Raider5678 Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 On 10/23/2018 at 6:43 PM, Ten oz said: I disagree. In many parts of the country I believe various laws are specifically passed on enforced to disenfranchise specific Demographics. That was what Jim Crow was all about. Expand We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore, we got rid of them. Additionally, the politicians aren't forcing you to break the law, regardless of what it is. On 10/23/2018 at 6:58 PM, Phi for All said: Sometimes laws need to be broken to show how unjust they are, and nobody should lose their right to vote because of it. Expand What law do we have that must be broken to show how unjust it is? Having the right to get high off of drugs doesn't rank high on my list of "unjust laws", which is my main point. We don't have enough laws that are incredibly unjust for me to say that we must afford prisoners the right to vote so they can help change the law. On 10/23/2018 at 6:58 PM, Phi for All said: To me, it's about loyalty to the country and the society you participate in, not necessarily all the laws currently in force. Many people have spent years in jail for things that are legal now. Expand So smoking weed is being loyal to your country? Those who do it don't strike me high on the list of freedom fighters. On 10/23/2018 at 9:42 PM, Ten oz said: Political organizations are actively working on way to exploit the law to disenfranchise drivers. Expand Typo or am I missing something? On 10/23/2018 at 6:58 PM, Phi for All said: It solves a lot of problems if people get to vote no matter what. Expand It also adds a whole lot of other problems. Where do the prisoner's vote's count? As per the constitution, they count where they reside. Which would be the prison. Which means small towns with a prison in it, will literally be outvoted by prisoners. Do the prisoners vote for judges as well? I get the feeling that judges would change how they sentence people if those same people would be voting for them, and I don't want to see that. On 10/23/2018 at 5:24 PM, Ten oz said: Here in the U.S. mandatory sentences for those convicted of crimes has no influence over Prosecutors discretion in charging individuals. Expand Yes it does. If the prosecutor knows that the minimum sentence, if someone is convicted, is 15 years in federal prison, they are either more inclined or less inclined to press those charges. Massively. Because there is no longer any "inbetween". It's all or nothing. On 10/23/2018 at 7:01 PM, zapatos said: Often times discussing the nuances of an issue can bring enlightenment. Digging in one's heels because "that's the way it is and nothing more need be said" has been known to limit growth. Expand Is the current law not the current law?
swansont Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 On 10/24/2018 at 2:20 AM, Raider5678 said: We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore, we got rid of them. Expand They got rid of the old laws, but the GOP has gotten better at achieving similar results within the system, and disguising new attempts. See. for example, the voting rights suppression efforts in North Carolina that were declared to "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision". Poll taxes were alleged to be colorblind when instituted, but in fact they weren't. There's also a significant differential in who gets branded a felon in the first place, as I have previously pointed out.
Ten oz Posted October 24, 2018 Author Posted October 24, 2018 On 10/24/2018 at 2:20 AM, Raider5678 said: We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore, we got rid of them. Additionally, the politicians aren't forcing you to break the law, regardless of what it is. Expand When you get time and/or are interested go to google and type in The New Jim Crow and you will see there is a lot of literature on this issue. Jim Crow was a systematic process of exploiting the law to disenfranchise a specific group of people. It still goes on today. On 10/24/2018 at 2:20 AM, Raider5678 said: Yes it does. If the prosecutor knows that the minimum sentence, if someone is convicted, is 15 years in federal prison, they are either more inclined or less inclined to press those charges. Massively. Because there is no longer any "inbetween". It's all or nothing. Expand Prosecutors being more or less inclined means they still have discretion. Two people arrested for the exact same thing do not have to receive the same charges and that is just a fact. Between a person with no resources to fight prosecution and a person with resources to fight prosecution whom do you think a Prosecutor is more likely to cut a deal or option against prosecuting at all? Mandatory sentencing gives Prosecutor more leverage to force plea bargains out of some people but ultimately they still have discretion. I don't think mandatory sentencing does anything to ensure equal treatment under the law. To the point about Jim Crow above Prosecutors (the people who decide who gets charged with what) work for District Attorney in many localities elected position and in the other it is a politically appointed position. District Attorney's are Politicians. Who they decide to prosecute and for which charges are often decided on Politics. That is built into the system. It is why politicians campaign on the various types of people they plan to put behind bars if elected.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 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. 2
John Cuthber Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 On 10/23/2018 at 9:42 PM, Ten oz said: Political organizations are actively working on way to exploit the law to disenfranchise drivers. Expand Would you like to expand on that? I thought everyone and their dog had a driving license in the US, apart from the very poor (who typically get deprived of voting rights by other means- as discussed)
Ten oz Posted October 24, 2018 Author Posted October 24, 2018 On 10/24/2018 at 9:10 PM, John Cuthber said: Would you like to expand on that? I thought everyone and their dog had a driving license in the US, apart from the very poor (who typically get deprived of voting rights by other means- as discussed) Expand My mistake. I meant "are not".
iNow Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1741406002 Quote ...some voting machines mistakenly showed votes cast for Democrat Stacey Abrams registering for her opponent Republican Brian Kemp. <...> Grimes said she went to a polling site in Bartow County Thursday and tried to select Abrams, but the machine marked the box for Kemp. Grimes said she tried several times to clear the selection before it allowed her to vote for Abrams. Expand
Ten oz Posted October 25, 2018 Author Posted October 25, 2018 On 10/25/2018 at 12:41 AM, iNow said: https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1741406002 Expand How many legitimate recounts did we get in 2016..........
iNow Posted October 27, 2018 Posted October 27, 2018 https://www.gq.com/story/texas-voting-machines-cruz-orourke Quote Early voting in Texas began on Monday, but some Texans who showed up to cast a ballot were met with a rude surprise <...> folks who intended to vote for Democrats found themselves staring at a screen commemorating their alleged support for Ted Cruz instead. Expand
Ten oz Posted October 27, 2018 Author Posted October 27, 2018 On 10/27/2018 at 1:12 AM, iNow said: https://www.gq.com/story/texas-voting-machines-cruz-orourke Expand Quote And the culprit isn't some shadowy team of Russophilic voter fraudsters. It is likely the state's ancient voting equipment. For nearly two decades, Texas has relied on Hart eSlate voting machines, which look sort of like giant PalmPilots and are manipulated using a selection wheel and an ENTER button. Manipulating both of these things at the same time, it seems, is what can lead to unintended and very unwanted results. "Texas just hasn't spent the resources necessary to modernize its elections," Perez told me. "Until they do, we're going to continue to see this kind of thing on a regular basis." The trend prompted elections director Keith Ingram—who operates under the aegis of the Republican secretary of state—to issue an urgent advisory to voters on Tuesday: When a preview of your ballot appears at the very end, double-check every line before pressing that SUBMIT button. Expand This 'giving them the benefit' approach really frustrates me. Throughout my life it has always appeared to be Republicans who are benefiting from such errors. Whether it is a reduction in polling locations due to budget issues, old infrastructure breaking down , or hanging chads the error always seems to benefit the same party and/or disenfranchise the same demo. Even in a court of law where one is innocent till proven guilty there is still one side making the case to the jury that one is guilty. It isn't 2 defense attorneys outlining plausible deniability back and forth. Texas Attorney General and proud Tea Party Conservative Ken Paxton spent the the summer doing his party to prevent people from even being able to register to vote: Quote The legal fight over whether Texas is disenfranchising thousands of voters by violating a federal voter registration law is on its way to federal appeals court. Just after a federal judge gave Texas less than two months to implement a limited version of online voter registration, the state on Monday formally notified U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia that it was appealing his finding that Texas was violating the law — also known as the “Motor Voter Act” — by failing to allow drivers to register to vote when they renew their driver’s licenses online. Pointing to registration deadlines for the November election, Garcia created a 45-day deadline for the state to create the online system for drivers in order to comply with the federal law that requires states to allow people to register to vote while getting their drivers licenses. Here ---------------------------- Texas will not be required to meet a 45-day deadline to implement online voter registration for drivers — for now. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that mandated a voter registration system that would allow drivers to register to vote when they renew their driver’s licenses online. The requirement was part of U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia’s ruling that Texas was violating a federal voter registration law — also known as the “Motor Voter Act” — that’s meant to ease the voter registration process. Here Expand
dimreepr Posted October 27, 2018 Posted October 27, 2018 On 10/27/2018 at 12:37 PM, Ten oz said: This 'giving them the benefit' approach really frustrates me. Throughout my life it has always appeared to be Republicans who are benefiting from such errors. Whether it is a reduction in polling locations due to budget issues, old infrastructure breaking down , or hanging chads the error always seems to benefit the same party and/or disenfranchise the same demo. Even in a court of law where one is innocent till proven guilty there is still one side making the case to the jury that one is guilty. It isn't 2 defense attorneys outlining plausible deniability back and forth. Texas Attorney General and proud Tea Party Conservative Ken Paxton spent the the summer doing his party to prevent people from even being able to register to vote: Expand 4 The American dream is such an insidious illusion.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now