• 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

Your position is that it is ALWAYS OK to remove a person's right to vote unless they have paid every dime in fines and/or court fees.

If, at some point, it becomes NOT OK to remove a person's right to vote due to the onerous nature of the fines and/or court fees, then your point is not valid.

How about if the court sentenced the person to write "I will never drive drunk again." 1,000,000,000,000,000 times (by hand, using a 2H pencil, on toilet paper) - and would only count the times where the writing was completely legible and the paper was not torn? That wouldn't cost the person a dime (well, other than the cost of the pencils and toilet paper) so it couldn't possibly be considered a "poll tax" - could it?

And that point is decided by legislation and court procedure and process as well as the appeals process and higher court decisions.

Your argument by the widest stance possible isn't even close to what I am arguing, you are just trying to find an extreme I will agree to your point when your point isn't realistic by a gigantic margin. Try a reasonable hypothetical.
 
What makes the fees different? There is no reason that payment of fees to the government should be a requirement for one person to vote and not another, regardless of the severity of the crime. The actual punishment is not the payment of fees, and fines alone would not occur with most felonies.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Because it required a choice --- to commit a felony. We aren't talking about something picked to prevent voting, we are talking about rights voided by decisions to break the law, generally committing great harm to another person. Trying to shift the focus about it being only about voting as the impacted right is facetious, other rights are impacted, but I bet you agree with those.
 
There was no condition to even vote put on paying off those fines. You cant be said to be buying votes if the person is under no obligation to vote in exchange for the money.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
They're not even "required" to register to vote.
 
Because it required a choice --- to commit a felony. We aren't talking about something picked to prevent voting, we are talking about rights voided by decisions to break the law, generally committing great harm to another person. Trying to shift the focus about it being only about voting as the impacted right is facetious, other rights are impacted, but I bet you agree with those.
When you commit any crime, including speeding, you are making a choice to do so. So it doesnt make any sense to say only felons need to pay back their court fees and fines to vote, others who owe similar fees/fines don't.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
I find it fascinating that progressives, who believe themselves to be morally superior people, assume that the majority of felons are progressives too. Somewhere in that logic there is a disconnect.
 
When you commit any crime, including speeding, you are making a choice to do so. So it doesnt make any sense to say only felons need to pay back their court fees and fines to vote, others who owe similar fees/fines don't.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Felonies are usually those crimes which inflict harm on others. The goalposts stay where they are.
 



This is smart.

If Biden wins Florida by a slim margin he will owe it to Bloomberg.

This combined with Bloomberg's ad spend should put Biden over the top:

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.
 
That's funny, under the cold eyed reading of the law, they haven't completed their sentence in order to get their rights restored until they perform restitution, so you're still wrong.

BTW, editing quotes to eliminate what you don't want to argue? Dishonest tactics.

The cold eyed reading of the law? You don't want to go down that route, OC, because what that announces to the forum is that you haven't read the law.
 
The cold eyed reading of the law? You don't want to go down that route, OC, because what that announces to the forum is that you haven't read the law.
I didn't bring the term up. Pay attention or don't stick your nose in.
 
I didn't bring the term up. Pay attention or don't stick your nose in.

You're using the term now. Do you want to adhere to a cold eyed reading of the law or not? And if not, then I have no idea why you think you have a leg to stand on in any case.
 
You're using the term now. Do you want to adhere to a cold eyed reading of the law or not? And if not, then I have no idea why you think you have a leg to stand on in any case.

Hints and allegations may be a good book title but its horrible for making a point.
 
When you commit any crime, including speeding, you are making a choice to do so. So it doesnt make any sense to say only felons need to pay back their court fees and fines to vote, others who owe similar fees/fines don't.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Now you have a very good point. Non-payment of even a parking ticket should be a sufficiency for denial of the right to vote. As for those people who cannot prove that they have not paid 100% of their taxes in full (which would require a "Tax Payment Certificate" from each of the municipal, county, state, and federal governments AND one that was dated as of the date the person attempted to vote) that's a slam-dunk.
 
Felonies are usually those crimes which inflict harm on others. The goalposts stay where they are.
But the fees and fines are not based on the crime, only that they are paying back the court for the time. The jail time and/or restitution is for the actual crime itself.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Hints and allegations may be a good book title but its horrible for making a point.

Well, the question is simple: do you insist on a cold hard reading of the law or not? If yes, then what Bloomberg did was legal. If not then you don't care what the law says about Bloomberg's act anyway and legality has nothing to do with it.
 
Another day where Bloomberg walks free, and the Qistas are mad, very very mad.

Somebody please find them a blog that will make sense of this.


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

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
 
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.
Buying Votes?
Buying votes is against the law.
Bloomberg just paid their fines so that they can vote, He did not ask or tell them they had to vote for anybody.
No party, Not Trump, not Biden , NOBODY
IF he had then it would be illegal but he didn't
Have a nice afternoon
 
Well, the question is simple: do you insist on a cold hard reading of the law or not? If yes, then what Bloomberg did was legal. If not then you don't care what the law says about Bloomberg's act anyway and legality has nothing to do with it.
That hasn't been precisely what I was arguing in any event. But, if you reverse what is being said here and consider it a poll tax, wouldn't letting Bloomberg pay it for someone else then make it illegal? Food for thought.
 
But the fees and fines are not based on the crime, only that they are paying back the court for the time. The jail time and/or restitution is for the actual crime itself.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

And you know that the court fees are the only thing left in all the cases? I mean you are asserting it, can you back the claim up?
 
That hasn't been precisely what I was arguing in any event. But, if you reverse what is being said here and consider it a poll tax, wouldn't letting Bloomberg pay it for someone else then make it illegal? Food for thought.

I think a more important question is, does the Florida legislature consider it a poll tax? If so, then it is by definition unconstitutional and moot.

I think it's a laborious and unnecessary point to debate since the legislature didn't predict somebody swooping in to pay off the fines of ex-felons, and therefore allowed (obviously unintentionally) for that possibility.
 
I think a more important question is, does the Florida legislature consider it a poll tax? If so, then it is by definition unconstitutional and moot.

I think it's a laborious and unnecessary point to debate since the legislature didn't predict somebody swooping in to pay off the fines of ex-felons, and therefore allowed (obviously unintentionally) for that possibility.

Since when has it been illegal for "Person A" to pay a tax owed by "Person B"?

Now, admittedly, you can make a case that "Person B" would have to include that payment as income on their income tax return, but if "Person B" had no part in the payment, then you might have a hard time making that stick if you were to prosecute them for failure to pay taxes.

If "Person A" has paid the tax and "Person B" then does the same, does the taxing authority get to keep the second payment or do they have to refund the excess money paid (and, if so, to whom)?

PS - The term of imprisonment is part of the payment towards the "debt to society" as would be the fine. However "restitution" is NOT a part of the "debt to society" as it is NOT paid to "society" it is paid to an individual (unless the state actually pays out the amount of "restitution" ordered - which it doesn't). Not only that, but "court fees" are NOT a part of the "debt to society", they are a "user fee".
 
I think a more important question is, does the Florida legislature consider it a poll tax? If so, then it is by definition unconstitutional and moot.

I think it's a laborious and unnecessary point to debate since the legislature didn't predict somebody swooping in to pay off the fines of ex-felons, and therefore allowed (obviously unintentionally) for that possibility.
ALL that I have been arguing is that it is not a poll tax and that it is part of sentencing to restore rights so it has to be done. Your tangent doesn't really address much I have been discussing.
 
Kamala Harris likes rapists and violent criminals too. Pays to put them back on the street fund raising for them. Says that the police who arrested them should be eliminated. That seems inconsistent with her past practice of deliberately sending innocent black men to prison to brag about doing so politically.
 
this is simply about allowing Americans to vote! That’s why there are only a few rules to apply for the money:
1. You must already be registered to vote.
2. you just have less then 1,500$ in fines.
3. You must live in Florida.
4. you must be black or Latino.
Bahahaha. Those are all true BTW
 
this is simply about allowing Americans to vote! That’s why there are only a few rules to apply for the money:
1. You must already be registered to vote.
2. you just have less then 1,500$ in fines.
3. You must live in Florida.
4. you must be black or Latino.
Bahahaha. Those are all true BTW
#4 sounds illegal
 
Back
Top Bottom