Bernie Sanders thinks convicted terrorists should vote

[Felya]

Email and Telephones didn't exist when the constitution was written, they are still protected by 1st and 4th amendments. What ruling are you referring to?

This ruling:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dist...mbia_v._Heller

Speech doesn’t change based on the platform changing.

[Vatrilian]

Should Dylan Roof get to cancel out one of his victims kids vote?

[TexasRules]

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.

My apologies, I did not see your reply as more posts were added. I still do not understand how a rational person would think that a person who tries to murder and silence a leader of a country should be allowed to vote against the person they tried to murder in the next election. You can have principles, but there's a limit to what people will take. I wonder how Bernie would answer this, and if he says yes, he would be destroyed in the media.

[Endus]

My apologies, I did not see your reply as more posts were added. I still do not understand how a rational person would think that a person who tries to murder and silence a leader of a country should be allowed to vote against the person they tried to murder in the next election. You can have principles, but there's a limit to what people will take. I wonder how Bernie would answer this, and if he says yes, he would be destroyed in the media.

If you have limits as to how far you'll endorse your "principles", then you don't actually believe in those principles. A stance that is based on your desired outcome in any particular instance is a stance that is, by definition, "unprincipled"; it is "ends justifies the means" writ large.

Some of us think the means matter, and that denying votes to anyone in a permanent sense is a dangerous road to tread; a road that leads away from democratic principles.


To repeat an earlier point; if murderers are enough of a voting bloc to swing elections, you have way bigger problems than the idea that felons can vote. And really, the people who have the best understanding of how well the prison system is serving felons are ex-convicts; I can see (but disagree with) denying votes while in prison, but after release? That should be an automatic return of voting rights.

[Kraenen]

As 'sound' as it may be read, the US got a thing for restricting voting.
So the question should be, should you venture even further down that road or actually engage is policies putting you aside from countries you denounce?

Felons, terrorists, whats next?
(dont even get me started on voter limitations and gerrymander)

I can give the answer right away, the US is so fucked it will take half a generation to catch up to the western world it used to belong to in terms of democracy.

Most of your opposition to changing voting rights seems to be that the US needs to look like other western countries or that the US would start to have similarities to countries it denounces. Is this accurate?

[tyrlaan]

If you have limits as to how far you'll endorse your "principles", then you don't actually believe in those principles. A stance that is based on your desired outcome in any particular instance is a stance that is, by definition, "unprincipled"; it is "ends justifies the means" writ large.

Some of us think the means matter, and that denying votes to anyone in a permanent sense is a dangerous road to tread; a road that leads away from democratic principles.


To repeat an earlier point; if murderers are enough of a voting bloc to swing elections, you have way bigger problems than the idea that felons can vote. And really, the people who have the best understanding of how well the prison system is serving felons are ex-convicts; I can see (but disagree with) denying votes while in prison, but after release? That should be an automatic return of voting rights.

All of this right here.

/10char

[Vatrilian]

So child rapist and terrorists voting I would love to see how they register.

[Orbitus]

So child rapist and terrorists voting I would love to see how they register.

Being as how most of the terrorists and pedophiles are conservative right wingers, they would probably vote Republican. But don't let facts hit you in the ass.

[dippinsawse]

It's a pretty meaningless argument either way. No side believes you should maintain your rights while serving time for a convicted crime. There is a reason you lose your rights while in prison and that isn't going to change unless people want a bunch of prisoners with guns and freedom of movement.

What is being argued is if and for how long your rights should be restricted after getting out of jail. Currently your voting rights are restored for the most part 2 years after release. If you are a convicted violent terrorist you aren't exactly going to be set free so yeah your right to vote is pretty much gone for good at that point whether we reform post prison voting rights or not.

[unfilteredJW]

So child rapist and terrorists voting I would love to see how they register.

The current Republican party currently has these folks, not sure why you'd want less of your ilk voting.

But I do applaud using dead children in your previous post as ammo for your sad, empty arguments on a forum. I'll make sure to remind you of it next time you feign the high road.

[Deletedaccount1]

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.

He is talking about in-mates voting, not ex-cons and even included violent offenders.

- - - Updated - - -

The current Republican party currently has these folks, not sure why you'd want less of your ilk voting.

But I do applaud using dead children in your previous post as ammo for your sad, empty arguments on a forum. I'll make sure to remind you of it next time you feign the high road.

You always sound so angry when you post.

[TexasRules]

If you have limits as to how far you'll endorse your "principles", then you don't actually believe in those principles. A stance that is based on your desired outcome in any particular instance is a stance that is, by definition, "unprincipled"; it is "ends justifies the means" writ large.

Some of us think the means matter, and that denying votes to anyone in a permanent sense is a dangerous road to tread; a road that leads away from democratic principles.


To repeat an earlier point; if murderers are enough of a voting bloc to swing elections, you have way bigger problems than the idea that felons can vote. And really, the people who have the best understanding of how well the prison system is serving felons are ex-convicts; I can see (but disagree with) denying votes while in prison, but after release? That should be an automatic return of voting rights.

You misunderstand. I said that you can have principles. I also stated that there are limits to what people will take. You combined the 2 as a point whereas I think they are separate. I am glad you are sticking by your principle to allow silencers of freedom to vote against the people they try to murder, most people will never see eye to eye with you--especially in a patriotic country like America. People tend to look less favorably when you try to kill the leader of their country, but it's good to know you think their position is wrong and the assassin deserves to rally against them, even from prison. Denying people who chose to be separated from society does not mean as much to me as it does to you and Sanders.

I previously stated when released from prison, I would have no problem restoring rites. But you are wrong on this front also, their is never anything automatic where the law is concerned.

[Endus]

You misunderstand. I said that you can have principles. I also stated that there are limits to what people will take. You combined the 2 as a point whereas I think they are separate. I am glad you are sticking by your principle to allow silencers of freedom to vote against the people they try to murder, most people will never see eye to eye with you--especially in a patriotic country like America. People tend to look less favorably when you try to kill the leader of their country, but it's good to know you think their position is wrong and the assassin deserves to rally against them, even from prison. Denying people who chose to be separated from society does not mean as much to me as it does to you and Sanders.

All you're doing is demonstrating your own bad faith, here.

Get back to me when you have, like, any interest in an actual discussion of the subject, rather than just posting a bunch of inflammatory useless bullshit.

[TexasRules]

All you're doing is demonstrating your own bad faith, here.

Get back to me when you have, like, any interest in an actual discussion of the subject, rather than just posting a bunch of inflammatory useless bullshit.

Inflammatory bullshit? You said you would allow a man who tried to kill a President the right to vote against the very man he tried to murder, and I am being inflammatory?

That is what you said, and you said that is your principles. How am I demonstrating bad faith by showing how inflammatory you are being? It's okay, we are not in Canada where you have limitations on your free speech, you can say anything you want about America, just be careful who you say that stuff in front of if you are ever in America.

[Endus]

Inflammatory bullshit? You said you would allow a man who tried to kill a President the right to vote against the very man he tried to murder, and I am being inflammatory?

Yes. The way you're framing your response is deliberately, wildly inflammatory.

That is what you said, and you said that is your principles. How am I demonstrating bad faith by showing how inflammatory you are being?

Because you're saying things I did not say, and lying about some of it to boot. For instance;

It's okay, we are not in Canada where you have limitations on your free speech,

That right there is another inflammatory lie.

You don't get your own personal facts. The facts are the facts, for all of us. You don't get to make up horseshit like that and not get called out for it.

[Noradin]

I'm going to just pretend I didn't read that.

As expected, but you are aware that there is an exception for prisoners in the ban on slavery?
And what do you call it when make somebody to work for you, pay you for it, and don't even give them a say on it ever again?

[Machismo]

For once, I actually agree with Bernie on a political issue. I do think far more people should be allowed to vote, including convicted felons.

[Felya]

I just want to point this out. Since lobbying has more impact than a single vote from an inmate:

As Flynn Case Winds Down, Investigation of Turkish Lobbying Persists
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/u...-virginia.html

Can we at least be consistent? The bankers who fucked us in 2008, shouldn’t be in charge of government finances. People busted for lobbying infractions, shouldn’t be permitted to lobby. If some dude selling weed cannot vote, can Oliver North not be a lobbyist?

[Shaderas]

For once, I actually agree with Bernie on a political issue. I do think far more people should be allowed to vote, including convicted felons.

Well, currently we allow a lot of unconvicted felons vote (current Republican party), so why not convicted felons too?

[muto]

Yes, I don't see an issue with this. US citizens should have the right to vote when they are of age, even if they're a criminal, because they are still a part of this society.

This isn't a partisan thing, this is a voting rights thing. Even convicted criminals still have Constitutional rights, dude.

When they are out of prison sure. Prisoners don’t have full constitutional rights.