Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sanders or Biden? Where Do You Stand

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • smooth
    replied
    Originally posted by phillipj View Post
    Bernie's talking about the constitution as a whole with it's amendments, and, to my knowledge anyway(!) there are no asterisks on whether you can vote if you are a citizen and over 18. I guess he's being pretty true to the Constitution.
    I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that the person you responded to linked Bernie's answer but didn't understand what he heard (if he even listened to the source he linked, which is questionable): Bernie states, at timestamp 1:40, that in his state of Vermont, from it's very first days, "our Constitution"...Bernie was referring to Vermont's *state* Constitution not the US Constitution.

    Differentiating between the United States Constitution and each state's individual Constitution should be pretty basic civics principles...especially from someone who chastised Bernie supporters for allegedly not differentiating between "debt" and "deficit" but his failure to do so gives you insight into people who argue in bad faith.

    Leave a comment:


  • LowR3V'in
    replied
    bernie and biden are pretty much turds so far which one do you think can win in a debate against trump.
    basically whos going to be the biggest shit talker on stage. maybe bernie but biden can also be a bigger asshole that might hurt him though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Melon
    replied
    Trump and Biden are both pretty terrible.

    I don't think Obama ear economic policies would be the best to get us out of the recession.
    That being said Trump is only concerned with his ratings and people stroking his ego.

    With either one, we're on our own to get out of this mess.

    Leave a comment:


  • CarpHunter
    replied
    Originally posted by z31maniac View Post

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - became a naturalized citizen in 2012. He is on death row. Nidal Hasan, McVeigh, the list goes on and on. You're making things up in an attempt to make a point. "Domestic terrorism" is very real and considered by the government, unless you don't consider the FBI part of the government.

    It's not even worth addressing the rest of your "whataboutism" or insinuation that Americans liked that the bankers basically got off with a slap on the wrist. We weren't. Unfortunately, that's the privilege you receive when you pay for the reps in government.
    Is your goal to continue showing your ignorance? Here's another example of not knowing what the fuck your talking about. None of the people you mention were charged as domestic terrorist. Because it's not a crime in america. 2 seconds on Google would educate you to that fact. It's true the patriot act redefined the term " domestic terrorist", but only in regards to allow data collection without warrants. But it does not make it a crime. In fact there's currently a law under debate that would finally make it possible to charge someone as a " domestic terrorist". To reiterate, you cannot be charged with domestic terrorism because it's not a crime, there's literally no law against it. Again, 2 seconds on Google to educate yourself would go along way.

    As to your "whataboutism" comment. Again, fucking read! Those are examples to tease out info on where you draw your personal line. Which is the question you've been asked multiple times, by multiple people, but have never answered.

    Now as to whether or not americans were upset about the bankers getting off with just a slap. Yeah, I'd say you guys liked it. I mean if you were so upset you would of punished them. Instead you gave them bonuses and government jobs. And to top it off, you liked it so much you just gave them another handout. I can understand you being against it, I am as well, but the reality is they were rewarded for collapsing a global economy. Other countries put them in jail. Can't ignore that reality, as ugly as it is. You don't get to use the crooked politician card, because you voted them in! If you're country is tired of crooked politicians, stop electing them.

    Now generally I am of the opinion to protect voting for everyone. It is the one power we have to shape our nation's and world. But your starting to test that. It's sad that me, an immigrant, a foreigner, knows more about your countries history, laws, and constitution than you do. A person born here. Maybe you should lose your right to vote, until you prove worthy of it, you know, earn it. Just like I had to, to gain citizenship and prove I knew what I was talking about. Cause the only thing you've done to earn your right to vote is being lucky at birth. That's to say you've done nothing to earn it.

    Maybe the real question is what should be the metric for the right to vote? Maybe it should be that you have to pass the citizenship exam? It would mean most americans couldn't vote, but maybe that would be for the best. After all, the state of your country and politics shows time and time again you guys aren't responsible enough to be trusted with that right.

    Not trying to pick a fight with you, understand we're all dealing with extraordinary circumstances right now and stress levels are raised. But please actually read posts, it would go a long way to avoiding unnecessary conflict and misunderstandings. We're all in this together, and as I'm sure you know, those at the top aren't going to help the people. So we need to be better than them, and help each other, cause we're all we got.

    Leave a comment:


  • E30SPDFRK
    replied
    Found a picture of z31maniac

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by CarpHunter View Post
    Well the usa doesn't have any terrorist in prison, as the designation of terrorist is only applied to foreigners. Your government doesn't recognize domestic terrorist. So that's a non point.
    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - became a naturalized citizen in 2012. He is on death row. Nidal Hasan, McVeigh, the list goes on and on. You're making things up in an attempt to make a point. "Domestic terrorism" is very real and considered by the government, unless you don't consider the FBI part of the government.

    It's not even worth addressing the rest of your "whataboutism" or insinuation that Americans liked that the bankers basically got off with a slap on the wrist. We weren't. Unfortunately, that's the privilege you receive when you pay for the reps in government.

    Leave a comment:


  • CarpHunter
    replied
    Originally posted by z31maniac View Post

    Then why do we discriminate between violent and non-violent crimes to begin with when it comes to classification and sentencing?

    You're cool with rapists and terrorists being allowed to vote while in prison, I'm not. So there really is no point continuing this line of debate any further.
    Z, he was asking why there's discrimination between violent and nonviolent, not stating a reason. You answered his question by repeating the question. Please guys, actually read before posting.

    For starters you keep repeating about rapist and terrorist. Well the usa doesn't have any terrorist in prison, as the designation of terrorist is only applied to foreigners. Your government doesn't recognize domestic terrorist. So that's a non point.

    As for the rapist part, well, lets be honest here, you guys should be more worried about electing them to goverment then them voting. According to the republican party nothing constitutes rape. The women is always asking for it. Or their lying, doesn't matter if it's 1, 2, or a dozen women saying it. Hell, their so sure, why even bother with an investigation before appointing someone to a lifetime position on your highest court.

    I get you trying to make the moral distinction. But your not stating where that line is drawn for you. None of you are. You all keep pointing to the fact that there is a difference, but none of you are saying what that difference is. I won't argue that murder or rape is immoral, it certainly is. But is it more or less immoral than say tanking a global economy out of greed. Or creating laws to imprison a certain minority to prevent their ability to vote. Or say bombing innocent civilians on the other side of the planet. If the metric is societal harm, then the banker crashing the economy is far more harmful than the murderer. The killer may affect a few dozen people, where as the banker affects millions. You guys put the killer in jail, but you put the banker in charge of the treasury. You guys have a system that punishes one crime while rewarding another. I kill someone, i go to prison and lose my right to vote. I commit mass fraud causing economic ruin for millions, I get a nice fat bonus and a white house job. Where's the morality in that? I sell heroin on the street, I go to prison. I flood the country with opiates, addicting millions, I get rich. You have one system for minorities, another for poor whites, and another for wealthy whites.

    Crime is crime, your system and those who control it decide who gets punished. Morality doesn't play as big a part as I believe any of us wishes. Realistically race and class has more to do with deciding "morality" than it should.

    If your the black guy in prison for life for selling a couple crack rocks, watching the white guy walk free after being caught selling a truckload of coke, you're right to vote might suddenly become vastly more important to you.

    Perspective, it's all about perspective.
    Last edited by CarpHunter; 03-31-2020, 03:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • R3Z3N
    replied
    This is where, concerning man made laws that there is always compromise and grey areas vs just black and white.

    However I believe all rights should be restored upon serving a sentence. This would mean that charges should not get dropped as much as firearms charges do currently so that the sentence can be as much as deemed adequate to release someone back into freedom. This way police and citizens have to worry less about who is on the street and which subsection of the bill of rights the person across the street gets to enjoy.

    Leave a comment:


  • phillipj
    replied
    Originally posted by z31maniac View Post

    Then why do we discriminate between violent and non-violent crimes to begin with when it comes to classification and sentencing?

    You're cool with rapists and terrorists being allowed to vote while in prison, I'm not. So there really is no point continuing this line of debate any further.
    Different crimes obviously deserve different sentencing. Someone who is a murderer obviously has extremely bad judgement, so you argue that they should lose their right to vote. I do see the merit in that. I just don't see the merit as much in drawing the line between violent and non-violent crime. Does your opinion also assert that all violent criminals in prison are irredeemable and justly convicted? Look, I'm not necessarily "cool" with any of it either way, it's a very nuanced issue. I could turn it around on you: you must be "cool" with people who commit massive fraud voting while in jail. (I'm being Sarcastic; statements like these are dumb, instigating).

    Anyway, I definitely agree: no point to continue. I don't feel strongly about this issue, like you do. I prefer to zoom out as there's so much more important, consequential things going on these days. Back to your original contention, is this such a strong disqualifier in voting or not voting for someone? People definitely don't view this nearly as strongly as, let's say, Abortion. But I do get your argument completely!
    Last edited by phillipj; 03-31-2020, 12:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by phillipj View Post
    I do know I definitely do not like the idea of making exceptions -- why should violent vs. non-violent matter in regards to voting here? And I do think people who are released from jail should definitely have their right to vote restored immediately, there are some states where that is not the case or there are clauses or petitions.
    Then why do we discriminate between violent and non-violent crimes to begin with when it comes to classification and sentencing?

    You're cool with rapists and terrorists being allowed to vote while in prison, I'm not. So there really is no point continuing this line of debate any further.

    Leave a comment:


  • phillipj
    replied
    Originally posted by myinfernalbmw View Post

    Do you feel those same people should get their firearm ownership rights restored immediately upon release?
    This is a very nuanced issue.

    I am not very knowledgable about which States take away or modify your 2nd Amendment rights after prison time, I can imagine it varies a deal state by state. I also don't think my personal opinion matters that much, but I would be interested in what the majority of Americans see as common-sense on this. Personally, I don't like hypocrisy, so, let's say if a State subscribes to taking any of your rights away if you go to jail, then they should be probably be restored when you have adequately done your time. However, I personally don't see Voting and Firearms here in this specific conversation as 100% equatable -- do you? If you do, why? There's definitely a stronger argument to making Violent vs. Non violent crime considerations with Gun rights after a criminal offense, as gun ownership is potentially very dangerous and should always (in my opinion) merit both violence and mental illness background/ history checks, or an in-person interview. There is nothing potentially physically dangerous about voting.

    I think Canada does a better job than we do in this department, I know they do consider Violence and Mental Illness history more thoroughly when granting a license.

    In my own family, I'm not a gun owner, but we have a few people who are Hunters and they don't have any criminal history with violence or jail. However, I do have a distant cousin who has multiple DUIs, depression and he can be extremely violent and reckless. I will say as family, I definitely do have some worry about his gun ownership, it's mostly that he might be a grave danger to himself. I feel the same way about an employee I moved to fire recently who is a bragging gun owner with multiple DUIs and drug use as he is potentially extremely dangerous to both himself and others.

    So, based on very real Professional and Family experiences, I do think the State should consider history with repeated alcohol and drug abuse when considering gun rights, beyond just past violent crime or mental illness history. Obviously it is not a cure all, but I think it could potentially save a few lives if enacted en masse.

    Leave a comment:


  • myinfernalbmw
    replied
    Originally posted by phillipj View Post
    I do think people who are released from jail should definitely have their right to vote restored immediately, there are some states where that is not the case or there are clauses or petitions.
    Do you feel those same people should get their firearm ownership rights restored immediately upon release?

    Leave a comment:


  • phillipj
    replied
    Originally posted by z31maniac View Post

    Since you skirted the point of my post, I'll ask you directly.

    Do you support the right to vote for violent felons, like terrorists and sexual predators, while they are serving their sentences? Yes or no, explain. Don't hide behind "it's debatable" or the Slippery Slope Fallacy.



    If you are convicted of a violent crime (terrorism, sexual assault, armed robbery, etc), you should lose your right to vote while in prison. While you're in prison, you still haven't finished "serving your debt to society." Once you have served your debt to society, sure you earn it back. Even if you go to jail for unpaid parking tickets, you don't get to vote while behind bars.


    I'm still baffled, there are some countries where the citizens can't vote if they haven't lived in the country for X period of time? But yet, you'd be cool with guy who raped a girl down the street getting to vote while in prison.

    I didn't mean to 'skirt the point', I just don't think my personal opinion matters too much; we were also talking about this as a potential disqualifier for considering someone for President, which, in my opinion, there's just so much bigger fish to fry. An opinion either way is not going to dissuade me from voting for somebody.

    But, If you are asking me my personal view, I'm conflicted, because I do see the merits to your opinion as well as the other side. I would be ok with "If you are in jail for any reason you forfeit your voting rights." However I am probably more ok with you always have the right to vote, it can't be taken away for any reason. So, that would be my final answer. I see how people view this differently state to state and can understand the argument that this should be a State's Rights issue.

    I do know I definitely do not like the idea of making exceptions -- why should violent vs. non-violent matter in regards to voting here? And I do think people who are released from jail should definitely have their right to vote restored immediately, there are some states where that is not the case or there are clauses or petitions.

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by phillipj View Post





    Z31, you seem to feel strongly about that, and that is why I think it is debatable. Because, like Roguetoaster, and in past conversations, I've seen Bernie ask, "where do we draw the line?"

    If you are (still, somehow) in jail for weed, should you not be able to vote?

    If, in Roguetoaster's example, it's some unfortunate vehicular manslaughter, should you not be able to vote?

    If I go in for insider trading (ha! yeah right) but if I did, should I be disqualified from voting?

    Bernie's talking about the constitution as a whole with it's amendments, and, to my knowledge anyway(!) there are no asterisks on whether you can vote if you are a citizen and over 18. I guess he's being pretty true to the Constitution. So, maybe, you are saying they should write into the Constitution that, let's say, if you are a Citizen, but are also are found guilty of Murder, or (?) whatever you deem too terrible, you lose that right?

    As mentioned, I think this is very debatable!




    I will also say, that so few people in prison actually vote, it's really not worth our time! Again, I like that he sticks to his guns and the Constitution on that one. It's also his own state law. And you are right, maybe Conservatives would pick that bone with him or me, but I'm sure there is a whole lot of more relevant and important stuff we'd agree on.
    Since you skirted the point of my post, I'll ask you directly.

    Do you support the right to vote for violent felons, like terrorists and sexual predators, while they are serving their sentences? Yes or no, explain. Don't hide behind "it's debatable" or the Slippery Slope Fallacy.



    If you are convicted of a violent crime (terrorism, sexual assault, armed robbery, etc), you should lose your right to vote while in prison. While you're in prison, you still haven't finished "serving your debt to society." Once you have served your debt to society, sure you earn it back. Even if you go to jail for unpaid parking tickets, you don't get to vote while behind bars.


    I'm still baffled, there are some countries where the citizens can't vote if they haven't lived in the country for X period of time? But yet, you'd be cool with guy who raped a girl down the street getting to vote while in prison.

    Leave a comment:


  • phillipj
    replied
    Originally posted by z31maniac View Post

    There is nothing to debate. If you plan, plot, and kill american citizens........you shouldn't be able to vote. Period. Full stop. If you sexually assault someone, you shouldn't be able to vote. Period. Full stop.

    Not to mention in this particular example he says "Our Constitution says everybody can vote." Really? No it didn't, it said land owning, white males could vote. Multiple amendments later..........women have only been able to vote for 100 years. Seriously he thinks rapists and terrorists should be able to vote. I'm really note sure how anyone can defend that..............especially using the faulty logic that the Constitution says everyone can vote. The average Bernie supporter has to have the difference between debt and deficit explained to them.

    I truly hope you don't think those people should be allowed to vote. Jesus Christ the man uses the Slippery Slope Fallacy when as long as the country has been around, it's only increased who can vote vs 1776.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY-1Shv_8-E
    Originally posted by rougetoaster
    The question always is, where do we draw the line when it comes to disenfranchisement? If we allow freedoms to be taken from the very least among us we slowly go down that slippery slope to not being able to vote because you have a parking ticket.

    We really need carefully examine how we deal with criminals both large and small on an individual basis over an extended time period to assess their potential value to society.

    Unfortunately, it seems easier to simply discard people and not bother to look at that large grey area that separates a drunk driver who kills a pedestrian from a person who deliberately plans to murder other(s) for whatever their reasons may be. It seems to me that in either case it is quite possible that each individual may be salvaged or may need to be permanently removed from participation in society.


    Z31, you seem to feel strongly about that, and that is why I think it is debatable. Because, like Roguetoaster, and in past conversations, I've seen Bernie ask, "where do we draw the line?"

    If you are (still, somehow) in jail for weed, should you not be able to vote?

    If, in Roguetoaster's example, it's some unfortunate vehicular manslaughter, should you not be able to vote?

    If I go in for insider trading (ha! yeah right) but if I did, should I be disqualified from voting?

    Bernie's talking about the constitution as a whole with it's amendments, and, to my knowledge anyway(!) there are no asterisks on whether you can vote if you are a citizen and over 18. I guess he's being pretty true to the Constitution. So, maybe, you are saying they should write into the Constitution that, let's say, if you are a Citizen, but are also are found guilty of Murder, or (?) whatever you deem too terrible, you lose that right?

    As mentioned, I think this is very debatable!




    I will also say, that so few people in prison actually vote, it's really not worth our time! Again, I like that he sticks to his guns and the Constitution on that one. It's also his own state law. And you are right, maybe Conservatives would pick that bone with him or me, but I'm sure there is a whole lot of more relevant and important stuff we'd agree on.
    Last edited by phillipj; 03-26-2020, 10:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X