Bernie Sanders thinks convicted terrorists should vote

[TexasRules]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...is/3548232002/

Not shocked that this has not been posted. But your odds on favorite democratic candidate wants the Boston marathon bomber to be able to vote in elections.

"Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, 'Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,' you're running down a slippery slope," Sanders said in response to a question about restoring felons' voting rights.

He even said that he is sure Democrats will join in Republicans in criticizing him, but hey--he needs them votes.

[Shaderas]

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)

[Endus]

And? He wasn't talking about that guy, specifically, but that denying votes to anyone is a dangerous path to tread; restrictions on voting tend to expand to additional groups, and threaten the entire concept of democracy.

This isn't a crazy idea. Canada doesn't restrict voting for felons; they're able to vote even while incarcerated. The only potential restriction for criminal activity is when the crime was electoral corruption of some kind, in which case that particular felon can be barred from voting for a set duration as part of their sentence, but that's the only exception.

[Edge-]

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.

[DisposableHero]

So he believes that political franchise and the opportunity to participate in democracy is of paramount importance and not something you can take away for bad behavior or wrong think. Somehow you find this is an objectionable stance.

[Hobb]

While I don't think those in prison serving their time should be allowed to vote. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to vote after serving their sentence.

[Frusciante]

People on the outside are crazy enough during elections...lets give the crazy on the inside politics and see what happens.

I understand the human element to it, but you give up those rights when you're imprisoned. You can have them back when you get out and play nicely.

Buttigieg 1 - Bern / Kamala 0

[Kreuger]

While I don't think those in prison serving their time should be allowed to vote. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to vote after serving their sentence.

My thoughts aswell

[TexasRules]

And? He wasn't talking about that guy, specifically, but that denying votes to anyone is a dangerous path to tread; restrictions on voting tend to expand to additional groups, and threaten the entire concept of democracy.

This isn't a crazy idea. Canada doesn't restrict voting for felons; they're able to vote even while incarcerated. The only potential restriction for criminal activity is when the crime was electoral corruption of some kind, in which case that particular felon can be barred from voting for a set duration as part of their sentence, but that's the only exception.

By your definition, you are okay with people who commit treason voting? Say, a man who spies against America and gets military people killed because of it, is convicted but gets life instead of death. He gets to vote in elections for people who determine laws that he breaks.

Should John Hinckley have been able to vote while in prison?

And why stop at felons, why not children or the mentally disabled? So we have no standards or responsibilities?

- - - Updated - - -

More hilarious grasping for anything he can by TexasRules.

You think this is grasping? Even the CNN moderator asked him again after the question. YOo thinking this means nothing, is grasping. You can pretend this means nothing, but he even admitted it was writing an ad against him. Maybe look outside the echo chamber you and your friends occupy and see things. I am sure your circle jerk here will pat you on the back.


And for the 100th time, America is not a pure Democracy. Quit pretending you think it is when you know it isn't. You guys like to bring that up when it suits your need then say the opposite when it doesn't, quit being intellectually dishonest.

[Edge-]

By your definition, you are okay with people who commit treason voting? Say, a man who spies against America and gets military people killed because of it, is convicted but gets life instead of death. He gets to vote in elections for people who determine laws that he breaks.

I mean, how often would this even come into play? When was the last time someone was charged or convicted of this? Last I see is the 50's, and there's barely a dozen folks over the history of the US who would fall under this.

And why stop at felons, why not children or the mentally disabled?

This is a bad slippery slope argument, and mentally disabled folks have rights too.

[TexasRules]

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.

So you think that people who murder Americans and deprive them of forever using their vote, should get to vote? And what part of your society do these people occupy?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, how often would this even come into play? When was the last time someone was charged or convicted of this? Last I see is the 50's, and there's barely a dozen folks over the history of the US who would fall under this.



This is a bad slippery slope argument, and mentally disabled folks have rights too.

Yes, deflect from answering, I get how liberals are. You want everyone to vote, answer the question. Then tell me who decides who is fit to vote?

- - - Updated - - -

While I don't think those in prison serving their time should be allowed to vote. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to vote after serving their sentence.

I have no problem with this. They have paid their debt in the eyes of the law.

[Edge-]

So you think that people who murder Americans and deprive them of forever using their vote, should get to vote? And what part of your society do these people occupy?

That's up to Congress, but given how rare it is I doubt it's a pressing matter.

Yes, deflect from answering, I get how liberals are. You want everyone to vote, answer the question. Then tell me who decides who is fit to vote?

Congress. If they want to legislate to restrict voting for edge cases like this, they're welcome to.

And I don't respond to bad faith arguments.

[Blur4stuff]

Oh no! You caught Sanders. It's all over now.

[TexasRules]

That's up to Congress, but given how rare it is I doubt it's a pressing matter.



Congress. If they want to legislate to restrict voting for edge cases like this, they're welcome to.

And I don't respond to bad faith arguments.

Bad faith arguments? Like asking how rare it is for an American to murder another American? And currently most states will not let people who take other people's lives get to vote in prison.

So, no you are not going to answer. It's simple question and not bad faith. Are you okay with children and the mentally disabled voting? And you are okay with say, a Republican dominated , or democrat dominated, congress deciding who gets to vote?

- - - Updated - - -

All I see here is assumptions and projection. You sure like to project a lot on to me based on this one short post, huh? Anything you want to share?

Also, it's "America". Not "Americe". Is that what they call it in whatever country you're actually from or... ?

Projecting what? That Sanders said he wants felons to vote? Do you even know what this thread is about? And thanks for posting my poor typing skills. I am sure you are proud and high-fiving your friends....hey I got this guy on a typo wooohooooo.

[Edge-]

Bad faith arguments? Like asking how rare it is for an American to murder another American? And currently most states will not let people who take other people's lives get to vote in prison.

You were talking Treason initially, which is what my comments were about. Beyond that, if murder was enough then that's up to Congress to legislate. Would all convicted of murder lose their right to vote, even when death was unintentional (car crash etc.)? Would there be a mechanism to restore their right to vote at some point? Also how do you handle cases where someone was denied their right to vote due to a wrongful conviction?

I'm more aligned with Buttigieg here, actually, denying them the right to vote while in prison and restoring it once they're back out.

It's simple question and not bad faith.

It is a bad faith argument and not one I'll entertain as it's irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

[NED funded]

Bernie wants the rapists to have a vote in deciding women's rights. LMAO.

[Endus]

By your definition, you are okay with people who commit treason voting? Say, a man who spies against America and gets military people killed because of it, is convicted but gets life instead of death. He gets to vote in elections for people who determine laws that he breaks.

Literally how things actually are, here in Canada, yes.

It's not like the votes of traitors are going to have that much influence in the outcomes, anyway.

And why stop at felons, why not children or the mentally disabled? So we have no standards or responsibilities?

Children aren't given the vote for a wide range of reasons, though there are good arguments for pushing the voting age back to 16 or so.

The mentally handicapped are perfectly entitled to vote in Canada. Why deny them that right?

And for the 100th time, America is not a pure Democracy. Quit pretending you think it is when you know it isn't. You guys like to bring that up when it suits your need then say the opposite when it doesn't, quit being intellectually dishonest.

Nobody claimed the USA was a "pure democracy".

[Shaderas]

Of course I know what the thread is about, it's just not really an issue. There are far more important things to worry about over this.

Proud? It's a typo, it barely registers lol And what friends? People on this forum? I don't know anyone on this forum enough to call them a friend. A few replies back and forth with regular people on an anonymous forum doesn't constitute a friend, imo.

But sure. I mean, you sound like you're working yourself up over online posts but, if you need that image, you go right ahead, chief.

Eh don't worry about it. TexasRules is a special little conservative snowflake, who gets his feelings hurt easily.

[TexasRules]

You were talking Treason initially, which is what my comments were about. Beyond that, if murder was enough then that's up to Congress to legislate. Would all convicted of murder lose their right to vote, even when death was unintentional (car crash etc.)? Would there be a mechanism to restore their right to vote at some point? Also how do you handle cases where someone was denied their right to vote due to a wrongful conviction?

I'm more aligned with Buttigieg here, actually, denying them the right to vote while in prison and restoring it once they're back out.

It is a bad faith argument and not one I'll entertain as it's irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

I have already previously stated I am fine with people who are released voting. And I do think anyone who murders another and goes to prison for it, does lose the right to vote. Your argument of wrongful conviction, as in your words, is bad faith argument. I ask the question about children and the disabled because it's not bad faith, it's an argument that would be made in front of a judge if this ever was brought up as a lawsuit. And there are several candidates who want 16 year olds to vote. I guess them mentioning it and me mentioning it are bad faith arguments.

[Fincayra]

I'm torn on this, because it's usually the democrats championing this, because they know those convicted felons are going to be voting for them. That's all well and good to me, since I don't think one mistake should preclude you the rest of your life of civic duty. Some crimes should though. First degree murder should definitely be on the list, since you're depriving the rights of others to vote, yours should be taken away too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

According to this, the federal government has left it up to the individual state whether its own felons can vote or not. Also, it says that only two states have lifetime bans for voters. So, the only question I have, is why is this constantly brought up on the federal level? Shouldn't those two states be dealing with this with local elections?