Taxation without representation

[Raider5678]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I disagree. In many parts of the country I believe various laws are specifically passed on enforced to disenfranchise specific Demographics. That was what Jim Crow was all about. 

We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore, we got rid of them.

Additionally, the politicians aren't forcing you to break the law, regardless of what it is.

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Sometimes laws need to be broken to show how unjust they are, and nobody should lose their right to vote because of it.

What law do we have that must be broken to show how unjust it is?

Having the right to get high off of drugs doesn't rank high on my list of "unjust laws", which is my main point. We don't have enough laws that are incredibly unjust for me to say that we must afford prisoners the right to vote so they can help change the law.

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

To me, it's about loyalty to the country and the society you participate in, not necessarily all the laws currently in force. Many people have spent years in jail for things that are legal now.

So smoking weed is being loyal to your country? Those who do it don't strike me high on the list of freedom fighters. 

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Political organizations are actively working  on way to exploit the law to disenfranchise drivers. 

Typo or am I missing something?

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It solves a lot of problems if people get to vote no matter what.

It also adds a whole lot of other problems.

Where do the prisoner's vote's count? As per the constitution, they count where they reside. Which would be the prison. Which means small towns with a prison in it, will literally be outvoted by prisoners.

Do the prisoners vote for judges as well? I get the feeling that judges would change how they sentence people if those same people would be voting for them, and I don't want to see that.

 

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Here in the U.S. mandatory sentences for those convicted of crimes has no influence over Prosecutors discretion in charging individuals. 

Yes it does. If the prosecutor knows that the minimum sentence, if someone is convicted, is 15 years in federal prison, they are either more inclined or less inclined to press those charges. Massively. Because there is no longer any "inbetween". It's all or nothing.

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

Often times discussing the nuances of an issue can bring enlightenment. Digging in one's heels because "that's the way it is and nothing more need be said" has been known to limit growth.

Is the current law not the current law?

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore, we got rid of them.

They got rid of the old laws, but the GOP has gotten better at achieving similar results within the system, and disguising new attempts.

See. for example, the voting rights suppression efforts in North Carolina that were declared to "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision". Poll taxes were alleged to be colorblind when instituted, but in fact they weren't. There's also a significant differential in who gets branded a felon in the first place, as I have previously pointed out.

 

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore, we got rid of them.

Additionally, the politicians aren't forcing you to break the law, regardless of what it is.

When you get time and/or are interested go to google and type in The New Jim Crow and you will see there is a lot of literature on this issue. Jim Crow was a systematic process of exploiting the law to disenfranchise a specific group of people. It still goes on today.  

7 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes it does. If the prosecutor knows that the minimum sentence, if someone is convicted, is 15 years in federal prison, they are either more inclined or less inclined to press those charges. Massively. Because there is no longer any "inbetween". It's all or nothing.

Prosecutors being  more or less inclined means they still have discretion. Two people arrested for the exact same thing do not have to receive the same charges and that is just a fact. Between a person with no resources to fight prosecution and a person with resources to fight prosecution whom do you think a Prosecutor is more likely to cut a deal or option against prosecuting at all? Mandatory sentencing gives Prosecutor more leverage to force plea bargains out of some people but ultimately they still have discretion. I don't think  mandatory sentencing does anything to ensure equal treatment under the law. 

To the point about Jim Crow above Prosecutors (the people who decide who gets charged with what) work for District Attorney in many localities elected position and in the other it is a politically appointed position. District Attorney's are Politicians. Who they decide to prosecute and for which charges are often decided on Politics. That is built into the system. It is why politicians campaign on the various types of people they plan to put behind bars if elected.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

Voting is more than just an individual right. It is not intended exclusively for self interest (part of the reason we have constitutional democracy, not just majority rule). When you disenfranchise someone by taking away their voting right it is a very small part of their overall punishment, but the accumulation of this disenfranchisement is, or most certainly can be, punishing a group that extends to be much greater than the incarcerated themselves.

 

[John Cuthber]

23 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Political organizations are actively working  on way to exploit the law to disenfranchise drivers. 

Would you like to expand on that?

I thought everyone and their dog  had a driving license in the US, apart from the very poor (who typically get deprived of voting rights by other means- as discussed)

[Ten oz]

43 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Would you like to expand on that?

I thought everyone and their dog  had a driving license in the US, apart from the very poor (who typically get deprived of voting rights by other means- as discussed)

My mistake. I meant "are not".

[iNow]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1741406002

Quote

...some voting machines mistakenly showed votes cast for Democrat Stacey Abrams registering for her opponent Republican Brian Kemp.

<...>

Grimes said she went to a polling site in Bartow County Thursday and tried to select Abrams, but the machine marked the box for Kemp. Grimes said she tried several times to clear the selection before it allowed her to vote for Abrams.

 

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1741406002

 

How many legitimate recounts did we get in 2016..........

[iNow]

https://www.gq.com/story/texas-voting-machines-cruz-orourke

Quote

Early voting in Texas began on Monday, but some Texans who showed up to cast a ballot were met with a rude surprise <...> folks who intended to vote for Democrats found themselves staring at a screen commemorating their alleged support for Ted Cruz instead.

 

[Ten oz]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

https://www.gq.com/story/texas-voting-machines-cruz-orourke

 

Quote

 

And the culprit isn't some shadowy team of Russophilic voter fraudsters. It is likely the state's ancient voting equipment.

For nearly two decades, Texas has relied on Hart eSlate voting machines, which look sort of like giant PalmPilots and are manipulated using a selection wheel and an ENTER button. Manipulating both of these things at the same time, it seems, is what can lead to unintended and very unwanted results. "Texas just hasn't spent the resources necessary to modernize its elections," Perez told me. "Until they do, we're going to continue to see this kind of thing on a regular basis." The trend prompted elections director Keith Ingram—who operates under the aegis of the Republican secretary of state—to issue an urgent advisory to voters on Tuesday: When a preview of your ballot appears at the very end, double-check every line before pressing that SUBMIT button.

 

This 'giving them the benefit' approach really frustrates me. Throughout my life it has always appeared to be Republicans who are benefiting from such errors. Whether it is a reduction in polling locations due to budget issues, old infrastructure breaking down , or hanging chads the error always seems to benefit the same party and/or disenfranchise the same demo. Even in a court of law where one is innocent till proven guilty there is still one side making the case to the jury that one is guilty. It isn't 2 defense attorneys outlining plausible deniability back and forth. 

Texas Attorney General and proud Tea Party Conservative Ken Paxton spent the the summer doing his party to prevent people from even being able to register to vote:

Quote

 

The legal fight over whether Texas is disenfranchising thousands of voters by violating a federal voter registration law is on its way to federal appeals court.

Just after a federal judge gave Texas less than two months to implement a limited version of online voter registration, the state on Monday formally notified U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia that it was appealing his finding that Texas was violating the law — also known as the “Motor Voter Act” — by failing to allow drivers to register to vote when they renew their driver’s licenses online.

Pointing to registration deadlines for the November election, Garcia created a 45-day deadline for the state to create the online system for drivers in order to comply with the federal law that requires states to allow people to register to vote while getting their drivers licenses. Here

----------------------------

Texas will not be required to meet a 45-day deadline to implement online voter registration for drivers — for now.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that mandated a voter registration system that would allow drivers to register to vote when they renew their driver’s licenses online. The requirement was part of U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia’s ruling that Texas was violating a federal voter registration law — also known as the “Motor Voter Act” — that’s meant to ease the voter registration process. Here

 

 

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This 'giving them the benefit' approach really frustrates me. Throughout my life it has always appeared to be Republicans who are benefiting from such errors. Whether it is a reduction in polling locations due to budget issues, old infrastructure breaking down , or hanging chads the error always seems to benefit the same party and/or disenfranchise the same demo. Even in a court of law where one is innocent till proven guilty there is still one side making the case to the jury that one is guilty. It isn't 2 defense attorneys outlining plausible deniability back and forth. 

Texas Attorney General and proud Tea Party Conservative Ken Paxton spent the the summer doing his party to prevent people from even being able to register to vote:

4

The American dream is such an insidious illusion.