I agree with most of that, but it's complicated by the fact that the fines don't go to victim compensation they go to court costs.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.
That isn't what's happening.
I agree with most of that, but it's complicated by the fact that the fines don't go to victim compensation they go to court costs.
Of course not. I don't see it that way though, I see it as a law that disenfranchises criminals by their own choice, knowing the consequences. Since they knew or should have known before they committed the crime that it would take longer for them to pay off than someone who makes more money, that was still their choice to take that risk.Who cares where the money goes? He wouldn’t answer it, but since you agree with him: do you support a law that disenfranchises people for being poor?
Of course not. I don't see it that way though, I see it as a law that disenfranchises criminals by their own choice, knowing the consequences. Since they knew or should have known before they committed the crime that it would take longer for them to pay off than someone who makes more money, that was still their choice to take that risk.
Voting isn't an inalienable right in the constitution. It's a little more complicated than you're trying to make it seem.You do realize that answer isn’t even close to legal per our constitution, yes? You cannot allow access to a right based on wealth. You can talk around it, but until you square up that loophole, it’s a poll tax.
Voting isn't an inalienable right in the constitution. It's a little more complicated than you're trying to make it seem.
I hope they change the law then. In the mean time, rich people can continue bailing out whoever they want as long as there isn't a quid pro quo. Also, just a reminder, you are not arguing with the Right with me, you're arguing TO the right of you.Nooope. I am familiar. Ya’ll throw that up anytime you want to snicker about gunz being a right vs voting. Problem is the same token of faith you take 2A to mean was a relatively new interpretation that started just a few decades ago. It is now popular enough that it is a 3rd rail to even discuss limiting gun rights. Voting as a right is enshrined in the minds of citizens of this country, and there is enough legal documentation even among originalists to argue voting as an individual right was very much part of our history.
And allowing rich people to skate while crushing poor people from voting is still illegal in that it is denying franchise due to wealth.
The voters of Florida decided to change the law, and allow the restoration of voting rights to those who are released.Of course not. I don't see it that way though, I see it as a law that disenfranchises criminals by their own choice, knowing the consequences. Since they knew or should have known before they committed the crime that it would take longer for them to pay off than someone who makes more money, that was still their choice to take that risk.
I know, change it back to it's original state I mean. It's up to the voters to put the pressure on politicians though, not mobs.The voters of Florida decided to change the law, and allow the restoration of voting rights to those who are released.
It was Republican elected officials who deliberately chose to thwart the will of Florida's voters, and impose the additional requirement to repay court costs as yet another anti-democratic (and anti-Democrat) attempt to suppress votes that they don't think will favor them.
The demand to repay fees has nothing to do with justice or fairness. It's just another example of Republicans' crass voter suppression efforts.
I'm saying these aren't bribes at all. I'm also saying if anyone wants to claim he was selective in who got their fines paid based on Party, it is on them to prove. I did not say "there are no Republicans" getting their fines paid.No, you are the one who claims that there are no Republicans receiving his bribes. You are welcome to attempt to find any. A lack of response (finding an R who will take his bribe) will be taken as agreeing with my position.
Or you could explain the reason that offering free rides, free gym workouts, free foods/drinks/etc for voting is not illegal, while giving people more opportunities to vote by removing financial hindrances is.Lwt me know when you want to answer.
Which oneYes.
Not desperate at all. Tick tock ****ers....tick tock.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
Or ....OR...you guys could read the law.Or you could explain the reason that offering free rides, free gym workouts, free foods/drinks/etc for voting is not illegal, while giving people more opportunities to vote by removing financial hindrances is.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
We did. Nothing about paying fines for felons violates that law. They are not being asked to vote in exchange for their fines being paid.Or ....OR...you guys could read the law.
We have the words from bloomberg. He paid the fines so they could VOTE.We did. Nothing about paying fines for felons violates that law. They are not being asked to vote in exchange for their fines being paid.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
If they wanted to. There was no obligation for them to vote. They can all sit home and not cast any vote at all this election day.We have the words from bloomberg. He paid the fines so they could VOTE.
Criminal Kingpin Bloomberg bribes 32,000 felons to vote for Biden.
Corruption is a MASSIVE part of the democrat campaign strategy.
This is totally illegal thus approved by Democrats.
There's a difference between paying to help someone become eligible to vote and paying someone to vote. And we also have to keep in mind the voters of Florida actually amended the constitution of Florida to allow ex-felons to vote via ballot initiative. What did the Republicans do? They changed the rules to make it harder for ex-felons to vote thereby going against the will of the voters of Florida. Bloomberg's actions are in line with the will of the people of Florida. It's only Republicans that are going against the will of the people of Florida. And they are doing this in two ways, first by contradicting the whole point of the ballot initiative, and second by making it harder for ex-felons to vote. The bottom is that Trump supporters and Republicans hate Democracy. Robertinfremont, why do you hate Democracy?
Perfect reply to the whining here, Truth always outshines Lies and Foot-Stomping.The voters of Florida decided to change the law, and allow the restoration of voting rights to those who are released.
It was Republican elected officials who deliberately chose to thwart the will of Florida's voters, and impose the additional requirement to repay court costs as yet another anti-democratic (and anti-Democrat) attempt to suppress votes that they don't think will favor them.
The demand to repay fees has nothing to do with justice or fairness. It's just another example of Republicans' crass voter suppression efforts.
What Mobs?I know, change it back to it's original state I mean. It's up to the voters to put the pressure on politicians though, not mobs.
The social and literal mobs.What Mobs?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?