Bernie Sanders thinks convicted terrorists should vote

[Drutt]

Man believes right to vote should be absolute for all citizens.

Doesn't seem remotely shocking or extreme to me.

[Endus]

The principle always comes down to the worst case scenario. That is why things become lawsuits and end up at the supreme court. It is why you completely dodged the question on Hinckley. If you agree and are strong in your principle you would answer yes, like Bernie Sanders, you think someone who shot a sitting President should be able to vote.

I didn't "dodge" any fucking thing. I gave you an unequivocal "yes, everyone should get to vote". The one exception I consider reasonable is if their specific crime involves election fraud, and even then, that restriction needs a specific duration to be set; it should not be permanent.

As for the rest; this is exactly what I mean. If you stand by your principles, there is no "worst case scenario", because the principle is what matters to you. The entire concept of using a worst case scenario to challenge someone's stance is an attempt to demonstrate they do not believe in that principle. And sure; a lot of people are going by their guts as to what "feels right" in the moment, rather than abiding by firm principles, but the behaviour of unprincipled people is not what we were discussing at any point, here.

Not much of an incentive to make someone a productive member of society when they took away the chance for another person to participate in society. I am not talking just murderers. What about people raped, molested, tortured who go through years of therapy and never fully recover. Some of them don't get to participate in society. There are a lot of criminals who do not deserve what they have now, let alone more rights. This is just more of the party of victims trying to only help certain victims.

Imprisonment has exactly two purposes.

The first is public safety; the imprisoned poses a threat, and is imprisoned to protect others.
The second is rehabilitation, to ensure the guilty party won't continue to be a threat when released, giving them the ability to overcome their issues or re-establish themselves in society on release.

Anything discussion about "punishment" beyond that is just pure sadism. The grown-up version of pulling the wings off flies because you enjoy watching them suffer.

[Citizen T]

I dont really understand what your argument is. You say at the start that there is no slippery slope and then start posing a slippery slope argument halfway.

Are you agreeing with Bernie?

There is no slippery slope argument for this because it's Constitutionally allowed. I did forget age (26th Amendment) in my original post though. Since the Constitution doesn't specify anything further, it is up to the States (or the People) to determine what is best for them.

All of those restrictions on other rights already exists with absolutely nothing in the Constitution to allow them. Voting on the other hand has a very limited set of allowed protections.

[Deletedaccount1]

Given the amount of prisoners the USA have relative to any other nation on earth prisoners in the USA definitively need the right to vote desperately.
But apparently opposing slavery is out nowadays.

I'm going to just pretend I didn't read that. Progressivism is such an absolute joke, literally inventing made-up problems to get upset over.

[Citizen T]

So, the fact that protections are limited only makes it more likely that a slippery slope is possible: for example as you try to explain states would be allowed to ban gay and trans people from voting, or religious people etc.

And even then the existance of a constitution does not make a slippery slope impossible. There isnt a constitution in human history that survived time.

That said the slippery slope argument is still a fallacy, but I personally dont mind ex-convicts being able to vote.

I agree that there is no slippery slope on allowing felons to vote. This should be entirely up to the individual states.

It's when you allow something that shouldn't be allowed that a slippery slope begins as each allowance makes it easier to allow the next.

[Elegiac]

I agree that there is no slippery slope on allowing felons to vote. This should be entirely up to the individual states.

It's when you allow something that shouldn't be allowed that a slippery slope begins as each allowance makes it easier to allow the next.

It is not a slippery slope to point out that disenfranchising felons immediately creates a perverse incentive for the government to imprison political opponents.

[Adam Jensen]

I listened to that clip earlier and was pretty dumbfounded by what I heard. There's a decent argument to be made for restoring voting rights to ex-convicts, that just happened here in Florida. I'm fine with it as long the convicts were not found guilty of something extreme like murder.

Giving rapists and murders a voice in deciding who runs the government that controls their lives in prison is dangerous and could lead to politicians appealing to these people as voters. I don't understand why this is even being talked about. Maybe Bernie has the bizarre notion that he needs votes from convicts to win elections which seems to speak for itself.

That's ridiculous. Murderers and rapists will never be enough of a voting block to even matter. And if we ever do get to that point, we'll have worse problems than allowing them to vote.

Once someone's sentence is up, they should have their rights restored. A lifer wouldn't vote, because his sentence isn't ever up. The point of prison and justice is to rehabilitate them back into society, not further punish them once they've done their time.

[Elegiac]

That's ridiculous. Murderers and rapists will never be enough of a voting block to even matter.

This bears repeating.

If your country is the kind of place where the voting rights of the incarcerated has an actual statistical impact on elections, chances are you might be living in a police state.

[Adam Jensen]

Not much of an incentive to be a productive member of society when you're not allowed to actually participate in society.

Exactly.

Prison and justice should be more about reform and rehab than punishment. I think punishment should be a part of it of course, but it should be the lowest priority part.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Republicans think terrorist should be able to legally buy fire arms. Seems worse than a vote that would also require them to be citizen.

[Bodakane]

I'm going to just pretend I didn't read that. Progressivism is such an absolute joke, literally inventing made-up problems to get upset over.

Yeah, I'd respond but I'm too busy being terrified of another immigrant pilgrimage.......

[Felya]

I agree that there is no slippery slope on allowing felons to vote. This should be entirely up to the individual states.

It's when you allow something that shouldn't be allowed that a slippery slope begins as each allowance makes it easier to allow the next.

First, they shouldn’t be allowed is an opinion. Second, are convicts permitted to lobby?

- - - Updated - - -

Republicans think terrorist should be able to legally buy fire arms. Seems worse than a vote that would also require them to be citizen.

Lobbying is a better analogy, since it arguably has more impact on elections than a single vote. Are Flynn, Cohen, Stone and Manafort going to be permitted to continue lobbying? Not just on the behalf of other countries, as they have, but in general.

[Polyxo]

Republicans think terrorist should be able to legally buy fire arms. Seems worse than a vote that would also require them to be citizen.

Yeah, but if they vote they could elect zombie bin Laden. Oh shiiiiiiii-

[Felya]

Yeah, but if they vote they could elect zombie bin Laden. Oh shiiiiiiii-

That’s why they tossed him in the sea... it significantly speeds up the decaying process. A natural zombie stopper!

[Jtbrig7390]

If you are a legal citizen and of age you should be allowed to vote, period.

[Sky High]

I mean of course conservatives hate the idea of non white, non middle class people voting. Why is it any different here? Nothing Sanders said was even remotely controversial unless you hate the idea of people who served their time and are free being able to have their voices be heard. But I guess that goes hand in hand with the scarlet letter approach they have to our justice system.

[breslin]

Hey, it's just like the slippery slope that 2nd amendment people quote when arguing about gun ownership rights.

(Not arguing this case either way, I'm not sure what I think on convicted felons being able to vote while in prison... to me it would depend on the severity and circumstances of their crime)

Gun Ownership is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, voting is not. The only things explicitly mentioned about voting rights are that your the right to vote can't be taken away without due process, can't be taken away due to a poll tax and can't be denied because of your sex. Gun Ownership is more clearly defined, and yes I 100% think taking away Felons rights to own weapons is illegal and unconstitutional.

[Felya]

Gun Ownership is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, voting is not. The only things explicitly mentioned about voting rights are that your the right to vote can't be taken away without due process, can't be taken away due to a poll tax and can't be denied because of your sex. Gun Ownership is more clearly defined, and yes I 100% think taking away Felons rights to own weapons is illegal and unconstitutional.

This is simply not true, because the sort of guns that exist now and US having the largest standing military in the world, didn’t even exist when constitution was written. In fact, the Supreme Court ruling that negated the organized militia part, is less than 20 years old.

[DocSavageFan]

The recent RNC ad is brutal! Dems are so screwed.

[Felya]

The recent RNC ad is brutal! Dems are so screwed.

I don’t think general public is buying it. It’s disappointing you think so little of American public. It didn’t even work in Florida...

- - - Updated - - -

Screwed because you and even the GOP don't understand what was actually being said? Get back under your bridge.

No, they understand. They think American public is too stupid to understand. That video and argument should be infraction worthy, for nation bashing.