- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 39,200
- Reaction score
- 9,692
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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?
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
It is indeed illegal.actually it isn't legal it is called vote buying.
Bloomberg pays $20m in debt for 31,000 Florida felons so they can vote
Billionaire Mike Bloomberg has paid off $20million in debt for more than 31,000 felons in Florida so that they can vote in the state where just 537 votes decided the presidential election in 2000.www.google.com
he even admitted to buying the votes to the news. how stupid is that.
They're not even "required" to register to vote.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
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.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.
Felonies are usually those crimes which inflict harm on others. The goalposts stay where they are.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
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.Bloomberg pays fines for 32,000 felons in Florida so they can vote
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has reportedly raised more than $16 million in an effort to help convicted felons in Florida register to vote. The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimated …thehill.com
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:
Mike Bloomberg to Commit at Least $100 Million to Help Biden Campaign in Florida
Bloomberg's late stage infusion of cash reflects Democrats' concerns about the tight race in a key battleground statetime.com
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.
I didn't bring the term up. Pay attention or don't stick your nose in.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.
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.
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
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.Felonies are usually those crimes which inflict harm on others. The goalposts stay where they are.
Hints and allegations may be a good book title but its horrible for making a point.
Buying Votes?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 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.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.
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
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.
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.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.
#4 sounds illegalthis 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
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?