while only four states allow felons to vote while they are in prison, 18 allow felons to vote while they are on parole and 21 allow them to vote while on probation. Only 10 states permanently disenfranchise all felons and another handful do so to some ex-offenders or restore the ability to vote after a time limit...

The simple answer to your question is that felons can't vote is because voting is a civil right and you forfeit certain rights, temporarily anyway, when convicted of a serious crime...

Convicted felons have been denied various privileges granted to other citizens going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece--this practice is laced throughout the common law that serves as the basis for U.S. law..."<

It's a slippery slope. Allow convicted felons to vote and America could end up having more incompetent Presidents like Obama. And they'll probably want more than the whole nine yards.

Democrats in San Fransisco are already advocating that illegal aliens who have been in the country after 30 days should be able to vote.

My dogs also want to vote and knowing my dogs, they'll vote for who ever will give them the biggest T-Bone.

The Straight Dope: Why can't felons vote?
 
Considering that bringing the wrong kind of potted flower into the country can be a felony these days, I'm starting to agree.

Obama is for allowing pot. You think if he gets his way there will be less inmates and thus more people who can vote?
 
If a person is convicted of making and using drugs (without giving it to anyone else), you think they should be executed? For a crime consisting only in endangering their own health? Do you not see the absurdity of that?

ALL Felons. Period. Regardless of crime. The only way to stop crime is to make its consequences worse than its potential benefits.

Apply that to authoritarians and you got a deal. Authoritarians are worthless pieces of flesh as well.

If they commit a crime, sure. Unfortunately for you most Authoritarians are the ones who MAKE the laws, not the ones who BREAK them.
 
If they commit a crime, sure. Unfortunately for you most Authoritarians are the ones who MAKE the laws, not the ones who BREAK them.

Yeah, that's why there are politicians in jail, because they don't break laws. :lamo Keep telling yourself that.

I'll just sit back and wait for you to go nuts on some pot smoking guy and then you go to jail. Problem will take care of itself because true authoritarians cannot follow the laws they don't like.
 
If a person is convicted of making and using drugs (without giving it to anyone else), you think they should be executed? For a crime consisting only in endangering their own health? Do you not see the absurdity of that?

Yeah, that's why there are politicians in jail, because they don't break laws. :lamo Keep telling yourself that.

I'll just sit back and wait for you to go nuts on some pot smoking guy and then you go to jail. Problem will take care of itself because true authoritarians cannot follow the laws they don't like.

Which means they aren't true Authoritarians.
 
Back
Top Bottom