In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 30 2016 10:25 TheLordofAwesome wrote: Have any news outlets besides the somewhat questionable National Enquirer taken a stance one way or the other on the Cruz "scandal"? Putting it in quotes because I'm genuinely not sure if this is a real thing or if it's the NE making up stuff as they have been famous for in the past. Any responses from more knowledgeable posters are greatly appreciated! Thanks!
There is a reason in ended up in the NE and not any of the other well known publications, despite being rumored for months.
On March 30 2016 10:25 TheLordofAwesome wrote: Have any news outlets besides the somewhat questionable National Enquirer taken a stance one way or the other on the Cruz "scandal"? Putting it in quotes because I'm genuinely not sure if this is a real thing or if it's the NE making up stuff as they have been famous for in the past. Any responses from more knowledgeable posters are greatly appreciated! Thanks!
There is a reason in ended up in the NE and not any of the other well known publications, despite being rumored for months.
idk man according to this clickbait article i read, it's been corroborated by a washington times reporter and a breitbart reporter claiming he was "scooped" or beaten to it
On March 30 2016 10:25 TheLordofAwesome wrote: Have any news outlets besides the somewhat questionable National Enquirer taken a stance one way or the other on the Cruz "scandal"? Putting it in quotes because I'm genuinely not sure if this is a real thing or if it's the NE making up stuff as they have been famous for in the past. Any responses from more knowledgeable posters are greatly appreciated! Thanks!
There is a reason in ended up in the NE and not any of the other well known publications, despite being rumored for months.
idk man according to this clickbait article i read, it's been corroborated by a washington times reporter and a breitbart reporter claiming he was "scooped" or beaten to it
The way I read the debate thing (only source seems to be from the Sanders website) is that Hillary is not categorically rejecting the idea of a debate, but signalling she's willing to negotiate on the issue. It's not a departure from her previous stance on a debate is possible, if Sanders is willing to meet halfway on some issues.
On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote: Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month.
it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo
Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical.
actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering.
I guess you just have a lot more faith in the average American than I do.
that's funny because i'm reading it the opposite
He thinks that the one month is enough time for the average American to make an informed decision between the 12 Republican candidates and I think the need more time, and you see it as me having more faith in their abilities? Hell, I bet the average person couldn't even tell me meaningful differences between all of the remaining candidates even after all of these months..
I mean, what you're saying is dependent on the average person paying attention to debates and being informed on each candidate's policy. I'm guessing if you interviewed the average trump supporter all you'd get is "Walls, damn Muslims, Make 'Merica great again!"
More or less time likely won't change any of that.
On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote: Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month.
it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo
Look at the Republican primary, ithis ist started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical.
actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering.
I guess you just have a lot more faith in the average American than I do.
that's funny because i'm reading it the opposite
He thinks that the one month is enough time for the average American to make an informed decision between the 12 Republican candidates and I think the need more time, and you see it as me having more faith in their abilities? Hell, I bet the average person couldn't even tell me meaningful differences between all of the remaining candidates even after all of these months..
I mean, what you're saying is dependent on the average person paying attention to debates and being informed on each candidate's policy. I'm guessing if you interviewed the average trump supporter all you'd get is "Walls, damn Muslims, Make 'Merica great again!"
this is kind of what i was getting at when i said "ignoring the fact that "informed" might mean vastly different things to people with different political opinions"
informed's kind of an empty word given how people tend to actually decide things
really the effect of campaigning has more to do with turnouts than with turning people i think
On March 30 2016 11:15 ticklishmusic wrote: The way I read the debate thing (only source seems to be from the Sanders website) is that Hillary is not categorically rejecting the idea of a debate, but signalling she's willing to negotiate on the issue. It's not a departure from her previous stance on a debate is possible, if Sanders is willing to meet halfway on some issues.
Well considering he's been calling her out by name and saying all the same stuff he was before and she is softening her position, I don't think the tone is changing or that she's not going to debate. Not sure what she thinks she's going to get in return.
Reading some of the stuff about Trump's CM today, it seems to be it would be an excellent example of why this process should be drawn out. Trump's ever shifting positions get more scrutiny, and we see how campaigns deal with unplanned events that occur.
For those who still haven't watched the AZ hearing here's the SoS talking about them knowing that there was voter suppression, that they know people's party affiliations were inexplicably changed, and there was testimony from a poll worker who's been doing this for 20 years and this was the first this had happened. All investigations have shown it was overwhelmingly Bernie supporters who's affiliations were changed.
It also shows that they are still counting votes even if they aren't reporting those that they have counted. She also admits (in the full version) they knowingly and intentionally violated statutes by releasing the early results before they were allowed to.
Voter suppression is all over the place in this country. Look at Florida, some crazy high number; like 20% of black people can't vote there because of a past felony conviction.
Another thing that skews primary results is the fact that certain states vote first...
Before someone defends felon voter disqualification it's important for people to remember that historically it was used in combination with Jim Crow laws in which black and white people would be charged with different versions of the same crime, the black version being a felony that disqualified the voter. While felon disenfranchisement may be in itself defensible the way that it is used to strip African Americans of their constitutional rights should make any defender of it feel uncomfortable.
As I wrote last year in a feature for The American Prospect, felon disenfranchisement laws come directly out of the “redemption” period of American history, after white supremacists had worked—successfully—to stop Reconstruction and push blacks back into the margins of society.
In the 1870s and 1880s, for instance, Southern states created a whole new class of crimes—like “vagrancy”—which were punished by disenfranchisement and mandatory labor. And of course, the effect of these measures was to re-enslave African Americans in everything but name.
By the turn of the century, disenfranchisement was codified in Southern state constitutions. One of the most egregious examples comes from Virginia, where then Delegate Carter Glass—the future Senator Glass of Glass-Steagall—praised felon disenfranchisement as a plan to “eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this state in less than five years.”
It didn't just happen, it's a deliberate tool that seems to have slipped through the cracks.
As a Southerner, all I can say is I'm glad the rest of the country is noticing the problem. I had people who I shepherded through the registration process, checked and double checked their eligibility then were told for one reason or another they couldn't vote. Welcome to my life.
On March 30 2016 12:32 KwarK wrote: Before someone defends felon voter disqualification it's important for people to remember that historically it was used in combination with Jim Crow laws in which black and white people would be charged with different versions of the same crime, the black version being a felony that disqualified the voter. While felon disenfranchisement may be in itself defensible the way that it is used to strip African Americans of their constitutional rights should make any defender of it feel uncomfortable.
As I wrote last year in a feature for The American Prospect, felon disenfranchisement laws come directly out of the “redemption” period of American history, after white supremacists had worked—successfully—to stop Reconstruction and push blacks back into the margins of society.
In the 1870s and 1880s, for instance, Southern states created a whole new class of crimes—like “vagrancy”—which were punished by disenfranchisement and mandatory labor. And of course, the effect of these measures was to re-enslave African Americans in everything but name.
By the turn of the century, disenfranchisement was codified in Southern state constitutions. One of the most egregious examples comes from Virginia, where then Delegate Carter Glass—the future Senator Glass of Glass-Steagall—praised felon disenfranchisement as a plan to “eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this state in less than five years.”
It didn't just happen, it's a deliberate tool that seems to have slipped through the cracks.
It's really weird that felons can't vote in the US. Felons and criminals are citizens... It's like the US system is made specifically to make reintegration to society difficult. Stigmatize those people so they can't get a job easily and so they can't get back on their feet. Then act surprised when they're "not rehabilitated". And then we hear people say rehabilitation doesn't work.
To make it worse, turns out private prisons want to keep their customers, too.
On March 30 2016 12:32 KwarK wrote: Before someone defends felon voter disqualification it's important for people to remember that historically it was used in combination with Jim Crow laws in which black and white people would be charged with different versions of the same crime, the black version being a felony that disqualified the voter. While felon disenfranchisement may be in itself defensible the way that it is used to strip African Americans of their constitutional rights should make any defender of it feel uncomfortable.
As I wrote last year in a feature for The American Prospect, felon disenfranchisement laws come directly out of the “redemption” period of American history, after white supremacists had worked—successfully—to stop Reconstruction and push blacks back into the margins of society.
In the 1870s and 1880s, for instance, Southern states created a whole new class of crimes—like “vagrancy”—which were punished by disenfranchisement and mandatory labor. And of course, the effect of these measures was to re-enslave African Americans in everything but name.
By the turn of the century, disenfranchisement was codified in Southern state constitutions. One of the most egregious examples comes from Virginia, where then Delegate Carter Glass—the future Senator Glass of Glass-Steagall—praised felon disenfranchisement as a plan to “eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this state in less than five years.”
It didn't just happen, it's a deliberate tool that seems to have slipped through the cracks.
The whole turned them into slaves part is pretty significant too. It's modern equivalent of private prisons and contracting out labor at slave wages also "slipping through the cracks".
On March 30 2016 12:32 KwarK wrote: Before someone defends felon voter disqualification it's important for people to remember that historically it was used in combination with Jim Crow laws in which black and white people would be charged with different versions of the same crime, the black version being a felony that disqualified the voter. While felon disenfranchisement may be in itself defensible the way that it is used to strip African Americans of their constitutional rights should make any defender of it feel uncomfortable.
As I wrote last year in a feature for The American Prospect, felon disenfranchisement laws come directly out of the “redemption” period of American history, after white supremacists had worked—successfully—to stop Reconstruction and push blacks back into the margins of society.
In the 1870s and 1880s, for instance, Southern states created a whole new class of crimes—like “vagrancy”—which were punished by disenfranchisement and mandatory labor. And of course, the effect of these measures was to re-enslave African Americans in everything but name.
By the turn of the century, disenfranchisement was codified in Southern state constitutions. One of the most egregious examples comes from Virginia, where then Delegate Carter Glass—the future Senator Glass of Glass-Steagall—praised felon disenfranchisement as a plan to “eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this state in less than five years.”
It didn't just happen, it's a deliberate tool that seems to have slipped through the cracks.
It's really weird that felons can't vote in the US. Felons and criminals are citizens... It's like the US system is made specifically to make reintegration to society difficult. Stigmatize those people so they can't get a job easily and so they can't get back on their feet. Then act surprised when they're "not rehabilitated". And then we hear people say rehabilitation doesn't work.
To make it worse, turns out private prisons want to keep their customers, too.
Is it though? I mean, weird?
If you read up on it, at least a tiny bit like i just did, it makes a lot of sense. For some people. I suggest you start with which states have the most restrictive "right-stripping" going on. You'll see a pattern.
I mean, it's funny that it even is possible to strip a citizen of his rights that drastically (and funny enough, in some states they don't even get restored automatically - you have to apply) - it's even funnier that this happens for a political reason. See George Doubledumb Bush.
If criminals and ex-criminals could've voted, he most likely wouldn't have been president. It's roughly 6 million people (afaik) that aren't allowed to vote.
PS: the three most restrictive states, at least back then, were all governed by republicans. Black folks is tending to vote democrats. And yeah, it sounds a bit tinfoily, but if you look at the systematic voter-suppression etc, i don't think that's too far off the truth.
And yeah, you got the privatized/businesslike prisons part right. I heard it's rather profitable.
I see re-socialization as the necessary requirement for the state's right to lock someone up in the first place. After all if your guilt with society is payed you ought to have the right to reintegrate and become a regular citizen again, otherwise I can't really see how punishment is justifiable in the first place.
On March 30 2016 13:46 Nyxisto wrote: I see re-socialization as the necessary requirement for the state's right to lock someone up in the first place. After all if your guilt with society is payed you ought to have the right to reintegrate and become a regular citizen again, otherwise I can't really see how punishment is justifiable in the first place.
This is what I would call the "theory of compounding victories" which, although I am generally on the side of criminal justice reform, really pisses me off just from an argument standpoint.
For example, in California and elsewhere recently, they argued death row was cruel and unusual because it took so long to get executed. But it only takes so long because previous victories by anti-death penalty advocates.
The same is true for felons, who never regained voting rights in the past because they never lived long enough (in general) to get off parole, or were simply executed summarily for crimes we no longer execute for. These developments in no way are indicative that felons are now more worthy to vote than they were in the past.
The re-enfranchisement lobby is misplaced as it should be low priority (aside from its obvious partisan strategies) with things like eliminating certain crimes and retroactively expunging records for those crimes being an actual solution to real problems, rather than a strategy to win elections.
EPT
