That may be, but the studies – one of which I referred to in my link – show that the strong trend is to the opposite. So it’s not all that important to hear about the felons you personally know – the question is what the weight of the numbers say.
Your cite offers good and solid evidence of the Republican conspiracy to bugger the right to vote. I forgive you, egotist te absolvo, go, and sin no more than usual.
Why even wait for them to be released? Prisoners are wards of the state, they should have at least some small voice in how the state is run; and there should be an incentive for candidates to visit prisons while campaigning and actually see what they’re like close up, and remember that when next voting on any crime-related bill.
Well, as I say, for the purposes of this particular sub-discussion, I concede the point: Republicans don’t want felons to vote because they would vote Democratic.
But that’s precisely the point Chronos’ observation denies.
If you don’t need an ID to vote, you shouldn’t need one to buy a gun.
Also, any felon should be able to vote and own a gun if they are released.
If they are deemed capable of returning to society, they should obviously be able to do both.
If not, they can stay in prison and get free cable tv.
That’s a great example of reductio ad absurdum, but what do you think about the topic being discussed?
I’ll let it simmer.
That convinces me (at least on this particular point). But what you had in fact said can be reasonably paraphrased as “well, obviously.” And it’s not obvious to me, absent a citation (which, again, you eventually provided).
The fact that you’re unwilling to read a citation doesn’t make it not a citation.
Sure, but the quoted part supports my case against the intentions of the Republican Party in suppressing the vote. Which he didn’t quote until pressed to, leaving the perfectly reasonable suspicion that he was trying to pull a slow one.
Damned white of you. Cute as the Dickens, too!
Even those hotheads talking about all men being equal didn’t say a thing about the women. Here’s Bricker’s dream–the results of the 2012 election ifonly White Men had the vote. (He’ll be in his bunk.)
Back in the real world*–theFeds have filed suitto block enforcement of the Texas Voter ID law.
Lots of legal goodies there for those who like that stuff.
- Is Texas the real world? Even here, a Felon who has completed his sentence (incarceration, parole, probation) regains the right to vote…
That’s a pretty unlikely dream for me to have – I’m not white. What bizarre thinking might motivate me to dream about a country in which I am denied the franchise?
Fair point. It wasn’t all that obvious, absent citation. Sorry to have implied otherwise…
Oh, they’ll let you in, Bricker. Probably put you right in front of the group photo. You don’t have to born white anymore, it can be achieved. Course, if you are born white, its damned hard to resign from.
Perhaps we find ourselves in the oddest circumstance, you’re whiter than me, and I’m whiter than you. Doesn’t make much sense, but did it ever?
The states run the gamut, from two which permit felons to vote even while incarcerated to twelve which remove the vote permanently (or subject to a governor’s actions such as a pardon).
Others restore voting rights after incarceration, parole, probation, or some combination thereof have been completed. Delaware, to pick an interesting example, allows felons to vote after serving their full sentence including incarceration, parole, and probation…unless the predicate offense was murder or manslaughter, felony bribery, improper influence or abuse of office… or a felony sexual offense. Felons in those categories remain permanently barred.
Or he was admitting to suppressing votes.
Well, shoot, they had to pass a law to get rid of poll taxes and literacy tests so the question is whether that law covers this bullshit too.
Yeah, except you already have that ID; others need to go out of their way and take a day off to get theirs which they need for no other purpose than to vote. Not everybody has any need for a driver’s license.
Yeah but not to vote. I know a lot of taxpayers that don’t have the right to vote. So what the fuck does taxation have to do with the right to vote?
What if we said that anyone on welfare, unemployment and food stamps, can vote but everyone else will have to go and get a special ID to vote.
Oh, you better* believe* that would be unConstitutional. Also, a paddlin’.
I’ve told this story in numerous threads. I went to my polling place in Los Angeles County and when I got up to sign the book, someone else had been there and scrawled thier signature next to mine. I was given a provisional ballot which may or may not have counted had there been a recount. The poll workers were completely disinterested that someone voted using my name even when I tried to prove who I was. So what was the net effect?
- Someone voted illegally using my name.
- My vote would not count unless a situation came about when provisional ballots were looked at but
a) No guaranty of that
b) Still does not nullify the illegal votes
To be honest I’m tired of telling this story because everytime I do, the Lefties on the board minimize what happened by saying the illegal voting/disenfranchizing of a citizen via voter fraud isn’t really all that important in this isolated case because it only happened once. HOWEVER, if I said I was a poor old black woman living in the Bayou that didn’t have a picture ID (note I didn’t say I couldn’t get it) and how the White Republican Devil Slave-Masters 
wouldn’t let me vote, you can bet the Lefties would be all up in that saying “See Bricker! We told you that Voter ID laws disenfranchise people.”
Saint Cad, You’ve offered zero evidence that your personal experience involved in-person voter fraud. We’ve seen multiple cites in a variety of threads showing that clerical errors (recording of an incorrect name by the poll worker or equivalent mistake) explains virtually every such case that underwent investigation. Our discounting of your anecdote has little to do with “Lefties” refusing to believe evidence of massive amounts of voter fraud. It has to do with the fact that there is no evidence that voter fraud is anything more than minuscule. And your one-off does little to persuade us otherwise.
You were given a provisional ballot and, had the race been anywhere near close enough for your vote to matter, investigation would have determined if your provisional should be counted as an additional vote, or as a substitute for an unallowable vote. Most likely, based on the cases cited elsewhere, the “fraudulent” vote you are so exercised about would be found to have been cast by a legally registered voter in your precinct having the name ‘Saint Cade’ which was incorrectly recorded.
Well, that’s all true, perhaps, but it doesn’t have any bearing on the all important issue of liberal hypocrisy.
[Emily Litella voice] Oh… Never mind. [/ELvoice]