• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should convicted locked up terrorists have the right to vote?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SlowSpyder said:
If this thread or the discussion up to your post really offends you, the problem is you, snowflake.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who was offended by Obama saying ‘Easter worshipers’.

You guys really need to grow up and understand that the world isn’t always going to coddle your feelings.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Bernie's plan would allow 183,00 murderers and 164,000 rapists vote. Eeeek

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...k-murderers-164k-rapists-to-vote-from-prison/
Click to expand...

To the best of your knowledge, has any of them have their citizenship revoked? Are any of them subject to deportation at the end of their sentence?

If not, the question answers itself.

SlowSpyder said:
If this thread or the discussion up to your post really offends you, the problem is you, snowflake.
Click to expand...

That particular issue might be his, and he may very well be a snowflake. But let's all be honest and admit, you have serious issues.
 
fskimospy said:
Says the guy who was offended by Obama saying ‘Easter worshipers’.

You guys really need to grow up and understand that the world isn’t always going to coddle your feelings.
Click to expand...


I'm not offended, I was just stating the obvious, and that is that the left goes out of their way to avoid siding with christiantiy or doing anything that makes islam or minorities look bad.
 
Viper1j said:
To the best of your knowledge, has any of them have their citizenship revoked? Are any of them subject to deportation at the end of their sentence?

If not, the question answers itself.



That particular issue might be his, and he may very well be a snowflake. But let's all be honest and admit, you have serious issues.
Click to expand...


They are still citizens. But, our penal system purposely removes rights as part of the punishment for breaking certain laws. Voting is currently one of those rights and in my opinion should remain (until people have served out their sentence). I'm trying to understand why many on the left seem to disagree with that.
 
SlowSpyder said:
In their ever increasing in speed push left of common sense, at least one leading leftist politician is claiming that even convicted terrorists in prison should be allowed to vote. I could be open to this for certain crimes, but for the most part I'm fine with the right to vote being suspended or removed for felons and those convicted of other significant crimes. Once debt to society is paid and the person shows that they are rehabilitated and will, within reason, live within the laws and regulations of society I am fine with that person having the right to vote. But I do not think the Boston Marathon bomber's voice should have any meaning when selecting our elected officials.

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/04/23/bernie-sanders-vote-marathon-bomber/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/berni...enders-should-be-allowed-to-vote_2890884.html
Click to expand...

The problem is questions like this require nuance and more holistic solutions than our politicians and short-attention span electorate can effectively accept in an age of wanting simple solutions that can be summarized in a 5 second soundbite.

The "true" answer to this question is that for when people are convicted of crimes, that voting rights should be one of many things which we consider restricting on a case-by-case basis. For a given crime and convict, instead of a one-size-fits-all declaration of "law says go to jail for 3-5 years so 5 years it is" there should be an entire range of considerations for punishment and rehabilitation that are tailored to the particular person that go beyond jail and little else. For Person A who committed premeditated homicide against a rival drug dealer, perhaps most of those boxes for punishments get ticked (jail time, monetary restitution, mandatory detox, etc). For Person B who was a schizophrenic homeless person who committed a felony bomb threat where no one got hurt, perhaps the mix leans more towards recovery (mental health treatment and job training instead of jail time). For Person C who commits election fraud perhaps the proper punishments do include loss of voting rights. For each of these 3 persons, the question about whether limiting their voting rights could be addressed individually rather than as a blanket rule and with the presumption (like the presumption of innocence at trial) that the state should show a compelling reason why a particular action after conviction is warranted. For my example, loss of voting rights is obviously appropriate for Person C, not really appropriate for Person B, and perhaps plausible in the case of Person A although the case would need to be made persuasively to a judge or jury during sentencing.
 
fskimospy said:
I like how Spidey is very concerned about the idea that felons might vote but is not at all concerned about the idea that felons might be president.
Click to expand...

I like his choice of words, "convicted terrorists". If his felonious friends in the WH are convicted they still have a right to vote.
 
ImpulsE69 said:
But according to everyone here their votes wouldn't impact anything! This is what I keep trying to get people to justify. They claim it means nothing, yet expect it is needed to make change! It doesn't work both ways.

Also, please point me to the 'millions' because while yes we all know people are unjustly jailed on occasion, the number jailed is around 2.2 million. Are you trying to allude that over half are unjustly in prison? Let's be real here. If the overall people being jailed voting wouldn't impact anything, then those law changes should get by just fine by the people who aren't in jail.

Again what needs to change is what is considered a felony because THAT is what most of the people in this thread have an actual issue with.
Click to expand...

Of course half of all folks are not locked up illegally. That was a trumpism on my part, but many absolutely are arreste and jailed unjustly whether legal or not. And while it's true that the reported prison population in 2016 was 2.2 mil (estimated), that same year 10.6 million people were arrested and booked into American jails. You ever hear of a Humble? This is when the cops toss you in the clink on a loitering charge or something equally as bullshit for the night just to humble you, make you learn who's boss. It's a staple of law enforcement, at least around here. It's fucked up and yes folks who are locked up should be able to vote.

When you can go to jail just based on whether the cop doesn't like you, the system is broken.

By and large police departments have demonstrated that they are criminal enterprises. Just look at the Baltimore PD. Cops planting evidence, killing people without recrimination, and even killing other cops to cover up their dirty deeds. St. Louis PD, Los Angeles PD, Chicago PD, bumfuck country sheriffs stealing confiscating cash during traffic stops, and so on. Law Enforcement is a great racket as long as you are on the right side of the gun.
 
K1052 said:
I think it's a story about local elections and how non-citizen residents voting in them isn't really new, at all.

Recycled hysteria.
Click to expand...


I said that there are Democrats that would like for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections. You said that was, "total bullshit." I've shown you it is not. End of story.
 
Jhhnn said:
That's unique to San Francisco school board elections & a red herring in this discussion.
Click to expand...


How is it a red herring? A strongly Democrat city is giving rights to non-citizens to vote. That was the claim, that is what the evidence shows, that is reality. I'm sure that isn't the end of it, if the left gets their way.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Democrats have gotten to the point that they want citizens of other countries to vote in our elections.

I still haven't heard a good reason why the right to vote is so magical and unique that it cannot be taken away when one breaks significant laws and shows they are not willing to live within the framework of our society. I guess that is where the disconnect is for me. It isn't about stacking the deck in any way, it is that I don't believe a convicted terrorist that has taken tangible steps outside of the law to actively harm the country should have a say in who is elected to govern that country.
Click to expand...

Because ultimately all the other rights depend on that one. If you have a system that is designed to be self-perpetuating, creating a permanent class of people who get no say in how it is run, then you no longer have a democracy. If it's not a democracy then there's no legitimate reason for anyone to obey the law.
 
SlowSpyder said:
How is it a red herring? A strongly Democrat city is giving rights to non-citizens to vote. That was the claim, that is what the evidence shows, that is reality. I'm sure that isn't the end of it, if the left gets their way.
Click to expand...

Oh really. Please let us all know what you think voting in the US would look like if the 'left gets their way'.

Be as specific as possible.
 
SlowSpyder said:
How is it a red herring? A strongly Democrat city is giving rights to non-citizens to vote. That was the claim, that is what the evidence shows, that is reality. I'm sure that isn't the end of it, if the left gets their way.
Click to expand...

SF Democrats are not Democrats in general.
 
pmv said:
Because ultimately all the other rights depend on that one. If you have a system that is designed to be self-perpetuating, creating a permanent class of people who get no say in how it is run, then you no longer have a democracy. If it's not a democracy then there's no legitimate reason for anyone to obey the law.
Click to expand...


I'd argue that freedom to travel as one wants is even more important, and that is the right that is taken away first and foremost with incarceration. If people being imprisoned for no other reason than to shape how an election turns out, to stop people from voting, was an issue, I'd have as much trouble with that as you. But that isn't the case.
 
I'm sure that this has already been explained to the OP, many times by now: but regaining the right to vote requires that the felon is actually released from prison. Full stop.

Fuck off, dickbag.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I said that there are Democrats that would like for citizens of other countries to vote in our elections. You said that was, "total bullshit." I've shown you it is not. End of story.
Click to expand...

Your clumsy attempt at a slippery slope argument is boring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top