Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas

[Washington Resistance Army]

...No it won't, lol. That's the point of breaking quorum.

It will when they're arrested, dragged into the chamber and forced to do their job.

They've already left state if I'm not mistaken, they can't be arrested.

[The Republic of Fore]

2.Nothing stops them from doing that amazing thing called "not committing a felony." Instead of selling drugs to feed their starving grandma, they should go work at walmart. More money and you won't go to prison. And even for those that already did, there's some jobs that do still hire felons.

I don't think you know much about Walmart or drug dealing if you think working for the former makes more money lol

A study by the university of chicago showed the average drug dealer makes 20,000 a year. Walmart starts people at 11 an hour, which is about 23k a year. And the average pay is 13.12 which works out to about 27,300 a year. Take your snark somewhere else.

[The Republic of Fore]

It will when they're arrested, dragged into the chamber and forced to do their job.

They've already left state if I'm not mistaken, they can't be arrested.

They're returning if I'm not mistaken. Even if they wait till the special session ends that won't stop the bill being reintroduced in another session.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't think you know much about Walmart or drug dealing if you think working for the former makes more money lol

A study by the university of chicago showed the average drug dealer makes 20,000 a year. Walmart starts people at 11 an hour, which is about 23k a year. And the average pay is 13.12 which works out to about 27,300 a year. Take your snark somewhere else.

That study is 20 years old and gave a range of 20,000-30,000, which puts Walmart on the low end of drug dealing.

[The Republic of Fore]

A study by the university of chicago showed the average drug dealer makes 20,000 a year. Walmart starts people at 11 an hour, which is about 23k a year. And the average pay is 13.12 which works out to about 27,300 a year. Take your snark somewhere else.

That study is 20 years old and gave a range of 20,000-30,000, which puts Walmart on the low end of drug dealing.

Drug dealers also don't get annual raises or promotions. And walamart comes with a much less risk of being shot, or having every penny you've earned seized through civil asset forfeiture. But hey, if somebody values that extra 230 a month on the high end of average that they're willing to risk being killed by random gangbanger x that's on them.

[Forsher]

My question is... why is drug dealing versus Walmart relevant to a discussion about electoral reform in Texas?

[Necroghastia]

...No it won't, lol. That's the point of breaking quorum.

It will when they're arrested, dragged into the chamber and forced to do their job.

Their job of sticking up for their constituents?

[The Emerald Legion]

Honestly just declare the missing representatives missing persons, and if they don't show up in state to dispute it, have them legally declared dead.

[Heloin]

Honestly just declare the missing representatives missing persons, and if they don't show up in state to dispute it, have them legally declared dead.

People generally need to be missing for several years to do that. Also they have to actually be missing.

[Ifreann]

In most places, conviction for a criminal offence does not lead to the revocation of one's citizenship. So if voting is tied to citizenship, and citizenship is not tied to criminal convictions, why should the right to vote be tied to criminal conviction?

It does lead to a partial stripping of the rights often associated with citizenship. You do not, for instance, allow felons, especially violent felons, freedom of movement. Such rights are restricted in the interest of safeguarding society or as a matter of principle.

Freedom of movement isn't associated with citizenship. America doesn't have citizen only zones. Non-citizens in the US can move as freely as citizens.

I have explained the justification behind why murderers and rapists especially should be denied the vote, namely they have behaved as predators within society flouting the rights of fellow citizens and laws. It is thus just that they lose any say in policy until they are deemed to have reformed and done penance. Because their actions have revealed them to be bad actors and you do not give bad actors those sorts of responsibilities. And voting is as much a responsibility as a right in my view.

But disenfranchised felons do not lose any say in policy. Disenfranchised felons retain the right to free speech and to protest. They are not barred from appearing on television or writing a newspaper article advocating for some policy position or other. They are not restricted from contacting the government to make their wishes known. They might not have voted for anyone in that government, but elected representatives represent, in theory, their whole constituency, not only the people who voted for them. You can still call up your representative to complain about the bear tax or whatever, regardless of if you voted for them or their opponent or if you stayed home on election day.

---

Honestly just declare the missing representatives missing persons, and if they don't show up in state to dispute it, have them legally declared dead.

A person must be missing for a period of seven years without any contact or communication before they can be declared dead in Texas.

[Vassenor]

All this because the Democrats don't like the idea of voter suppression.

[San Lumen]

Honestly just declare the missing representatives missing persons, and if they don't show up in state to dispute it, have them legally declared dead.

You cannot do that. One cannot be declared missing or legally dead if their whereabouts are known.

[The Emerald Legion]

Honestly just declare the missing representatives missing persons, and if they don't show up in state to dispute it, have them legally declared dead.

You cannot do that. One cannot be declared missing or legally dead if their whereabouts are known.

Are their whereabouts known? They're not where they're legally required to be and can't be found by the authorities. Clearly they've gone missing. Probably eaten by sharks or something.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

You cannot do that. One cannot be declared missing or legally dead if their whereabouts are known.

Are their whereabouts known? They're not where they're legally required to be and can't be found by the authorities. Clearly they've gone missing. Probably eaten by sharks or something.

It would require that legislation be passed to change the Texas laws about missing persons.

There's something of a logistical hurdle at the moment, regarding that particular quibble.

[Neutraligon]

You cannot do that. One cannot be declared missing or legally dead if their whereabouts are known.

Are their whereabouts known? They're not where they're legally required to be and can't be found by the authorities. Clearly they've gone missing. Probably eaten by sharks or something.

Last I heard they had headed to DC.

[Ifreann]

You cannot do that. One cannot be declared missing or legally dead if their whereabouts are known.

Are their whereabouts known? They're not where they're legally required to be and can't be found by the authorities. Clearly they've gone missing. Probably eaten by sharks or something.

Have they been missing for seven years?

[Forsher]

Are their whereabouts known? They're not where they're legally required to be and can't be found by the authorities. Clearly they've gone missing. Probably eaten by sharks or something.

Have they been missing for seven years?

Seven years is a long time in politics.

[Myrensis]

You cannot do that. One cannot be declared missing or legally dead if their whereabouts are known.

Are their whereabouts known? They're not where they're legally required to be and can't be found by the authorities. Clearly they've gone missing. Probably eaten by sharks or something.

Their whereabouts are known, and Texas is perfectly free to make as many extradition requests as they like for their return, preferably holding their breath while they do it.

[Elwher]

They're supposed to vote when bills are being considered. Not run away and hide because they're mad that blue Texas hasn't happened yet.

That's not the motivation for what is being done and you damn well know that. Again, are representatives not meant to advance their constituents' interests?

Within certain limits. If the constituent's interests were best served by shooting those in opposition so as to give your side a majority, should they do so?

[Myrensis]

That's not the motivation for what is being done and you damn well know that. Again, are representatives not meant to advance their constituents' interests?

Within certain limits. If the constituent's interests were best served by shooting those in opposition so as to give your side a majority, should they do so?

Good thing that's not even remotely similar to what is happening here then.

[Elwher]

Within certain limits. If the constituent's interests were best served by shooting those in opposition so as to give your side a majority, should they do so?

Good thing that's not even remotely similar to what is happening here then.

So we have set an upper limit to the range of things one can do as a legislator to advance the interests of the constituents, no shooting the opposition.

What is set as the lower limit?

[New Rogernomics]

Some people presumably want to allow inmates to vote. And the fact that a lot of rapists get off with slaps on the wrist when, more justly, they would be hanged does not mean that we should not hold those who get more than a slap on the wrist to account. I don't think such people have very much worthwhile to say on average, and those who do may be granted a special dispensation in the event that they're deemed to have reformed themselves.

Which is not what I was getting at, as the issue I was getting at involves people not even getting to prison, and escaping it entirely through community service and fines, while an African American or poor white person would be punished to the full extent of the law and get no special treatment, spending their lives in prison.

The most disgusting example was where a judge who agreed with the logic of a rich father connected to the education institution, who said his son "just wanted a piece of action", after his son raped an unconscious female student. The judge was biased due to his ties to that same education institution, and was recalled, but the fact that a judge like that was allowed to exist at all, and rule in the case according to his personal bias, brings the integrity of the justice system into question. The rapist walked free, while the victim suffers from the rape and the knowledge that the justice system fails women when they need it the most.

More recently DNA evidence prevents many of the most incompetent career advancing prosecutiors from wrongful identifications and thus wrongful convictions, though they still exist.

And I think you don't have the evidence to demonstrate that most incarcerated felons didn't actually commit the crimes they were convicted of committing. And "black people commit more felonies" is really not the strong point you think it is. Framed as it is, it just comes across as BS's "13 do 50." And I shouldn't need to explain why that particular talking point is stupid. On a sociological and CRT level, the relationship of African-Americans to the criminal justice system does warrant the promotion of racial justice and the closing of racial disparities, but it does not mean individual felons should not be held to account for things they did that hurt other people - who were also probably African American.

That wasn't what I was getting at there. I was instead getting at that around 90-97% of criminal convictions are plea bargains, and that if you are talking about murder or rape at the extreme, depending on the state they won't ever be released if the full sentence was reached. This is why those released on such an extreme crime would be those where a plea agreement could be applied. It would be also incorrect to infer that criminals convicted of murder or rape cannot be found innocent and then released, or that a conviction cannot be obtained for the wrong person, while the actual criminal stays free, but evidence obtained at the time made them the most likely suspect.

The problem is that many states characterize all criminals as equally deserving of a revocation of voting rights, in ignorance of the circumstances of that conviction, as is true of the blanket ban in Florida, which targets poor criminals, mostly African Americans who cannot hope to pay back the state to get their voting rights back. That's where the racial targeting comes in, as those voters at least in the eyes of the Republicans who control the state, would be mostly Democrats, and that since Republicans have been so opposed to them regaining the right to vote, they wouldn't be entirely wrong there. Effectively the Republican legislature and Governor refused to carry out the referendum passed by voters, as they'd risk more being out of a job. So it is a very dishonest debate with dishonest reasons IMO, which border on a political power grab and greed at best, and racism at worst.

That's why I'd be hesitant to trust even the assumption that criminals are inherently undeserving of the vote, as if it isn't a case by case decision and is about being rich enough to regain the right to vote. It is a class-based and indirectly or directly race based policy on release, and not one based on risk to the public for bad criminal influences on politics.

[Necroghastia]

That's not the motivation for what is being done and you damn well know that. Again, are representatives not meant to advance their constituents' interests?

Within certain limits. If the constituent's interests were best served by shooting those in opposition so as to give your side a majority, should they do so?

That would also break quorum, so what would be the point?

[The Black Forrest]

I don't think you know much about Walmart or drug dealing if you think working for the former makes more money lol

A study by the university of chicago showed the average drug dealer makes 20,000 a year. Walmart starts people at 11 an hour, which is about 23k a year. And the average pay is 13.12 which works out to about 27,300 a year. Take your snark somewhere else.

And? You are also talking about a company who has food drives for their employees.

[New Rogernomics]

A study by the university of chicago showed the average drug dealer makes 20,000 a year. Walmart starts people at 11 an hour, which is about 23k a year. And the average pay is 13.12 which works out to about 27,300 a year. Take your snark somewhere else.

And? You are also talking about a company who has food drives for their employees.

Also a far lower risk of death or imprisonment, taking into account workplace accidents.