Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

.... yes, you read that correctly. Some democrats are now pushing for convicted murderers and rapists to be able to vote. Considering how the dem party has become the party of illegals, mass infantacide (actually been that for a while now), MS13 gang-members, anti-semitism, crazy Trump/russian conspiracy theories, anti-USA, and anti-Christian (calling Christians "easter worshippers" is just one example of this), and the party of "you can just make up your own gender!" it shouldn't really be a surprise I guess.




They are desperate to get votes anywhere they can in wake of the #Blexit movement and all of the other people that are #WalkingAway from the democrat party. They need to make up for all of those missing numbers somehow if they hope to beat the big bad orange man in 2020!

I wonder if convicted felons should be given the right to obtain firearms. After all that is also a right...

Oh, I'm sure dems will eventually get around to trying to make an argument for that also, Surtur. They're ok with the bad guys having guns, just not law-abiding citizens.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
.... yes, you read that correctly. Some democrats are now pushing for convicted murderers and rapists to be able to vote. Considering how the dem party has become the party of illegals, mass infantacide (actually been that for a while now), MS13 gang-members, anti-semitism, crazy Trump/russian conspiracy theories, anti-USA, and anti-Christian (calling Christians "easter worshippers" is just one example of this), and the party of "you can just make up your own gender!" it shouldn't really be a surprise I guess.




They are desperate to get votes anywhere they can in wake of the #Blexit movement and all of the other people that are #WalkingAway from the democrat party. They need to make up for all of those missing numbers somehow if they hope to beat the big bad orange man in 2020!

My beef is voting while they are incarcerated after they serve their time I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Well, I guess to me it depends on what their crime was. Personally, I don't want a rapist having a say in who our future leaders are even after they have gotten out of prison. But I probably wouldn't mind someone voting after they served their time who was convicted of a non-violent felony like illegal drug possession, illegal gun possession, or something similar.



Dinesh D'souza, for example, should've never been barred from voting for his non-violent so-called "crime." Fortunately, President Trump pardoned him so he can vote again.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Well, I guess to me it depends on what their crime was. Personally, I don't want a rapist having a say in who our future leaders are even after they have gotten out of prison. But I probably wouldn't mind someone voting after they served their time who was convicted of a non-violent felony like illegal drug possession, illegal gun possession, or something similar.



Dinesh D'souza, for example, should've never been barred from voting for his non-violent so-called "crime." Fortunately, President Trump pardoned him so he can vote again.

With murder it could be different. Many people in prison for murder it could be the only crime they ever committed and one they actually regret. I'd rather they were allowed to vote than some repeat offending drug dealer or someone who defrauded loads of people.

Originally posted by snowdragon
My beef is voting while they are incarcerated after they serve their time I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

This is what most people believe as well, aside from the odd person who doesn't (eg Bernie Sanders is for voting while incarcerated, Trumpers don't want voting rights given back). The OP is just being a retard again.

I think anyone who has done there time deserves to be integrated fully back into society eventually. The sentence time is the punishment.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I think anyone who has done there time deserves to be integrated fully back into society eventually. The sentence time is the punishment.

That's the point of the penal system, once you serve your prison time and serve your probation period, you've paid your debt and you're done.

It's Trumper types who want to keep ex-convicts who have completed their sentencing as second class citizens and still deprive them the right to vote.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
With murder it could be different. Many people in prison for murder it could be the only crime they ever committed and one they actually regret. I'd rather they were allowed to vote than some repeat offending drug dealer or someone who defrauded loads of people.




Taking human life is the most grave of all crimes, imo (which is why I'm so very opposed to abortion), and the fact that some of those who did it may in fact be sincerely sorry for it doesn't change my opinion that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Of course, manslaughter (3rd degree "murder" is different because in that case it isn't intentional so I'm ok with them voting in that case.



Repeat drug dealers and defrauders shouldn't be allowed to vote either, imo.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's the point of the penal system, once you serve your prison time and serve your probation period, you've paid your debt and you're done.

It's Trumper types who want to keep ex-convicts who have completed their sentencing as second class citizens and still deprive them the right to vote. Most young men make a wrong choice or two, most of us look back on that age and if we are honest thank our stars things didn't ruin our lives. Once time and probation is served that should be it, O.K. registers should be krpt for sex offenders and records kept untik the crime is wiped, beyond that whilst not a Christian, I do believe people should be forgiven.

I can see the value of certain arguments like not allowing pedophiles to live close to a school even after they've completed their sentence or allowing murderers access to guns. I don't see one for denying voting rights though.

But even those still shit on the rehabilitation theory and 'debt paid to society' sentiment. It's like forever punishment and saying someone can never be rehabilitated or forgiven even after they've served the time/probation.

Originally posted by Robtard
I can see the value of certain arguments like not allowing pedophiles to live close to a school even after they've completed their sentence or allowing murderers access to guns. I don't see one for denying voting rights though.

But even those still shit on the rehabilitation theory and 'debt paid to society' sentiment. It's like forever punishment and saying someone can never be rehabilitated or forgiven even after they've served the time/probation. No, I agree totally, whilst in Prison, In don't think they should but only when convicted, not on remand, in custody without a conviction is not guilt.

Originally posted by snowdragon
My beef is voting while they are incarcerated after they serve their time I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

This is a normal and reasonable perspective.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's the point of the penal system, once you serve your prison time and serve your probation period, you've paid your debt and you're done.

It's Trumper types who want to keep ex-convicts who have completed their sentencing as second class citizens and still deprive them the right to vote.

I somewhat agree. This type of thinking is how you "demote" humans to subhumans. It's terrible thinking.

Originally posted by Robtard
I can see the value of certain arguments like not allowing pedophiles to live close to a school even after they've completed their sentence or allowing murderers access to guns. I don't see one for denying voting rights though.

But even those still shit on the rehabilitation theory and 'debt paid to society' sentiment. It's like forever punishment and saying someone can never be rehabilitated or forgiven even after they've served the time/probation.

That's true, there are alot of other things that should be done as well to make it so that once done with their time they can reconnect and participate fully within our society.

There are far to many barriers in play once they come out of jail which is probably one of the reasons we have such a high recidivism rate in the USA.

They aren't second class citizens once they have paid their price.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Most young men make a wrong choice or two, most of us look back on that age and if we are honest thank our stars things didn't ruin our lives. Once time and probation is served that should be it, O.K. registers should be krpt for sex offenders and records kept untik the crime is wiped, beyond that whilst not a Christian, I do believe people should be forgiven.

Agreed. I got into fights as a youth and broke some other people's bones. Probably a felony?

I used to do lots of volunteer work in Oklahoma City and I'd work with inmates to setup charity events at the Capitol. I got to hear the stories of the inmates. Some of their stories were no different than the things I did as a youth. They just got caught.

Perhaps a fight ended up in a much more terrible way and someone died. Bam. Prison time for manslaughter. That could have been me.


I am not a better human being because my fights did not result in paralysis or death of another. I don't think I am some amazing top-class citizen just because I have never been convicted of crimes. That's arrogance and elitism of the highest order (pun intended). That type of thinking needs to die.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Agreed. I got into fights as a youth and broke some other people's bones. Probably a felony?

I used to do lots of volunteer work in Oklahoma City and I'd work with inmates to setup charity events at the Capitol. I got to hear the stories of the inmates. Some of their stories were no different than the things I did as a youth. They just got caught.

Perhaps a fight ended up in a much more terrible way and someone died. Bam. Prison time for manslaughter. That could have been me.


I am not a better human being because my fights did not result in paralysis or death of another. I don't think I am some amazing top-class citizen just because I have never been convicted of crimes. That's arrogance and elitism of the highest order (pun intended). That type of thinking needs to die. Good post mate.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is what most people believe as well, aside from the odd person who doesn't (eg Bernie Sanders is for voting while incarcerated, Trumpers don't want voting rights given back). The OP is just being a retard again.

More than one retard running for president in 2020 has said they're open to a "discussion" about people in jail voting. Harris and Warren come to mind.

Deal with it.

Being open to discussion is sensible, what if despite your strong stance on something, the other person has a solid argument. Do better for yourself, be less angry with your life, Surt.

Originally posted by Surtur
More than one retard running for president in 2020 has said they're open to a "discussion" about people in jail voting. Harris and Warren come to mind.

Deal with it.





Pretty sure Sanders has said he's in favor of it as well.

Rob probably thinks a candidate "willing to have a discussion" about slave reparations is "sensible" as well lol.


But someone "willing to have a discussion" about building a wall or making abortions illegal? Nah... that's not sensible at all, right robbie?


So, in effect, robbie thinks it's "sensible" for someone "willing to have a discussion" about policies he agrees with but those he doesn't agree with? Well that's just "hate speech" of course and that person needs to be shut-up. And yet those people on his side (the left) continues to call those of us on my side the "fascists." lol


Oh, the irony.

Originally posted by Robtard
Being open to discussion is sensible, what if despite your strong stance on something, the other person has a solid argument. Do better for yourself, be less angry with your life, Surt. Is Surt angry again, funny stuff!

Originally posted by Robtard
Being open to discussion is sensible, what if despite your strong stance on something, the other person has a solid argument. Do better for yourself, be less angry with your life, Surt.

I'll allow you a do-over for this response. I'd suggest you take it.

I really don't understand what the logic behind not letting them vote is... So yes I support this
Originally posted by Surtur
I wonder if convicted felons should be given the right to obtain firearms. After all that is also a right... yes but allowing them to have guns runs an obvious risk... where as letting them vote does not.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'll allow you a do-over for this response. I'd suggest you take it.

Good dodge.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Rob probably thinks a candidate "willing to have a discussion" about slave reparations is "sensible" as well lol.


But someone "willing to have a discussion" about building a wall or making abortions illegal? Nah... that's not sensible at all, right robbie?


So, in effect, robbie thinks it's "sensible" for someone "willing to have a discussion" about policies he agrees with but those he doesn't agree with? Well that's just "hate speech" of course and that person needs to be shut-up. And yet those people on his side (the left) continues to call those of us on my side the "fascists." lol


Oh, the irony.

I'm liking you less and less as time goes on. You're becoming quite the toxic shitposter.

If you have to strawman someone's position so terribly like this, you should realize you have a terrible point.

Originally posted by mike brown
I really don't understand what the logic behind not letting them vote is... So yes I support this
yes but allowing them to have guns runs an obvious risk... where as letting them vote does not.




You don't see the issue people have with those who've committed rape voting again? It's really not that hard to understand. People who've committed a crime like rape or child molestion don't exactly have good judgment so it worries me what kind of policies they might be in favor of voting for or voting against.





Suppose some politician came along and said something radical like child molestation and pedophilia should no longer be considered a crime (I know it's an extreme example but considering how radical many of the policies dems are pushing in the current time it wouldn't surprise me if eventually someone said that) how do you think a former child molester would vote on that issue? Most likely they'd vote for it right?



Another hypothetical example: suppose a candidate said "I think all of those who deny climate change should be put to death because they're endangering our planet." Well, how would an ex-convict who has killed someone and is a strong believer in climate change feel about killing someone for what is a just cause in their mind? It's likely they wouldn't feel as nearly disturbed by this suggestion as someone who has never killed someone who thinks the value of human life is priceless & should not be taken under any circumstances except perhaps in self-defense. To the convicted murderer though, human life doesn't mean nearly as much. It's likely he or she just views human beings as animals (or "highly-evolved" monkeys).



I could give several other hypothetical examples but I believe you get the point.



The right to bear arms is a much more important right than the right to vote by the way. Our 2nd amendment right protects all of our other rights and should really be the first amendment, imo.

It doesn't surprise me though at all that many democrats want the option for convicted felons to vote. They need to scrounge together all the votes they can in order to have a chance in Hell against Donald Trump in 2020. That's why they are in favor of wide-open borders as well. They wanna increase their votes and their voting blocks. It's about power. Always has been, always will be.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It doesn't surprise me though at all that many democrats want the option for convicted felons to vote. They need to scrounge together all the votes they can in order to have a chance in Hell against Donald Trump in 2020. That's why they are in favor of wide-open borders as well. They wanna increase their votes and their voting blocks. It's about power. Always has been, always will be. One could by the same token say that it isn't surprising at all that Republicans want to deprive convicted felons the right to vote, since they want to block off any voters that could support the Democrats and overturn their own power base.

What does it matter though? It has nothing to do with whether or not it is the right thing to do or not. It's a diversionary argument, an appeal to motive you're using to obfuscate your own refusal or inability to argue in opposition to the movement.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You don't see the issue people have with those who've committed rape voting again? It's really not that hard to understand. People who've committed a crime like rape or child molestion don't exactly have good judgment so it worries me what kind of policies they might be in favor of voting for or voting against.





Suppose some politician came along and said something radical like child molestation and pedophilia should no longer be considered a crime (I know it's an extreme example but considering how radical many of the policies dems are pushing in the current time it wouldn't surprise me if eventually someone said that) how do you think a former child molester would vote on that issue? Most likely they'd vote for it right?



Another hypothetical example: suppose a candidate said "I think all of those who deny climate change should be put to death because they're endangering our planet." Well, how would an ex-convict who has killed someone and is a strong believer in climate change feel about killing someone for what is a just cause in their mind? It's likely they wouldn't feel as nearly disturbed by this suggestion as someone who has never killed someone who thinks the value of human life is priceless & should not be taken under any circumstances except perhaps in self-defense. To the convicted murderer though, human life doesn't mean nearly as much. It's likely he or she just views human beings as animals (or "highly-evolved" monkeys).



I could give several other hypothetical examples but I believe you get the point.



The right to bear arms is a much more important right than the right to vote by the way. Our 2nd amendment right protects all of our other rights and should really be the first amendment, imo. these examples are all ridiculously far fetched and paranoid. It also ignores the fact that the rest of society would have to go along with such nonsense. It's a piss poor reason to deny them the right to vote. Voting is actually rather benign and fairly useless on an individual basis in most cases... But if they want to vote they should be able to do so. Where as there's a clear risk to letting violent criminals own guns... Though I do think that not all felons should have their gun rights revoked only violent ones for the same obvious reason you strip habitual drunk drivers of their ability to get a driver's licence.

White supremacist executed for killing black man by dragging him behind truck

Now see I'm glad this guy was executed, but democrats should be upset...I mean, now that he is dead he can never ever vote. He has been stripped of this right and that is awful.

Nobody is saying people in prison should vote. Once your time is served your rights should be restored.

Originally posted by mike brown
Nobody is saying people in prison should vote. Once your time is served your rights should be restored.

Lol uh no some people are saying *exactly* that. Bernie Sanders is one. AOC is another. More than one other dem running for president was open to "discussing" it. One was Kamala Harris(same woman who wants to criminalize folk for paying for sex, but not the hookers)

Originally posted by mike brown
Nobody is saying people in prison should vote. Once your time is served your rights should be restored.

https://theweek.com/articles/837475/bernie-sanders-wrong-violent-offenders-should-not-vote-from-prison

You were saying?

Originally posted by mike brown
these examples are all ridiculously far fetched and paranoid. It also ignores the fact that the rest of society would have to go along with such nonsense. It's a piss poor reason to deny them the right to vote. Voting is actually rather benign and fairly useless on an individual basis in most cases... But if they want to vote they should be able to do so. Where as there's a clear risk to letting violent criminals own guns... Though I do think that not all felons should have their gun rights revoked only violent ones for the same obvious reason you strip habitual drunk drivers of their ability to get a driver's licence.




You know, two decades ago I bet people would've accused people who thought that some candidate might introduce the idea of slave reparations or the idea that mislabelling someone's gender should be a crime, or of the idea of killing babies even after they've been born, or the idea that making it mandatory for voter id to vote is somehow "racist" were all being paranoid yet here we are today and every single one of those things I mentioned above has either already happened or are currently being pushed by certain democrats. So no, it isn't nearly as "far-fetched" as you may think Mike.



I could list many more examples of policies people either are pushing today or have already been passed that would be considered "far-fetched" to someone just two decades ago. Just search for the interview Bill Nye had from not that long ago where the interviewer asked him "Do you think those who don't believe in climate change should be charged with a crime and imprisoned?". Bill Nye's response stunned the interviewer. It was from several years ago so I don't remember the exact question but it was something very similar to that above.

Originally posted by mike brown
Nobody is saying people in prison should vote. Once your time is served your rights should be restored.




You seem to think that just because someone has served their time that they have automatically gotten whatever caused them psychologically to committ their crime out of their system and wouldn't do it again. Yet how many people who are in prison are repeat offenders?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You seem to think that just because someone has served their time that they have automatically gotten whatever caused them psychologically to committ their crime out of their system and wouldn't do it again. Yet how many people who are in prison are repeat offenders? Oh Star.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
https://theweek.com/articles/837475/bernie-sanders-wrong-violent-offenders-should-not-vote-from-prison

You were saying? I stand corrected then. I don't think we need to allow inmates to vote. I do think we should allow ex cons to vote.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You know, two decades ago I bet people would've accused people who thought that some candidate might introduce the idea of slave reparations or the idea that mislabelling someone's gender should be a crime, or of the idea of killing babies even after they've been born, or the idea that making it mandatory for voter id to vote is somehow "racist" were all being paranoid yet here we are today and every single one of those things I mentioned above has either already happened or are currently being pushed by certain democrats. So no, it isn't nearly as "far-fetched" as you may think Mike.



I could list many more examples of policies people either are pushing today or have already been passed that would be considered "far-fetched" to someone just two decades ago. Just search for the interview Bill Nye had from not that long ago where the interviewer asked him "Do you think those who don't believe in climate change should be charged with a crime and imprisoned?". Bill Nye's response stunned the interviewer. It was from several years ago so I don't remember the exact question but it was something very similar to that above. so strip them off their right to vote cause you think they might have crazy beliefs? You don't see this as an anti free speech stance?

Originally posted by mike brown
I stand corrected then. I don't think we need to allow inmates to vote. I do think we should allow ex cons to vote.

Also I sure as f*ck would not trust the wardens in these private prisons to give us accurate voting numbers lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You seem to think that just because someone has served their time that they have automatically gotten whatever caused them psychologically to committ their crime out of their system and wouldn't do it again. Yet how many people who are in prison are repeat offenders? I don't see what their likelihood of reoffending has to do with letting them vote. By this logic we should just keep them locked up indefinitely. An armed robber has a much higher likelihood to rob someone in the future than to somehow lobby the govt to make robbery legal. You are basically just fear mongering here.

You're being trolled, Mike.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
You're being trolled, Mike.

Triggered troll