This is What Virginia Dems Chose to Lead them

[Lisa558]

Yes, and the mere fact that someone is a convicted felon does not make them unfit for public office except for those filled with hate. People make mistakes, good people allow them to move on from those mistakes. Hate filled people keep punishing them for the rest of their lives.

So people who agree with you are “good people,” and people who disagree are “hate-filled.” Your have more tolerance for an ex-felon who committed such dangerous crimes that it warranted a 7-year prison sentence than someone who simply disagrees with you.

We are having a massive crime wave due to the Democrats’ soft-on-criminals attitude. We would do better for decent, law-abiding people if we were to have a restriction or two on ex-felons. The inability to hold elected office should be one of them. Let people know we consider felonies serious matters that can have some later impact on your life.

 

[Concerned American]

He can't be any worse than what the gop or Dems have currently out there so there is that. Keep on defending your side people. Epic fails.

Typical democrat response. The government is full of criminals now, so lets elect other felons to office. What could possibly go wrong. MORON.

 

[Lisa558]

Typical democrat response. The government is full of criminals now, so lets elect other felons to office. What could possibly go wrong. MORON.

Democrats seem to have no standards. EVERYTHING is acceptable. Everything, that is, other than a dissenting opinion.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Well, that's just stupid.

The Nazi party, the democrats, hate Jews and Israel. The Republicans are staunch supporters of Israel.



Wow, you're a total liar and utterly delusional.



The Nazi democrat party seeks the utter and complete destruction of Israel.

If you are a democrat, you are by definition an Antisemite.



LOL

What a moron you are.

The Nazis vote with the Republicans, one should have noticed that. There goes your whole argument.

Nonsense about the Democrats being against Israel.
There are some policies and decisions I have not liked but as a whole they are very much pro Israel.

The problem with some Democrats is that they are receiving their information from the Pro Palestinian groups, therefore being misinformed.


Your ignorance with that sentence about who is an antisemite and who is not is priceless. I will go frame it on my wall to have a good laugh every time I feel the need for it.

Tlaib and Omar do not represent the whole Democratic Party. Nor do they have any power to do any harm against Israel.

This Moron is Jewish and very much pro Israel.

Now find people who really want to believe that the Democrats are Nazis, the same way the Republicans have been helping Russia spread that Ukraine is run by Nazis.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I wrote post #59, didn’t I? What’s hateful in saying that a person who obeyed laws their entire life is more deserving of praise, and elected office, than someone who had been a criminal, was a drug dealer, and served 7 years in prison? It‘s simply acknowledging that people who respected and followed the law have led more exemplary lives than ex-felons.

He paid his debt to society and is free to pursue all sorts of professional opportunities. Elected office should not be one of them. There’s nothing hateful about that. It’s just giving more credit to people who were decent, law-abiding citizens their entire lives. That you disagree with that doesn’t make it or me “hateful.”

and P.S. when did I ever claim to be a Christian? Your liberal hostility toward Christians caused you to just lash out to criticize what you assume is my Christianity. I’m Jewish.

I do not know either of the candidates, but would it be possible that one ran a better candidacy than the other, and the issues each was for were the ones which made the voters vote for them? And it had nothing to do with one being Jewish and the other being Black? Who is voting based on race or ethnicity?

They should be voting on the issues closest to them.

 

[Lisa558]

I do not know either of the candidates, but would it be possible that one ran a better candidacy than the other, and the issues each was for were the ones which made the voters vote for them? And it had nothing to do with one being Jewish and the other being Black? Who is voting based on race or ethnicity?

They should be voting on the issues closest to them.

The point we are discussing is whether the fact that someone who has committed a FELONY, and served seven years in prison, should be able to hold elected office, or at the minimum, is a reasonable thing to consider when placing a vote.

The issues alone are not the only thing to consider. I hold a person who obeyed laws all their lives in higher esteem than an ex-felon. The “soft on criminals” attitude of Democrats is pervasive, and has led to a massive crime wave. There is nothing wrong, and in fact is a good thing, to let criminals know that if they commit serious felonies, certain prestigious roles may never be available to them, although they are welcome to rejoin society in a number of other capacities. It would show how strongly opposed we are to criminal felons.

 

[Concerned American]

The problem with some Democrats is that they are receiving their information from the Pro Palestinian groups, therefore being misinformed.

Because the vast majority of democrats are incapable of making INFORMED decisions and the few that are will try to justify and defend them because they are democrats.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Your refusal to hold a person accountable for major crimes shows that you have ulterior motives.

He was held accountable and did his time in jail. What I refuse to do is punish someone unendingly for a mistake they have moved on from.

So people who agree with you are “good people,” and people who disagree are “hate-filled.” Your have more tolerance for an ex-felon who committed such dangerous crimes that it warranted a 7-year prison sentence than someone who simply disagrees with you.

I do indeed. He has moved on from his mistake and tired to make the most of his life. You still wallow in your hatred and do not want to change.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The point we are discussing is whether the fact that someone who has committed a FELONY, and served seven years in prison, should be able to hold elected office, or at the minimum, is a reasonable thing to consider when placing a vote.

The issues alone are not the only thing to consider. I hold a person who obeyed laws all their lives in higher esteem than an ex-felon. The “soft on criminals” attitude of Democrats is pervasive, and has led to a massive crime wave. There is nothing wrong, and in fact is a good thing, to let criminals know that if they commit serious felonies, certain prestigious roles may never be available to them, although they are welcome to rejoin society in a number of other capacities. It would show how strongly opposed we are to criminal felons.

Felons cannot vote, while in prison. Once they leave they can gain their right to do so.

Each State has different laws. This ones are for Virginia:
------------------------
Can felons work for the state of Virginia?


Virginia convicted felons are able to run or hold office and serve as a notary public once their rights are restored. However, Virginia felons are denied the right to public employment, such as working as a teacher or in a family day care.

Convicted Felons' Rights in Virginia - Legal Beagle​

https://legalbeagle.com › 6696287-convicted-felons-rights.

-----------
Q: Can a convicted felon serve in elected office?

A: The Constitution allows a convicted felon to be a member of Congress, even if in prison. It’s up to the Senate or House to decide who may serve. As for state offices, different laws apply in different places.



FULL ANSWER

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted on seven felony counts of corruption in late October. Stevens ran for reelection Nov. 4 against Democrat Mark Begich, and the two are awaiting the official results, as votes are still being counted. Begich’s lead increased to about 1,000 votes on Nov. 15, however.
It is possible for a felon to serve in the U.S. Congress – but the House and Senate can vote to expel any member that colleagues deem unfit or unqualified to serve. And even if Stevens does end up winning the election in Alaska, he faces a probable expulsion vote in the Senate. He says he’ll appeal his conviction, and he has yet to be sentenced.
Update: Begich was declared the winner of the election on Nov. 18, 2008. A federal judge dismissed Stevens’ conviction April 7, 2009, citing prosecutorial misconduct.
Federal office qualifications are governed by the Constitution, while state-level office rules vary according to state laws.

Felons in Elected Office - FactCheck.org

Q: Can a convicted felon serve in elected office? A: The Constitution allows a convicted felon to be a member of Congress, even if in prison. It’s up to the Senate or House to decide who may serve. As for state offices, different laws apply in different places. FULL ANSWER Alaska Sen. Ted...

www.factcheck.org

-----------
In other words, there are laws which deal with this. If Congress and the State in question says that anyone who was a felon can run for office, then Don Scott had every right to do so.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Because the vast majority of democrats are incapable of making INFORMED decisions and the few that are will try to justify and defend them because they are democrats.

You really ran around your pony tail. Allegations are not facts. It is like saying one cannot do this because they are Jews, or that because they are black, so on and so forth.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The point we are discussing is whether the fact that someone who has committed a FELONY, and served seven years in prison, should be able to hold elected office, or at the minimum, is a reasonable thing to consider when placing a vote.

The issues alone are not the only thing to consider. I hold a person who obeyed laws all their lives in higher esteem than an ex-felon. The “soft on criminals” attitude of Democrats is pervasive, and has led to a massive crime wave. There is nothing wrong, and in fact is a good thing, to let criminals know that if they commit serious felonies, certain prestigious roles may never be available to them, although they are welcome to rejoin society in a number of other capacities. It would show how strongly opposed we are to criminal felons.

There are lots of people who commit crimes, if not felony and never spend a day in prison.

As I posted below, Congress and Virginia have laws allowing ex felons to run for office. It is up to the voters, based on the issues and not any criminal record, to vote their conscience and their issues.

 

[Concerned American]

What I refuse to do is punish someone unendingly for a mistake they have moved on from.

He was allowed to become a lawyer. However, convicted felons should not be allowed to hold public office. They have shown in the past that their decision making is not in the public interest. The fact that you try to frame this in terms of hatred show you to be a racist bigot who is projecting.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

He was allowed to become a lawyer. However, convicted felons should not be allowed to hold public office.

According to you. Luckily the legal system does not agree with you.

They have shown in the past that their decision making is not in the public interest.

A single mistake should not mark someone for life. People grow up, they learn from their mistake and change.

The fact that you try to frame this in terms of hatred show you to be a racist bigot who is projecting.

How can it be about race for me when I would make the same argument for anyone of any race. You all are the ones that choose to make the thread "black vs jew", not I. Thus, your charges of projecting, are in fact just projecting

 

[Sixties Fan]

He was allowed to become a lawyer. However, convicted felons should not be allowed to hold public office. They have shown in the past that their decision making is not in the public interest. The fact that you try to frame this in terms of hatred show you to be a racist bigot who is projecting.

What example are you talking about where they cannot be trusted with the public interest? Who was it, on either Party?

 

[Concerned American]

You really ran around your pony tail. Allegations are not facts. It is like saying one cannot do this because they are Jews, or that because they are black, so on and so forth.

Au contraire, moron, you ate too many drugs in the sixties. YOU said that your beloved democrats were misinformed, not me. I just pointed out the obvious. BTW, you also seem to be one of the posters on this board that want to frame a FELON in racist terms. You folks are exposing yourselves as the racist bigots that you claim to abhor.

 

[Sixties Fan]

According to you. Luckily the legal system does not agree with you.



A single mistake should not mark someone for life. People grow up, they learn from their mistake and change.



How can it be about race for me when I would make the same argument for anyone of any race. You all are the ones that choose to make the thread "black vs jew", not I. Thus, your charges of projecting, are in fact just projecting

This is not a case of A Jew vs a Black person.
--------------
Filler-Corn released a statement thanking colleagues and supporters for making her the first woman to serve as House speaker in the body’s 403 years, saying it was “truly the honor of my life.”

“I was proud of all that we accomplished after taking the majority in 2019 and was willing to step up as minority leader once more to regain that majority,” Filler-Corn said. “Our caucus is made up of 48 talented and diverse individuals and I look forward to working with them to retake the majority.”

Former Speaker Filler-Corn removed as Democratic House leader

The Democratic caucus in the Virginia House of Delegates removed former Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn of Fairfax County as their leader Wednesday without electing a successor, creating a leadership vacuum just

www.insidenova.com

--------

I could not find any reference from her about it being about that. So, besides an issue which does not exist in Virginia, under their laws, there was not issue about being Jewish or Black, either.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is not a case of A Jew vs a Black person.

Of course it is not, even though these hate filled people tried to make it so.

In the end she was replaced because she was the leader when they lost the majority.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Au contraire, moron, you ate too many drugs in the sixties. YOU said that your beloved democrats were misinformed, not me. I just pointed out the obvious. BTW, you also seem to be one of the posters on this board that want to frame a FELON in racist terms. You folks are exposing yourselves as the racist bigots that you claim to abhor.

You are insulting someone you do not know, why?

And......You are changing what I said. Congratulations.


Ladies and Gentlemen, the WINNER. !!!!

 

[Concerned American]

You all are the ones that choose to make the thread "black vs jew", not I.

Please show me where I made any reference to race in this thread before YOU framed it in those terms. Lying again GiGi. I know, you made one mistake, why should I hold it against you? Wrong, you are an habitual liar.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Of course it is not, even though these hate filled people tried to make it so.

In the end she was replaced because she was the leader when they lost the majority.

Not sure that they are filled with hatred, but simply upset about what they are not informed about.