America - The Official Thread

[Famine]

Accusing Bernie of hypocrisy is unfounded.

Except for the part where he's saying he believes in something but doesn't do it himself, which is the literal definition of the word.

It was hypocritical when Warren Buffett said it and didn't do it too, a few years back.

 

[PocketZeven]

Which bit isn't true? You quoted literally everything.

That aside, he definitely says billionaires aren't paying their fair share, definitely says a 52% tax bracket would be their fair share, definitely doesn't pay tax at that rate, and definitely refuses to voluntarily overpay...

I was referring to the claim he "shifted" his position since revealing to be a millionaire.
The notion that someone is a hypocrite for not voluntarily paying taxes is really strange. Why would he overpay if he still disagrees with the current budget and policies? He is paying what he should under current tax law. He is advocating to change that to fund a new budget. So I assume he is willing to pay more. I would say he would be hypocrit if he changed his policy after becoming a millionair. He didnt change his positions, his income did. How is that hypocritical?

 

[Danoff]

Why would he overpay if he still disagrees with the current budget and policies?

Because he says his bill is less than what is fair. That's why. This is not complicated, it's not convoluted. It's really super simple.

So I assume he is willing to pay more.

Based on the fact that he refuses unless everyone else does?

 

[PocketZeven]

Not like that. You can choose to defer your refund to cover next year's taxes I think.



I'm not accusing him of hypocrisy based on shifting views. I'm accusing him of hypocrisy because his actions are not consistent with his rhetoric.

I have not found this "shifting". I already pointed out that his postitions havent changed, just his wealth and tax return. I think its a narrative being spread by rightwing opponents. There many more millionaires and billionaires who have been advocating for higher taxes. There is a good reason why they dont "overpay" their taxes.

 

[TexRex]

I think we're slowly moving away from incarceration as the sole means of sentencing criminals, and I think that's healthy and a better long term solution.

Okay, I explicitly referred to incarceration, but in the absence of that as punishment for acts committed, how might the term of revocation of voting privileges be defined? Is it as simple as equal substitution (a year of revocation in place of a year of incarceration) or is a schedule of privilege restoration more to your thinking? At what point, regarding the act for which an individual is found guilty, might long-term revocation (that would have exceeded the term of incarceration and/or probation) become applicable?

I was referring to his speech around release, after Barr's letter. Where he said "I won" referring to the report repeatedly.

I...erm...okay...?

I'd appreciate a warning when you whip to subject matter unrelated to the remarks to which you're responding. Surely you understand my confusion when the only reference in my post to him winning anything was the video thumbnail shown in the screenshot.

 

[Famine]

I was referring to the claim he "shifted" his position since revealing to be a millionaire.

Cool. I didn't make that claim. I said he stopped referring to millionaires in his speeches since he became one.

Incidentally, check the image at the bottom of your link.

The notion that someone is a hypocrite for not voluntarily paying taxes is really strange.

Cool. Don't know what that has to do with the point that Bernie directs his ire at people not paying their fair share while also not paying what he says is a fair share.

There many more millionaires and billionaires who have been advocating for higher taxes. There is a good reason why they dont "overpay" their taxes.

Yes, it's that they're hypocrites. Although I don't know that's really a 'good' reason.

 

[Danoff]

Okay, I explicitly referred to incarceration, but in the absence of that as punishment for acts committed, how might the term of revocation of voting privileges be defined? Is it as simple as equal substitution (a year of revocation in place of a year of incarceration) or is a schedule of privilege restoration more to your thinking? At what point, regarding the act for which an individual is found guilty, might long-term revocation (that would have exceeded the term of incarceration and/or probation) become applicable?

It's all based on what people think is a good a idea or practical or appropriate. I don't think you could argue that revoking voting is "disproportionate" for "heinous" crimes.

I have not found this "shifting". I already pointed out that his postitions havent changed, just his wealth and tax return. I think its a narrative being spread by rightwing opponents. There many more millionaires and billionaires who have been advocating for higher taxes. There is a good reason why they dont "overpay" their taxes.

The bit you quoted was me saying that I was not accusing him of hypocrisy for shifting his views.

 

[PocketZeven]

Because he says his bill is less than what is fair. That's why. This is not complicated, it's not convoluted. It's really super simple.



Based on the fact that he refuses unless everyone else does?

"refuses" is a strong word. At least try to find the logic. I am not against higher taxes, even if it would be bad for me, but I do need it to go to environmental protection, education and infrastructure.

So the logic is, if he wasnt a millionaire he wouldnt be a hypocrit anymore?

 

[Danoff]

"refuses" is a strong word. At least try to find the logic. I am not against higher taxes, even if it would be bad for me, but I do need it to go to environmental protection, education and infrastructure.

So the logic is, if he wasnt a millionaire he wouldnt be a hypocrit anymore?

I see what the pushback is. Thanks for making that clear.

The pushback is that people here think I'm calling them hypocrites for calling for higher taxes and not voluntarily contributing. Sorry, that's not what I'm doing. It's only hypocritical if you think that the amount of taxes you pay is unfairly low and yet don't pay extra. You need to hold both of those views simultaneously to be a hypocrite. Your taxes are unfairly low, and you won't pay more voluntarily.

 

[TexRex]

I don't think you could argue that revoking voting is "disproportionate" for "heinous" crimes.

Okay...are you highlighting the ambiguity of the selected words?

In the event of a sentence that includes incarceration--as one is more likely than not to be passed down for the foreseeable future after conviction of these particular crimes--to your mind, should revocation of voting privileges exceed the period of incarceration and probation for murder or rape? Should the term of revocation for one exceed that of the other? Why or why not?

 

[PocketZeven]

Except for the part where he's saying he believes in something but doesn't do it himself, which is the literal definition of the word.

It was hypocritical when Warren Buffett said it and didn't do it too, a few years back.

He is campaigning for higher taxes. Overpaying now is just idiotic. The money isnt going to education or healthcare reform.

The notion that not donating or overpaying taxes is not logic. By donating you have some control where the money is going. With taxes you have no control, especially if you disagree with the current administration.

 

[Danoff]

Okay...are you highlighting the ambiguity of the selected words?

Yes.

In the event of a sentence that includes incarceration--as one is more likely than not to be passed down for the foreseeable future after conviction of these particular crimes--to your mind, should revocation of voting privileges exceed the period of incarceration and probation for murder or rape? Should the term of revocation for one exceed that of the other? Why or why not?

Yea I don't think you should be allowed to vote if you've been convicted of those crimes. Ever again.

 

[PocketZeven]

I see what the pushback is. Thanks for making that clear.

The pushback is that people here think I'm calling them hypocrites for calling for higher taxes and not voluntarily contributing. Sorry, that's not what I'm doing. It's only hypocritical if you think that the amount of taxes you pay is unfairly low and yet don't pay extra. You need to hold both of those views simultaneously to be a hypocrite. Your taxes are unfairly low, and you won't pay more voluntarily.

I watched his townhall again, but it could be he unintentionly misspoke (or not). If not I agree with you. Claiming to pay your "fair share" and at the same time campaigning for higher taxes for the 1% (of which he belongs) does seem hypocritical.

 

[TexRex]

Yes.

I'm glad I asked. Thank you for helping to clear that up.

Yea I don't think you should be allowed to vote if you've been convicted of those crimes. Ever again.

Should you be allowed to rejoin society after such a conviction, provided incarceration/probation terms have been met? Be gainfully employed? Drive (if the crime is unrelated to the act)? Rent/own a home? Use the internet (if the crime is unrelated to the act)? Continue education in an official capacity? Run for political office? Pay taxes?

In the event of convictions for lesser crimes that still result in incarceration/probation, such as assault and larceny (independent of one another or combined), should revocation of voting privileges exceed the term of incarceration/probation? Should the revocation be permanent? Is there a clear line to be drawn regarding where permanent, temporary and no revocation are implemented?

Might an individual, subject to your argument, not be incarcerated and still have voting privileges revoked permanently? If so, what sort of circumstance would warrant such a punishment?

I'd also appreciate it if you'd address the 'why'.

My gut says that if you're subject to any of the aspects of life cited earlier in this post, you should have a say in how they are impacted by being able to vote for measures/candidates.

Edit: I'd rather you answer at your leisure than not at all. To be clear, I'm trying to engage in discussion and not put you on the spot.

 

[Danoff]

Should you be allowed to rejoin society after such a conviction, provided incarceration/probation terms have been met? Be gainfully employed? Drive (if the crime is unrelated to the act)? Rent/own a home? Use the internet (if the crime is unrelated to the act)? Continue education in an official capacity? Run for political office? Pay taxes?

That's gonna be case-specific. Not all murder and rape is the same. I should say that when I was responding earlier I was referring to violent rape rather than statutory. Statutory is its own can of case-specific worms.

Murder of the guy sleeping with your wife? Probably after incarceration you should be able to re-integrate (but I think probably still not vote). Murder of 58 people at a concert in Las Vegas? No, you're not allowed to re-integrate.

You're asking me these things as though my opinion matters. Sentencing is a pragmatic decision that's case and society specific that has only a few constraints on it from a philosophical standpoint.

In the event of convictions for lesser crimes that still result in incarceration/probation, such as assault and larceny (independent of one another or combined), should revocation of voting privileges exceed the term of incarceration/probation? Should the revocation be permanent? Is there a clear line to be drawn regarding where permanent, temporary and no revocation are implemented?

This is kindof a broad question. You're basically asking me what my preferred sentence is for any crime that could be committed for any particular set of facts about the crime. I don't think I can answer it, I don't think anyone can answer it. No, there is not a clear line to be drawn in this conversation. It's (almost) entirely based on what people think is a good idea at the time. The only boundary here is that it needs to be "proportionate" to the crime.

Might an individual, subject to your argument, not be incarcerated and still have voting privileges revoked permanently? If so, what sort of circumstance would warrant such a punishment?

Sure. Individuals who are institutionalized due to mental health (I don't know if you consider them incarcerated). Individuals who are in persistent vegetative states. Individuals who are below the age of 21. Individuals who were formerly incarcerated for a "heinous" crime. Individuals who are Jehovah's Witnesses. And also anyone who goes door-to-door selling knives or has formerly done so for encyclopedias.

I'd also appreciate it if you'd address the 'why'.

My gut says that if you're subject to any of the aspects of life cited earlier in this post, you should have a say in how they are impacted by being able to vote for measures/candidates.

Not if you've made it clear that your mind is not working. Your say is moot at that point. That's my "why".

 

[TexRex]

You're asking me these things as though my opinion matters.

It does matter, if only to you, but I ask them in an effort to gain some insight into why you've made the statements you have. That's all.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I was referring to his speech around release, after Barr's letter. Where he said "I won" referring to the report repeatedly.

I had not seen this. Thanks for posting.

Trump on blowhard Hannity's show tonight.



I'll bet there are a lot of worried Feds right about now.

 

[Liquid]

Sanders is agreeing a convicted terrorist should be allowed his voting rights. Should’ve shot that example down right away but didn’t.

There is no gotcha, but you seem quick to ignore Sanders’ criticisms as nothing. I’ll assume you agree with him as well.

There's no reason why that has to be the case. People who have committed heinous acts have forfeit their rights. If they still have the right to vote, it's because someone thinks it's a good idea, not because it's a logical, moral, or ethical requirement of human rights.

Is it not weird that someone who is in prison in, say, Idaho, for a marijuana crime would have "forfeited" their right to vote despite that right next door in Oregon it is perfectly legal? It seems harsh that two people behaving the exact same way but one of them actually loses their right to vote.

That's not to say all prisoners should vote but based on the United States' unique federal-state split, it would seem that there are nuances that need addressing and considering.

You might have forfeited your right to vote for that state's elections but unless what you've done is a federal offence applicable in all 50 states and D.C., like murder or bombing, perhaps you ought to be able to vote in federal elections still if what you've done isn't a federal crime.

 

[Danoff]

Is it not weird that someone who is in prison in, say, Idaho, for a marijuana crime would have "forfeited" their right to vote despite that right next door in Oregon it is perfectly legal? It seems harsh that two people behaving the exact same way but one of them actually loses their right to vote.

That's not to say all prisoners should vote but based on the United States' unique federal-state split, it would seem that there are nuances that need addressing and considering.

You might have forfeited your right to vote for that state's elections but unless what you've done is a federal offence applicable in all 50 states and D.C., like murder or bombing, perhaps you ought to be able to vote in federal elections still if what you've done isn't a federal crime.

The problem there of course is that the law against marijuana use violates the rights of the citizens. If anyone should lose the right to vote over that, it's the politicians that put the law in place - who effectively violated the rights of the people they represent. If laws (and sentencing) are based on the notion of human rights, then marijuana is not illegal. Because it is clear, extremely clear, that you do not violate the rights of any other person when you smoke weed.

You shouldn't lose your rights over a regulatory infraction. A "malum prohibitum" crime. You've not violated anyone's rights over such an infraction, you've violated a "rule".

 

[McLaren]

Is it not weird that someone who is in prison in, say, Idaho, for a marijuana crime would have "forfeited" their right to vote despite that right next door in Oregon it is perfectly legal? It seems harsh that two people behaving the exact same way but one of them actually loses their right to vote.

That's not to say all prisoners should vote but based on the United States' unique federal-state split, it would seem that there are nuances that need addressing and considering.

You might have forfeited your right to vote for that state's elections but unless what you've done is a federal offence applicable in all 50 states and D.C., like murder or bombing, perhaps you ought to be able to vote in federal elections still if what you've done isn't a federal crime.

I posted my view on the last page.

Ordinarily, this is a topic most people would be willing to agree or discuss; felons should typically be allowed to vote, depending of course, on the severity of their crime. The government already does something similar with certain people who have been jailed, not being allowed to purchase weapons after their sentence.

I think most prisoners should be allowed to vote. Murderers, esp. terrorists however, no. These people already took someone else’s right to vote by purposely taking their life, their own rights should be forfeited on that basis alone.

 

[TexRex]

These people already took someone else right to vote by purposely taking their life, their own rights should be forfeited on that basis alone.

Isn't this an argument for the death penalty, or at bare minimum (and I do mean the absolute barest of minimums) incarceration without the possibility of release? I hold being able to vote in very high regard, but it seems kind of trivial when compared to life as a whole. Of course the death penalty is another can of worms, particularly when the justice system is as flawed as it is.

I still think if an act has been deemed severe enough that one is removed from society at large, any rights or privileges that go along with existing in society are also forfeit for the term of incarceration and any determined probationary period following it. That said...it'd probably be one of the more straightforward demographics in terms of identity verification.

 

[PocketZeven]

Isn't this an argument for the death penalty, or at bare minimum (and I do mean the absolute barest of minimums) incarceration without the possibility of release? I hold being able to vote in very high regard, but it seems kind of trivial when compared to life as a whole. Of course the death penalty is another can of worms, particularly when the justice system is as flawed as it is.

I still think if an act has been deemed severe enough that one is removed from society at large, any rights or privileges that go along with existing in society are also forfeit for the term of incarceration and any determined probationary period following it. That said...it'd probably be one of the more straightforward demographics in terms of identity verification.

Are we talking about voting while incarcerated or after release? If someone is released after doint their time, I think they should have the same rights as anybody who is free and a citizen. The crime should not matter. While in incarcaration, it does mean forfeiting rights.

 

[Danoff]

If someone is released after doint their time, I think they should have the same rights as anybody who is free and a citizen. The crime should not matter.

So like, Felons should be able to buy guns right? I think that we've recognized at this point that what this would really mean is just incarcerating a lot of people unnecessarily. So instead of having a 15 year sentence they get a 10 year sentence and lose access to certain things after they're out. Pedophilia is a big one where this happens.

 

[TexRex]

Are we talking about voting while incarcerated or after release?

While incarcerated and through probation, as I indicated in the post.

I have to walk back from the notion of all rights and privileges revoked during incarceration be revoked through probation as well, as that's rather silly, but I think I maintain that voting be subject. I may be compelled to walk back from that too...I think it deserves some consideration.

If someone is released after doint their time, I think they should have the same rights as anybody who is free and a citizen.

I think that should be subject to limitations based on certain offenses. I think an individual [appropriately] convicted of child molestation should be prohibited from living a certain distance from schools and playgrounds and should be prohibited from frequenting venues frequented predominantly by children.

Edit: However, I'm opposed to a publicly viewable sex offender registry, as that's a great opportunity for abuse by the public. That information should be restricted to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. And the convicted, of course.

 

[PocketZeven]

So like, Felons should be able to buy guns right? I think that we've recognized at this point that what this would really mean is just incarcerating a lot of people unnecessarily. So instead of having a 15 year sentence they get a 10 year sentence and lose access to certain things after they're out. Pedophilia is a big one where this happens.

That would depend on his history with guns and his eligity to obtain a gun license (fow which I am for). In my world the ability to buy a gun is a privilege, not a right.

While incarcerated and through probation, as I indicated in the post.

I have to walk back from the notion of all rights and privileges revoked during incarceration be revoked through probation as well, as that's rather silly, but I think I maintain that voting be subject. I may be compelled to walk back from that too...I think it deserves some consideration.


I think that should be subject to limitations based on certain offenses. I think an individual [appropriately] convicted of child molestation should be prohibited from living a certain distance from schools and playgrounds and should be prohibited from frequenting venues frequented predominantly by children.

Edit: However, I'm opposed to a publicly viewable sex offender registry, as that's a great opportunity for abuse by the public. That information should be restricted to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. And the convicted, of course.

The question is then if repeat child molestors are punisched appropiately for their offence or not. Theoretically if criminals served their time, they should have the opportunity to rejoin society without limitations. Exception ofcourse for people who cannot be rehabilited. Personally I think they should not receive the ability to rejoin society at all. But that is for another thread.

 

[TexRex]

The question is then if repeat child molestors are punisched appropiately for their offence or not. Theoretically if criminals served their time, they should have the opportunity to rejoin society without limitations. Exception ofcourse for people who cannot be rehabilited. Personally I think they should not receive the ability to rejoin society at all. But that is for another thread.

Everything is subject to incarceration being an appropriate punishment. And I'm not convinced rehabilitation of sexual inclinations is actually a thing, chief among them being "pray away the gay".

 

[PocketZeven]

Everything is subject to incarceration being an appropriate punishment. And I'm not convinced rehabilitation of sexual inclinations is actually a thing, chief among them being "pray away the gay".

Pedophilia is something that should be treated differently though. There is no concent between two adults. In my country there actually had been a political party for pedo's. To me that is conformation that these people should not have the right to vote, when convicted for crimes related to pedophilia. Its a thin line, but children should always be protected from all sorts of crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_Freedom,_and_Diversity

 

[Danoff]

Theoretically if criminals served their time, they should have the opportunity to rejoin society without limitations.

I'm not understanding why it has to be all or nothing here. Why can't the serve time in prison and serve a different amount of time for access to guns, being free of ankle bracelets, and being able to vote? If we're telling them they can't vote, or buy a gun, we're telling them they haven't (and maybe never will) finished serving their time in that respect.

I don't like the "we have to use jail for everything" approach.

 

[Dotini]

children should always be protected from all sorts of crime.

Recently a 16 year Shiite old boy was tortured with electricity and publicly beheaded for WhatsApp messages about protests. But maybe that's not any sort crime in Saudi Arabia?

 

[TexRex]

Whew. And here I thought this page would remain free of patented Dotini ****-stirring. That was close.

Edit:

Recently a 16 year Shiite old boy was tortured with electricity and publicly beheaded for WhatsApp messages about protests. But maybe that's not any sort crime in Saudi Arabia?

Seriously, what's the point here? He didn't bring it up so he must not actually care or not all children count? Or maybe because he referred solely to crimes, he must not mean all such acts?