Bernie Sanders Says He Would Let Boston Marathon Bomber, Sex Predators And Murderers Vote

[Vastator]

It matters if they vote 90% Prog. There is a big push for Felon voting and Hispanic voting in Florida. I wonder why? And I do agree with lesser Felons having non violent or drug sentences to get a chance at some point.

SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....

just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!

It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.

why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?

Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?

Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?

Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.

Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.

It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.

I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....

But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.

The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Now let's see if any of his main contenders in the Dem primary have the guts to attack his nutty position.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Now let's see if any of his main contenders in the Dem primary have the guts to attack his nutty position.

Harris joined Bernie and all others are in silent agreement.

 

[longknife]

Of course. They are evil therefore vote Democrat.

Twitter

I am really torn by this.

ALL Americans are entitled to vote. In fact, it's a public responsibility.

Where in the constitution does it give standards of who can vote?

The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

1870 - US Constitution (104 KB)

15th Amendment
Citizens cannot be denied the right to vote because of race, color , or previous condition of servitude (1870)
17th Amendment
Allowed for the direct election of senators by the voters instead of their election by state legislatures (1913)
19th Amendment
Gave women the right to vote (1920)
23rd Amendment
Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College (1961)
24th Amendment
Abolished the poll tax (1964)
Voting Rights Act
Allows the national government to intervene in order to ensure that state/local laws do not prevent people from voting--this includes the removal of literacy tests (1965)
26th Amendment
Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 (1971)

Nowhere does it say anything about anybody convicted of a crime or serving a sentence in a penal facility or on parole or probation.

As much as I don't like it, if it isn't in the constitution, why do we take that right away?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course. They are evil therefore vote Democrat.

Twitter

I am really torn by this.

ALL Americans are entitled to vote. In fact, it's a public responsibility.

Where in the constitution does it give standards of who can vote?

The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

1870 - US Constitution (104 KB)

15th Amendment
Citizens cannot be denied the right to vote because of race, color , or previous condition of servitude (1870)
17th Amendment
Allowed for the direct election of senators by the voters instead of their election by state legislatures (1913)
19th Amendment
Gave women the right to vote (1920)
23rd Amendment
Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College (1961)
24th Amendment
Abolished the poll tax (1964)
Voting Rights Act
Allows the national government to intervene in order to ensure that state/local laws do not prevent people from voting--this includes the removal of literacy tests (1965)
26th Amendment
Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 (1971)

Nowhere does it say anything about anybody convicted of a crime or serving a sentence in a penal facility or on parole or probation.

As much as I don't like it, if it isn't in the constitution, why do we take that right away?

The amendment, of course, does not address the "right" of convicted felons to vote, so why bring it up?

 

[westwall]

Once you pay your debt to society the convicted person should have certain rights restored.

That's not what the thread is about silly boy.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I have voiced this opinion in this forum before, but I again ask all to consider the import of three words: "Quality of voters."

Can you deny that the Democrat party is bound and determined to minimize the Quality of Voters - AS A MATTER OF POLICY.

Consider:

• 18-year-olds,
• college students (who have never worked, paid taxes, supported themselves, etc.),
• criminals,
• people who don't care enough to register to vote in advance of voting day,
• people who need a ride to the polls (and don't care enough to get there on their own),
• people too lazy to register to vote in the conventional way, and can be registered when applying for a drivers' license.

What can you say about a political party that constantly mines the population for people whose votes inevitably lower the Quality of the overall voter pool, thus making it better for charlatans, fakes, fraudsters, and kooks.

And look at the score of announced Democrat candidates for President. It all makes sense.

What can you say about a political party that is scared shitless whenever the number of people who vote goes up

Why are almost all felons Democrats?

You have linked evidence to back that up, right?

Thanks for looking to me once again to educate you.
I’m always her for you.

Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats

INteresting how your link doesn't say how many felons register at all? Are you asserting that they ALL do?

Nice spin. First you didn’t know that most felons vote Democrat now now you’re off on a new stupid point.

Democrats want the Boston Bombers vote.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It matters if they vote 90% Prog. There is a big push for Felon voting and Hispanic voting in Florida. I wonder why? And I do agree with lesser Felons having non violent or drug sentences to get a chance at some point.

SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....

just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!

It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.

why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?

Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?

Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?

Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.

Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.

It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.

I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....

But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.

I do not follow your logic. People who commit crimes must first pay for their crimes against society to regain their rights as citizens. Now once they paid for their crimes we can consider giving them back their right to vote but to allow them to do so while in prison to me is illogical. When you go to prison you give up many freedoms and rights

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It matters if they vote 90% Prog. There is a big push for Felon voting and Hispanic voting in Florida. I wonder why? And I do agree with lesser Felons having non violent or drug sentences to get a chance at some point.

SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....

just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!

It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.

Are you saying that convicted felons who’ve served their prescribed term of incarceration, should also be relieved of their tax burden? That’s a new angle I haven’t heard promoted before...

People in prison pay taxes?

What part of “served their prescribed time” was unclear to you?

Who are you quoting?

 

[Kondor3]

Of course. They are evil therefore vote Democrat.

Twitter

They haven't executed the Boston Marathon Bomber yet? What's the hold up?

He should be pulled apart by four Clydesdales pulling in four different directions.

In the town square.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Of course. They are evil therefore vote Democrat.

Twitter

I am really torn by this.

ALL Americans are entitled to vote. In fact, it's a public responsibility.

Where in the constitution does it give standards of who can vote?

The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

1870 - US Constitution (104 KB)

15th Amendment
Citizens cannot be denied the right to vote because of race, color , or previous condition of servitude (1870)
17th Amendment
Allowed for the direct election of senators by the voters instead of their election by state legislatures (1913)
19th Amendment
Gave women the right to vote (1920)
23rd Amendment
Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College (1961)
24th Amendment
Abolished the poll tax (1964)
Voting Rights Act
Allows the national government to intervene in order to ensure that state/local laws do not prevent people from voting--this includes the removal of literacy tests (1965)
26th Amendment
Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 (1971)

Nowhere does it say anything about anybody convicted of a crime or serving a sentence in a penal facility or on parole or probation.

As much as I don't like it, if it isn't in the constitution, why do we take that right away?

Check your state laws.

 

[Snouter]

Where in the constitution does it give standards of who can vote?

The original Constitution only permitted male citizens over 21 a vote for House members (no Indians or Afro Americans), and had state Legislatures vote for Senators and the state "state electors" vote for President and Vice President. So even average ****** could not vote for Senators and anyone in the Executive Branch. And the 14th amendment states any serious crime committed by such males not only makes them ineligible to vote, their representation in terms of House members is reduced, you moron.

 

[FA_Q2]

Of course. They are evil therefore vote Democrat.

Twitter

I am really torn by this.

ALL Americans are entitled to vote. In fact, it's a public responsibility.

Where in the constitution does it give standards of who can vote?

The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

1870 - US Constitution (104 KB)

15th Amendment
Citizens cannot be denied the right to vote because of race, color , or previous condition of servitude (1870)
17th Amendment
Allowed for the direct election of senators by the voters instead of their election by state legislatures (1913)
19th Amendment
Gave women the right to vote (1920)
23rd Amendment
Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College (1961)
24th Amendment
Abolished the poll tax (1964)
Voting Rights Act
Allows the national government to intervene in order to ensure that state/local laws do not prevent people from voting--this includes the removal of literacy tests (1965)
26th Amendment
Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 (1971)

Nowhere does it say anything about anybody convicted of a crime or serving a sentence in a penal facility or on parole or probation.

As much as I don't like it, if it isn't in the constitution, why do we take that right away?

Because that is what incarceration is. You also have a right to self defense, freedom of association and a host of other rights that are stripped from you when you are incarcerated.

The constitution does not grantee your rights are protected all the time. It grantees that your rights are protected from being infringed without due process of law. After due process, you better believe your rights - all of them - may be infringed upon if you are found guilty - even the most fundamental right, the right to life.

Now, I agree that once you have served your sentence that your right should be fully restored but it is not unconstitutional to not do so. If that were the case, the government could not apply any penalty that did not result in incarceration and that is just a bad idea. Some crimes should simply involve a small amount of infringement (community service or fine) and others should involve a lot (incarceration).

The idea that someone serving active time in a prison should be afforded the option to take part in government is asinine in the extreme. As you mentioned, voting is a RESPONSIBILITY, one that you cannot properly engage in while you are not even a member of that community but rather a ward that has to have other freedoms as basic as speech and association removed. How can anyone support the idea that an individual is a significant enough threat to society that they cannot even be permitted to go to a public location but they should have an active role in running society?

 

[FA_Q2]

Once you pay your debt to society the convicted person should have certain rights restored.

All rights restored.

Either you are a threat that needs to be locked up or monitored (parole) or you are not. If the government still sees you as being a large enough threat to require infringement of your rights than they damn well should be taking positive steps as well to mitigate that reality.

 

[FA_Q2]

Of course. They are evil therefore vote Democrat.

Twitter

Prisoners have a stake in who is running the prisons. The idea that they shouldn't vote was dumb to begin with.

I expected some wrangling around what Bernie actually stated such as fighting for felons to have the right to vote after the sentence has been completed but this is just jumping straight to crazy. They should vote for the warden too I guess. They have a pretty clear interest in the warden and weather or not they believe in locking the front door.

 

[Vastator]

SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....

just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!

It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.

Are you saying that convicted felons who’ve served their prescribed term of incarceration, should also be relieved of their tax burden? That’s a new angle I haven’t heard promoted before...

People in prison pay taxes?

What part of “served their prescribed time” was unclear to you?

Who are you quoting?

Yes, or no... Is it your contention that those with felony convictions do not, nor are obligated to; pay taxes?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course. They are evil therefore vote Democrat.

Twitter

Prisoners have a stake in who is running the prisons. The idea that they shouldn't vote was dumb to begin with.

I expected some wrangling around what Bernie actually stated such as fighting for felons to have the right to vote after the sentence has been completed but this is just jumping straight to crazy. They should vote for the warden too I guess. They have a pretty clear interest in the warden and weather or not they believe in locking the front door.

Why not?

Why, in your opinion, should an inmate not have a vote?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....

just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!

It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.

why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?

Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?

Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?

Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.

Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.

It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.

I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....

But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.

The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.

The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”

Not really " the exact same thing".

No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.

 

[Vastator]

It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.

why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?

Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?

Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?

Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.

Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.

It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.

I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....

But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.

The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.

The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”

Not really " the exact same thing".

No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.

Technically correct. Except that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. And have from the founding of this nation. Voting for all is a post founding addition, and privilege. So you’re right; but not in the way you thought. Such are the perils of “a la carte” loyalty to the constitution. It shows that your motives, and positions are unprincipled. Unprincipled people are seldom effectual...

Oh yeah “Dope!” Did that sound as cool as when you typed it? Lol!

 

[rightwinger]

Bernie believes all citizens should have a right and be encouraged to vote
He says society should not be selecting who are good voters and bad voters

I don’t think prisoners should be allowed to vote. Once they are released they should have their rights returned
Same goes for minors and mentally handicapped