J.C.MacSwell

I think you are hitting pretty strong in the false equivalency department.

Not that I can confirm anything in your post with regard to Fox News but I don't really have any reason to doubt what you say. I think we can probably agree on how bad Fox News is. They seem like they are actively campaigning for Trump and the GOP. I have only watched them recently, and they are horrible. (though sometimes entertaining) I don't remember CNN being near as bad until recently. They are every bit as bad. They constantly overstate their case against Trump...not sure why they feel it is necessary. I will give you an example... The buffoon is receiving Kanye West at the oval office: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/12/cnn_cuomo_trump_looked_like_he_had_racist_thoughts_talking_to_kanye_west.html If their was anything dumber than Trump receiving West in the first place it is Cuomo's rant describing what he thought Trump was thinking. CNN aired this. Show me the equivalent of that for Fox News...

I don't remember CNN being near as bad as it is now 2 years ago. In my mind it is not a false equivalency to say they are similar in degree of bias to Fox News.

Two boys are playing in a park in a very Democrat neighbourhood, when one is attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy takes his stick, wedges it down the dogs collar and twists,breaking the dogs neck. A CNN reporter who was strolling by sees the incident,and rushes over to interview the boy. "Young Democrat Saves Friend From Vicious Animal," he starts writing in his notebook. "But I'm not a Democrat" the little hero replied. "Sorry, since we are in this area, I just assumed you were into politics." said the reporter and starts again. "Young Boy Rescues Friend From Horrific Attack" he continued writing in his notebook. "But I am into politics, I'm a Republican." the boy said. The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes, "Little GOP Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet!" (adapted from http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?/topic/6048-some-good-ole-leaf-jokes/) Interchange Republican/Democrat and Fox News/CNN to suit and you have the state of politics and news in the U.S. right now.

I doubt they get "crushed", but if they do it is probably more from shooting themselves in the foot than Trump shooting his mouth off.

Voting is more than just an individual right. It is not intended exclusively for self interest (part of the reason we have constitutional democracy, not just majority rule). When you disenfranchise someone by taking away their voting right it is a very small part of their overall punishment, but the accumulation of this disenfranchisement is, or most certainly can be, punishing a group that extends to be much greater than the incarcerated themselves.

I take it you don't like them. (fair enough) What about other violent crimes? Crimes that are emotionally equivalent? The point is that you have to draw the line somewhere, arbitrarily, if you draw it anywhere...and you can get to where it is in Florida (as Ten oz pointed out above) with over 10% of otherwise eligible voters not allowed to take part in the voting for the making and maintaining of laws they are expected to respect.

My thoughts are that their votes are not going to influence whether murder or rape should be legal, and likely not influence very much at all with respect to those crimes...so why not let them vote along with all the other less than perfect voters (i.e. everyone else)? As long as they understand what is asked, I don't see what harm there is in having all felons vote on a national or provincial/state election (other than the argument that they might vote for the wrong party...!). I think it is less dangerous than deciding who should/should not vote. Imagine a time of protest and civil disobedience where you could disenfranchise every felon...at what point will it not even be able to pretend to be democratic?

I think it also sends the wrong message. If the system does not respect them, why should we feel they should respect the system?

Just to add to that. They vote in the constituency they were in prior to being incarcerated. edit: "vote in" meaning counted toward

That is one nasty statistic!

I would be inclined to say that every citizen should be allowed to vote, felon or not, though I can see concerns about what region their vote is counted in. If, say, they were incarcerated in one region after life in another, or others, where should their vote be competed for and count toward? Allowing inmates of a penitentiary attached to a small town being allowed to vote for town council could amount to "inmates running the asylum", but OTOH why should they not vote nationally? If there are enough felons (or those of violent crimes) to effect the vote, maybe the reasons should be given more focus.

I am going to go with yes. I gave a mosquito a near death experience once (it, along with the mosquito, was short lived, but it was near death at one point no doubt). So I can only conclude mosquitos have an afterlife as well...if we do...

I found this on Google... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Agree with this. Another option if you really can't do that is to spoil your ballot. I think that is a much stronger statement than (seemingly) not bothering to go out and vote.

In terms of votes? I think the effect of outside interference might only have been significant in very close races. "Other misinformation"...probably a more significant effect that would go both ways, for and against both Clinton and Trump...an effect that seems to have been ramped up for candidates in this coming mid terms.

A "quality candidate" should have not just won the popular vote by the "millions" she did. Trump should not have been anywhere in the same ballpark. How many votes did she get simply from being considered a bad choice that was not as bad as the alternative? She was not a "popular" choice.

Other than geographically, vote counting cannot get broken down by demographic.

Don't worry. I realize one of the parties is currently more openly sexist than the other.

I Agree. I believe a woman could win, without a doubt, and from either party.

Just run anonymously, and spend no money...call yourself and your platform "door #3"

If it's Trump vs Hillary in 2020 an independent just might win election...

That part. I know you have a lot better understanding of this than I do, I'm just surprised you seemed unaware of a pretty common layman's interpretation... ...like this meme...throw an amoeba a couple billion years to the left

It applied when they chose the name...Evolution. Prior to that did the word have a specific biological context that was inherently (no pun intended) different? I don't believe it did. I think the term was chosen as it suited the explanation of the development from simpler to more complex and higher order species.

Hi CY. I understand your points, and would agree, but prior to some level of your education did you not consider Evolution to be based on what the word "evolution" means when not referring to Evolution specifically? There is definitely an implication in the name.