Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2020 election

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, merjet said:

Self, ignore him(?). You have seen how much he(?) ignores your questions.

I answered your questions. I mean, your first three questions were a misunderstanding and I pointed that out. The last question I answered was that I had no reason or evidence to believe your claim that ex-felons would be pressure to vote Democrat. 

9 hours ago, merjet said:

Dude, do you really not understand the difference between "condition" and "conditional"?

I guess birthday presents are conditional and therefore bribes, because I don't get to choose cash on hand instead. Yes that is a condition, but it's not what we're talking about... We're talking about conditions on the cause, not conditions on the effect.

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A difference between paying a bribe and paying a fine is that a bribe is conditioned on the recipient performing an action, and charity is not. If I charitably pay your fine, you are free to thank me

Tony, this horse we children would ride out in the country belonged to that man I spoke of who went to school only through the third grade. He was the second husband of our mother. He was a cattle ran

I don't understand why you guys dump on Trump for not being a perfect defender of individual rights but hand-wave dismiss the Democrats and Biden's complete dismissal of individual rights as essential

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, merjet said:

I disagree

Well what question would you like me to answer more clearly? Can you rephrase your question then, rather than pulling a Nicky? 

28 minutes ago, merjet said:

and said nothing about birthday presents.

Not directly, but you are saying things about gifts, suggesting that what someone offers as a gift is "conditional" in the same sense as needing to do something in order to receive the gift. You have conflated conditions of a cause with conditions of an effect. Just read DO's post. 

Either that, or say what you mean: what you actually don't like is that ex-convicts are being given help in order to vote for whoever the hell they want (Bloomberg might hope that they will vote Democrat, but there is no explicit or implicit requirement that they vote Democrat because there is no consequence of voting Republican). You would rather disenfranchise people than have the slightest possibility that any of those people would vote Democrat. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

[1] Well what question would you like me to answer more clearly? 

...

[2] what you actually don't like is that ex-convicts are being given help in order to vote for whoever the hell they want  ... You would rather disenfranchise people than have the slightest possibility that any of those people would vote Democrat. 

[1] My second and third questions concerned the motives of Michael Bloomberg and ActBlue. Your answer ignored both entirely. So what do you believe their motives are – pure charity or vote-buying? Also, what do you believe about what Michael Bloomberg and ActBlue believe the probabilities of the newly enabled ex-felons voting Republican or Democrat? This is not about how you believe the ex-felons would vote, but about what Bloomberg and ActBlue principals believe.

[2] Where did you get that garbage? I have said nothing even slightly similar. You owe me an apology.

What I dislike is the illegal vote buying (link1, link2) of Michael Bloomberg and others, and their getting a tax subsidy for it. I dislike ActBlue Charities being a “money launderer” tax-wise for the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. ActBlue Charities is doing something a 501(c)(3) is not authorized to do, despite its getting away with it so far.

After seeing the 60 Minutes episode about the hurdles keeping ex-felons from voting, I have empathy for them, especially if they had minor offenses like possessing too much marijuana or traffic tickets. The hurdles are too high and Florida’s atrocious record-keeping and bureaucracy make it too difficult for the ex-felon to clear them. That’s a matter of changing the law and reforming the record-keeping and bureaucracy. However, organized vote buying by Michael Bloomberg and ActBlue is trampling on the rule of law via an illegal workaround.


 

Edited by merjet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some history on Florida — from the FLORIDA TIMES UNION — October 6, 2016

With a month to go until the November election, a new report estimates that nearly 1.5 million Floridians will be barred from casting ballots due to past felony convictions.

Those 1.5 million people make up more than one fifth of the national total of disenfranchised ex-felons, according to the report, released Thursday by a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, The Sentencing Project.

The rate of disenfranchisement is especially pronounced when looking at Florida’s black population. Twenty-seven percent of the state’s African American population cannot vote because of their criminal histories, according to the report.

The data provides fresh fodder for advocates who are arguing in Tallahasee for a ballot measure that would restore voting rights to convicted felons. The restoration of voting rights, they say, is a necessary step to re-introducing convicted felons to their communities after they’ve finished serving their time.

“There is no more significant identifier of citizenship than the ability to vote,” said Desmond Meade, who has led a ballot initiative that would automatically restore voting rights to non-violent felony offenders who finish serving their sentences and probations.

Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, said the number of disenfranchised felon voters in Florida is ballooning due to higher incarceration rates, sentencing policies, the demographics of prison populations and the governor’s actions.

Presently, the state’s convicted felons are barred from voting for life, making Florida one of the four strictest states for ex-felon voting rights in the country, alongside Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia.

“There’s some people who say, ‘Well, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,’” Mauer said. “But the racial disparities in the justice system are well documented.”

Higher crime rates in the African American population, he added, can be tied to criminal justice policy decisions, access to economic resources and biases in the justice system.

“A fair amount of that results from the drug war, and we’ve seen for a long time law enforcement decision making about where and when to make drug arrests is very discretionary,” Mauer said. “So Florida, which starts off with a high disenfranchisement rate in particular, really skyrockets for African Americans.”

But Meade, who is African American, cautioned that the issue affects more white people than black people in the state of Florida.

He questioned the traditional wisdom that suggests Republicans oppose restoring voting rights to ex-felons because those with criminal histories are more likely to vote Democrat. In his travels from Pensacola to the Key West, Meade said, he has met many people who have lost their right to vote. Most of them, he said, are white. Many of them, he added, are Republican.

“In the past, there has always been an assumption that Republicans don’t want this to happen because they know people who are impacted will vote Democrat, and that’s far from the truth,” Meade said. “At the end of the day, the criminal justice system doesn’t see political parties.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In that election, Donald Trump won over Hilary Clinton by about 1.1 million votes.

I too favor restoring voting rights for some felons. A long-time friend of mine has been in federal prison (lately in the one in Ohio with the Covid noteriety). He will go back to Florida, where he committed the crime, for his probation years. In his case, he will simply die there under the probation term, and voting will not become a possibility. It has been somewhat interesting to learn from him the information and talk in prisons over these last nine years. (His prisons were the Low security level, by order of the sentence---not to be confused with Minimal.) They do not have internet, but they have television in a common area, and they get all the information and opinions on there. I've the impression there is diversity of opinion among the inmates, but I don't know proportions. I've the impression that here, outside, in freedom, many vocal Democrats and Republicans get up their hopes and angers over what they speculate will be proportion-impacts of more felons voting and over requiring picture ID's for voting, a good ways off from anything firm about most likely impact. 

Edited by Boydstun
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the debate last night. What a raucous. The local suburban paper’s headline was Wildfire in Cleveland!

In the debate President Trump said Biden called some criminal drug dealers “Superpredators.” I read somewhere that was mistaken because it was Hillary Clinton. Trump did say Biden’s treatment of black people was awful, but he could have hit Biden even harder for Biden’s role in making drug laws.

Reason Magazine’s November 2020 issue has two articles ‘The Case Against Trump’ and ‘The Case Against Biden.’ https://reason.com/magazine/

Digital subscribers can read them online. I get the print edition. The Case Against Biden has a lot about Biden and his role in legislation, especially crime legislation, and especially about drugs.

According to the article: Biden wrote the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which prescribed new mandatory minimums and created the notorious weight-based sentencing distinction that treated crack cocaine as it were 100 times worse than cocaine powder. Two years later, Biden co-sponsored another bill for harsher minimum sentences. Because crack offenders were overwhelmingly black and powder offenders were more likely white or Hispanic, the result was much harsher penalties for black offenders. By the early 1990’s, pressure was building for reform of crack penalties. In 2002 Biden conceded: “We may not have gotten that right.” During Biden’s run for the 2020 Democratic nomination Cory Booker harshly criticized Biden’s role in making the drug laws that destroyed black communities like Booker’s.

The article says Trump did some tweets last year about Biden’s part in the bad treatment of African Americans. A Trump campaign video released in May, 2020 and a June blogpost slammed Biden as the chief architect of mass incarceration and the War on Drugs which targeted black Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

Desmond Meade, who has led a ballot initiative that would automatically restore voting rights to non-violent felony offenders who finish serving their sentences and probations.

Desmond Meade is President and Executive Director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC). FRRC is a 501(c)(4) using ActBlue Charities, a 501(c)(3), as a "front" to get contributors tax savings for donating to FRRC. Donations to a 501(c)(4) are not tax-deductible.

Edited by merjet
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, merjet said:

 ... or traffic tickets. The hurdles are too high and Florida’s atrocious record-keeping and bureaucracy make it too difficult for the ex-felon ... 

Felonies are serious crimes. Traffic tickets are not felonies.

There is no such thing as an “ex-felon,” just as there is no such thing as an “ex-murderer,” (except for a murderer who is no longer breathing.)

Living felons are felons, period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boydstun said:

Some history on Florida — from the FLORIDA TIMES UNION — October 6, 2016With a month to go until the November election, a new report estimates that nearly 1.5 million Floridians will be barred from casting ballots due to past felony convictions.

Yet Bloomberg restored only a very small fraction of 1.5 million, because he was very selective. That selectivity will form the essence of election fraud charges against him after Trump begins his second term.

Bloomberg is willing to do this because he is fighting for his life, he simply will not survive the purge of criminal scum that is coming in term two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, merjet said:

Also, what do you believe about what Michael Bloomberg and ActBlue believe the probabilities of the newly enabled ex-felons voting Republican or Democrat?

That part of the post was about if it would even be an effective strategy for Democrats to possibly get more votes. It would be stupid for you or Bloomberg or anyone else to think that most ex-convicts would vote Democrat without any evidence to back it up.

"Any reward given to a person for voting in a particular way or for not voting can be called vote buying."

What reward? Their fines are being paid regardless of how they vote. Their fines will still be paid if they vote Republican. Their fines will still be paid if they don't vote. In other words, there is no reward for voting or not voting. It is not vote buying. As I said, you've conflated cause and effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

There is no such thing as an “ex-felon,” just as there is no such thing as an “ex-murderer,” (except for a murderer who is no longer breathing.)

Then say "people who have served time for felonies but are now free ". 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those with no issue with Bloomberg’s actions:

The fines were imposed following a legitimate judicial process and trial by a jury of peers. The fines were intended to be suffered by the guilty, just as their terms in prison were intended to be suffered by the guilty.

Would you have any issue with a charity volunteer doing the time in prison in place of the actual, guilty felon? If yes, why exactly are you happy to nullify a legitimate judicial punishment (monetary portion) but not the imprisonment portion? You can’t say to keep Society safe because these are non-violent felons, the imprisonment is purely about punishment, just like the fines.

What is the justification for nullifying the judicial process and allowing volunteeers to lessen the punishments of those found guilty of serious crimes?

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

For those with no issue with Bloomberg’s actions:

"No issue" is not a fair way to put it. Or at least, the dispute began here with merjet claiming it was a bribe. Bloomberg can be condemned in terms of pandering, or in terms of him being a pragmatic hypocrite, or that he is not transparent about what he thinks. Doesn't mean that he did something illegal or did something he should be legally punished for. He didn't initiate force or coerce people, and that's what counts. This is hardball politics. 

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

The fines were intended to be suffered by the guilty, just as their terms in prison were intended to be suffered by the guilty.

See, now this resembles something of a coherent argument, rather than the bizarre argument that Bloomberg somehow is offering bribes (merjet is still stuck at trying to comprehend what conditional means in this context, but at least you and I have moved on to something more productive). Fines are part of their sentence, so does the fact that someone pays this fine means that justice is being subverted? I think it's justified to the extent that as far as I understand, the fines in question are primarily used to deny the right to vote, because of whatever fear that people have that anyone who leaves prison will commit crimes again. Actually, I would say that fines should not be a part of a sentence, because if you make enough money, fines are a payment like any other, so I find them to be inconsequential for sentencing anyway. Since I don't think fines are proper barriers, I don't think that paying fines for others subverts justice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Felonies are serious crimes. Traffic tickets are not felonies.

There is no such thing as an “ex-felon,” just as there is no such thing as an “ex-murderer,” (except for a murderer who is no longer breathing.)

Living felons are felons, period.

Per here third degree felonies include “possession of drugs such as cocaine, oxycodone or a 20-gram surplus of marijuana” If you believe possessing a little cocaine, a little oxycodone, or a 20-gram surplus of marijuana is a “serious crime”, that’s your choice.

My using “traffic tickets” was not a great choice of words. But maybe enough speeding tickets, a suspended license, and driving on a suspended license is a third degree felony in Florida.

Common usage of “ex-felon” is someone who has been convicted of a felony but who has served his or her entire sentence and is no longer under any other form of correctional supervision. Are you trying to play Word Nazi?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

That part of the post was about if it would even be an effective strategy for Democrats to possibly get more votes. It would be stupid for you or Bloomberg or anyone else to think that most ex-convicts would vote Democrat without any evidence to back it up.

...

Their fines are being paid regardless of how they vote. Their fines will still be paid if they vote Republican. Their fines will still be paid if they don't vote. In other words, there is no reward for voting or not voting. It is not vote buying. As I said, you've conflated cause and effect.

It is even more stupid for you to assert a priori that the probability is necessarily 50%/50% simply because there are two possibilities. If you believe that is necessary, I will be glad to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. The sale would be conditional on the condition that you pay the full price in cash in advance.

...

Mere assertion, no evidence.

 

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

bizarre argument that Bloomberg somehow is offering bribes 

...

Actually, I would say that fines should not be a part of a sentence, because if you make enough money, fines are a payment like any other, so I find them to be inconsequential for sentencing anyway. Since I don't think fines are proper barriers, I don't think that paying fines for others subverts justice. 

Vote buying is a form of bribery (link).

Fines may be the main form of punishment for a third degree felony. Yet fines are only a part of the financial obligation required to be paid in Florida to restore the right to vote. The obligation includes “fines, fees, costs and/or restitution.” Hence, you assume that restitution of victims of crime is “inconsequential” and not part of justice.

Edited by merjet
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, merjet said:

It is even more stupid for you to assert a priori that the probability is necessarily 50%/50% simply because there are two possibilities.

I've already explained to you that this is not what I think. I said that no one knows what the distribution will be. I said that the first time you asked about it. 

4 hours ago, merjet said:

Vote buying is a form of bribery

Right, and I explained how this is not vote buying. I quoted the definition you gave.

4 hours ago, merjet said:

Hence, you assume that restitution of victims of crime is “inconsequential” and not part of justice.

I said fines. I did not include fees, costs, or other restitution. I do not believe that fines are ever any kind of justice, just a means of making crime into simple cost. How did you get from me specifically talking about fines into me talking about all financial obligations related to punishment of crime? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, merjet said:

Per here third degree felonies include “possession of drugs such as cocaine, oxycodone or a 20-gram surplus of marijuana” If you believe possessing a little cocaine, a little oxycodone, or a 20-gram surplus of marijuana is a “serious crime”, that’s your choice.

My using “traffic tickets” was not a great choice of words. But maybe enough speeding tickets, a suspended license, and driving on a suspended license is a third degree felony in Florida.

Common usage of “ex-felon” is someone who has been convicted of a felony but who has served his or her entire sentence and is no longer under any other form of correctional supervision. Are you trying to play Word Nazi?

Those do sound less serious. I agree the law should be changed because a handful of those 3rd degree felonies should only be misdemeanors or even not crimes at all.

Not a great choice, agreed.

Word Nazi? Like forcing you to use honest words?

Never!

In fact I look forward to your use of ‘ex-murderer’ once it becomes fashionable.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Latendre,

I think focusing on the use of 'ex-murderer' diverts the focus from what merjet is attending to.

Individuals make mistakes in life, especially as children. A child that takes something from a store has committed an act of thievery. While the context of age and knowledge comes into play, the child is typically not branded as a thief for the remainder of his life.

In the aspect of an individual having served his time for a crime - you are entitled to view him as a criminal and not interact with him. The element to change is allowing an individual charged with murder back among those who respect the lives of others. On other crimes, holding to the label implies that an individual cannot learn from mistakes and chose not to repeat them in life.

The issue with those who have committed murder, do you contend that a proper government should never release a man convicted of murder? Then the issue is not what to call those who have been released, except perhaps as a means to alter the system that permits them to endanger those who do respect the rights of others, instead of keeping them imprisoned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

do you contend that a proper government should never release a man convicted of murder? Then the issue is not what to call those who have been released, except perhaps as a means to alter the system that permits them to endanger those who do respect the rights of others, instead of keeping them imprisoned.

The issue is about what to call a duly convicted murderer who has been released, he is a murderer. This is about objective identification. Same for felons. The justice system must never forget what they did, what they are. Nor will I.

Never release a man convicted of murder is fine with me, but no I wouldn’t say it is required to qualify as proper government.

This is very fine me, third one this year, scheduled in about five weeks.: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/execution-scheduled-federal-death-row-inmate-convicted-murdering-child

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the impression merjet is addressing the abuse of tax dollars being squandered for something other than the proper purpose of government.

Even so, the point has been addressed . . . several times. It is understood that you take umbrage with the nomenclature ex-felon or ex-murderer. It is akin to the term bribery. In the wider context of what is being addressed, quibbling over a perceived misuse does not seem to be moving this topic toward greater clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

The issue is about what to call a duly convicted murderer who has been released, he is a murderer. This is about objective identification. Same for felons. The justice system must never forget what they did, what they are. Nor will I.

Never release a man convicted of murder is fine with me, but no I wouldn’t say it is required to qualify as proper government.

This is very fine me, third one this year, scheduled in about five weeks.: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/execution-scheduled-federal-death-row-inmate-convicted-murdering-child

You're being a dick. I personally have two felonies on my record. One was for non-payment of child support, and the other was for "fleeing-and-eluding" which was really just driving off while drunk 15 years ago (last time I've ever did that). I'm not some type of criminal "scum" like you claimed when you attacked a whole class of people (those with prior felonies) several times in this thread. You need to understand that we live in a nation riddled with non-objective laws and that many, many people that have a felony or two on their records often should not and would not under a truly capitalist society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 10:51 PM, Boydstun said:

Democratic and Republican Party mechanisms for replacing a presidential or vice-presidential nominee in the 2020 election—like if a candidate dies or otherwise gets really incapacitated by, say, a stroke. I imagine with Trump or Biden as winner, but dead or otherwise out, the winning Party would promote their VP winner to Pres and fill the VP spot with, well, with someone. I just found this out. I hope that if Mr. Trump wins (incumbent Presidents usually do), he will not die before taking office. That way Speaker Pelosi and President Pence could get better acquainted, if I understand correctly.

Nancy-Pelosi-Boots-Mike-Pence-From-His-House-Office.jpg

Since President Trump has now tested positive for having Covid 19, I thought this earlier information I posted might be worth carrying forward in the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

[1] Right, and I explained how this is not vote buying. I quoted the definition you gave.

[2] I said fines. I did not include fees, costs, or other restitution. I do not believe that fines are ever any kind of justice, just a means of making crime into simple cost. How did you get from me specifically talking about fines into me talking about all financial obligations related to punishment of crime? 

[1] Yours is one opinion. Many others believe it is vote buying and you have not refuted them. If you believe there is such a thing as vote buying, please give an example or two.

[2] I didn’t get it from you. I read and saw, for example here and here (both linked in this thread), that “financial obligations” includes more than fines. Apparently, you didn’t read that, forgot what you read, or ignored it.


 

Edited by merjet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...