Democratic Primary Season 2020

[R3Z3N]

^That has been their goal from the beginning. Technology, machine learning/AI has just made it incredibly easy to push on the internet, which is an incredibly new breakthrough to be able to run on just about any hardware, or run many instances on one server.

[decay]

They are pro chaos.

right... that's why they waited until he came around. we would be foolish to think they couldn't have done this in any of the last few elections.

[mrsleeve]

^
Huh that's the closest thing to the reality of the situation I have seen posted anywhere let alone on the magic picture box piped with the days propaganda.

[naplesE30]

Biden wins the election in 2020.

He's running against a guy who most people dislike at some level and pretty much someone in the middle with experience is enough to take him down.

Sleepy Joe in this respect is the sleeping giant.

Good.

I am sick and tired of lawsuits, hidden taxes, insulting remarks, felons going to jail etc.

Now that Trump's days are numbered, one thing I didnt get is why did Russia want him to win? Isn't Hillary the crooked one who sells things to them?

I think Russia’s true motivation is lost on most. Russia does not care who was elected, they cared about further dividing and eroding Americans trust in their Govt. That is their motivation. They stoked the fire on both sides, had bots posting on both sides. Russia is neither Pro Trump or Hillary or GOP or DNC. They are pro chaos.

[decay]

Where is there evidence Russia was for Trump

hmm, maybe the bit where they chose the NRA as a partner? i think we can guess how that voting bloc swung.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/13/buti...rough-nra.html

do you actually read any news, or just blogs from RWNJs?

[Schnitzer318is]

The report concluded Russia worked to get Trump elected. Trump's campaign was not sophisticated enough to give them any assistance... Which is a good thing for Trump.

[gwb72tii]

Biden wins the election in 2020.

He's running against a guy who most people dislike at some level and pretty much someone in the middle with experience is enough to take him down.

Sleepy Joe in this respect is the sleeping giant.

Good.

I am sick and tired of lawsuits, hidden taxes, insulting remarks, felons going to jail etc.

Now that Trump's days are numbered, one thing I didnt get is why did Russia want him to win? Isn't Hillary the crooked one who sells things to them?

Where is there evidence Russia was for Trump

I case you haven’t been paying attention, the Russia collusion bullshit was made up by the Democrats

[decay]

but in reality, there aren't enough of them to matter statistically.

respectfully- this is where we part ways of thinking.

we have the highest rate of incarceration "in the wuhld", and thus we have created a new demographic of the disenfranchised. anything representing more than 1% of the population is statistically significant to me, and we're well past that.

the fun part for me, though, is that we're having this discussion in a country in which we're trying to decide whether to impeach the current president, and the prior two are war criminals.

[Javier h]

I dont think it matters

Biden wins the election in 2020.

He's running against a guy who most people dislike at some level and pretty much someone in the middle with experience is enough to take him down.

Sleepy Joe in this respect is the sleeping giant.

Good.

I am sick and tired of lawsuits, hidden taxes, insulting remarks, felons going to jail etc.

Now that Trump's days are numbered, one thing I didnt get is why did Russia want him to win? Isn't Hillary the crooked one who sells things to them?

[saucers]

I'm just here for the comments

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall-joe-biden-2020-trump-president

[Schnitzer318is]

I guess we just differ on this.

If you're irresponsible enough to commit a felony and go to prison, you lose certain rights. I'm ok with voting being one of them, even once they are out. Sure, we can get into the Libertarian debate of taxation without representation............but in reality, there aren't enough of them to matter statistically. It's more the idea that Bernie came right out and said he was OK with a convicted terrorist voting while behind bars.

Shit, I just realized the next place this is going to go:

Do you think the question "Have you been convicted of a felony?" should no longer be allowed on job applications? If you've served your time and your debt to society, isn't that question still disenfranchising someone once they are out of prison?

Or does an employer have a right to know?

Then why the worry? Sleeve was postulating that the Dems (Bernie) was going after a voting bloc. Enough to be significant. We do have a very large prison population. Again, I am not for prisoners voting while incarcerated, just playing devil's advocate on that. I can only imagine what the costs to administer the vote in prison would look like. No thanks.

As to the second question. Yes, employers should be allowed to ask. It could be very pertinent to the job being offered. IE: a driving job. You wouldn't necessarily want to hire someone convicted of DUI for that job. Felons have to deal with a certain level of self-imposed disenfranchising based on past decisions. Does that make it difficult to assimilate into being a contributing member of society? Maybe. But those were the choices made.

The problem that I have with this scenario is that the convicted felon used his right to own a gun to commit a crime. So they set a precedent that they were not responsible enough to own a gun, because they used that right to commit a crime. I don't think someone convicted of armed robbery with a gun should be allowed to own a gun once out of prison.

Someone who loses his right to vote because they committed a felony didn't lose their right to vote specifically because they used their right to vote to commit a crime.

So not really apples to apples comparison, although I understand where you and Sleeve are trying to go. Next time someone is convicted of a felony because of voting I'll be ok with them not having the vote after they get out of prison.

Agreed, and pretty close to what I was getting at in my previous post.

[z31maniac]

I guess we just differ on this.

If you're irresponsible enough to commit a felony and go to prison, you lose certain rights. I'm ok with voting being one of them, even once they are out. Sure, we can get into the Libertarian debate of taxation without representation............but in reality, there aren't enough of them to matter statistically. It's more the idea that Bernie came right out and said he was OK with a convicted terrorist voting while behind bars.


Shit, I just realized the next place this is going to go:

Do you think the question "Have you been convicted of a felony?" should no longer be allowed on job applications? If you've served your time and your debt to society, isn't that question still disenfranchising someone once they are out of prison?

Or does an employer have a right to know?

[mbonder]

So you don't believe in disenfranchising someone who has served their debt to society, what would you think of this scenario?

When a convicted felon is released from prison after serving his time, lets say for armed robbery, should his right to legally own a weapon be reinstated the day he is released?

I mean he has served his debt to society, yes?

The problem that I have with this scenario is that the convicted felon used his right to own a gun to commit a crime. So they set a precedent that they were not responsible enough to own a gun, because they used that right to commit a crime. I don't think someone convicted of armed robbery with a gun should be allowed to own a gun once out of prison.

Someone who loses his right to vote because they committed a felony didn't lose their right to vote specifically because they used their right to vote to commit a crime.

So not really apples to apples comparison, although I understand where you and Sleeve are trying to go. Next time someone is convicted of a felony because of voting I'll be ok with them not having the vote after they get out of prison.

[R3Z3N]

With regard to regaining your rights after incarceration:
I believe if one thinks that a previous felon should not have ALL rights restored upon release, then the sentence was not befitting of the crime. During such incarceration, you have lost all rights until new evidence comes to light.

Note I referred to rights, not privileges, but this gets very tricky to enforce if not impossible. We should have a system such that upon police encounter, the arresting body knows the restrictions immediately. So, maybe then the prior criminal has no restrictions that are different from any other citizen.

[Schnitzer318is]

Odd stance to take, as I see them as very similar. As did the great progressive Teddy Roosevelt who put it far more eloquently than I would

A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. : Theodore Roosevelt

Again, very different concepts though. And I'd agree with Teddy's eloquence, character is important to both concepts. But, and this is a HUGE but, you can immediately kill someone with a firearm. Not so much with a vote. I'd much rather fight a felon armed with a vote than with a gun. Especially if I have a gun.

This is the system in which we live in, and both sides of the isle are beyond guilty of stacking their own districts to remain in their seat...... I dont like it but we have to live with in it...

Very true. And depending on which side of that aisle you sit, you'll have a different view of this. I look at the Republicans redistricting (especially in the south) as more egregious than the Democrats trying to undue it when they are elected. They are both the same thing... redistricting, but the reasons behind the redistricting are different. We'd disagree on that, which is fine. I think once districts are drawn... that's it, they're drawn. Both sides should leave them alone. If the whole country has to be sectioned/drawn once to account for cities spreading then so be it. But draw it once, and leave it.

Remember, I am not a Democrat or a Republican, but an Indy. So far under the Reps I am no better off than I was under the Dems, which is the ultimate vote swinger I think we'd both agree. I did not vote for either party in the last presidential race. Depending on how the Dems run I may vote their way this time. The only way the Republicans would earn a vote is if, by some miracle, they don't run Trump, he decides not to run again, or he is unable to run again.