Hardly. It's pretty clear wyo got my point. But the Democrats were voting against civil rights legislation more like 50 years ago. We're not talking about civil war era stuff here.
Should every American be allowed to vote?
- Thread starter neo_mao
- Start date
Democratic 1964 Civil Rights Act vote.
The original House version:[21]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Cloture in the Senate:[22]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
The Senate version:[21]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Last edited:
So your argument was that some democrats voted against the civil rights act, but not as a whole?
By that measure, we can also note that Republicans "were voting against civil rights legislation more like 50 years ago.."
Which would make your point rather moot.
Fun fact:
In 1982, George Wallace received 90% of the black vote.
In 1982, George Wallace received 90% of the black vote.
You may want to be more specific in the future. If I heard that "the Democrats" did something - when in fact two-thirds of them were against it - that would strike me as false.
I'm not chasing you down a rat hole, but in my previous post I specifically referenced Democrats controlling the south.
specifically but not explicitly.
So on felons voting, I feel that there should be at least a display of social responsibility in their decision making if they are to allowed to vote to shape the direction of our country.
If you think it's a good idea, to shoot a gas station clerk in the face while robbing the register, then I really don't feel that your judgment is fit enough to be allowed a vote.
On a side note, then if we are going to restore a person's right to vote, then shouldn't all their rights be restored?
Well, you've done your time and have been behaving yourself, so here, go vote, oh and buy yourself a gun, and we're going go go ahead and remove you from the sex offender list.
I'm curious how many people who went out and did some awful criminal act thought beforehand, "Maybe I shouldn't do this, because it could cost me my right to vote?" I bet the answer is zero. So fuck them.
If you think it's a good idea, to shoot a gas station clerk in the face while robbing the register, then I really don't feel that your judgment is fit enough to be allowed a vote.
On a side note, then if we are going to restore a person's right to vote, then shouldn't all their rights be restored?
Well, you've done your time and have been behaving yourself, so here, go vote, oh and buy yourself a gun, and we're going go go ahead and remove you from the sex offender list.
I'm curious how many people who went out and did some awful criminal act thought beforehand, "Maybe I shouldn't do this, because it could cost me my right to vote?" I bet the answer is zero. So fuck them.
I do think that felons should be able to own guns.
But not in prison (where they should be able to vote).
But not in prison (where they should be able to vote).
If you're being sarcastic, I disagree. If you're convicted by a jury, and sentenced by a judge, and have carried out that sentence - you're square. It's critical that we don't continue to punish people indefinitely; it traps them in a cycle of recidivism and re-incarceration. The idea that certain crimes deserve punishment beyond the rule of law is extremely dangerous.
Well, what I was going for was to push the idea to a ridiculous end point, because I kind of feel the whole concept is kind of a point that doesn't matter. The way our system is set up on who is competent to decide things is almost insane, then combine that with the trend that our policy makers once elected basically tell the populace that elected them, to piss off and go about doing whatever the fuck they want with no concern for what the people who elected them want.
But honestly, if you've done your time and paid your debt to society then why shouldn't a person have all their rights and status restored?
Pedo Pete, serves his time, should he be allowed to be the kids soccer coach? Drunk driving Dan only killed a guy with his antics, but he did his time, let him drive that school bus again.
Certain crimes do deserve punishment for the rest of one's life. I can't say that all convicts should have his rights back, but Sadly, having a blanket catch all punishment isn't fair. I agree that some people should have their rights restored after paying their debt to society. It should be a case by case basis, I think, but I've no idea how that would be able to be done.
The question becomes are we better as a society by over punishing some for what we believe will be the betterment of all, or would we better people by taking the risk and giving all the convicts all their rights back after their release?
I just don't see it as a simple cut and dry kind of argument, and I currently hold the standpoint that the way we are doing it is good until something well thought out and more fair can be implemented. Also, I feel that there are more important issues that our energy and time need to be spent on getting resolved, and so doing could very well go a long way to solving the issue of felons voting rights.
It's sort of like treating the symptom while ignoring the illness. Improve our culture and nation and do a better job of seeing that everyone here has a better shot life and then maybe we can reduce the amount of people loosing their rights by committing serious crimes.
Though in the short term, sometimes you have to just treat the symptom until you can find a cure. Either way, all I have is an opinion and not a solution.
But honestly, if you've done your time and paid your debt to society then why shouldn't a person have all their rights and status restored?
Pedo Pete, serves his time, should he be allowed to be the kids soccer coach? Drunk driving Dan only killed a guy with his antics, but he did his time, let him drive that school bus again.
Certain crimes do deserve punishment for the rest of one's life. I can't say that all convicts should have his rights back, but Sadly, having a blanket catch all punishment isn't fair. I agree that some people should have their rights restored after paying their debt to society. It should be a case by case basis, I think, but I've no idea how that would be able to be done.
The question becomes are we better as a society by over punishing some for what we believe will be the betterment of all, or would we better people by taking the risk and giving all the convicts all their rights back after their release?
I just don't see it as a simple cut and dry kind of argument, and I currently hold the standpoint that the way we are doing it is good until something well thought out and more fair can be implemented. Also, I feel that there are more important issues that our energy and time need to be spent on getting resolved, and so doing could very well go a long way to solving the issue of felons voting rights.
It's sort of like treating the symptom while ignoring the illness. Improve our culture and nation and do a better job of seeing that everyone here has a better shot life and then maybe we can reduce the amount of people loosing their rights by committing serious crimes.
Though in the short term, sometimes you have to just treat the symptom until you can find a cure. Either way, all I have is an opinion and not a solution.
I agree with you guys. Automatic restoration of rights is a very sensible approach, albeit one with a few caveats. For example, people with a history of violent felonies or serious mental illness have no business owning firearms, period. And yeah, keep the pedos away from the kids...
Right now, you have to petition the court to have rights restored in most jurisdictions. This is not ideal because approval chances often depend on political considerations, but it's better than nothing.
So basically you agree that Kentucky should not be allowed to vote. I mean, you guys let McConnell in (who has focused so many Senate resolutions to strip minorities of the right to due process, and substantiated his Nay against DC statehood as a refusal to give 650000 blacks more voting power), and that rabid fucking racist moron is proof that Kentucky was either robbed of a legit vote, or that the voters are fucking, fucking, fucking (like incest level fucking) stupid. And if your knee jerk reaction is to disagree, go to work and look around and tell me you're not surrounded by people stupider than you.
And if you still disagree, read your posts again. Your post history is a testimony to how stupid your coworkers have been.
i changed my mind. i believe that everyone should be allowed to vote. i think voting should be so easy that it happens on accident and i believe prisoners should be organized into chain gangs, marched into town square, and offered the ability to vote. i believe unsocialized retards strapped to electric wheelchairs who won't make it to age 30 should be out there voting. I think the people who live in mountain shacks who have no concept of a calendar system should be sent down water slides from the mountain and into a government building... TO VOTE!!! I think retirement homes and hospice centers should be sent buses by the city, loaded up with residents/patients, and driven via satellite to a voting booth. I believe people on life support should be given the opportunity to choose their president. All votes are the same. They told me that if I voted, I'd matter. Imagine if people who can't assert their intelligence, with drool pans and diapers, felt like they mattered for once??? wouldn't the world be a better place? If the elderly were just given the opportunity to shed their flawless wisdom. So many minorities.
If these people can choose leaders, then I believe people who murder kids and torture their ex-girlfriends should be able to choose leaders too.
And the thing regarding voting rights VS. jury fitness: its different because when it comes to a jury they aren't screening for your ability to choose but moreso your ability to choose without prejudice. even though yeah i understand why voting is realistically a heavy hard decision, the idea that a person will be sent to jail forever because they didn't screen out the guy who hated the defendant his whole life and has already begun influencing the rest of the jury for his own gain. a jury is meant to represent the public's common sense of justice. they are basically not able to exercise advanced influence among their peers like lawyers can.
here's an interesting way of looking at it.... doesn't pretty much everyone have the right to become an attorney? a cop? these are maybe social responsibilities people should take up before they worry about their voting rights/effectiveness. being in a jury is like a personal sin to me. i think i'd announce something hateful and explain that i'm religious and i believe in "one way".
If these people can choose leaders, then I believe people who murder kids and torture their ex-girlfriends should be able to choose leaders too.
And the thing regarding voting rights VS. jury fitness: its different because when it comes to a jury they aren't screening for your ability to choose but moreso your ability to choose without prejudice. even though yeah i understand why voting is realistically a heavy hard decision, the idea that a person will be sent to jail forever because they didn't screen out the guy who hated the defendant his whole life and has already begun influencing the rest of the jury for his own gain. a jury is meant to represent the public's common sense of justice. they are basically not able to exercise advanced influence among their peers like lawyers can.
here's an interesting way of looking at it.... doesn't pretty much everyone have the right to become an attorney? a cop? these are maybe social responsibilities people should take up before they worry about their voting rights/effectiveness. being in a jury is like a personal sin to me. i think i'd announce something hateful and explain that i'm religious and i believe in "one way".
I've long thought about this...and I came to a conclusion. Either you're rehabilitated...or your not. If you are, you should get all rights and freedoms returned to you when you've served your time. If not, you should never see the light of day again. Putting weird laws on people because something might happen is crappy. If someone is a risk of murdering someone, or raping someone again...firearm bans and restraining orders won't solve it. They need to stay locked up.
Never is extreme. It may be worth exploring the Japanese penal system, and how their focus on rehabilitation works. Our focus, in America, panders to stupid people who froth for punishment and blood. It's very primitive.
Lol at anyone who uses "the Democrats" of 50 years ago in a false equivalency with the ones of today
Your point is garbage and you know it
Strom thurmond was a Democrat you ass
Like McConnell referring to Republicans as The Party of Lincoln.
Abraham Lincoln would find McConnell as reprehensible as the slave owners he destroyed.
I know...I have a tendency to speak in absolutes.
The US penal system is indeed a complete disaster...as are many of our criminal laws.
It's a long discussion..but drugs are our problem, short and sweet. We spend an absurd amount of $$ on both state/fed level fighting a pointless battle. That battle empowers criminal enterprise...and our prisons are full to the brim with people that are in there for drug related crimes.
There's really no way of really knowing, but I'd love to know how many people are currently in prison because they are completely unfit to be in free society. I'm not talking about people that murder based on crimes of passion, or DUI, or inv manslaughter, or murder due to drug related activities. Actual real psycho/sociopaths and other people with extreme mental disorders who no mater what, just cannot live with the rest of us safely.
It's off topic, but when you have a private prison system which answers to a board of directors or shareholders, rather than the states or federal government, you have a bigger problem than the criminals in the prisons.