• 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

You keep providing examples that are not plausible, you don't get an actual argument with a fallacy. I am ignoring your failure to make a plausible argument.

Did you know that

"Is too."

"Is TOO."

"IS TOO."

"IS TOO."

"IS TOO!"

"IS TOO!!!"

"IIIISSSSSS TTTTOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"

isn't normally considered an "argument"?
 
Yes. This is what we want, felons being let loose or having no consequences for their actions and Democratic billionaires buying votes, the liberal Utopia.

The...jail sentence didn't count?

The **** are you talking about?
 
He donated to an organization that makes the payments, knowing what the money was going for. Using a cutout is a poor excuse, I believe you are aware of that.

So the answer is no, he didn’t pay any fine himself.
 
he admitted to buying votes did you not read his own memo? i guess not which is typical.

then there is the issue of campaign law violations. you know the same ones that you were so supportive of when it busted trumps lawyer.

i have a feeling though you will now have a hypocritical stance on that. it is ok your a leftist it is expected.
Please paste the quote you think constitutes "admitting to buying votes."

Go ahead, we'll wait. I'm very interested to see how exactly you came to this conclusion!
 
It is if he pays only the fines for people of color.
How is it contingent on how they vote if it's for black people but wouldn't be the case if he paid fines for white people? I'm very confused as to how you connected race to this. Why would it be legal if he paid fines for white people?
 
That's sort of like donating to a PAC that is staffed and directed by people who you know are actively supporting the candidate to which you have already donated the legally permissible maximum - isn't it?

If one is illegal, then the other is too.

Wow, so there are now 40,001 cases to prosecute?
 
So, what he's saying is that felons are Democrats/on the left? Or just the 32,000 he paid for?
 
If this donation was buying votes, that means the fines must necessarily be a poll tax and were therefore unconstitutional in the first place.
 
How is it contingent on how they vote if it's for black people but wouldn't be the case if he paid fines for white people? I'm very confused as to how you connected race to this. Why would it be legal if he paid fines for white people?

Since black folks are known to vote heavily demorat then it stands to reason selection of potential voters by race will benefit demorat candidates.
 
Nope, since you are not changing anyone’s legal ability to vote.

The person is "legally allowed to vote" provided that the fines and court fees have been paid.

The SOURCE of the funds to pay the fines and court fees is totally irrelevant to whether or not they are "legally allowed to vote".

Someone could pay the fines and court fees with money that they earned from employment - at which point they would be "legally allowed to vote".

Someone could pay the fines and court fees with money that they had found - at which point they would be "legally allowed to vote".

Someone could pay the fines and court fees with money that they had inherited - at which point they would be "legally allowed to vote".

Someone could pay the fines and court fees with money that they had received a gift - at which point they would be "legally allowed to vote".

Someone could pay the fines and court fees with money that they stolen - at which point they would be "legally allowed to vote".

Someone could pay the fines and court fees by sending someone to act as their payment agent - at which point they would be "legally allowed to vote".

Someone could pay the fines and court fees by authorizing someone else to send an agent to pay them - at which point they would be "legally allowed to vote".

Unless the judgment order specifies that the person must personally pay the fines and court fees from money that they had personally accumulated through legal means, then the fact that the fines and court fees had been paid in their name is a sufficiency to establish that they are "legally allowed to vote".
 
If this donation was buying votes, that means the fines must necessarily be a poll tax and were therefore unconstitutional in the first place.

You raise an interesting point.

The thought that a mandatory payment to a government in order to receive permission to vote could be anything other than a "poll tax" is rather difficult to swallow.

The thought that such a payment, when applied to only one cohort of a society, could be anything other than "discriminatory" is rather difficult to swallow.
 
Page 28 and not one trump supporter can cite the exact text of any law explaining how Bloomberg committed a crime.

They just feel what he did was illegal and that's good enough for them.
Valid point. Feelings don't prove crimes, but I'd be remiss if I did not mention that you went on your feelings when it came to buying in on Trump's alleged "illegal activities." Different rules for you though, huh? ;)
 
Valid point. Feelings don't prove crimes, but I'd be remiss if I did not mention that you went on your feelings when it came to buying in on Trump's alleged "illegal activities." Different rules for you though, huh? ;)
It's Trump that has "different rules". The only reason he is not indicted on multiple felonies is that Presidents are not subject to indictment. That will change in a few months.
 
The only people the Democratic Party loves more than Americans who are violent criminals are violent criminals who are illegally in our country.
 
The only people the Democratic Party loves more than Americans who are violent criminals are violent criminals who are illegally in our country.

The only people the Republican Party hates more than liberals are black people/
 
The only people the Republican Party hates more than liberals are black people/

For which under your Democratic Party's slavery one-drop-of-blood rule everyone who isn't pure white is therefore black.
 
For which under your Democratic Party's slavery one-drop-of-blood rule everyone who isn't pure white is therefore black.

We got rid of the people who think like that. They voted for Donald Trump. They voted like you.
 
I am absolutely positive you can


It's my money
I will take your word for it on that. I have no objection to people practicing discrimination in terms of it being censored by legal means.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
With which I agree. But the ethics of very nearly buying the votes of those convicted and still under sentencing is questionable, at best.

If someone committed a crime by doing something unethical (but not specifically illegal), then more than half of the US population (and more than 75% of the US politicians [and more than 99% of the current Presidents of the United States of America]) would have committed that crime.
 
Back
Top Bottom