Support NeoGAF

[hiryu64]

Yeah, I'm done replying to you, as you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

Though I should have known better when you started your argument with "I don't usually like taking sides, but..."

That's got shades of concern trolling. The statement "I don't usually take sides" implies that a side was taken here, so I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. However,

I didin't say that.

is basically an admission that he's a concern troll. Which is it? Did you take a side or did you not? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you're going to argue a point that you believe in, don't try to worm your way out of culpability by stating that it's not your belief. Own it.

I'm still awaiting a response, by the way.

 

[Redd]

Except they were in jail for being felons.

I don't see how they have the constitutional right to vote by violating state/federal constitutional law.

I mean if you were in jail for like mids, or maybe the felony was later downgraded or removed sure. But I mean these are felons.

Would you let a sexual offender who did things with 4 children vote?
Would you let a killer vote?
Would you let someone who smuggled drugs and messed up communities vote.
Would you elt someone who hospitalized his or her spouse vote?
Etc.

Yes if they served their time and parole.

 

[Slayven]

There's a difference between that and voting for someone who benefits you in committing crimes. Your type of view is why the system is corrupt on all levels in the first place.

What?

 

[stump sock]

What?

you know, all those candidates running on pro-crime platforms

of course

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I guess, fundamentally, I think they should be able to vote because I don't think any harm is really gonna come from it. It's not as though all the rapists are gonna get together and legalize rape.

 

[msdstc]

Seems like a no brainer, this is great news.

 

[Voost Kain]

Yeah, I'm done replying to you, as you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

Though I should have known better when you started your argument with "I don't usually like taking sides, but..."

Uh no that's a cop-out a low one..

Let's take a look, let me break it down for you easily.

Hey look this executive did a crime! Oh he was let off or only got a minor consequence and kept his job because the current laws protect him? Well let's keep it that way because it's his right to vote (goes on to vote for people to protect his shady actions)

Change executive to literally any other criminal whether person, politician etc. It's the same thing. You talk about changing the justice system without changing the ROOT of the problem. Just like I bet you have complained about corporations or banks etc. and have not even looked at the source of the problem. You are basically letting them do this. How can we fix a justice system if we don't stop the corruption breaking it?

Now you can be mad all you want, and I have not really chosen a position on this issue, I'm just trying to find a good reason that makes sense as to why felons should vote. Just like on the other side I am looking for a good reason to believe that it was done to get votes. Granted I have not seen a correct answer from either side.

 

[XenoRaven]

I eagerly await the rise of the Virginia Murder Party, which will strive to make murder legal.

 

[Chiaroscuro]

Guess I'm in the severe minority. I'm completely okay with a convicted felon forever being a second class citizen, but that opinion is heavily influenced by the view I have of felons that I know personally. Every last one of them is a complete sack of shit, and I'd prefer that they not be allowed to participate in any decisions that affect me in even the smallest way. These people are so god damned meth'd out and untrustworthy that they shouldn't be allowed to vote just on merit.

I realize that for a lot of you this opinion carries a racial connotation, but where I live it's damn near 100% white, including the felons.

I am not from US so this situation puzzles me.

Of course if you are in prison you are stripped form some of your rights, so ok for not allowed them to vote.

But when youbare out, shouldn't your debt with society alredy be paid? Why keep them second class citizens?

You said that the felows you know are jerks so you don't think it is a good idea to guve them the right to vote? Newsflash: There are a lot of people that are "jerks" you would not agree with and did not commit any crime, so they are allowed to vote. Being a jerk is not a reason to be stripped from this right. That is democracy. Start removing this right from the "jerks" you do not like, they from the ones you do not agree with, label them "second class citizens"... It is a path most dictatorships started, including that one with the little man with a funny mustache.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Uh no that's a cop-out a low one..

Let's take a look, let me break it down for you easily.

Hey look this executive did a crime! Oh he was let off or only got a minor consequence and kept his job because the current laws protect him? Well let's keep it that way because it's his right to vote (goes on to vote for people to protect his shady actions)

Change executive to literally any other criminal whether person, politician etc. It's the same thing. You talk about changing the justice system without changing the ROOT of the problem. Just like I bet you have complained about corporations or banks etc. and have not even looked at the source of the problem. You are basically letting them do this. How can we fix a justice system if we don't stop the corruption breaking it?

Now you can be mad all you want, and I have not really chosen a position on this issue, I'm just trying to find a good reason that makes sense as to why felons should vote. Just like on the other side I am looking for a good reason to believe that it was done to get votes. Granted I have not seen a correct answer from either side.

I'm still not positive I follow your argument. Are you saying that our country is corrupt because some states let felons vote? Like, are you afraid criminals are using their franchise to allow them to get away with more crime?

I think you're vastly over-estimating the power that one vote carries.

 

[Voost Kain]

But when youbare out, shouldn't your debt with society alredy be paid? Why keep them second class citizens?
.

If there's concern for them being "second class citizens" there are a lot more important problems to fix than letting them vote. Letting them vote is a mixed reactions and it's barely a step toward removing the stigma.

 

[CornBurrito]

Except they were in jail for being felons.

I don't see how they have the constitutional right to vote by violating state/federal constitutional law.

I mean if you were in jail for like mids, or maybe the felony was later downgraded or removed sure. But I mean these are felons.

Would you let a sexual offender who did things with 4 children vote?
Would you let a killer vote?
Would you let someone who smuggled drugs and messed up communities vote.
Would you elt someone who hospitalized his or her spouse vote?
Etc.

You think any of those people have enough say to get ridiculous laws like "rape, killing, and beating your spouse are all legal" passed?

 

[Voost Kain]

I'm still not positive I follow your argument. Are you saying that our country is corrupt because some states let felons vote? Like, are you afraid criminals are using their franchise to allow them to get away with more crime?

I think you're vastly over-estimating the power that one vote carries.

It's more than one vote it's many votes. Once those people who support them get voted in, then you now have 2 people who are corrupt in control of a HIGH LEVEL political system. Which makes it even harder to remove the criminals and the corruptions.

Some of the people voted in are people who will do things for those other people.

So they may change laws or change the rules to keep it going or to keep being able to get away with things they should not.

 

[Voost Kain]

You think any of those people have enough say to get ridiculous laws like "rape, killing, and beating your spouse are all legal" passed?

I made the argument very clear, and even made it MORE clear in the post a few posts up. This is more like intentionally reading out of context.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

It's more than one vote it's many votes. Once those people who support them get voted in, then you now have 2 people who are corrupt in control of a HIGH LEVEL political system. Which makes it even harder to remove the criminals and the corruptions.

Some of the people voted in are people who will do things for those other people.

So they may change laws or change the rules to keep it going or to keep being able to get away with things they should not.

But why would these people vote together. I mean, even if every felon in the country voted, do you really believe that they could join together to form a political force powerful enough to...I dunno, make rape legal or something? What is it that you're afraid will happen, and how do you see "letting felons vote" be the thing that takes us there?

I made the argument very clear, and even made it MORE clear in the post a few posts up. This is more like intentionally reading out of context.

Not trying to be rude, but...no, you really haven't made your argument very clear. I think you need a strong argument to justify disenfranchisement, and as far as I can tell, yours is "bad people could vote for bad people."

 

[Chiaroscuro]

If there's concern for them being "second class citizens" there are a lot more important problems to fix than letting them vote. Letting them vote is a mixed reactions and it's barely a step toward removing the stigma.

Agree that there are more important problems, but I do not see that keeping this restriction is a step foward, rather just a status quo maintanence that contributes to the overall problem.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

A shame it's only for those who have completed their sentence. I support giving those currently serving time the right to vote as well. But I'll take any positive step.

 

[FyreWulff]

If there's concern for them being "second class citizens" there are a lot more important problems to fix than letting them vote. Letting them vote is a mixed reactions and it's barely a step toward removing the stigma.

Look up civil death and why it's a bad idea to remove the right to vote for any reason.

Protip: slowly increase what crimes can remove the right to vote, then you can bullshit-jail entire targeted communities and disenfranchise them!

Now you can be mad all you want, and I have not really chosen a position on this issue

lol, you're very obviously on the side of not letting felons vote, don't peddle this fake neutrality stuff.

 

[Voost Kain]

But why would these people vote together. I mean, even if every felon in the country voted, do you really believe that they could join together to form a political force powerful enough to...I dunno, make rape legal or something? What is it that you're afraid will happen, and how do you see "letting felons vote" be the thing that takes us there?



Not trying to be rude, but...no, you really haven't made your argument very clear. I think you need a strong argument to justify disenfranchisement, and as far as I can tell, yours is "bad people can vote for bad people."

I have no idea why you aren't reading the entire post.

If corrupt politician a gets away with a crime corrupt politician a will look at the guys who is running.

Say that Politician A got elected and he wants to be able to get away with stuff, since they are now elected, they can change the rules and manipulate how things work.

These people don't "tell you" when they are running if they support criminal behavior.

Gangsta thug got away with beating the crap out of someone and/or smuggling drugs to to some law that is broken. Which could have clearly been changed.

Gangsta thug and anyone else, there are tons of criminals in the thousands and up, will likely vote for the guy who is not planning or seemingly not planning to change that.

We are letting hundreds of thousands of people influence the vote.

Say The politician A wanted to remove that loophole and politician B did not, A was winning but now you just got thousands of new voters, or dormant voters who will go and vote for the guy who will benefit the criminal element most or likely the most.

Now you have more corruption on the ground levels and using the other example above, corruption on the upper levels in politics.

 

[Voost Kain]

Agree that there are more important problems, but I do not see that keeping this restriction is a step foward, rather just a status quo maintanence that contributes to the overall problem.

This isn't a step. It's like the worst possible move right now. There's already controversy, no one voted to support this. It was a shock move and shock moves usually don't work well.

 

[FyreWulff]

The % of people in jail is not enough to let them write laws.

Also, interest groups get laws modified to decriminalize or criminalize things they want that don't make sense to do so. And they're not jailed citizens. This appeal to potential panic when there isn't a real example anywhere to be found.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I have no idea why you aren't reading the entire post.

If corrupt politician a gets away with a crime corrupt politician a will look at the guys who is running.

Say that Politician A got elected and he wants to be able to get away with stuff, since they are now elected, they can change the rules and manipulate how things work.

These people don't "tell you" when they are running if they support criminal behavior.

Gangsta thug got away with beating the crap out of someone and/or smuggling drugs to to some law that is broken. Which could have clearly been changed.

Gangsta thug and anyone else, there are tons of criminals in the thousands and up, will likely vote for the guy who is not planning or seemingly not planning to change that.

We are letting hundreds of thousands of people influence the vote.

Say The politician A wanted to remove that loophole and politician B did not, A was winning but now you just got thousands of new voters, or dormant voters who will go and vote for the guy who will benefit the criminal element most or likely the most.

Now you have more corruption on the ground levels and using the other example above, corruption on the upper levels in politics.

What are you talking about? In what jurisdiction can a single person unilaterally change the law?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I have no idea why you aren't reading the entire post.

Probably because the way you format them is insufferable.

 

[Link]

I will say, this is like watching a trainwreck in real time. I should make popcorn.

 

[AndyD]

I'm still not positive I follow your argument. Are you saying that our country is corrupt because some states let felons vote? Like, are you afraid criminals are using their franchise to allow them to get away with more crime?

I think you're vastly over-estimating the power that one vote carries.

I read it a couple of times and that's what I get out of it too. He is vastly overestimating the power of one vote, and underestimating the power and authority a majority should have.

I think he means that if the majority voting population decides something is no longer a crime, or should be a lesser crime, it would be a conflict of interest to let people who have been convicted of that crime vote on that question.

That said, you should not have multiple tiers of citizens. While someone is incarcerated/punished for a crime, they are allowed to be afforded fewer rights (incarceration means no liberty, no voting...). But once someone is done with their sentence and rehabilitated, then they should be equal to everyone else.

If there are concerns of lack of rehabilitation, keep them in prison or on parole longer so they are supervised. Seems like a simple solution, though an extremely costly one.

 

[stump sock]

Probably because the way you format them is insufferable.

well that and stuff like this makes no sense:

Letting them vote is a mixed reactions

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I have no idea why you aren't reading the entire post.

If corrupt politician a gets away with a crime corrupt politician a will look at the guys who is running.

Say that Politician A got elected and he wants to be able to get away with stuff, since they are now elected, they can change the rules and manipulate how things work.

These people don't "tell you" when they are running if they support criminal behavior.

Gangsta thug got away with beating the crap out of someone and/or smuggling drugs to to some law that is broken. Which could have clearly been changed.

Gangsta thug and anyone else, there are tons of criminals in the thousands and up, will likely vote for the guy who is not planning or seemingly not planning to change that.

We are letting hundreds of thousands of people influence the vote.

Say The politician A wanted to remove that loophole and politician B did not, A was winning but now you just got thousands of new voters, or dormant voters who will go and vote for the guy who will benefit the criminal element most or likely the most.

Now you have more corruption on the ground levels and using the other example above, corruption on the upper levels in politics.

Right, and I'm saying that you're severely overestimating the effect of the votes. Even if all criminals could bond together in a uni-mind for their own benefit, there votes are vastly outnumbered by all the people who don't want "beating the crap out of someone" to be legal.

Hell, your hypothesis is testable! Many states allow felons to vote. Guess how many of them have also legalized beating the crap out of someone.

And again, I'm not ignoring your posts, and I don't want to be rude, I just think maybe there's a small language barrier here that's making it hard for me to understand some of your posts. Have some patience with me.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Can't believe this is a thing in the US. There was a little bit of controversy in an Australian state this week about taking away the ability to vote while IN jail.

It's been traditionally a way to keep down communities like the Black community from voting in electorate. If you put a large amount of your men in the community in prison for federal charges and take away their right to vote, you have successfully silenced that community. It's a means of control that is steeped in racist baggage.

 

[Link]

I read it a couple of times and that's what I get out of it too.

I think he means that if the majority voting population decides something is no longer a crime, or should be a lesser crime, it would be a conflict of interest to let people who have been convicted of that crime vote on that question.

That said, you should not have multiple tiers of citizens. While someone is incarcerated/punished for a crime, they are allowed to be afforded fewer rights (incarceration means no liberty, no voting...). But once someone is done with their sentence and rehabilitated, then they should be equal to everyone else.

If there are concerns of lack of rehabilitation, keep them in prison or on parole longer so they are supervised. Seems like a simple solution, though an extremely costly one.

Going by that logic, should gay people have not been able to vote on same-sex marriage amendments? How about poor people voting on social assistance programs? There's no such thing as a "conflict of interest" when it comes to voting. Everyone gets a voice. The will of the people, and all that.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's like you have to be obtuse as fuck to the fact white supremacists wrote the laws, and then decided to make laws remove the right to vote, and gasp, somehow a lot of nonviolent crime got upgraded to felonies because it lets them target minority communities that they hate.

Remember that crack cocaine can end up with you losing the right to vote, while pure cocaine can end up with with a fine and walking out of the office the next day. Guess which ones are popular within what ethnic groups?

If one thinks laws just dropped out of nowhere in pure, unbiased, objective form, perfect in ever way, you're either naive or you enjoy the benefits of being a white supremacist without having to overtly advertise that you are one.

 

[XenoRaven]

Right, and I'm saying that you're severely overestimating the effect of the votes. Even if all criminals could bond together in a uni-mind for their own benefit, there votes are vastly outnumbered by all the people who don't want "beating the crap out of someone" to be legal.

Hell, your hypothesis is testable! Many states allow felons to vote. Guess how many of them have also legalized beating the crap out of someone.

And again, I'm not ignoring your posts, and I don't want to be rude, I just think maybe there's a small language barrier here that's making it hard for me to understand some of your posts. Have some patience with me.

There's no language barrier. He's coming up with crazy "what if" scenarios that would never happen instead of looking at the countries listed in this very thread that even let inmates vote and seeing how they have, apparently by the grace of God, not turned into criminal utopias.

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

It's funny how the GOP are trying to come across as the more human decisionmakers in this. They're throwing around "The victim will not be able to vote, but the killer will" and "The implications will move the needle of political morality for the worst"

I thought most felonies were DUI or Motor vehicle related?

 

[E92 M3]

All felons, including those currently serving time in prison, should be permitted to vote.

Why? Maybe if we have a distinction between which type of felon, but a murder shouldn't have a chance to voice his vote.

 

[User 85168]

State GOP is challenging this.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/virginia-gopers-challenge-restoration-felon-voting-rights

 

[Voost Kain]

What are you talking about? In what jurisdiction can a single person unilaterally change the law?

I didin't say single person read it again.

Multiple corrupt people will protect themselves on the upper level.

Corrupt people on the lower level will vote for the people that help them most.

Look at this election on both sides for example. Look at the rule changes for the DNC in the I think it was 70's? Rules can be changed my multiple people, and when you have multiple corrupt people they change the rules to benefit them.

I mean we have now felons, a lot of which, though not all, will vote for the person who benefits them most. While as many on here would say, Politics and government is already filled with corruption. This is why Corporations, politicians, constantly get away with things, because all those corrupted people are protecting eachother to get away with stuff.

It's simple.

Now we are going to bring in felons who may change the swing of who wins and what not?We are talking thousands+ of votes.

In fact, adding felons may make the corruption in the justice system, politics, corporations worse, because now we have an additional voting bloc that has some individuals who will likely vote for the guy they think will let them commit crimes, leaving him or another corrupted soul in power.

How do you think politics got corrupt? Politics A worked to make Politics B look better than Politics C, and then Politics C did the same ad nausea, now you have a bunch of people corrupt in multiple positions protecting outsiders they think are beneficial and themselves from getting in trouble. Look at the big banks etc. It's crazy.

 

[MIMIC]

I don't have a problem with this. Never got why felons couldn't vote in the first place.

 

[ivysaur12]

The lawsuit is going to have the same trouble Republicans have had suing Obama over his EOs -- how can you prove injury?

 

[Dynedom]

I don't think the GOP need to show any concern of losing that all-important rapist/pedophile demographic to the Dems.

 

[FyreWulff]

Why? Maybe if we have a distinction between which type of felon, but a murder shouldn't have a chance to voice his vote.

.. why shouldn't they be able to vote?

1. It's not dangerous to let them vote. It's possible to have them vote via some sort of electronic system or even wheel a voting booth down the prison hallway.

2. We're assuming the justice system is infallible and this person actually committed the murder. There's a chance they're innocent. Why should they lose the right to vote? It lets the system ignore them.

3. They're not going to decide the election on their own.

 

[Voost Kain]

Right, and I'm saying that you're severely overestimating the effect of the votes. Even if all criminals could bond together in a uni-mind for their own benefit, there votes are vastly outnumbered by all the people who don't want "beating the crap out of someone" to be legal.

Hell, your hypothesis is testable! Many states allow felons to vote. Guess how many of them have also legalized beating the crap out of someone.

And again, I'm not ignoring your posts, and I don't want to be rude, I just think maybe there's a small language barrier here that's making it hard for me to understand some of your posts. Have some patience with me.

No see I don't get it you really don't seem to be getting it.

THEY DON'T TELL PEOPLE there is a law that will say for example allow someone to get a minimal sentence for "drug running", they either have a candidate not comment on it and try to make him look good, or they are the guy who would actually remove that loophole.

People who don't commit the crimes won't be looking at them the same way as criminals do.

If Politician A said let's make marijuana legal and fight global warming, but neglected to mention he would remove or not a loophole allowing corporations to go and take your property if they pay tripled its value and kick you out, and politician B directly says he will stop it but says make Marijuana illegal and Global Warming is fake.

The average citizen, let's say for example, in California or Colorado, would vote for Politician A. People will vote for B as well, but you have thousands of new votes that can tilt the vote so the corporations will still have it's disgusting protection.

For a forum complaining about corporations and corruption in government I don't see how this is not obvious.

 

[Palmer_v1]

I might have protested this once upon a time, but I grew up, and lost that "I got mine" mentality.

Hope something similar to this becomes a nationwide thing.

 

[FyreWulff]

The average citizen, let's say for example, in California or Colorado, would vote for Politician A. People will vote for B as well, but you have thousands of new votes that can tilt the vote so the corporations will still have it's disgusting protection.

The amount of people incarcerated in California is 0.3% of the the population.

 

[stump sock]

It's simple.

here's what's simple: allowing everybody the equal right to vote means that (in theory; districting and other factors can skew results) a majority vote actually represents the majority of the population. The only people who lose out in that situation are the extremists.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I didin't say single person read it again.

Multiple corrupt people will protect themselves on the upper level.

Corrupt people on the lower level will vote for the people that help them most.

Look at this election on both sides for example. Look at the rule changes for the DNC in the I think it was 70's? Rules can be changed my multiple people, and when you have multiple corrupt people they change the rules to benefit them.

I mean we have now felons, a lot of which, though not all, will vote for the person who benefits them most. While as many on here would say, Politics and government is already filled with corruption. This is why Corporations, politicians, constantly get away with things, because all those corrupted people are protecting eachother to get away with stuff.

It's simple.

Now we are going to bring in felons who may change the swing of who wins and what not?We are talking thousands+ of votes.

In fact, adding felons may make the corruption in the justice system, politics, corporations worse, because now we have an additional voting bloc that has some individuals who will likely vote for the guy they think will let them commit crimes, leaving him or another corrupted soul in power.

How do you think politics got corrupt? Politics A worked to make Politics B look better than Politics C, and then Politics C did the same ad nausea, now you have a bunch of people corrupt in multiple positions protecting outsiders they think are beneficial and themselves from getting in trouble. Look at the big banks etc. It's crazy.

To reiterate, you're saying "If A happens, B will happen. We don't want B, so don't so A."

Problem being, plenty of places already do A. We don't need to base policies off of your fears of what could happen when we can base them on looking at what actually does happen.

You're trying really hard to establish a causal link between "non-violent drug offenders can vote" and "our government is corrupt" and I think the reason you're having trouble doing it is because there isn't a link.

 

[Voost Kain]

It's like you have to be obtuse as fuck to the fact white supremacists wrote the laws, and then decided to make laws remove the right to vote, and gasp, somehow a lot of nonviolent crime got upgraded to felonies because it lets them target minority communities that they hate.

Remember that crack cocaine can end up with you losing the right to vote, while pure cocaine can end up with with a fine and walking out of the office the next day. Guess which ones are popular within what ethnic groups?

If one thinks laws just dropped out of nowhere in pure, unbiased, objective form, perfect in ever way, you're either naive or you enjoy the benefits of being a white supremacist without having to overtly advertise that you are one.

How about instead of changing the law, we get those communities.

Off of drugs, and welfare dependency, and shooting their own people?

I mean it almost sounds like you want to give someone a handout and allow the main issue to remain unsolved.

 

[AndyD]

Going by that logic, should gay people have not been able to vote on same-sex marriage amendments? How about poor people voting on social assistance programs? There's no such thing as a "conflict of interest" when it comes to voting. Everyone gets a voice. The will of the people, and all that.

Exactly.

I didin't say single person read it again.

Multiple corrupt people will protect themselves on the upper level.

Corrupt people on the lower level will vote for the people that help them most.

Look at this election on both sides for example. Look at the rule changes for the DNC in the I think it was 70's? Rules can be changed my multiple people, and when you have multiple corrupt people they change the rules to benefit them.

I mean we have now felons, a lot of which, though not all, will vote for the person who benefits them most. While as many on here would say, Politics and government is already filled with corruption. This is why Corporations, politicians, constantly get away with things, because all those corrupted people are protecting eachother to get away with stuff.

It's simple.

Now we are going to bring in felons who may change the swing of who wins and what not?We are talking thousands+ of votes.

In fact, adding felons may make the corruption in the justice system, politics, corporations worse, because now we have an additional voting bloc that has some individuals who will likely vote for the guy they think will let them commit crimes, leaving him or another corrupted soul in power.

How do you think politics got corrupt? Politics A worked to make Politics B look better than Politics C, and then Politics C did the same ad nausea, now you have a bunch of people corrupt in multiple positions protecting outsiders they think are beneficial and themselves from getting in trouble. Look at the big banks etc. It's crazy.

So Edson, would you say felons should not vote on anything? Or felons of violent crimes don't vote on definitions of violent crimes, and drug felons don't vote on definitions of drug crimes? And would you stop at felonies, or misdemeanors? And who creates the definitions of felonies?

And separately, do you think prison/parole/fines/therapy/community service(any court ordered activity) in general are punishment or rehabilitation? Or some of both?

 

[stump sock]

How about instead of changing the law, we get those communities.

Off of drugs, and welfare dependency, and shooting their own people?

I mean it almost sounds like you want to give someone a handout and allow the main issue to remain unsolved.

a picture is starting to take shape here

 

[Link]

Yep, here we go.

 

[Voost Kain]

To reiterate, you're saying "If A happens, B will happen. We don't want B, so don't so A."

Problem being, plenty of places already do A. We don't need to base policies off of your fears of what could happen when we can base them on looking at what actually does happen.

You're trying really hard to establish a causal link between "non-violent drug offenders can vote" and "our government is corrupt" and I think the reason you're having trouble doing it is because there isn't a link.

You didn't read the post you replied to fast.

Also your breakdown is silly, we have corruption on the ground, in corporations and in governments, and you know good and well there are people who are manipulating things so they can get away with stuff from big banks to the average mayor.

Why are you pretending this "isn't already a problems" when it is and that felons, those looking for their own interest, can easily make it worse?

 

[XenoRaven]

"Their own people"

Whatever could that mean