[Torus34]

The OP contained a number of undocumented assertions. I really don't have time to specifically note them, still less to debunk them. I will note, though, an old saying about released prisoners having served their time and by doing so, they paid their debt to society.

[SpecialOlympian]

The joke is not funny if you need to explain.

What joke? Reagan's limitation of gun laws as governor is a statement of fact.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do we really want people who have committed felonies, who now can't legally own guns and who would not qualify to become citizens, casting votes?

Do they have the good character or standing to be allowed to vote?

I do not think that having good character or good standing should be a requisite to vote.

Voting is about holding the government accountable. And the government should be accountable to all. Even miscreants.

[Verv]

Remember the good old days when blacks weren't allowed to vote or attend good schools?
Verv remembers them fondly.

Not a real response.

You should consider that I am talking about the historic restrictions that have existed on voting, and the historic attitudes toward voting in this Republic.

Voting is something that has standards which go along with it.

Voting is about holding the government accountable. And the government should be accountable to all. Even miscreants.

I actually think voting is about producing the best possible government through consensus, and our goals would better be served if the criminal class couldn't vote.

The OP contained a number of undocumented assertions. I really don't have time to specifically note them, still less to debunk them. I will note, though, an old saying about released prisoners having served their time and by doing so, they paid their debt to society.

What undocumented assertions..?

I guess you could be referencing the ideas of how ex-cons would vote..? Or what? Are you going to be saying that because not every single aspect of my opinion was accompanied with a separate link to loads of cumulatively read material on it they were baseless assertions or..?

... So I am curious: would you also be against sex offender registration lists because the sex offenders paid their debt to society?

[AFAIK]

Prison is supposed to rehabilitate and reform criminals. If it fails to do so that is a failure of the state and convicts shouldn't be further punished for that failure. Especially given the obscenely long sentences administered in the USA.

[Heisenberg]

We have actually always caveated a lot of stuff with being in good standing. For instance, the 1790 Naturalization Act limited it to persons who were in good standing. And, of course, a quick perusal of the historic voting laws show that it was often limited to men who were propertied and meeting a certain level of pedigree.

The 1790 Act and the USA's "historic voting laws" also limited naturalisation and voting rights in quite an important way, that you unsurprisingly are neglecting to mention.

Did you know that, to this day, there are crimes that will prevent you from receiving citizenship?.

This includes aggravated felonies -- crimes that involve prison sentences of a year or more.

This is conflating two issues. A country can of course limit the way it gives out naturalised citizenship however it likes. For natural-born US citizens it has a duty to treat them fairly, though. And looking to the US's notoriously racist past as a model for how we should define "fairness" today, is absurd.

Do we really want people who have committed felonies, who now can't legally own guns and who would not qualify to become citizens, casting votes?

I'm sure you don't, because it's a voting restriction - like literacy tests in the days of Jim Crow, or voter ID laws today - that disproportionately works in your favour as a white nationalist.

[Torus34]

Werv:

I stated my position. I see no need to embroider it.

As to sex offenders, you're conflating apples with oranges. I see no need to answer.

Regards.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not a real response.

You should consider that I am talking about the historic restrictions that have existed on voting, and the historic attitudes toward voting in this Republic.

Voting is something that has standards which go along with it.

And these historic restrictions were manifestly racist and classist and excluded large sections of the population for no good reason.

Because of this, we should ask if the same is occurring here.

I actually think voting is about producing the best possible government through consensus, and our goals would better be served if the criminal class couldn't vote.

This would make sense if your idea of “better” was actually better than the criminal’s version of “better”.

I am not sure that is the case.

[SpecialOlympian]

Voting is something that has standards which go along with it.

Racial standards? Yeah, makes sense coming from you.

[Verv]

And these historic restrictions were manifestly racist and classist and excluded large sections of the population for no good reason.

Because of this, we should ask if the same is occurring here.

Why for no good reason? They want a society that is reflective of their culture, standards, and their perceived capabilities at sustaining their own civilization and way of life.

Maybe they are wrong in terms of race...

But they still historically restrict voting.

This would make sense if your idea of “better” was actually better than the criminal’s version of “better”.

I am not sure that is the case.

Why not?

Werv:

I stated my position. I see no need to embroider it.

As to sex offenders, you're conflating apples with oranges. I see no need to answer.

Regards.

A sex offender would be able to vote, right? They did the time, right?

What you are arguing for is that people who made choices to commit very serious crimes in the past should be able to cast their votes right alongside the bulk of people who have obeyed the law their whole lives.

If someone is morally flawed enough to commit a felony -- a very serious crime -- why should we believe that they have their moral lvies back together again after prison? And if someone was once capable of such a level of crimianlity, why shouldn't their punishment extend further into the future in this regard..?

... and if we can't trust a sex offender to not re-offend so we put them on a special list for monitoring, why would we trust them to vote?

The 1790 Act and the USA's "historic voting laws" also limited naturalisation and voting rights in quite an important way, that you unsurprisingly are neglecting to mention.

Yeah, it limited it to white people.

But that is not exactly what we are talking about here: it is an example of a law that is premised on the good standing of the applicant. So why would we not say that a criminal has forfeited their good standing and thus is not eligible to vote?

It would be in line with our historic concepts of limitation.

This is conflating two issues. A country can of course limit the way it gives out naturalised citizenship however it likes. For natural-born US citizens it has a duty to treat them fairly, though. And looking to the US's notoriously racist past as a model for how we should define "fairness" today, is absurd.

... How is it unfair to take away the right of an ex-felon to vote or own a gun?

It is entirely logicla.

and are you implying that iit would be racist to do this -- because black people are criminals?

I'm sure you don't, because it's a voting restriction - like literacy tests in the days of Jim Crow, or voter ID laws today - that disproportionately works in your favour as a white nationalist.

Wait, so black people can't be expected to have a valid ID and can't be expected to follow the laws, so you are a racist if you say you need an ID to vote and ex-felons can't vote?

You are literally makign it out like black people are so disproportionately more likely to be incapable of having an ID and following the law that it is literally a racial aggravation against blacks to require IDs and no felonies to vote.

[Heisenberg]

Yeah, it limited it to white people.

Now you're getting it!

But that is not exactly what we are talking about here: it is an example of a law that is premised on the good standing of the applicant. So why would we not say that a criminal has forfeited their good standing and thus is not eligible to vote?

Because the law is not equally applied, and the "felony" threshold is actually very low. The idea that a 16-year old kid caught with an ounce of cannabis should forfeit his right to vote for the rest of his life is utterly disproportionate. It is also far more likely to happen to a black kid caught with cannabis than a white kid, even though the the two groups use drugs at a similar rate.

and are you implying that iit would be racist to do this -- because black people are criminals?

I'm not 'implying' anything. I am saying outright that racial disparities in law enforcement mean that restricting voting rights of "felons" will disproportionately affect black and other ethnic minority voters. You know this perfectly well, which is why you are raising such a fuss about the prospect of "ex-felons" voting in the first place.

Wait, so black people can't be expected to have a valid ID and can't be expected to follow the laws, so you are a racist if you say you need an ID to vote and ex-felons can't vote?

You are literally makign it out like black people are so disproportionately more likely to be incapable of having an ID and following the law that it is literally a racial aggravation against blacks to require IDs and no felonies to vote.

Lawmakers in North Carolina have admittedthat voter ID laws are about voter suppression. The whole point is that poorer people - who again, are disproportionately minorities - are less likely to have the time or money to get an approved form of ID. And since the 'problem' voter ID laws claim to address doesn't even exist, it's pretty clear what the motivation and intended outcome is.

[Verv]

Now you're getting it!

It's irrelevant to the point at hand.

Because the law is not equally applied, and the "felony" threshold is actually very low. The idea that a 16-year old kid caught with an ounce of cannabis should forfeit his right to vote for the rest of his life is utterly disproportionate. It is also far more likely to happen to a black kid caught with cannabis than a white kid, even though the the two groups use drugs at a similar rate.

Oh, you want to play games about how the law is unfair sometimes because of proportionality? Well, I would be willing to entertain an argument that marijuana possession and drug related offenses in certain circumstances shouldn't take away the right to vote...

But now let's talk about how you would let a man who raped & murdered a a child to be able to vote again once he served his "debt" to society, as if some sort of debt could be paid back.

You want to take this to a stupid Olympics, sure; let's argue about it in that way.

I'm not 'implying' anything. I am saying outright that racial disparities in law enforcement mean that restricting voting rights of "felons" will disproportionately affect black and other ethnic minority voters. You know this perfectly well, which is why you are raising such a fuss about the prospect of "ex-felons" voting in the first place.

... Are you suggesting that I would not be upset by a white rapist being able to vote, just because he is white?

It's all about race to you guys, isn't it. Even in this discussion you wanted to lead everything off with how I am a racist for citing one of the first acts of Congress back in 1790.

So tell me... Are the people convicted of felonies guilty or innocent of felonies, by and large?

They're guilty, right?

It shouldn't matter whether they are black or white, and whether this has a disparate impact or not on a community, because if it is white people committing the hate crimes you want to arrest those white people, right, and you aren't going to stop and complain that not enough blacks have been picked up for hate crimes.

Lawmakers in North Carolina have admittedthat voter ID laws are about voter suppression. The whole point is that poorer people - who again, are disproportionately minorities - are less likely to have the time or money to get an approved form of ID. And since the 'problem' voter ID laws claim to address doesn't even exist, it's pretty clear what the motivation and intended outcome is.

So you are saying that black people can't get IDs because they are too incapable to do so, but white people are universally far more capable of getting IDs.

Why is that?

Black people are destined to have no IDs and no improvement to their living standards? It is impossible for them to become organized?

[Red_Army]

So you are saying that black people can't get IDs because they are too incapable to do so, but white people are universally far more capable of getting IDs.

No we're saying that every impediment to easy voting is a means to suppress poor voters. If your only justification for these impediments is that they are surmountable you have not justified them. You're just avoiding any justification because you know as well as the lawmakers creating voter suppression laws that you can't accomplish anything by actual majority because your ideas are retrograde and an attack on the majority of people.

Black people are destined to have no IDs and no improvement to their living standards? It is impossible for them to become organized?

This thread is literally you whining like a baby about that organization

[Verv]

No we're saying that every impediment to easy voting is a means to suppress poor voters. If your only justification for these impediments is that they are surmountable you have not justified them. You're just avoiding any justification because you know as well as the lawmakers creating voter suppression laws that you can't accomplish anything by actual majority because your ideas are retrograde and an attack on the majority of people.

(1) To not require a valid identification to vote would clearly put the voting system as we know it in jeopardy, wouldn't it?

(2) Identification can be obtained for free at post offices and DMVs. There are even some states that have entire programs centered around providing transportation to these places.

Why do you think black people can't even do this?

This thread is literally you whining like a baby about that organization

Black people becoming organized = ... advocating that felons be given the right to vote.

That's a pretty spicy juxtaposition there, Red Army.

Would you like to tell us why you equate felons voting with black empowerment?

[Red_Army]

I mean you have the one tactic where you try to flip your own biases on everyone, but still have no argument Felons being allowed to vote is more equitable and facilitates a real democracy. You know this is a threat so you throw some half-thought-out SJW parody because you think that will paralyze people like it does in a Ben Shapiro compilation video.

[Verv]

I mean you have the one tactic where you try to flip your own biases on everyone, but still have no argument Felons being allowed to vote is more equitable and facilitates a real democracy. You know this is a threat so you throw some half-thought-out SJW parody because you think that will paralyze people like it does in a Ben Shapiro compilation video.

(1) Wait, how is this "half thought out?" You are saying that registering ex-felons to vote after repealing the law against ex-cons voting is black empowerment. This is equating the status of one as an ex-felon with being black.

Imagine if some guy came out and said, "We have a new company policy that will have us hiring ex-felons for the mail room. So, get ready to see some black people around here."

This is how you are basically treating the topic.

(2) How does allowing men who have committed severe crimes against the society to vote again one day facilitate democracy? Is this really a demographic we are all sorely missing in our elections?

[Red_Army]

You can keep pretending that I'm the real racist while you support laws that disproportionately jail black people and then electorally disenfranchise them for it - I don't care. That's the important issue here and you can't argue with gotchas about the semantics of my argument. Advocating for felon rights, criminal justice reform, ending the drug wars is a black issue in as much as their are black victims to these injustices that you want to persist. Obviously not all felons are black and you pretending like you thought that's what I meant doesn't even make sense as a gotcha since you still want the systems in place that are responsible for the disproportional representation.

[Verv]

Right, I know you also believe in a conspiracy theory that involves the Police targeting and destroying black communities and that this is not a result of the actions of these communities themselves.

So, when you say that these organizations empower black people it is part of a greater context.

But you do realize... If there isn't deep seated injustice in law enforcement and there isn't unfair targeting of the black community, there is a massive cultural issue with black America, right? You have to be completely & all in on this theory, because if it is remotely untrue, your entire worldview on what it means to be black in America and the relevance of America has to shift.

I think many people here agree with you, and they are absolutely entrenched in this position and ready to fight to the death over it. This is probably right of them because if this falls the whole edifice falls.

There's really little to discuss. We just have conflicting positions that will never really be resolved.

[Hindsite]

There's really little to discuss. We just have conflicting positions that will never really be resolved.

Yeah, it seems useless to talk logic to these crazy liberals.

[Heisenberg]

It's irrelevant to the point at hand.

You're upholding the 1790 Naturalization Act and Jim Crow-era voting laws as the gold standard for how America should decide on voting restrictions today. I'd say the fact they explicitly limited voting to white people is relevant.

Oh, you want to play games about how the law is unfair sometimes because of proportionality?

Is everyone who argues against you "playing games"? I pointed out that the law is systematically unfairly enforced, not that it is "unfair sometimes". Black and white people use drugs at similar rates, but black people are six times more likely to be imprisoned for drug charges.

But now let's talk about how you would let a man who raped & murdered a a child to be able to vote again once he served his "debt" to society, as if some sort of debt could be paid back.

I think a man who rapes and murders a child should be executed. Your move.

You want to take this to a stupid Olympics, sure; let's argue about it in that way.

Oh, the irony.

... Are you suggesting that I would not be upset by a white rapist being able to vote, just because he is white?

Honestly, I don't think you care one way or the other. The white rapist is a minor bit of collateral damage when weighed against the fact that the people hit by your preferred voting restrictions overwhelmingly come from poor and minority communities.

It's all about race to you guys, isn't it. Even in this discussion you wanted to lead everything off with how I am a racist for citing one of the first acts of Congress back in 1790.

Yeah, how unreasonable of us to point out that the precedent you upheld as the gold standard for voting restrictions explicitly restricted citizenship to white people.

So tell me... Are the people convicted of felonies guilty or innocent of felonies, by and large?

They're guilty, right?

It shouldn't matter whether they are black or white, and whether this has a disparate impact or not on a community, because if it is white people committing the hate crimes you want to arrest those white people, right, and you aren't going to stop and complain that not enough blacks have been picked up for hate crimes.

You really seem to have some feelings about hate crimes. I think it's time you and the other alt-right boobs on this forum got over the Charlottesville conviction.

So you are saying that black people can't get IDs because they are too incapable to do so, but white people are universally far more capable of getting IDs.

Why is that?

You clearly love trying to put words in other people's mouths. I didn't use the words "capable" or "incapable" at any point. I said poor and minority voters are less likely to have the kinds of approved ID required by Republican-drafted voter ID laws. Republican lawmakers have, in unguarded moments, admitted that this is part of the plan, as in the article I linked to, and which you very clearly haven't read.

Now, let's try a question for you. Studies have repeatedly shown that voter fraud is a minuscule problem to the point that it barely even exists in the US. With that in mind, why do Republicans think voter ID laws are so essential to protect the integrity of elections that are already fair and transparent?

Bear in mind that I have already provided you with examples of Republican lawmakers and strategists explicitly saying that (at least part of) the motivation is voter suppression.

Black people are destined to have no IDs and no improvement to their living standards? It is impossible for them to become organized?

As @Red_Army has pointed out, this whole thread is your pity parade about how the (((Soros Empire))) is helping to organise voters in Florida, and how this will bring about the end of the United States as we know it.