- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 76,757
- Reaction score
- 10,599
Fair enough. They should have to serve out their parole period before their debt is considered paid.The debt isn't paid, parole doesn't mean your sentence is finished.
Fair enough. They should have to serve out their parole period before their debt is considered paid.The debt isn't paid, parole doesn't mean your sentence is finished.
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 thatStill better than outwardly courting the pedophile vote like the GOP does.
Did you know that ownership of any marijuana is a felony offense in four states (unless things have recently changed)?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.
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.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.
If there was a civil rally near me that was against it I would go.If the law was changed tomorrow would you protest it?
pedophilia is a felony....so in fact they are outwardly courting pedos, and rapists, and violent criminals...
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
TBH, I don't believe you.If there was a civil rally near me that was against it I would go.
Ts getting voting rights again.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
35,000 more Democrat voters.
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?
This will bite him in the ass when some of these clowns start killing folks. And some of them will.
Despicable desperate criminal Dems at it again..
Ts getting voting rights again.
Haha, I’m playing with you. What are you in?lol.. My profession doesn't allow me to have a criminal record
Haha, I’m playing with you. What are you in?
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.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."
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 _____"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.
This is bunk. Read.Literally the only reason you would support this is because you think they are going to vote for your side.