Governor Cuomo issuing pardons to all parolees to restore voting rights

Still better than outwardly courting the pedophile vote like the GOP does.
Ummmm, NAMBLA is based in California and is widely associated with liberals and especially the homosexual culture in San Francisco. The revered Harvey milk was proud to be banging his 15 year old twink and it's an unfortunate fact the gay scenes like to go much much younger than that
 
I care when things are done for the wrong reasons. These people made the choice to commit crimes serious enough to warrant felony charges. They should not be rewarded for their wrong doings.
Did you know that ownership of any marijuana is a felony offense in four states (unless things have recently changed)?

But you're right. Those people shouldn't vote.
 
Did you know that ownership of any marijuana is a felony offense in four states (unless things have recently changed)?

But you're right. Those people shouldn't vote.
Then don’t possess marijuana in those four states. I see nothing wrong with marijuana but it is still illegal in some places. I don’t think it should be but that is the law.
 
pedophilia is a felony....so in fact they are outwardly courting pedos, and rapists, and violent criminals...

All pedos are felons. Not all felons are pedos.

Ummmm, NAMBLA is based in California and is widely associated with liberals and especially the homosexual culture in San Francisco. The revered Harvey milk was proud to be banging his 15 year old twink and it's an unfortunate fact the gay scenes like to go much much younger than that

90
 
Good for Andrew Coumo!!

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday that he intends to restore voting rights to felons on parole, a move that could open the ballot box to more than 35,000 people.

Mr. Cuomo made the announcement at the National Action Network’s annual convention in New York City, where he was introduced by the group’s founder, the Rev. Al Sharpton. The governor said he had proposed legislation allowing parolees to vote, but that it had been rejected by the State Senate.

“I’m unwilling to take no for an answer,” Mr. Cuomo said. “I’m going to make it law by executive order,” he added, continuing, “With active intervention, we can bend the arc toward justice.”

Mr. Cuomo’s plan would bring New York in line with 18 other states, as well as Washington, D.C., that allow parolees to vote, according to the governor’s office. Fourteen states automatically restore felons’ rights when they are paroled; two never remove them in the first place; and two — Iowa and Virginia — also use executive orders to issue pardons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/nyregion/felons-pardon-voting-rights-cuomo.html
Ts getting voting rights again.
 
People are on parole for a reason. I'd rather they remain on parole while being allowed to vote. Is this EO going to expunge the totality of their parole? Wipe the conviction off their record?

I think you are confusing probation and parole.

Also, the article specifically says that it will not wipe the conviction of their record.
 
This will bite him in the ass when some of these clowns start killing folks. And some of them will.

They are ALREADY on parole. Parole means they have been released from prison already. People get parole (aka early release) typically for good behavior and have to appear before a parole board to get. How would the pardon for voting rights rights increase the number of people killed?
 
Last edited:
Despicable desperate criminal Dems at it again..

Right... I wonder if Cuomo's entire cabinet will soon be under investigation from a special council and numerous people from that cabinet will be indicted. It's almost like... Ah nevermind
 
I wouldn't support giving the right to vote back to a person convicted of voter fraud, for instance. At least not before a significant amount of time had passed without more unlawful behavior. That's justified very directly. Similarly, felons with convictions like assault with a weapon, or illegal gun possession should also lose that right for a long time. Or in the case of domestic violence, if it can be shown that certain behavior correlates too strongly with spousal murder or other violent misbehavior, then maybe people should lose guns for that, for a time.

I think my positions on this stuff are all pretty much common sense and we should look more to evidence rather than emotions when we take away rights. But the reasons for stripping felons of voting rights are basically "we don't like you."
I don’t think so. I think the reason felons are stripped of the right to vote is because they have broken the laws of the land and therefore have no say in who gets to fashion those laws for a time. Which is pretty reasonable. Once time is served including parole period the person should have their rights restored.

Which sorts of crimes should not receive the right to vote whilst still on parole (or still incarcerated)? Sexual offenders? Paedophiles? Armed robbers? Fraudsters? Car jackers? A person losing some rights and freedoms is justly part and parcel of being convicted of committing a crime. I can’t see why the right to vote shouldn’t be one of those rights which is suspended.
 
I don’t think so. I think the reason felons are stripped of the right to vote is because they have broken the laws of the land and therefore have no say in who gets to fashion those laws for a time. Which is pretty reasonable. Once time is served including parole period the person should have their rights restored.

Which sorts of crimes should not receive the right to vote whilst still on parole (or still incarcerated)? Sexual offenders? Paedophiles? Armed robbers? Fraudsters? Car jackers? A person losing some rights and freedoms is justly part and parcel of being convicted of committing a crime. I can’t see why the right to vote shouldn’t be one of those rights which is suspended.
You can read back to yourself how weak that argument is because it's all just an appeal, but I agree it's the best line of argument available, generally speaking. A really skilled speaker or a lawyer may be able to say those things in an impressive way, but it always comes back around to "we don't like _____"

That's not enough to justify taking constitutional rights. That's enough to put somebody in jail to protect other people, and it's enough to put them on parole after they get out of jail. It's enough to strip them of rights that we need to strip them of. There is no need to take away the vote. It's excessive and arbitrary, compared to the more immediate interests of public safety, which are what justifies the loss of rights to begin with.
 
Back
Top