It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Senator Clinton Pushes for Voting Holiday: Also Ex Felons Should Vote

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Editing, don't want family business all over the internet.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by deeprivergal]




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
No deep I do not. As I said his stoy is understandable, and I do sympathise, but he made his choice and though his debt to society has, as you said, been paid, He can not and should not be able to escape the repercussions of his earlier actons.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
We'll agree to disagree. I for one will be damned before they take away his right to vote. And all of you can sit on your high horses and scream foul, but unless you've lived the life, don't talk like you've been in their shoes.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I don't understand why it would be wrong to disallow ex-convicts(this is the term you should all be using, it is true that exfelon doesn't work) their voting priviledges. Especially if the nature of their crime was benign nad non-violent. Really the Presidency and all other political offices are decided upon two politcal parties with occasional independents so allowing excons to vote really wouldn't rock the boat or something. Do people honestly believe that serving time in prison in some way means you are mentally defunct? What about people charged with felony possession of marijuana, alot of intelligent, and otherwise productive members of society have had this label slapped upon them and had their voting rights stripped because of it.
And before you say well maybe certain types of crimes should be allowed their votes back, how do you discriminate? I think it would be prudent and just to allow excons their voting priviledges back after 4 years or so a term that would weed out the element of the many who are reoffenders. Like some have said they have served their time in jail, and after a certain amount of time on parole they should be given back more, I think alot of reasons people reoffend and get sent back to jail is just how cut off from society they are when they get released and go on parole, they get tarred with some brush. You know there are thousands of crimes that go unpunished everyday, so there is just as likely to be a so called mentally inept criminal who is allowed to vote as one who is in jail etc...

Anyways, what do people think of that? Am I being too liberal here, I don't think so.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
We'll let all those members of congress with their speeding tickets and bouncing checks vote though. Those who are supposed to be the leaders of our country.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
as an aside, how do you get the title, writer fighter instead of just plain member??



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
write in the writers forum, and debate in the debate forum.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
However regardless of his motivaton, the extuenuating circumstances etc. What ever crime was comitted was heinous enough to garner him a felony. If I commit murder there is no justification for it, If I murder the man who murdered my wife, child etc. it may be understandable, but it still can not be justified. The same can be said if I commit armed robbery to feed my family. No matter how understandable a crime may be it is never justifiable.


You're making a common mistake in assuming all felons are violent criminals, or non-contributing members of society and in assuming that they already can't vote. In some states they can regardless of the specific crime, in others they can't. That's BS.

Felonies abound, and really don't amount to much anymore. Granted there was a time you could get 3 lifetime DUI's and go on to become Vice President, but now (in some states) you can't even vote for him due to third strike automatic felony charges.

Martha Stewart is a felon. Moonshiners are felons. Truckers that carry too many cigarettes across state lines. Federal tax cheats. Probably most gun dealers and a significant portion of NRA members would be too if they ever got caught.
Hell, Tom DeLay probably is a felon.

The crime here is in saying ex-felons in this state can't vote for federal government, but in this state they can.

No, it is not fair if West Virginia felons get to vote for President, but Florida felons don't.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
right on RANT, I couldn't have said it better myself.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Well rant I personally believe that no felon (includng martha stuart) should be allowed to run or vote for office. However I do think it should be left up to each state to decide whther or not they agree with me. Why do you feel this is a decision that should be made on a federal level?
As a similar example I understand New York has a state income tax, my home state Florida does not, is that also IYO unfair?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
My dad had no problems voting last year,

and as long as they are American citizens they should have EVERY right to vote.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by deeprivergal]


If i remeber correctly after being in prison for 1 year and 1 day you lose your rights as a citizen. i can't remember where i read that thou...
i could be wrong.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   
On the one hand, you'd think that election day would be a holiday, but on the other, why should people be given off from work to vote? Its their responsibility to get to the polls and put the effort in to vote. Some places make voting a requirement, like australia. In the US, its a right, but a privilige, not somethign that the state brings you too.
Of course, considering the absurdly long lines outside polling stations in the last election, it might be better to make it a holiday just as a pragmatic matter.
But perhaps instead of cosmetic and ultimately meaningless fixes like this, how about ramping up the funding for voting? Creating more polling stations and making sure that all the stations have functional machines and the proper number of ballots and workers and that the checklists are properly maintained?

As far as felons voting, no. Who can be in favour of this? Having people who have demonstrated that they're criminals, and are also stupid enough to be captured and sentenced vote? Why?
Imagine the 'Prison Bloc' for organized voting. What candidate is even going to want that blocs support?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Well rant I personally believe that no felon (includng martha stuart) should be allowed to run or vote for office. However I do think it should be left up to each state to decide whther or not they agree with me. Why do you feel this is a decision that should be made on a federal level?
As a similar example I understand New York has a state income tax, my home state Florida does not, is that also IYO unfair?


Your example given involves state income tax. And if a state wanted to bar it's citizens from voting for local and state officials, I don't know that I'd have an argument against that other than the difference between most felons and us is they got caught. Anyone that's driven with 3 beers in them 3 times in the past 5 years should be a felon according to most state's laws (which I hapen to disagree with too).

But when it comes to a state barring a United States citizen from voting for a Federal government position like President because of local law? No. I think we can find good some civil law precedent against that.

Now if the federal government wanted to prohibit all it's felon citizens from voting, fine. That's more fair, though I still disagree. But one state can't trot out it's felons to vote for President, while another can't. I mean they can, they do. But it's wrong.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   
So if someone can get away with the crime then it really doesn't matter? Your view is a little off to me, I mean the main reason you say excons shouldn't be able to vote is because they have demonstrated a lack of self control and scoff at the rules and laws of society but then you say something like that, that if they were dumb enough to get caught then they shouldn't be able to vote.

You know even an murderer can choose which talking head he likes better.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I think maybe like RANT is saying if it is a federal election then the laws should be the same across the slate, each state having the same electios laws, but for state elections then the election laws should be left to the states won discretion.
Either make them all unable to vote across the board of allow them all to vote.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
He spends 2 years in a hospital where they peel the skin off his body to heal his burn wounds. They give him everything from morphine to heroine. The start of his criminal career began in a Texas army hospital.

The type of guy that wouldn't hurt a fly but pain and memories still haunt him every day.



Nice try at trying to blame it on the Army however that wil not fly here. If he had gone to the Army and told him he had a problem with drugs, they would have helped him from the get go; therefore he would never have reverted to selling drugs would he?


on the won't hurt a fly bit too. What about those he got hooked on drugs by selling them; surely you are not going to say he helped them are you? All he did was create more drug addicts, which in case you do not know is illegal.

Now back on topic.

The Holiday issue is a joke, all she wants is another paid day off. Most of us will never get that day therefore it only benefits government employees on the whole, not the little man.

As to the voting issue I think the Dr had it right (although) he stated blacks which while right is not the the real crux of the issue. What this does is garner votes from ALL minority groups most of which make up the criminal segment of our society.


(pulling out my thimble sized violion for Deep now sailing into the sunset)



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Isn't the point of prison to not only punish, but to rehabilitate? Isn't there are big problem with our legal system if people are being released from prison that are still not worthy of even the most basic of rights, such as voting?

It's not like owning a gun, being a nanny, or guarding pile of money--voting is a BASIC right. Marginalizing felons on election day does a lot to keep these people on the fringes of society--one way to start reducing recidivism is to restore basic rights, voting included.

And I agree that election day should be a national holiday. Not only because some people can't get off from work to vote, but the importance of voting is lost on Americans. Establishing a national holiday would begin to emphasize how critical it is for all citizens to participate in our democracy.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
fredt, my man, that was a bit one-sided, and i'm a conservative! anyhow, i don't think the repubs are really all that concerned with voter fruad unless it causes them to get fewer of them. same goes for the dems. i also don't think this story sounds like hillary trying to get anything that breathes to vote. i am not sure i agree with letting ex-felons vote for a number of reasons, but i am ALL-FOR the voting holiday. i didn't vote this past election because i just didn't feel like it after work. if i didn't have to work that day, i more than likely would have gone, especially if the reason for the holiday was to go vote. ps- my vote would not have helped anyway as i would have voted for Bush and in my state, (TX), he already had 70%.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   


Nice try at trying to blame it on the Army however that wil not fly here. If he had gone to the Army and told him he had a problem with drugs, they would have helped him from the get go; therefore he would never have reverted to selling drugs would he?


on the won't hurt a fly bit too. What about those he got hooked on drugs by selling them; surely you are not going to say he helped them are you? All he did was create more drug addicts, which in case you do not know is illegal.


My advice to you would be not to pretend that your ignorance is amusing. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about so I suggest you back off a bit. You have no idea what people go through unless you walk in their shoes. I'm not condoning anything he did nor do I agree with it, but he has paid his debt and his countries debt to society.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
My advice to you would be not to pretend that your ignorance is amusing. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about so I suggest you back off a bit. You have no idea what people go through unless you walk in their shoes. I'm not condoning anything he did nor do I agree with it, but he has paid his debt and his countries debt to society.


Rather then attacking the poster; why not answer the questions put to you?

As it appears all you want to do is put the blame on others and that is wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join