Bloomberg Helping Ex Felons In Florida To Vote

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
71,500
Reaction score
6,809
Points
1,815
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
right ^^^^^ in their entire lives
 

buckeye45_73

Lakhota's my *****
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
30,429
Reaction score
4,567
Points
1,130
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
What he is doing is far more significant than giving someone a ride. These people could not vote at all if it wasn't for him.

It's absolutely scandalous and sums up the democrat non-morality in its entirety.
Not really...if people had no way to get to the polls they can't vote.
Yes, but people DO HAVE ways to get to the polls. Are you retarded? We don't yet live in the planned shithole of the democrats thank God.
And felons, conceivably have ways of paying fines and registering to vote - even without Bloomberg.
True, so why is Bloomberg doing this then?
Obviously in hopes of getting more Democrat voters out of it...much like Republicans are trying to prevent it, and get fewer Democrat voters. None of which is in itself illegal - motivation doesn't matter.
IT depends, the FL AG is looking into it....so if he is trading that cash for registering to vote he's in violation......and has he said anything publicly?
 

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
29,058
Reaction score
11,752
Points
940
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
Exactly, and since they don't even think about voting, they should not vote. Which is what the law is about.

Is that how rights work in your world? So...if a person doesn't even think about owning a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to?

Voting is a right, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Voting is not a right for felons dumbass, nor should it be. And the reason why it should not be is that they make awful decisions.
 

buckeye45_73

Lakhota's my *****
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
30,429
Reaction score
4,567
Points
1,130
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
What he is doing is far more significant than giving someone a ride. These people could not vote at all if it wasn't for him.

It's absolutely scandalous and sums up the democrat non-morality in its entirety.
Not really...if people had no way to get to the polls they can't vote.
Yes, but people DO HAVE ways to get to the polls. Are you retarded? We don't yet live in the planned shithole of the democrats thank God.
And felons, conceivably have ways of paying fines and registering to vote - even without Bloomberg.
True, so why is Bloomberg doing this then?
Obviously in hopes of getting more Democrat voters out of it...much like Republicans are trying to prevent it, and get fewer Democrat voters. None of which is in itself illegal - motivation doesn't matter.
how are republicans trying to prevent democrats from
voting.........LET ME COUNT THE WAYS ?????????
Fire away........
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
85,974
Reaction score
19,307
Points
2,180
Location
in between
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
Exactly, and since they don't even think about voting, they should not vote. Which is what the law is about.

Is that how rights work in your world? So...if a person doesn't even think about owning a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to?

Voting is a right, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Voting is not a right for felons dumbass, nor should it be. And the reason why it should not be is that they make awful decisions.
A LOT of people make awful decisions. Most just don't get caught up in the legal system.

That doesn't remove their right to vote.
 

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
29,058
Reaction score
11,752
Points
940
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
Exactly, and since they don't even think about voting, they should not vote. Which is what the law is about.

Is that how rights work in your world? So...if a person doesn't even think about owning a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to?

Voting is a right, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Voting is not a right for felons dumbass, nor should it be. And the reason why it should not be is that they make awful decisions.
A LOT of people make awful decisions. Most just don't get caught up in the legal system.

That doesn't remove their right to vote.
And? If you want more people losing their voting rights you can bring that up. Right now we are establishing that felons should not and do not have voting rights.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
85,974
Reaction score
19,307
Points
2,180
Location
in between
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
What he is doing is far more significant than giving someone a ride. These people could not vote at all if it wasn't for him.

It's absolutely scandalous and sums up the democrat non-morality in its entirety.
Not really...if people had no way to get to the polls they can't vote.
Yes, but people DO HAVE ways to get to the polls. Are you retarded? We don't yet live in the planned shithole of the democrats thank God.
And felons, conceivably have ways of paying fines and registering to vote - even without Bloomberg.
True, so why is Bloomberg doing this then?
Obviously in hopes of getting more Democrat voters out of it...much like Republicans are trying to prevent it, and get fewer Democrat voters. None of which is in itself illegal - motivation doesn't matter.
IT depends, the FL AG is looking into it....so if he is trading that cash for registering to vote he's in violation......and has he said anything publicly?
I think what he has said publicly is immaterial - what matters is what he does. That is where the law goes. If there is something attached to the money compelling them to register - that night be problematic - like, if you don't register you don't get a payment.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
71,500
Reaction score
6,809
Points
1,815
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
Exactly, and since they don't even think about voting, they should not vote. Which is what the law is about.

Is that how rights work in your world? So...if a person doesn't even think about owning a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to?

Voting is a right, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Voting is not a right for felons dumbass, nor should it be. And the reason why it should not be is that they make awful decisions.
A LOT of people make awful decisions. Most just don't get caught up in the legal system.

That doesn't remove their right to vote.
true-----my objection is the
MANIPULATION OF NEEDY PEOPLE
like THE CAPTIVE AUDIENCE. It is
another form of the garnering of votes
by BREAD AND CIRCUSES
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
85,974
Reaction score
19,307
Points
2,180
Location
in between
And? If you want more people losing their voting rights you can bring that up. Right now we are establishing that felons should not have such right.
We aren't establishing anything. You are making the argument that people should lose rights because of "bad decisions". You are using that to make a case for felonies. I disagree. Once felons have done their time, and met the requirements of sentencing - their rights should be restored, with some exceptions which I mentioned earlier. Saying "bad decisions" is a reason for not restoring the right to vote ignores the fact that a lot of people make bad decisions.
 

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
29,058
Reaction score
11,752
Points
940
And? If you want more people losing their voting rights you can bring that up. Right now we are establishing that felons should not have such right.
We aren't establishing anything. You are making the argument that people should lose rights because of "bad decisions". You are using that to make a case for felonies. I disagree. Once felons have done their time, and met the requirements of sentencing - their rights should be restored, with some exceptions which I mentioned earlier. Saying "bad decisions" is a reason for not restoring the right to vote ignores the fact that a lot of people make bad decisions.
So you agree that felons should lose their rights.

What are we arguing again?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
85,974
Reaction score
19,307
Points
2,180
Location
in between
And? If you want more people losing their voting rights you can bring that up. Right now we are establishing that felons should not have such right.
We aren't establishing anything. You are making the argument that people should lose rights because of "bad decisions". You are using that to make a case for felonies. I disagree. Once felons have done their time, and met the requirements of sentencing - their rights should be restored, with some exceptions which I mentioned earlier. Saying "bad decisions" is a reason for not restoring the right to vote ignores the fact that a lot of people make bad decisions.
So you agree that felons should lose their rights.

What are we arguing again?
Only until they have completed their sentences.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
34,926
Reaction score
4,130
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
No state, prior to the civil war, and 14th amendment....

barred those imprisoned from voting. Voting rights were never taken away from Felons.

It was not until the black man, was given a right to vote, did Southern States initially, change their laws to prevent felons, who were disproportionately black men, from voting.

One state followed the other, except my state of Maine, kept their law as it was prior to the civil war..... some say that our State should not boast for not being bigots because they kept their law the same, even after the black man could vote....

but only because Maine's population consisted of less than 1% of their population being black....the men in jail at the time, were near all white....there was no need to discriminate against the black citizens....
Nobody cares. The law is intended to produce the best nation that we can be. Not to conform to your vision of equality nonsense where criminals start making decisions for other people. It is absolutely clear to anyone with a brain that expanding the voting rights was a mistake. Voting should be for informed, smart Americans.

Regardless, the law is what it is.
the law is intended to keep negros from voting.
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
the REAL "get real"---is---How about a study on just
how many of the people in jail are registered voters?
CURIOUS PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW
?????? I'm not aware of any state that allows people in jail to vote.
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
Exactly, and since they don't even think about voting, they should not vote. Which is what the law is about.

Is that how rights work in your world? So...if a person doesn't even think about owning a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to?

Voting is a right, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Voting is not a right for felons dumbass, nor should it be. And the reason why it should not be is that they make awful decisions.
A LOT of people make awful decisions. Most just don't get caught up in the legal system.

That doesn't remove their right to vote.
And? If you want more people losing their voting rights you can bring that up. Right now we are establishing that felons should not and do not have voting rights.
The voters of fla decide they vote. You have no say
 

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
29,058
Reaction score
11,752
Points
940
And? If you want more people losing their voting rights you can bring that up. Right now we are establishing that felons should not have such right.
We aren't establishing anything. You are making the argument that people should lose rights because of "bad decisions". You are using that to make a case for felonies. I disagree. Once felons have done their time, and met the requirements of sentencing - their rights should be restored, with some exceptions which I mentioned earlier. Saying "bad decisions" is a reason for not restoring the right to vote ignores the fact that a lot of people make bad decisions.
So you agree that felons should lose their rights.

What are we arguing again?
Only until they have completed their sentences.
Great, so I have no idea why you brought all that other nonsense up since you agree on the relevant part of what I said.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
71,500
Reaction score
6,809
Points
1,815
excuse me folks-----Florida lets people IN JAIL vote?
 

buckeye45_73

Lakhota's my *****
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
30,429
Reaction score
4,567
Points
1,130
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
Exactly, and since they don't even think about voting, they should not vote. Which is what the law is about.

Is that how rights work in your world? So...if a person doesn't even think about owning a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to?

Voting is a right, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Voting is not a right for felons dumbass, nor should it be. And the reason why it should not be is that they make awful decisions.
A LOT of people make awful decisions. Most just don't get caught up in the legal system.

That doesn't remove their right to vote.
That's pretty cavalier......
Oh some guy just fucked up....he put some dude in the hospital on life support....oooops
Or
Oooops I made a mistake, I know you're 65 but I invested your life savings in a pyramid scam....


The reason those are felonies, is they really effect people....and yes you should lose your rights and privilege's if you're that much of an asshole.

The problem with you lefties, is you never think about victims of crime.....it's always pitying the poor criminals...
 

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
29,058
Reaction score
11,752
Points
940
No state, prior to the civil war, and 14th amendment....

barred those imprisoned from voting. Voting rights were never taken away from Felons.

It was not until the black man, was given a right to vote, did Southern States initially, change their laws to prevent felons, who were disproportionately black men, from voting.

One state followed the other, except my state of Maine, kept their law as it was prior to the civil war..... some say that our State should not boast for not being bigots because they kept their law the same, even after the black man could vote....

but only because Maine's population consisted of less than 1% of their population being black....the men in jail at the time, were near all white....there was no need to discriminate against the black citizens....
Nobody cares. The law is intended to produce the best nation that we can be. Not to conform to your vision of equality nonsense where criminals start making decisions for other people. It is absolutely clear to anyone with a brain that expanding the voting rights was a mistake. Voting should be for informed, smart Americans.

Regardless, the law is what it is.
the law is intended to keep negros from voting.
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
the REAL "get real"---is---How about a study on just
how many of the people in jail are registered voters?
CURIOUS PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW
?????? I'm not aware of any state that allows people in jail to vote.
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
Exactly, and since they don't even think about voting, they should not vote. Which is what the law is about.

Is that how rights work in your world? So...if a person doesn't even think about owning a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to?

Voting is a right, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Voting is not a right for felons dumbass, nor should it be. And the reason why it should not be is that they make awful decisions.
A LOT of people make awful decisions. Most just don't get caught up in the legal system.

That doesn't remove their right to vote.
And? If you want more people losing their voting rights you can bring that up. Right now we are establishing that felons should not and do not have voting rights.
The voters of fla decide they vote. You have no say
The intention is to prevent criminals from voting until they have paid their debts. That is the literal law. Don't mix it up with your racial fantasies.
 

buckeye45_73

Lakhota's my *****
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
30,429
Reaction score
4,567
Points
1,130
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
What he is doing is far more significant than giving someone a ride. These people could not vote at all if it wasn't for him.

It's absolutely scandalous and sums up the democrat non-morality in its entirety.
Not really...if people had no way to get to the polls they can't vote.
Yes, but people DO HAVE ways to get to the polls. Are you retarded? We don't yet live in the planned shithole of the democrats thank God.
And felons, conceivably have ways of paying fines and registering to vote - even without Bloomberg.
True, so why is Bloomberg doing this then?
Obviously in hopes of getting more Democrat voters out of it...much like Republicans are trying to prevent it, and get fewer Democrat voters. None of which is in itself illegal - motivation doesn't matter.
IT depends, the FL AG is looking into it....so if he is trading that cash for registering to vote he's in violation......and has he said anything publicly?
I think what he has said publicly is immaterial - what matters is what he does. That is where the law goes. If there is something attached to the money compelling them to register - that night be problematic - like, if you don't register you don't get a payment.
exactly.....if he did that he's fucked, if not, he may be ok.....but we all know the intent....and it's shady as fuck.
 

buckeye45_73

Lakhota's my *****
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
30,429
Reaction score
4,567
Points
1,130
No state, prior to the civil war, and 14th amendment....

barred those imprisoned from voting. Voting rights were never taken away from Felons.

It was not until the black man, was given a right to vote, did Southern States initially, change their laws to prevent felons, who were disproportionately black men, from voting.

One state followed the other, except my state of Maine, kept their law as it was prior to the civil war..... some say that our State should not boast for not being bigots because they kept their law the same, even after the black man could vote....

but only because Maine's population consisted of less than 1% of their population being black....the men in jail at the time, were near all white....there was no need to discriminate against the black citizens....
Nobody cares. The law is intended to produce the best nation that we can be. Not to conform to your vision of equality nonsense where criminals start making decisions for other people. It is absolutely clear to anyone with a brain that expanding the voting rights was a mistake. Voting should be for informed, smart Americans.

Regardless, the law is what it is.
the law is intended to keep negros from voting.
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
the REAL "get real"---is---How about a study on just
how many of the people in jail are registered voters?
CURIOUS PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW
?????? I'm not aware of any state that allows people in jail to vote.
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
Exactly, and since they don't even think about voting, they should not vote. Which is what the law is about.

Is that how rights work in your world? So...if a person doesn't even think about owning a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to?

Voting is a right, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Voting is not a right for felons dumbass, nor should it be. And the reason why it should not be is that they make awful decisions.
A LOT of people make awful decisions. Most just don't get caught up in the legal system.

That doesn't remove their right to vote.
And? If you want more people losing their voting rights you can bring that up. Right now we are establishing that felons should not and do not have voting rights.
The voters of fla decide they vote. You have no say
The intention is to prevent criminals from voting until they have paid their debts. That is the literal law. Don't mix it up with your racial fantasies.
Yeah I just saw on fox, Richard Fowler said it was akin to poll taxes...what a fucking gaslighter.....no prison time isn't the only part of your sentence, others have fines and restitution, so the law says until your sentence is completed...ALL of the sentence you don't get your rights......So if you think a black guy that owes $500 bucks has it bad, what is the amount for Bernie Madoff? (I don't think felons should vote, but since this law passed)
 

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
29,058
Reaction score
11,752
Points
940
No state, prior to the civil war, and 14th amendment....

barred those imprisoned from voting. Voting rights were never taken away from Felons.

It was not until the black man, was given a right to vote, did Southern States initially, change their laws to prevent felons, who were disproportionately black men, from voting.

One state followed the other, except my state of Maine, kept their law as it was prior to the civil war..... some say that our State should not boast for not being bigots because they kept their law the same, even after the black man could vote....

but only because Maine's population consisted of less than 1% of their population being black....the men in jail at the time, were near all white....there was no need to discriminate against the black citizens....
Nobody cares. The law is intended to produce the best nation that we can be. Not to conform to your vision of equality nonsense where criminals start making decisions for other people. It is absolutely clear to anyone with a brain that expanding the voting rights was a mistake. Voting should be for informed, smart Americans.

Regardless, the law is what it is.
the law is intended to keep negros from voting.
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
the REAL "get real"---is---How about a study on just
how many of the people in jail are registered voters?
CURIOUS PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW
?????? I'm not aware of any state that allows people in jail to vote.
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.
However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.
It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.
That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.
So you think Turley is ludicrous in this?

A Mercedes by the way is certainly redeemable in cash. Sell it.
How about a gift card that can't be redeemed.

Don't pretend to be stupid. Situations like this are exactly what the law was written for. I can't see how any American can defend what he is doing. Democrats are truly disgusting.
The law is written to keep poor minority voters from voting when they cant' pay fines. well at least you're honest. LOL
you believe that courts should not have the power to
impose fines? People who punch meter maids in the face should not have to pay a fine? GOOD----and people should not have to pay rent or any bills at all?
Fines are one thing, but denying voting based on fines is entirely and completely wrong.
It gives an easy mechanism by which government can explicitly disenfranchise, when government should never be able to disenfranchise anyone at all.
I wish I had more information. Do all people who go to jail ALSO have fines? I am not into conspiracy theory. I cannot accept the idea that law makers said
"let's see how we can keep poor people (minorities of
course) from voting----AHA!!!! if they do not pay fines." Also---I wonder how much those fines are---eg what are the "court costs"? Why not do away with fines ALTOGETHER? I don't like paying fines either
Nobody likes it. But the idea of putting up deterrents to crime is the only way to control it. What the Blooming Idiot wants to do is remove that deterrent.
come on. like a threat to not get to vote deters a guy from buying or selling cocaine. get real at least
That is one argument that doesn't work - if jail time, death penalty, and fines aren't sufficient threats I seriously doubt voting is. Most of those people likely don't even think about voting.
Exactly, and since they don't even think about voting, they should not vote. Which is what the law is about.

Is that how rights work in your world? So...if a person doesn't even think about owning a gun, he shouldn't be allowed to?

Voting is a right, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Voting is not a right for felons dumbass, nor should it be. And the reason why it should not be is that they make awful decisions.
A LOT of people make awful decisions. Most just don't get caught up in the legal system.

That doesn't remove their right to vote.
And? If you want more people losing their voting rights you can bring that up. Right now we are establishing that felons should not and do not have voting rights.
The voters of fla decide they vote. You have no say
The intention is to prevent criminals from voting until they have paid their debts. That is the literal law. Don't mix it up with your racial fantasies.
Yeah I just saw on fox, Richard Fowler said it was akin to poll taxes...what a fucking gaslighter.....no prison time isn't the only part of your sentence, others have fines and restitution, so the law says until your sentence is completed...ALL of the sentence you don't get your rights......So if you think a black guy that owes $500 bucks has it bad, what is the amount for Bernie Madoff? (I don't think felons should vote, but since this law passed)
Apparently the democrat party has bought into that only black people are felons.

And that only democrats are felons for that matter. But this is quite close to the truth, add Bloomberg to the list, so perhaps I should not be overtly critical.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
85,974
Reaction score
19,307
Points
2,180
Location
in between
I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.
Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.
You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..
does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing
You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.
I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.
Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.
Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.
And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------
Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.
Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.
There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.
I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.
What he is doing is far more significant than giving someone a ride. These people could not vote at all if it wasn't for him.

It's absolutely scandalous and sums up the democrat non-morality in its entirety.
Not really...if people had no way to get to the polls they can't vote.
Yes, but people DO HAVE ways to get to the polls. Are you retarded? We don't yet live in the planned shithole of the democrats thank God.
And felons, conceivably have ways of paying fines and registering to vote - even without Bloomberg.
True, so why is Bloomberg doing this then?
Obviously in hopes of getting more Democrat voters out of it...much like Republicans are trying to prevent it, and get fewer Democrat voters. None of which is in itself illegal - motivation doesn't matter.
IT depends, the FL AG is looking into it....so if he is trading that cash for registering to vote he's in violation......and has he said anything publicly?
I think what he has said publicly is immaterial - what matters is what he does. That is where the law goes. If there is something attached to the money compelling them to register - that night be problematic - like, if you don't register you don't get a payment.
exactly.....if he did that he's fucked, if not, he may be ok.....but we all know the intent....and it's shady as fuck.
True. But I doubt anyone think's Bloomberg's motives are as pure as the driven snow...more like...yellow snow.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days