(09-23-2020, 06:57 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Bloomberg, who has pledged to put $100 million into Florida to help Biden, has paid off the fines of 32,000 felons, so they can vote.
Since [just the facts here] felons in Florida skew towards African-Americans, and since African Americans skew heavily Democratic, then if these people register to vote and vote, that is a big boost to Biden in a state as close as Florida.
Rep Matt Gaetz is saying there is something illegal about what Bloomberg is doing, but it seems to me that if all Bloomberg does is pay their fines, and someone else (say, the Democratic Party) gets them registered and gets them to vote, then I don't see anything illegal about it.
Campaign finance.
(09-23-2020, 07:52 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2020, 07:46 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Once they are out, Trump should offer them jobs
Trump doesn't need to hire convicted felons. He makes his own.
lol
Most states already allow felons to vote without making a big to-do about their fines.
Most states don't make people rack up such high fines as they go thru the penitentiary system.
Most Floridians agree that a person should get a second chance after they serve their time, and that voting should be part of that.
I think most people would praise Bloomberg for what he's doing here.
(09-23-2020, 12:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Most states already allow felons to vote without making a big to-do about their fines.
Most states don't make people rack up such high fines as they go thru the penitentiary system.
Most Floridians agree that a person should get a second chance after they serve their time, and that voting should be part of that.
I think most people would praise Bloomberg for what he's doing here.
You're missing (or ignoring) the point. This isn't a noble gesture on Bloomberg's part to provide a "second chance" for felons. It's a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of an election.
If he actually cared about these people, he would be using the money to provide housing assistance, education, job training, drug counseling, etc.
(09-23-2020, 12:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Most states already allow felons to vote without making a big to-do about their fines.
Most states don't make people rack up such high fines as they go thru the penitentiary system.
Most Floridians agree that a person should get a second chance after they serve their time, and that voting should be part of that.
I think most people would praise Bloomberg for what he's doing here.
No they wouldn't.
I don't understand the second chance thing. The vast majority of them will commit crimes again. I'm cool with those in for drug offenses, because drugs should be legal anyway. But if you hurt another person for no reason other than to take what they have you don't ever deserve another chance.
Here's an idea - don't commit crimes. Don't be a piece of garbage that takes what others earned... but wait... that's what democrats run on - taking what people better than them have earned.
I would rather grant someone who has been dishonorably discharged from the military the privilege of voting before restoring that privilege to felons.
(09-23-2020, 12:47 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2020, 12:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Most states already allow felons to vote without making a big to-do about their fines.
Most states don't make people rack up such high fines as they go thru the penitentiary system.
Most Floridians agree that a person should get a second chance after they serve their time, and that voting should be part of that.
I think most people would praise Bloomberg for what he's doing here.
You're missing (or ignoring) the point. This isn't a noble gesture on Bloomberg's part to provide a "second chance" for felons. It's a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of an election.
If he actually cared about these people, he would be using the money to provide housing assistance, education, job training, drug counseling, etc.
Yeah but
Florida's previous harsh treatment of felons w/r/t voting rights was also a "blatant attempt to influence the outcome of an election.". A successful attempt that spanned decades.
A partisan legislature can do it, but a partisan billionaire can't? I see your point, but, I don't get it.
What's with this idea that EVERY person should vote? Part of the problem with our current system is the MASSIVE amounts of pandering directed towards stupid people. It's good that there's a massive segment of our population that doesn't want to vote. They probably shouldn't. I am not saying you take away their right, but I am saying maybe we shouldn't encourage it. If a person doesn't care, let them not care.
(09-23-2020, 03:33 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]What's with this idea that EVERY person should vote? Part of the problem with our current system is the MASSIVE amounts of pandering directed towards stupid people. It's good that there's a massive segment of our population that doesn't want to vote. They probably shouldn't. I am not saying you take away their right, but I am saying maybe we shouldn't encourage it. If a person doesn't care, let them not care.
I think you're changing the topic here.
These people had their right to vote taken away. We are discussing if we should undo that. Whether they should be encouraged to vote after their right is restored is a separate question.
(09-23-2020, 04:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2020, 03:33 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]What's with this idea that EVERY person should vote? Part of the problem with our current system is the MASSIVE amounts of pandering directed towards stupid people. It's good that there's a massive segment of our population that doesn't want to vote. They probably shouldn't. I am not saying you take away their right, but I am saying maybe we shouldn't encourage it. If a person doesn't care, let them not care.
I think you're changing the topic here.
These people had their right to vote taken away. We are discussing if we should undo that. Whether they should be encouraged to vote after their right is restored is a separate question.
Not really changing the topic.
What he is saying is that if people are stupid enough to commit a crime that causes them to lose their
privilege to vote, they probably shouldn't be encouraged to vote if/when the
privilege is restored. Someone stupid enough to commit a crime (we'll use armed robbery as an example) which causes them to be incarcerated and possibly fined probably isn't informed enough to actually vote. Of course, that's a major voting bloc for your democrat party, the uninformed voter.
(09-23-2020, 04:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2020, 04:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're changing the topic here.
These people had their right to vote taken away. We are discussing if we should undo that. Whether they should be encouraged to vote after their right is restored is a separate question.
Not really changing the topic.
What he is saying is that if people are stupid enough to commit a crime that causes them to lose their privilege to vote, they probably shouldn't be encouraged to vote if/when the privilege is restored. Someone stupid enough to commit a crime (we'll use armed robbery as an example) which causes them to be incarcerated and possibly fined probably isn't informed enough to actually vote. Of course, that's a major voting bloc for your democrat party, the uninformed voter.
1. It's definitely a right. Just like the right to bear arms. It can be abridged in very specific cases, but it's not a privilege. It's a right. Privileges are things that people earn. Rights are things that people gain simply by turning 18 or 21 years old.
2. You throw around this accusation that someone's not informed enough to vote all the time. A lot of you crotchety folks around here say things like this. I think if you were a little more informed, you might be a little more humble in assessing your own ability to judge how informed other people are.
(09-23-2020, 08:02 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2020, 07:52 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Trump doesn't need to hire convicted felons. He makes his own.
You mad Slow Joe hasn't created a single paying job his entire career?
I don't know about that, he sure got his cokehead son paid..
(09-23-2020, 01:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2020, 12:47 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]You're missing (or ignoring) the point. This isn't a noble gesture on Bloomberg's part to provide a "second chance" for felons. It's a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of an election.
If he actually cared about these people, he would be using the money to provide housing assistance, education, job training, drug counseling, etc.
Yeah but
Florida's previous harsh treatment of felons w/r/t voting rights was also a "blatant attempt to influence the outcome of an election.". A successful attempt that spanned decades.
A partisan legislature can do it, but a partisan billionaire can't? I see your point, but, I don't get it.
The makeup of the legislature changes every two years. How can an "...attempt that spanned decades" possibly be partisan?
I'm not saying he can't do it, I'm saying recognize it for what it really is. If people want to praise Bloomberg for using others (about whom he otherwise couldn't care less) for political gain, that is their right.
It's almost like you used to have to live with the consequences of your actions, and both parties accepted that.
(09-23-2020, 07:43 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2020, 01:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah but
Florida's previous harsh treatment of felons w/r/t voting rights was also a "blatant attempt to influence the outcome of an election.". A successful attempt that spanned decades.
A partisan legislature can do it, but a partisan billionaire can't? I see your point, but, I don't get it.
The makeup of the legislature changes every two years. How can an "...attempt that spanned decades" possibly be partisan?
I'm not saying he can't do it, I'm saying recognize it for what it really is. If people want to praise Bloomberg for using others (about whom he otherwise couldn't care less) for political gain, that is their right.
1) Republicans have had control the Florida legislature, both houses of it, continuously since 1992. Yes, it spans decades.
2) while Florida has not allowed felons to vote since the 1800s, it was the war on drugs starting in the mid 1980s that really gave us this remarkably high number of people who could not vote. And they continue to not be able to vote, to the present day. This affected the legislative election in 1990, in 1992 and 1994, you get my point. It spanned decades. and of course you know what the Republicans did at the state level once they got control in 1992, they made these drug laws even stricter, and ramped up prosecutions even more.
3) Financially, guys like Bloomberg are actually going to lose under a Biden administration. He's doing this because he believes in the cause, not for his own political gain.
(09-23-2020, 07:50 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's almost like you used to have to live with the consequences of your actions, and both parties accepted that.
They didn't do it to punish the felons.
From the beginning, they did it to target certain people for removal from the voter rolls.
Which people would that be?
(09-23-2020, 09:05 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Which people would that be?
White people who still felt entitled to the labor of black people.
The point was to create a chain gang. The legal disenfranchisement, at the beginning, was a happy coincidence for them. They weren't going to let those folks vote, anyhow. They would intimidate and riot to prevent that regardless of what the law said.
When you fast forward to the drug wars, the disenfranchisement is more front and center to the motives.
Felons in Florida were able to get their rights back, they just had to apply to a review board for them. They weren’t given back upon completion of their sentences like a lot of other states do.
(09-23-2020, 09:17 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]Felons in Florida were able to get their rights back, they just had to apply to a review board for them. They weren’t given back upon completion of their sentences like a lot of other states do.
That's technically true, but, the restoration at that time was an irregular act of mercy (according to Rick Scott). Felons who wanted to apply couldn't get any guidance about what they might be asked or what they might have to show to get their rights back. And the percentage that got their rights restored after applying was always low.