NationStates

Outer Sparta wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
Probably not. That he'll get any amount of votes over 0 is quite beyond my comprehension...but it'll probably happen.

I don't think voters would prefer a murderer over Klobuchar in this primary.

I'll say that with 99 percent certainty but crazier things have happened. How he even gets one vote is beyond my understanding

Outer Sparta wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
Probably not. That he'll get any amount of votes over 0 is quite beyond my comprehension...but it'll probably happen.

I don't think voters would prefer a murderer over Klobuchar in this primary.

No, I just meant he'll get some type of votes from people who are uninformed or worse, edgy.

San Lumen wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:I don't think voters would prefer a murderer over Klobuchar in this primary.

I'll say that with 99 percent certainty but crazier things have happened. How he even gets one vote is beyond my understanding

And he's in the Democratic primary yeesh

Shrillland wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:I don't think voters would prefer a murderer over Klobuchar in this primary.

No, I just meant he'll get some type of votes from people who are uninformed or worse, edgy.

I think its quite rare for anyone to get zero votes in an election.

Shrillland wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:I don't think voters would prefer a murderer over Klobuchar in this primary.

No, I just meant he'll get some type of votes from people who are uninformed or worse, edgy.

Ugh yeah but most voters are more informed than that.

Outer Sparta wrote:

San Lumen wrote:That's insane. How could anyone vote for him?

Why is he even permitted to run? You cannot vote if you're a felon but you can run for Congress just like Blankenship and that guy.

Why shouldn't he be permitted to run and vote?

Outer Sparta wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
No, I just meant he'll get some type of votes from people who are uninformed or worse, edgy.

Ugh yeah but most voters are more informed than that.

Bob Menendez only managed 62 percent of the vote in New Jersey against a some dudette in the June Primary.

Ifreann wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Why is he even permitted to run? You cannot vote if you're a felon but you can run for Congress just like Blankenship and that guy.

Why shouldn't he be permitted to run and vote?

I dont think someone who is in prison should be allowed to vote or run for office. Why should someone who will never be released be able to vote or run? A prison is meant to be a place of punishment not where you have the same rights as someone not serving time.

But once you are released absolutely.

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Why shouldn't he be permitted to run and vote?

I dont think someone who is in prison should be allowed to vote or run for office. Why should someone who will never be released be able to vote or run? A prison is meant to be a place of punishment not where you have the same rights as someone not serving time.

But once you are released absolutely.

Even people who are released still cannot vote. Every other country with a democracy doesn't make people lose their vote the second they step into a prison.

So is he even allowed to run in the first place?

Petrasylvania wrote:So is he even allowed to run in the first place?

Apparently so. It's weird how you can run for Congress while in prison but you cannot vote. It's very screwed up.

Outer Sparta wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I dont think someone who is in prison should be allowed to vote or run for office. Why should someone who will never be released be able to vote or run? A prison is meant to be a place of punishment not where you have the same rights as someone not serving time.

But once you are released absolutely.

Even people who are released still cannot vote. Every other country with a democracy doesn't make people lose their vote the second they step into a prison.

It depends on the state. Florida is voting on a referendum to end felony disenfranchisement in November

There is a map in this link of states that have it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_di ... ted_States

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Why shouldn't he be permitted to run and vote?

I dont think someone who is in prison should be allowed to vote or run for office.

Why not?

Why should someone who will never be released be able to vote or run?

Because there's no reason for them to lose those rights.

A prison is meant to be a place of punishment not where you have the same rights as someone not serving time.

That doesn't mean prisoners should lose all their rights.

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I dont think someone who is in prison should be allowed to vote or run for office.

Why not?

Why should someone who will never be released be able to vote or run?

Because there's no reason for them to lose those rights.

A prison is meant to be a place of punishment not where you have the same rights as someone not serving time.

That doesn't mean prisoners should lose all their rights.

I never said they should. But someone incarcerated should get zero say in politics.

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Why not?

Because there's no reason for them to lose those rights.

That doesn't mean prisoners should lose all their rights.

I never said they should. But someone incarcerated should get zero say in politics.

Why?

Outer Sparta wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:So is he even allowed to run in the first place?

Apparently so. It's weird how you can run for Congress while in prison but you cannot vote. It's very screwed up.

It kind of skips the middleman if you think about it.

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I never said they should. But someone incarcerated should get zero say in politics.

Why?

Because they're in prison. If and when they get out sure but not while they're inside.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Why?

Because they're in prison.

So?

If and when they get out sure but not while they're inside.

Why not?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Why?

Because they're in prison. If and when they get out sure but not while they're inside.

Agreed.

Petrasylvania wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Apparently so. It's weird how you can run for Congress while in prison but you cannot vote. It's very screwed up.

It kind of skips the middleman if you think about it.

Hehe

Ifreann wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Because they're in prison.

So?

If and when they get out sure but not while they're inside.

Why not?

Because we don't want people who show anti-social behavior to be IN CHARGE of society.

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I never said they should. But someone incarcerated should get zero say in politics.

Why?

Because someone who committed such a crime that they have to spend time in prison has forfeited certain aspects of their rights. They do still have rights as people and as citizens, but not in the same way that they would if they were free. You don't have to get a warrant to search a cell, for example.

Also, what Genivaria said.

Genivaria wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Because they're in prison. If and when they get out sure but not while they're inside.

Agreed.

Do you want to ban prisoners from writing letters to their representatives as well? That's having a say in politics.

That's probably not even far enough. Ban prisoners from having any contact with the outside world? If they talk to people they might influence how those people vote. Clearly unacceptable.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Dumbest argument I've ever heard, By your logic since people wrote on quilts and paper back then, the 1st Amendment shouldn't apply to the internet.

When it comes to the Net; some times I think the 1st amendment mind set is a bad idea.

How so? Because the internet seems to be getting more and more important for people to exercise free speech in places where they can't.

Genivaria wrote:

Ifreann wrote:So?

Why not?

Because we don't want people who show anti-social behavior to be IN CHARGE of society.

I wasn't aware that the US had more people in prison than outside it.

---

Shrillland wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Why?

Because someone who committed such a crime that they have to spend time in prison has forfeited certain aspects of their rights. They do still have rights as people and as citizens, but not in the same way that they would if they were free. You don't have to get a warrant to search a cell, for example.

You're not giving me any reason why people should lose their democratic rights while in the custody of the state, you're just telling me that they do.

Ifreann wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Because we don't want people who show anti-social behavior to be IN CHARGE of society.

I wasn't aware that the US had more people in prison than outside it.

---

Shrillland wrote:
Because someone who committed such a crime that they have to spend time in prison has forfeited certain aspects of their rights. They do still have rights as people and as citizens, but not in the same way that they would if they were free. You don't have to get a warrant to search a cell, for example.

You're not giving me any reason why people should lose their democratic rights while in the custody of the state, you're just telling me that they do.

Well, Genivaria put it best when he said that those who display such behaviour without being rehabilitated shouldn't be put into a position of power. As for not being allowed to vote...that just comes with not being able to run for office. It's true that many other countries do allow inmates to vote, just not run for office. I'd be OK with such a compromise myself.