Trump announces Brett Kavanaugh as his 2nd SCOTUS nominee.

[UNI88]

You never disappoint. Please explain how allowing felons to vote is an "amazing idea".

But it's "just pandering to the base", right klammy?

They've paid their due to society and should have a voice in how they're governed. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say felons in prison should have a voice.

But you don't care about liberty, so not surprising you'd rather tread on it.

It's funny how partisan hacks on both sides like to pretend that they are the arbiters of what elements of liberty matter and which don't. You care about the rights of convicted felons but not gun owners, of mothers but not unborn children, etc. You're right, they're wrong and there is no middle ground or reason to consider the other side's point of view.

[89Hen]

But you don't care about liberty...

But felons do?

I'm actually OK with paroled felons being able to vote. I too think if you've served your sentence, you've served your sentence.

[UNI88]

Not sure if the first article was posted but better twice than not at all:

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist

Bernie Sanders Wants A Scandinavian-Model Social Insurance System. Sure, Why Not? (For Retirement Anyway)

This lack of knowledge of just what socialism is is reflected in posts seen here on CS that claim “if you like the police, fire departments, and road construction...then you are a socialist...”

As long as humans are involved, any attempt at socialism will eventually (quickly, or over time) become like China, Cambodia, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc...Those in power like the power and privilege and will do anything to keep it, even at the expense of the people they say they serve...

Yep. Those 2 articles provide a pretty good explanation of what socialism is and what the Nordic countries are doing and how they are doing it.

[AZGrizFan]

You never disappoint. Please explain how allowing felons to vote is an "amazing idea".

But it's "just pandering to the base", right klammy?

They've paid their due to society and should have a voice in how they're governed. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say felons in prison should have a voice.

But you don't care about liberty, so not surprising you'd rather tread on it.

I didn't tread on it. They did when they broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences. Losing the privilege of voting is one of those consequences. If it ain't broke, don' fix it. There's only ONE reason donks suddenly want felons to vote, and it ain't about "liberty": it's because they're certain they'll vote overwhelmingly donk. If donks thought for one second the majority of felons would vote conk, donks would be against this til the cows come home.

[Ivytalk]

They've paid their due to society and should have a voice in how they're governed. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say felons in prison should have a voice.

But you don't care about liberty, so not surprising you'd rather tread on it.

I didn't tread on it. They did when they broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences. Losing the privilege of voting is one of those consequences. If it ain't broke, don' fix it. There's only ONE reason donks suddenly want felons to vote, and it ain't about "liberty": it's because they're certain they'll vote overwhelmingly donk. If donks thought for one second the majority of felons would vote conk, donks would be against this til the cows come home.

Yup. Same reason they want illegals to vote.

[89Hen]

I didn't tread on it. They did when they broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences. Losing the privilege of voting is one of those consequences. If it ain't broke, don' fix it. There's only ONE reason donks suddenly want felons to vote, and it ain't about "liberty": it's because they're certain they'll vote overwhelmingly donk. If donks thought for one second the majority of felons would vote conk, donks would be against this til the cows come home.

Yup. Same reason they want illegals to vote.

It's kind of odd. Libs love to point out the study that libs on average have higher IQ's and more college degrees, but they also have the market cornered on felons and illegals.

[UNI88]

But you don't care about liberty...

But felons do?

I'm actually OK with paroled felons being able to vote. I too think if you've served your sentence, you've served your sentence.

Hey Trip, 89 is a lot more open-minded than most progressives. He's ok with paroled felons being able to vote and he's changed his position on the death penalty. And if you really read his arguments about abortion it's not about religious doctrine, he's against abortion because he feels strongly that the life of the unborn child is worth saving. I don't always agree with him but I respect his conviction.

It isn't the black & white, the other side are evil and my side is virtuous, pablum that both sides like to peddle.

[Baldy]

You never disappoint. Please explain how allowing felons to vote is an "amazing idea".

But it's "just pandering to the base", right klammy?

They've paid their due to society and should have a voice in how they're governed. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say felons in prison should have a voice.

But you don't care about liberty, so not surprising you'd rather tread on it.

Let me make this crystal clear to the point that even you can understand.

If you break the law, then you do not have a voice in deciding laws for the rest of society.

[Ivytalk]

They've paid their due to society and should have a voice in how they're governed. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say felons in prison should have a voice.

But you don't care about liberty, so not surprising you'd rather tread on it.

Let me make this crystal clear to the point that even you can understand.

If you break the law, then you do not have a voice in deciding laws for the rest of society.

That’s right. Trips is culturally stunted when it comes to liberty.

[css75]

Look...I know you can’t quit me, but if you go back, nothing much has changed from my original point. Z’s list was over the top and the right wing equivalent of TDS.

AOCD

A person cannot have a disorder over a joke and idiot, who has great experience as a bartender. Nice try though, thanks for playing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Not sure if the first article was posted but better twice than not at all:

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist



Bernie Sanders Wants A Scandinavian-Model Social Insurance System. Sure, Why Not? (For Retirement Anyway)

This lack of knowledge of just what socialism is is reflected in posts seen here on CS that claim “if you like the police, fire departments, and road construction...then you are a socialist...”

As long as humans are involved, any attempt at socialism will eventually (quickly, or over time) become like China, Cambodia, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc...Those in power like the power and privilege and will do anything to keep it, even at the expense of the people they say they serve...

Same with crony capitalism. Or do you really think the billions donated to political campaigns each cycle are truly ideologically/philanthropically based? US politicians are the vehicle to those actually in power.

The comments regarding socialist fire departments are just the opposite of what you think they are...that is, mostly satirical. Reasonable people aren't afraid of a mixed economy because it's worked here and elsewhere. 88's two articles support this idea. I'd say the right is just as guilty in their fears of Bernie turning us into a socialist country when Medicare For All just covers the insurance rather than the government controlled production of medical services.

Cid's earlier point about college education is a far better example.

[∞∞∞]

Let me make this crystal clear to the point that even you can understand.

If you break the law, then you do not have a voice in deciding laws for the rest of society.

That’s right. Trips is culturally stunted when it comes to liberty.

And you're a morally-stunted and vindictive lawyer.

It might make you feel good to punish people who get convicted, but you basically say "you don’t deserve the right to vote about any issue which affects your family, your neighborhood, your future, or the planet.” But if you commit any number of crimes - serious or otherwise - and don’t get caught, well by all means you get to vote! So where do you draw the line? You don’t. Everyone gets to vote.

I’m not going to lose sleep if the rare mass murderer gets to vote, but the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty and take away your right to representation that allows you to challenge the laws that permit them to take your liberty.

ps. Most felonies are drug-related.

[kalm]

That’s right. Trips is culturally stunted when it comes to liberty.

And you're a morally-stunted and vindictive lawyer.

It might make you feel good to punish people who get convicted, but you basically say "you don’t deserve the right to vote about any issue which affects your family, your neighborhood, your future, or the planet.” But if you commit any number of crimes - serious or otherwise - and don’t get caught, well by all means you get to vote! So where do you draw the line? You don’t. Everyone gets to vote.

I’m not going to lose sleep if the rare mass murderer gets to vote, but the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty and take away your right to representation that allows you to challenge the laws that permit them to take your liberty.

ps. Most felonies are drug-related offenses.

Whole lotta lazy thinking going on in this thread.

[Ivytalk]

That’s right. Trips is culturally stunted when it comes to liberty.

And you're a morally-stunted and vindictive lawyer.

It might make you feel good to punish people who get convicted, but you basically say "you don’t deserve the right to vote about any issue which affects your family, your neighborhood, your future, or the planet.” But if you commit any number of crimes - serious or otherwise - and don’t get caught, well by all means you get to vote! So where do you draw the line? You don’t. Everyone gets to vote.

I’m not going to lose sleep if the rare mass murderer gets to vote, but the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty and take away your right to representation that allows you to challenge the laws that permit them to take your liberty.

ps. Most felonies are drug-related.

Oh, I touched a raw nerve of the young millennial. Let me get this straight. It’s relatively easy to “draw a line,” actually. You favor a felon’s right to elect a representative to challenge a law criminalizing first-degree murder or kidnapping, and you obviously oppose jailing someone for a drug offense, whether using or selling. You’re probably in the jury nullification camp as well, based on that post. If a convicted felon pays his/her debt to society and is released, I have no problem with reinstating his/her voting rights. But while someone is in prison, which necessarily entails a loss of “liberty,” loss of the voting privilege is no different from the loss of any other right that a law-abiding citizen enjoys, such as freedom of association and the right to travel.

Shoddy reasoning.

[UNI88]

And you're a morally-stunted and vindictive lawyer.

It might make you feel good to punish people who get convicted, but you basically say "you don’t deserve the right to vote about any issue which affects your family, your neighborhood, your future, or the planet.” But if you commit any number of crimes - serious or otherwise - and don’t get caught, well by all means you get to vote! So where do you draw the line? You don’t. Everyone gets to vote.

I’m not going to lose sleep if the rare mass murderer gets to vote, but the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty and take away your right to representation that allows you to challenge the laws that permit them to take your liberty.

ps. Most felonies are drug-related offenses.

Whole lotta lazy thinking going on in this thread.

It is lazy to throw your political dogma out there and then ignore responses that contradict your belief that your side is good and the other side is evil.

It's also naive to think that "the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty".

[Baldy]

That’s right. Trips is culturally stunted when it comes to liberty.

And you're a morally-stunted and vindictive lawyer.

It might make you feel good to punish people who get convicted, but you basically say "you don’t deserve the right to vote about any issue which affects your family, your neighborhood, your future, or the planet.” But if you commit any number of crimes - serious or otherwise - and don’t get caught, well by all means you get to vote! So where do you draw the line? You don’t. Everyone gets to vote.

I’m not going to lose sleep if the rare mass murderer gets to vote, but the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty and take away your right to representation that allows you to challenge the laws that permit them to take your liberty.

ps. Most felonies are drug-related.

The line is pretty clear and distinct. If you don't wanna lose your voting privileges, don't be a convicted felon.

[Ivytalk]

Whole lotta lazy thinking going on in this thread.

It is lazy to throw your political dogma out there and then ignore responses that contradict your belief that your side is good and the other side is evil.

It's also naive to think that "the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty".

Are you running against Ganny for “Centrist of the year”?

Nobody likes a common scold.

[UNI88]

It is lazy to throw your political dogma out there and then ignore responses that contradict your belief that your side is good and the other side is evil.

It's also naive to think that "the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty".

Are you running against Ganny for “Centrist of the year”?

Nobody likes a common scold.

When he's rational (ie not talking about the Hens or Philly sports teams) Ganny is like the Borg and I can't compete with that.

I was just trying to help Kalm realize that Trip has been just as lazy as any Conk on this thread, throwing sh!t up and walking away without defending it.

[Ivytalk]

Are you running against Ganny for “Centrist of the year”?

Nobody likes a common scold.

When he's rational (ie not talking about the Hens or Philly sports teams) Ganny is like the Borg and I can't compete with that.

I was just trying to help Kalm realize that Trip has been just as lazy as any Conk on this thread, throwing sh!t up and walking away without defending it.

88, you are the CS.com World Police!

[kalm]

Whole lotta lazy thinking going on in this thread.

It is lazy to throw your political dogma out there and then ignore responses that contradict your belief that your side is good and the other side is evil.

It's also naive to think that "the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty".

I’m not emotionally attached to ideology and I don’t think you and IT are either. But trip is making a solid libertarian point here regarding liberty and the role government plays in incarcerating people for victimless crimes.

[css75]

It is lazy to throw your political dogma out there and then ignore responses that contradict your belief that your side is good and the other side is evil.

It's also naive to think that "the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty".

I’m not emotionally attached to ideology and I don’t think you and IT are either. But trip is making a solid libertarian point here regarding liberty and the role government plays in incarcerating people for victimless crimes.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Druggies families are very much a victim.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

It is lazy to throw your political dogma out there and then ignore responses that contradict your belief that your side is good and the other side is evil.

It's also naive to think that "the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty".

I’m not emotionally attached to ideology and I don’t think you and IT are either. But trip is making a solid libertarian point here regarding liberty and the role government plays in incarcerating people for victimless crimes.

That’s a misdirection and you know it

If treep were making a pitch for decriminalization then I’d agree with him

But he is arguing that all incarcerated felons should be able to vote and that is not nearly the libertarian position that the criminalization of narcotics argument is. He mentions that most felons in prison are there for narcotics- fine... make the argument that THEY should be allowed.

I’m personally fine with felons who have served their time being allowed to vote. But from conviction to release they should not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

It is lazy to throw your political dogma out there and then ignore responses that contradict your belief that your side is good and the other side is evil.

It's also naive to think that "the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty".

I’m not emotionally attached to ideology and I don’t think you and IT are either. But trip is making a solid libertarian point here regarding liberty and the role government plays in incarcerating people for victimless crimes.

Victimless crime. WAFJ.

[UNI88]

I’m not emotionally attached to ideology and I don’t think you and IT are either. But trip is making a solid libertarian point here regarding liberty and the role government plays in incarcerating people for victimless crimes.

That’s a misdirection and you know it

If treep were making a pitch for decriminalization then I’d agree with him

But he is arguing that all incarcerated felons should be able to vote and that is not nearly the libertarian position that the criminalization of narcotics argument is. He mentions that most felons in prison are there for narcotics- fine... make the argument that THEY should be allowed.

I’m personally fine with felons who have served their time being allowed to vote. But from conviction to release they should not

CID is spot on but we're also missing that Trip argues that "the government should never be allowed to take away your liberty." So even if you have been convicted of first-degree murder, you shouldn't be incarcerated? You have taken away another person's life and liberty but yours shouldn't be taken away as a result? And on top of that, earlier in the thread Trip has argued that Kavanaugh should be impeached from the court because of accusations, not charges much less a conviction. That's fvcked up and I would like to hear his justification for the two positions.

[css75]

Trip will not be seen here until that subject has been moved on from.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk