Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-30-2005, 01:55 AM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

[ QUOTE ]
It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although in dire worst case scenarios that potential might be true though highly improbable, I would estimate that the number of such convicted felons is now close to zero. Whereas the class of convicted felons who are murderers, rapists, pedophiles and armed robbers without voting rights runs into the hundreds of thousands. And of course those persons would all vote democratic since they know who is the weakest on crime and punishment and places the rights of criminal perpetrators higher than that of victims.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:03 AM
Borodog Borodog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although in dire worst case scenarios that potential might be true though highly improbable, I would estimate that the number of such convicted felons is now close to zero . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the number must easily be in the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions. A large fraction of our prison population is made up of political prisoners who have never stolen a dollar or doughnut nor harmed anyone, but who upon their release cannot vote out the despicable [censored] who ruined their lives.

Great system.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:04 AM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

Oh, so now drug dealers are political prisoners? Call Amnesty International!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:12 AM
Borodog Borodog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, so now drug dealers are political prisoners? Call Amnesty International!

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way are they not?

Thanks for making my point, by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:13 AM
Warik Warik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 436
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

[ QUOTE ]
It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize you have to actually commit a real crime before you can be considered a convicted felon, right? Last time I checked, "vaguely undermining national interests" wasn't a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:16 AM
Warik Warik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 436
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

[ QUOTE ]
In what way are they not?

Thanks for making my point, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the way where dealing drugs is illegal.

Should we escort them to the polls with armed guards or should they get absentee ballots like the military?

If they get absentee ballots, can we try to disqualify them like we do to the military?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:18 AM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

Although I don't use drugs, I personally believe that pot and some other drugs should be legalized. Nonetheless, even low level dealers who never participate in violence are part of a network/class that uses violence against rival dealers and against members of law enforcement and witnesses. They thus share culpability in perpetuating that violence because they chose to commit those illegal acts rather than get a job.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:28 AM
Borodog Borodog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

Ah. So even though person A does not commit a violent crime, he should be imprisoned, and lose his franchise (since that's the point of the thread), because someone else does? This is justice?

Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

None of your post does anything to show that non-violent drug offenders are not political prisoners (which of course they are), nor that denying them their franchise upon their release plainly affects whether pro-drug war incumbants can be voted from office, and hence, whether the laws can be changed. Which was my point.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:34 AM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

And yes those as yet non-violent drug dealers should bear some of the responsibility because they are in fact implicit conspirators in the crimes of the violence of the drug network.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:41 AM
Warik Warik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 436
Default Re: Conditional Suffrage?

[ QUOTE ]
Ah. So because person A commits a crime, he should be imprisoned

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[ QUOTE ]
This is justice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is.

[ QUOTE ]
None of your post does anything to show that non-violent drug offenders are not political prisoners

[/ QUOTE ]

And none of your posts do anything to show that they are.

[ QUOTE ]
(which of course they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "of course they are" you mean "I believe they are, but I haven't proven so," then yes - I agree completely.

[ QUOTE ]
nor that denying them their franchise upon their release plainly affects whether pro-drug war incumbants can be voted from office, and hence, whether the laws can be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Candidate A says drugs should be legal, but that everything else should be completely opposite to what you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Candidate B says drugs should stay illegal, but everything else should be exactly as you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Do you really think this person, who is ignorantly voting for someone for one reason alone, particularly the fact that he likes breaking the law, and ignoring everything else that is far more important, is making an informed decision?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.