• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:794]Bloomberg pays fines for 32,000 felons in Florida so they can vote

How is this idiocy still going on?

He gave money to a charity that exists to pay off the disenfranchising debts of freed felons. There's no requirement that they promise to vote a certain way and if there were it would be, while illegal, completely unenforceable anyway. That ain't vote buying.

Vote buying is me going door to door saying I'll give you $100 if you promise to vote for a candidate and another $1000 if you text me a selfie with your ballot voting the way I want.
 
AlphaOmega said:
lol...you're the one ignoring this white privilege. Hmmmm there goes that leftist talking point. Gone as quickly as it came. lmao @ hypocrites
Click to expand...
He is invincible!!!!!





I love it
 
OpportunityCost said:
I'm doing it because you are ignoring what restitution is and how it is used. You are the one trying to change its definition and use into a poll tax when it clearly isn't such.
Click to expand...

I’m not ignoring anything. I’m responding to the argument with my own points, and explaining them. You don’t have to agree, but you could make a stronger argument. rather than whining about what I’m saying.
 
AlphaOmega said:
This is what judges are used for...and prisons.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say to see someone totally ignoring the fact that the current American rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Their Guys") is that

"At the very first moment that it is first rumoured that there might conceivably be something that resembles an accusation of something that could possibly be considered to be faintly similar to an act that theoretically amounts to a breach of the law, then that person is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** and any court finding otherwise is a perversion of justice."
​
this, of course, is in contrast to the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Our Guys") which is

"Until such time as the person has been indicted, has been tried, has been convicted, has exhausted all appeals (regardless of how frivolous) without overturning the unjustly and illegally obtained verdict AND it has been 100% conclusively proved that there is a 0.00% chance that that unjust and illegally obtained verdict was NOT the result of a huge, vast, enormous, hidden, secret, covert, conspiracy to destroy America by making same-sex/inter-racial marriages mandatory, forcing women to have abortions, compelling fluoridation and vaccination, imposing Sherry Law, and making all the Cheerleaders wear Burke Hats, then the person is ***I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T***, which means that the so-called "alleged" act never happened, which thus means that no investigation should ever be done because it is an abuse of process AND a VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to investigate an ***I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T*** person.".
​
 
AlphaOmega said:
Of course not...hes a rich white privileged billionaire. He can use his money to interfere with elections and keep himself out of prison. Remember when the left pretended to not like that stuff? Yeah....me too.
Click to expand...
Mind you, it doesn't appear that "the (American) Right" has ever had any problems with it.

<SARC>So it does look like Mr. Trump IS "uniting the country" - doesn't it</SARC>?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say to see someone totally ignoring the fact that the current American rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Their Guys") is that
​
"At the very first moment that it is first rumoured that there might conceivably be something that resembles an accusation of something that could possibly be considered to be faintly similar to an act that theoretically amounts to a breach of the law, then that person is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** and any court finding otherwise is a perversion of justice."​
​
this, of course, is in contrast to the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Our Guys") which is
​
"Until such time as the person has been indicted, has been tried, has been convicted, has exhausted all appeals (regardless of how frivolous) without overturning the unjustly and illegally obtained verdict AND it has been 100% conclusively proved that there is a 0.00% chance that that unjust and illegally obtained verdict was NOT the result of a huge, vast, enormous, hidden, secret, covert, conspiracy to destroy America by making same-sex/inter-racial marriages mandatory, forcing women to have abortions, compelling fluoridation and vaccination, imposing Sherry Law, and making all the Cheerleaders wear Burke Hats, then the person is ***I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T***, which means that the so-called "alleged" act never happened, which thus means that no investigation should ever be done because it is an abuse of process AND a VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to investigate an ***I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T*** person.".​
​
Click to expand...
Wow this really has lefties knickers in a bunch. LOL. Chin up we already knew you guys had no problem with people screwing with our elections.
 
bongsaway said:
Are they charges or accusations?
Click to expand...
Accusations at the moment. Doubt there will ever be any charges. That seems to be the way things work today. Especially for the rich and powerful.
 
Overitall said:
Accusations at the moment. Doubt there will ever be any charges. That seems to be the way things work today. Especially for the rich and powerful.
Click to expand...

It’s almost like our criminal justice system is rigged.
 
AlphaOmega said:
lol...you're the one ignoring this white privilege.
Click to expand...

The white privilege of... being a white billionaire with money paying off people's fines and court costs so they can vote? I would applaud anyone who does this regardless of their skin color or income level.

Lmao. You're desperate after all that tick tocking.

Can't even get the punctuation right.


------------------------

Thought had by person at the White House: If you can remember, man, woman, car, camera, TV, you are fit to lead a country and no one has anything to worry about
 
Aunt Antifa said:
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m responding to the argument with my own points, and explaining them. You don’t have to agree, but you could make a stronger argument. rather than whining about what I’m saying.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are redefining restitution as being outside the legal process. Its not. I don't need to make a stronger argument, I have facts on my side, I am not trying to redefine a term as something it isn't.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Nope, you are redefining restitution as being outside the legal process. Its not. I don't need to make a stronger argument, I have facts on my side, I am not trying to redefine a term as something it isn't.
Click to expand...

Should wealthy people get access to voting quicker than poor people? The answer is no. Any scenario that forces that is a poll tax. If you can show me how this law is equally applied, we might get to the point where we can then argue philosophically if it should exist period. But we ain’t there cause its a poll tax.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Should wealthy people get access to voting quicker than poor people? The answer is no. Any scenario that forces that is a poll tax. If you can show me how this law is equally applied, we might get to the point where we can then argue philosophically if it should exist period. But we ain’t there cause its a poll tax.
Click to expand...

That isn't what's happening. If someone commits a crime that requires restitution, they must pay their debt to society and their victims before their rights are restored. Its happening by choice, not as a condition of voting. They chose to break the law, there are consequences associated with that choice. Its not a tax because the actions of the person involved caused the consequences and the victims of their crimes deserve to be compensated by the criminal who committed the crime.

Somehow you are under the assumption that victims should have to suffer without compensation when wronged by a criminal but the criminal can just resume their rights and life without consequences. That is not justice---that's political maneuvering disguised at playing criminals off as victims when they made choices that left them with debts to society and the people they wronged.

Just because you want to win an election it doesn't mean we can ignore what they did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom