• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should convicted locked up terrorists have the right to vote?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,544
16,394
136
The good times are continuing as a direct result of the Trump tax cuts, which as we see from the MSNBC sourced graph above, have only caused deficits in line with the Obama years.

I mean, I'm told here the economy is good because of Obama, what we see is just a continuation of the good times that started under his second term. He had run large deficits despite the economy doing well in term two. Trump is simply continuing the same and the deficit is not outrageous compared to the second term deficits under Obama.

You can't have it both ways.
No, you’re told the economy is good because the steady rate of improvement that started under Obama has continued. That does not mean the economy was always good under Obama.

How can you fail to understand such basic logic?

Increasing deficits during low unemployment is pro-cyclical fiscal policy, something any real economist will tell you is a dumb idea.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
994
126
No, you’re told the economy is good because the steady rate of improvement that started under Obama has continued. That does not mean the economy was always good under Obama.

How can you fail to understand such basic logic?

Increasing deficits during low unemployment is pro-cyclical fiscal policy, something any real economist will tell you is a dumb idea.

It was pretty good under Obama's second term, when he had the largest deficits (significantly larger than that today). You are trying to have it both ways, you are using emotion and not logic.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,544
16,394
136
Cheerleading.



No, one is entitled to a defense. You are not entitled to vote, your freedom to travel, your 2A rights, your 21A rights, etc. The list goes on, you have yet to explain why voting is some magical right that under no circumstances can be taken away when we both gladly accept that just about all others can be, depending on the nature of the law one breaks.

Cheerleading.
Sanders’s entire point is that everyone is entitled to vote. DUrrrrrrrrrrr.

Conservatives, this is the kind of stupidity you’re enabling. Just the other day one of Trump’s transition team members finally decided to #walkaway. A Republican state legislator decided to #walkaway as well. You can too!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,544
16,394
136
It was pretty good under Obama's second term, when he had the largest deficits (significantly larger than that today). You are trying to have it both ways, you are using emotion and not logic.
He had the largest deficits during his first term, you moron. 2009, 2010, and 2011 were the largest by far. Can you not even read your own charts? Hahaha.

This is what happens when you reason emotionally and not logically.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,724
1,854
126
Best comment I saw: If you have enough people in prison to sway a national election, you have too many people in prison.

Let's look at the real problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic and ImpulsE69

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
59,835
11,803
126
I think it depends on the nature of the felony. But like taking freedom away, taking away some basic rights like voting should be part of the punishment to help ensure people don't commit felonies. But, not all felonies are equal.
Yeh, like people consider their right to vote when they commit crime. But it's a nice little extra to shove up their ass when they're convicted.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,714
5,306
136
I love the FUD you guys spread. The Trump deficit in 2018 is about the same as the average of the deficit under Obama's years. Furthermore, it is barely larger than in 2017, a budget year that Trump inherited:

It was a joke son, but I suppose to a person like you whose amygdala is dangerously overstimulated it would look like fearmongering.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
It's pretty ignorant to equate smoking pot with raping someone.
Really? And what would you call it when it keeps getting called out in THIS thread? I've never stated I'm anti-weed or drugs. I've even said change the law. The comparisons are being made by you. I called you on it. My stance is that why should someone who doesn't follow the law be allowed to make/sway the law when convicted (note I said convicted, not accused). It should be up to the rest of the country to make that change (. I do think once time is served, the rights should come back.
 
Last edited:

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
54,951
3,462
126
As a former felon who spent a bit of time locked up, NO, NO ONE who's incarcerated should be allowed to vote. Felony, misdemeanor, terrorist, or DUI...doesn't matter. As long as you're in custody, you can't (or shouldn't be permitted to) vote.
Once you're out of jail...MAYBE, depending on the crime. Completed your probation or parole...yes, full voting privileges.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
As a former felon who spent a bit of time locked up, NO, NO ONE who's incarcerated should be allowed to vote. Felony, misdemeanor, terrorist, or DUI...doesn't matter. As long as you're in custody, you can't (or shouldn't be permitted to) vote.
Once you're out of jail...MAYBE, depending on the crime. Completed your probation or parole...yes, full voting privileges.
That's an interesting take. Care to elaborate? I know some felons and many of them could care less about voting - just their gun rights.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
54,951
3,462
126
That's an interesting take. Care to elaborate? I know some felons and many of them could care less about voting - just their gun rights.
Gun rights? Felons? Such things generally don't exist.

I finally got my right to own firearms restored by the state of Washington, 3 years ago...but per federal law...I'm still banned. Can't buy guns from any FFL dealer. Won't pass the background check...and even TRYING can be considered a federal felony.
(although, recently, the feds have more-or-less adopted the stance that, "if the state has restored the rights, we'll leave it alone." BUT, the feds being the feds...that can change in a second.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,714
5,306
136
As a former felon who spent a bit of time locked up, NO, NO ONE who's incarcerated should be allowed to vote. Felony, misdemeanor, terrorist, or DUI...doesn't matter. As long as you're in custody, you can't (or shouldn't be permitted to) vote.
Once you're out of jail...MAYBE, depending on the crime. Completed your probation or parole...yes, full voting privileges.
It doesn't matter what you think about felons. If you think anyone should be denied the right to vote it is because you are incapable or unwilling to think through all of the consequences. For example, it is perfectly legal and everyone's right to vote for a new Nazi party and nobody should ever be denied that right. It is the first rule of a Democracy. Any opposition to it is misguided and 100% based on emotion instead of reason.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
54,951
3,462
126
It doesn't matter what you think about felons. If you think anyone should be denied the right to vote it is because you are incapable or unwilling to think through all of the consequences. For example, it is perfectly legal and everyone's right to vote for a new Nazi party and nobody should ever be denied that right. It is the first rule of a Democracy. Any opposition to it is misguided and 100% based on emotion instead of reason.

 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,714
5,306
136
Really? And what would you call it when it keeps getting called out in THIS thread? I've never stated I'm anti-weed or drugs. I've even said change the law. The comparisons are being made by you. I called you on it. My stance is that why should someone who doesn't follow the law be allowed to make/sway the law when convicted (note I said convicted, not accused). It should be up to the rest of the country to make that change (. I do think once time is served, the rights should come back.
You literally posted that you look down on people who smoke pot. In what world is that not anti-pot? What would I call what when what keeps getting called out in this thread? That question makes no sense to me. What is the first it and what is the second it?

Regardless, keep pushing for a policy to give the majority the ability to remove voting rights from the minority. It's your right to vote for it.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
You literally posted that you look down on people who smoke pot. In what world is that not anti-pot? What would I call what when what keeps getting called out in this thread? That question makes no sense to me. What is the first it and what is the second it?

Regardless, keep pushing for a policy to give the majority the ability to remove voting rights from the minority. It's your right to vote for it.
You are misunderstanding me. I never said I was anti-pot. I took issue with people repeatedly bringing it up in the context of 'what about all those pot user felons they did nothing wrong'. I disagree. They broke the law. Nothing wrong is AN OPINION. They broke the law. Why should I sympathize with them? That doesn't mean I can't think less of those who use or not feel sorry for them when they get busted doing something illegal. (yes yes, I know there are tons of other caveats to this, such as all the reasons people use beyond just recreational). Ultimately - do I care what a person does with their own body? No.

The question is and what I've been clamoring for in this entire thread is this: should the drug laws be changed because they are too strict for the crime? I think they should be. Where I think we differ is that I don't think those convicted should have a say in if that law should be changed. Just as I don't think a murderer should be allowed to change laws regarding prison sentencing for murders.

My reasoning for this is that for most, the voting direction is pretty damn obvious and they clearly have no respect for the law to begin with. I know people think this is a whole 'anti-democracy' thing but it isn't. if the law was put in place against the majority of the country, then the country needs to do something about it! Otherwise, they agree with it. (such as drug laws). These laws were put in place. Either the majority of the country agreed with them and accepted them, or they didn't. Obviously views can change over time, but it still doesn't mean everyone will agree. Thus a vote! Democracy is what we're talking about. Change the laws so those people are not put in jail to begin with (Since everyone is concerned about non-violent crimes etc). This is all I am getting at. The majority decide what is a felony.

Secondly - we cannot pretend that there would not be someone trying to use this to their benefit. It would happen. There is too much leverage at stake. Of course there's been 2 main counters to this:
#1. Well if there's that many people in there to sway the vote, there's an issue. I agree! Change the laws so they weren't in jail to begin with! But that change should come from those who didn't break it to begin with.
#2. Throwing people in jail could be used as a way to prevent certain people from voting! If this could happen, either #1 still applies, or we have a way worse situation on our hands than if felons can vote and probably headed to a revolution.....(which we'd lose).

Yes, everyone can make all these other possible FUD arguments for and against as well. There are 1000's of scenarios that 'could' happen on either side.

I will say that I am not the best when it comes to getting my thoughts out because these are not simple issues and I am not fond of walls of text.

As a slice of where I sit so you aren't viewing it through jaded left/right glasses, I am largely moderate and anti Trump before he even ran.
 
Last edited:
Nov 25, 2013
32,101
11,715
136
As a former felon who spent a bit of time locked up, NO, NO ONE who's incarcerated should be allowed to vote. Felony, misdemeanor, terrorist, or DUI...doesn't matter. As long as you're in custody, you can't (or shouldn't be permitted to) vote.
Once you're out of jail...MAYBE, depending on the crime. Completed your probation or parole...yes, full voting privileges.
Why?
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
Gun rights? Felons? Such things generally don't exist.

I finally got my right to own firearms restored by the state of Washington, 3 years ago...but per federal law...I'm still banned. Can't buy guns from any FFL dealer. Won't pass the background check...and even TRYING can be considered a federal felony.
(although, recently, the feds have more-or-less adopted the stance that, "if the state has restored the rights, we'll leave it alone." BUT, the feds being the feds...that can change in a second.
That was kind of my point. They complain about that. Mostly hunters with excessive DUI or drug charges.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,714
5,306
136
You are misunderstanding me. I never said I was anti-pot. I took issue with people repeatedly bringing it up in the context of 'what about all those pot user felons they did nothing wrong'. I disagree. They broke the law. Nothing wrong is AN OPINION. They broke the law. Why should I sympathize with them? That doesn't mean I can't think less of those who use or not feel sorry for them when they get busted doing something illegal. (yes yes, I know there are tons of other caveats to this, such as all the reasons people use beyond just recreational). Ultimately - do I care what a person does with their own body? No.

The question is and what I've been clamoring for in this entire thread is this: should the drug laws be changed because they are too strict for the crime? I think they should be. Where I think we differ is that I don't think those convicted should have a say in if that law should be changed. Just as I don't think a murderer should be allowed to change laws regarding prison sentencing for murders.

My reasoning for this is that for most, the voting direction is pretty damn obvious and they clearly have no respect for the law to begin with. I know people think this is a whole 'anti-democracy' thing but it isn't. if the law was put in place against the majority of the country, then the country needs to do something about it! Otherwise, they agree with it. (such as drug laws). These laws were put in place. Either the majority of the country agreed with them and accepted them, or they didn't. Obviously views can change over time, but it still doesn't mean everyone will agree. Thus a vote! Democracy is what we're talking about. Change the laws so those people are not put in jail to begin with (Since everyone is concerned about non-violent crimes etc). This is all I am getting at. The majority decide what is a felony.

Secondly - we cannot pretend that there would not be someone trying to use this to their benefit. It would happen. There is too much leverage at stake. Of course there's been 2 main counters to this:
#1. Well if there's that many people in there to sway the vote, there's an issue. I agree! Change the laws so they weren't in jail to begin with! But that change should come from those who didn't break it to begin with.
#2. Throwing people in jail could be used as a way to prevent certain people from voting! If this could happen, either #1 still applies, or we have a way worse situation on our hands than if felons can vote and probably headed to a revolution.....(which we'd lose).

Yes, everyone can make all these other possible FUD arguments for and against as well. There are 1000's of scenarios that 'could' happen on either side.

I will say that I am not the best when it comes to getting my thoughts out because these are not simple issues and I am not fond of walls of text.

As a slice of where I sit so you aren't viewing it through jaded left/right glasses, I am largely moderate and anti Trump before he even ran.
Use as many words as you like.

It seems to me that your entire post boils down to this:

You are lawful alignment.
You come off as someone who thinks anyone that breaks any law is a piece of shit. Some may be shittier than others but it doesn't really mean that much because who takes the time to grade pieces of shit.
You are still treating #2 (har har) as some theoretical possibility because you don't understand that when people bring up pot dealers we are bringing it up because it is a real life example of it already having had happened. (Maybe some grammar nerd can let me know if I got that right.)
Because you think all people who have broken any law "have no respect for the law" you think that means they have forfeited their right to having any voice in deciding what the law should be.

So, let's discuss why being lawful alignment is really bad. Let's pretend that society has decided that everyone that is of x race is not human and therefore does not qualify for any rights. In fact, let's say they've decided for whatever reason that x race is nothing more than a piece of property so you can beat, rape and kill them whenever it strikes your fancy. Now let's pretend you are not a piece of shit and believe that x race are humans and deserve rights no matter what society says. A person of x race escapes (felony) and runs into you, and asks you not to alert the authorities (felony). What do you do? Alert the authorities like a piece of shit and pretend you did the moral thing because you were just obeying the law? Or do you say nothing knowing that your moral code now dictates that you shouldn't vote anymore?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,816
1,591
106
Drugs were illegal long before it was a 'minority' thing.
Sure about that are you? Crystal meth was not only "legal", it was military issue.

https://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/crystalmeth/history-of-methamphetamine.html
Methamphetamine is not a new drug, although it has become more powerful in recent years as techniques for its manufacture have evolved.


Amphetamine was first made in 1887 in Germany and methamphetamine, more potent and easy to make, was developed in Japan in 1919. The crystalline powder was soluble in water, making it a perfect candidate for injection.


Methamphetamine went into wide use during World War II, when both sides used it to keep troops awake. High doses were given to Japanese Kamikaze pilots before their suicide missions. And after the war, methamphetamine abuse by injection reached epidemic proportions when supplies stored for military use became available to the Japanese public.


In the 1950s, methamphetamine was prescribed as a diet aid and to fight depression. Easily available, it was used as a nonmedical stimulant by college students, truck drivers and athletes and abuse of the drug spread.

There's the "Breaking Bad" part of today's lesson, so what about evil "opioids? Were they never not illegal?

https://www.cheminst.ca/magazine/columns/opium-and-laudanum-history’s-wonder-drugs

Opium and laudanum history’s wonder drugs *

Victor Frankenstein, who incidentally was a medical student and not a doctor, was very disturbed when the creature he created killed his friend Henry Clerval. Unable to sleep, he dosed himself with laudanum, perhaps the Victorian era’s most popular medicine. Laudanum was a 10 percent solution of opium powder in alcohol, widely used to treat everything from pain and insomnia to female disorders. It was even used to quiet crying babies. The name was coined from the Latin laudare, meaning “to praise” by the 16th century Swiss-German physician Paracelsus, best known for his dictum “only the dose makes the poison.” It was Paracelsus who discovered that the active ingredients in opium were more soluble in alcohol than water, however, his laudanum differed from the version used in the Victorian era. In addition to opium it also contained powdered gold and pearls. Still, this was simpler than the galenicals: complex concoctions made from dozens of plant and other ingredients according to the teachings of the Roman physician Galen that dominated medicine about 1,500 years.

* More at the link..

Today's "drug epidemic" was manufactured to keep blacks in cages, since Lincoln said they couldn't be kept on the plantations anymore.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
5,106
2,554
136
Use as many words as you like.

It seems to me that your entire post boils down to this:

You are lawful alignment.
You come off as someone who thinks anyone that breaks any law is a piece of shit. Some may be shittier than others but it doesn't really mean that much because who takes the time to grade pieces of shit.
You are still treating #2 (har har) as some theoretical possibility because you don't understand that when people bring up pot dealers we are bringing it up because it is a real life example of it already having had happened. (Maybe some grammar nerd can let me know if I got that right.)
Because you think all people who have broken any law "have no respect for the law" you think that means they have forfeited their right to having any voice in deciding what the law should be.

So, let's discuss why being lawful alignment is really bad. Let's pretend that society has decided that everyone that is of x race is not human and therefore does not qualify for any rights. In fact, let's say they've decided for whatever reason that x race is nothing more than a piece of property so you can beat, rape and kill them whenever it strikes your fancy. Now let's pretend you are not a piece of shit and believe that x race are humans and deserve rights no matter what society says. A person of x race escapes (felony) and runs into you, and asks you not to alert the authorities (felony). What do you do? Alert the authorities like a piece of shit and pretend you did the moral thing because you were just obeying the law? Or do you say nothing knowing that your moral code now dictates that you shouldn't vote anymore?
A close family member to, "I was just following orders".
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,816
1,591
106
Gun rights? Felons? Such things generally don't exist.

I finally got my right to own firearms restored by the state of Washington, 3 years ago...but per federal law...I'm still banned. Can't buy guns from any FFL dealer. Won't pass the background check...and even TRYING can be considered a federal felony.
(although, recently, the feds have more-or-less adopted the stance that, "if the state has restored the rights, we'll leave it alone." BUT, the feds being the feds...that can change in a second.
This link will help you.

I'm not an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night..:cool:

https://ccresourcecenter.org/restoration/

Federal
Summary:


Loss & restoration of civil rights: Vote depends on state law for people with state offenses and people with federal offenses. Federal jury eligibility is lost upon conviction in state or federal court of a crime punishable by more than one year if a person’s “civil rights have not been restored.” The Constitution does not prevent individuals from holding federal office after conviction of any crime. Most states that do not restore the right to vote automatically give people with federal offenses access to their restoration procedures. Jury eligibility is restored when “civil rights have been legally restored” under state law.


Firearms rights: Persons with convictions in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year are subject to the prohibition on possession of firearms under federal law, as are persons convicted of domestic violence offenses; restoration by presidential pardon only for people with federal offenses; restoration for people with state offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20) & (33) (defining triggering offense) or 18 U.S.C. § 925 (ATF relief). (Section 925 has not been funded since 1990.)


Pardon policy & practice: President decides; no reporting or notice requirement. Eligibility five years after sentence or release from confinement. No public hearing, paper record review, unlimited time. Relieves all legal disabilities but does not expunge. Pardons infrequent and irregular since 1990.


Judicial expungement & sealing: No federal expungement, except where arrest or conviction invalid or subject to clerical error. Deferred adjudication and expungement for first misdemeanor drug possession if under age 21 at time of offense.


Consideration of conviction in employment and licensing: Only limitation found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, barring employment discrimination on grounds of race, national origin, gender, etc.
 

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,816
1,591
106
This link will help you.

I'm not an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night..:cool:

https://ccresourcecenter.org/restoration/

Federal
Summary:


Loss & restoration of civil rights: Vote depends on state law for people with state offenses and people with federal offenses. Federal jury eligibility is lost upon conviction in state or federal court of a crime punishable by more than one year if a person’s “civil rights have not been restored.” The Constitution does not prevent individuals from holding federal office after conviction of any crime. Most states that do not restore the right to vote automatically give people with federal offenses access to their restoration procedures. Jury eligibility is restored when “civil rights have been legally restored” under state law.


Firearms rights: Persons with convictions in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year are subject to the prohibition on possession of firearms under federal law, as are persons convicted of domestic violence offenses; restoration by presidential pardon only for people with federal offenses; restoration for people with state offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20) & (33) (defining triggering offense) or 18 U.S.C. § 925 (ATF relief). (Section 925 has not been funded since 1990.)


Pardon policy & practice: President decides; no reporting or notice requirement. Eligibility five years after sentence or release from confinement. No public hearing, paper record review, unlimited time. Relieves all legal disabilities but does not expunge. Pardons infrequent and irregular since 1990.


Judicial expungement & sealing: No federal expungement, except where arrest or conviction invalid or subject to clerical error. Deferred adjudication and expungement for first misdemeanor drug possession if under age 21 at time of offense.


Consideration of conviction in employment and licensing: Only limitation found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, barring employment discrimination on grounds of race, national origin, gender, etc.
As an aside, a friend of mine that can't legally hav a gun in her home, found a totally wicked alternative. The Cobra 80lb Tactical Crossbow. No muzzle flash, self loading, totally silent, seriously deadly, and TOTALLY legal. Trust me, you don't want to get shot with this thing.

 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
994
126
As an aside, a friend of mine that can't legally hav a gun in her home, found a totally wicked alternative. The Cobra 80lb Tactical Crossbow. No muzzle flash, self loading, totally silent, seriously deadly, and TOTALLY legal. Trust me, you don't want to get shot with this thing.


^I've owned several of those. It is no toy, but it isn't overly accurate and if you miss on your first show you're better off throwing the crossbow at someone, reloading is a bit of work.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY