re: AG Holder wants felons to vote primarily because of race

quote:

---

hawkeye007

---

quote:

---

TD political talk lala land they are all hard working,tax paying, never committed a crime people..

---

Believe it or not hawkeye, there are those of us who still do exist.

I find it funny that in today's society hard working, tax paying, never committed a crime people are frowned upon. We really are screwed.

quote:

---

hawkeye007

---

The thing that pisses me off Hawkeye is I'm quickly watching our society become totally dependent on drugs, both legal and illegal; many of those who use illegal drugs want me to condone it then pity them when they are asked to pay the consequences of their actions.

I realize some people can be rehabilitated, and I applaud those folks. BUT there are those who celebrate their drug use but want me to treat them like a frickin' victim.

If I thought for one moment legalizing pot would make it less attractive to our youth, I would be all for it. I will tell you reading some of the posts of regular users passing judgment on me makes me angry. How dare I use myself as an example of restraint?? How dare I contradict the thoughts of those who need drugs to get by??

Being around my bf's scumbag son has totally changed my perspective on everything about drugs. And yes, he is a scumbag who not only gets high but has introduced this fricked up lifestyle to others and gotten them hooked. I hope he pays for what he's done because he's so damn arrogant about it. He's proud of it!

So forgive me if my view seems harsh; if you've gotten your life together that's wonderful. BUT, rampant drug use is destroying our youth and we will all pay for that.

i dont know the whole situation but i will say that age makes everyone arrogant doesnt matter if its drugs or just about life in general. most people that abuse drugs or alcohol for that matter have some deep seated issue they are not dealing with. i hear the arguement alot about how legalizing drugs will affect our children. big tobacco and alcohol target kids on a regular basis. i am not in favor of legalizing all drugs just Marijuana if you take away the illegal part of the drug it makes it less cool in kids eyes trust me on that one. also if you want to keep your kids off drugs get involved with them and be a good parent.

quote:

---

also if you want to keep your kids off drugs get involved with them and be a good parent.

---

I agree with you there. Trust me, I saw the signs from the very beginning and I said something to his Dad. (He is not my child) I was told it was none of my business and I was just trying to find things wrong with his son. My bf was confronted with the truth several times, and he chose to keep the blinders on. Now, the kid has a record and doesn't care - he thinks he's a victim of society's judgment of him.

To make matters worse, his Dad brought him back into his house two weeks after I moved in and had him sign a contract with several conditions. If he broke any of the rules, he would be kicked out. Well, this kid broke EVERY one of those rules within the first month and my bf has allowed it. So, one of us had to go and after six months it was me. I told him I don't trust him and don't feel safe around him. He told me, "I know what my son is capable of." REALLY???

Yes, I'm angry.

I walked out of the house, and I stay away from the boy, but I haven't totally walked away from him. It's just not the same and I'm sure the total break is coming...

Yes, we have hijacked. I appreciate your insight and you allowing me to vent. Have a great day!

I will definitely agree with the lower information category part. The idealistic part of me really wants to say that everyone should vote regardless of how much information they have, since voting is a vital tool for the health and accountability of a representative government.

But then I watch who they elect and I have a lot of trouble being okay with it.

Incidentally, check THIS out:

quote:

---

“Would changes to a handful of elections have had any real impact? Since 1978, there have been over 400 Senate elections, and we find 7 outcomes that may have been reversed if not for the disenfranchisement of felons and ex-felons. Yet even this small number might have shifted the balance of power in the Senate, which has been fairly evenly divided between the two major parties over this period. To assess this possibility, we recomputed the U.S. Senate composition after each election.”

---

quote:

---

“Although the outcome of the extraordinarily close 2000 presidential election could have been altered by a large number of factors, [The 2000 presidential election] would almost certainly have been reversed had voting rights been extended to any category of disenfranchised felons. Even though Al Gore won a plurality of the popular vote, defeating the Republican George W. Bush by over 500,000 votes, he lost narrowly in the Electoral College. Had disenfranchised fel- ons been permitted to vote, we estimate that Gore's margin of victory in the popular vote would have surpassed 1 million votes, as shown in Table 4a. Regardless of the popular vote, however, one state – Florida - held the balance of power. If disenfranchised felons in Florida had been permitted to vote, Democrat Gore would certainly have carried the state, and the election.”

---

The voting power of felons would definitely be enough to sway elections and create tangible policy differences with a partial felon voting base. I'm still not convinced that's worth more than the potential public safety benefit, but it's definitely worthy food for though.

Oh, Holder is totally being partisan. His motivations here are super clear. From a non-partisan standpoint though, re-enfranchisement has some policy merit.

Speaking of getting the right to vote back, there are some states who enfranchise post release, but that's only part of the story. All those numbers on how many people are disenfranchised are those who are barred by law. There is an even greater of number of people who are de-facto disenfranchised because of the way the system works. Namely the lack of uniformity. States are so different that there is a lot of misinformation about who is allowed to apply for re-enfranchisement and who is not. The process is also rather difficult for people with limited resources or who have a limited understanding of their legal options.

quote:

---

"Nearly three-fourths of individuals who are prevented from voting are not incarcerated. Although every state has procedures in place for obtaining a restoration of voting rights, many of these procedures are so involved and technical as to operate as de facto bars to restoration for those ex-offenders with limited resources and education. Indeed, the characterization of restoration as a hollow remedy is further supported by the fact that very few individuals subject to disenfranchisement ever successfully get the right to vote back – in 11 different states that practice disenfranchisement, fewer than 3% of ex-felons who were disenfranchised have successfully gotten their voting rights restored."

---

LINK

(There are I believe three states who permanently remove the franchise without any hope of appeal, contrary to the insinuation of the quote. Which doesn't reflect well on these two educated sirs. But we can overlook that. )

quote:

---

If you want to argue that non-violent possessors of marijuana are punished to harshly that is another subject.

---

I think in general disenfranchisement is simply counterproductive, not just non-violent criminals. The thread spun off a bit into why it would or would not be justified as an idea, which is why my observations are detached from Holder. I think Holder is a moron.

quote:

---

olgoi khorkhoi

---

I'm so glad you were "scared straight" and turned your life around.