The current leading Democratic candidate, Crazy Bernie Sanders, just advocated letting convicted felons currently serving sentences having the right to vote. He went on to confirm this would include convicts like the Boston Bomber. Is Crazy Bernie really this crazy and/are Democrats really this desperate at this point to get voters?

Other than the 2nd, I think the rest of the Bill of Rights are maintained for prisoners. I'm not sure what rights you're referring to.

Where in this country are black people not allowed to vote?

Why? What is this infatuation people have with getting people who are disinterested in the process into the process?

It's simple. If you want to vote, go vote. We're not going to beg you.

I don’t disagree with anything you said above. I do have a great wife and a bunch of great surfboards.

My point is that are no special voting opportunities which I enjoy that are not available to individuals who are black.

And no inherent deficiency in black people that makes it particularly difficult to comply with whatever voting laws are passed.

For the record I’m not in favor of laws that make voting harder.

It’s just that the idea that such laws are somehow MORE difficult for black people to follow is, well, racist.

i don't think we're that far apart. and i'm not all that against certain voter laws that identify you as a voter, that democrats are against. but, when i drive 2 miles to get to the precinct, and spend 1 minute waiting in line to vote; while a black person in louisiana drives 20 miles and spends 2 hours waiting in line; to the degree that dynamic is fueled by policies geared to make it that way, that's either: A) racism at work; or B) voter disenfranchisement at work. and that's what is happening, and it's been happening since the voting rights act was gutted by SCOTUS.

black people are voting by mail, now, as a result. voting early. so, states are clamping down on that in response. some are saying, "it's the same restrictions placed on whites who vote early as placed on blacks." but as you see, that's really not what's happening. don't fall into that trap.

I'm not going to quote anything because I seemed to have screwed up the formatting above.

We take away their rights to guns because we can't have those in prison. We take away liberty because the point of prison is to isolate from society. We take away the right not to be searched because we can't have contraband in prison.

We don't take away the right to free speech, press, self incrimination, religion etc.

So what is it about voting that puts it in the first category and not the second? The only answer I've seen is, "because other rights are also taken away". I don't really have a dog in this fight but I'm wondering about the reasoning of those that do.

Again, I’m not seeing any law forcing black people in particular to drive 20 miles and wait 2 hours. There’s no segregated voting places, one for white and one for “colored” voters.

you're choosing willful ignorance. i'm out.

The current leading Democratic candidate, Crazy Bernie Sanders, just advocated letting convicted felons currently serving sentences having the right to vote. He went on to confirm this would include convicts like the Boston Bomber. Is Crazy Bernie really this crazy and/are Democrats really this desperate at this point to get voters?

No, I’m trying to figure out how a particular voting law would be harder for a black person to comply with than a non-black person. Please explain that.

No, I’m trying to figure out how a particular voting law would be harder for a black person to comply with than a non-black person.

Please explain that.

- reduce the # of polling stations in predominantly black neighborhoods, forcing a long drive to go vote.
- reduce the # of places to register to vote in those areas. Same thing.
- cut down the # of hours those stations are open. Usually forcing someone to skip work to go vote.
- limit the types of id allowed for registering to vote. One example was Texas allowing concealed carry permits (mostly held by whites), but not student ids.
- throw out as many votes from those areas as possible ("exact" match signature rules, that sort of thing).

So in the areas where these things apply is there a separate super secret polling place and registration rules that are only used by white people?

Where in the bill of rights is voting covered?

So in the areas where these things apply is there a separate super secret polling place and registration rules that are only used by white people?

Agreed, Duffy, you are simply playing it too stupid here. That kind of stupid failed 60 years ago, it's not making a comeback.

Agreed, Duffy, you are simply playing it too stupid here. That kind of stupid failed 60 years ago, it's not making a comeback.

He's basically Jim @ LOTO, MO

Can’t refute the point so say I’m playing stupid.

In other words, I’m right. There are no voting laws that apply only to blacks.

If you want to vote, go vote. We're not going to beg you.

The current leading Democratic candidate, Crazy Bernie Sanders, just advocated letting convicted felons currently serving sentences having the right to vote. He went on to confirm this would include convicts like the Boston Bomber. Is Crazy Bernie really this crazy and/are Democrats really this desperate at this point to get voters?

Honestly, what's crazy about it? Those who would be voting are still citizens and there are a hell of a lot of non-violent and non-victim criminals incarcerated, plenty of drug users incarcerated who are serving time for things that have since been decriminalized. I'm all in favor of doing what it takes to get more eligible voters to the polls and makes it easier for them to do so. What would it hurt? Do you honestly think the low percentage of voting in the general population is going to be overrun with massive amounts and percentages of incarcerated voters? They're serving their time in prison, which is enough punishment and shouldn't include losing the right to vote for those who will be their representatives once they're out. But call me crazy, because I believe in redemptive opportunities and grace and mercy and stuff, while still setting smart boundaries...

But rant on senselessly. It's your right. And I support that, as un-factual as your rants may be.

Talk about senselessly. So....you must have been one of the adoring people cheering in the audience when Bernie stated he thought the Boston Marathon Bomber should have the right to vote? And you are saying you support this? Really? You might be in the vast minority with that thought process.

Honestly, what's crazy about it? Those who would be voting are still citizens and there are a hell of a lot of non-violent and non-victim criminals incarcerated, plenty of drug users incarcerated who are serving time for things that have since been decriminalized. I'm all in favor of doing what it takes to get more eligible voters to the polls and makes it easier for them to do so. What would it hurt? Do you honestly think the low percentage of voting in the general population is going to be overrun with massive amounts and percentages of incarcerated voters? They're serving their time in prison, which is enough punishment and shouldn't include losing the right to vote for those who will be their representatives once they're out. But call me crazy, because I believe in redemptive opportunities and grace and mercy and stuff, while still setting smart boundaries...

But rant on senselessly. It's your right. And I support that, as un-factual as your rants may be.

Talk about senselessly. So....you must have been one of the adoring people cheering in the audience when Bernie stated he thought the Boston Marathon Bomber should have the right to vote? And you are saying you support this? Really? You might be in the vast minority with that thought process.

Oh, yes, let's use the most extreme and singular example you can think of to base your argument upon rather than looking at the sensible whole. That sure shows your intellectual rigor in forming an argument. /S

poll taxes and literacy tests didn't apply only to blacks. You are being an imbecile, you are replaying the segregationist playbook ... in the 21st century! Just stop doing that, and stop congratulating yourself on your own self-debasement.

There needs to be a name for people who refuse to address the point someone is making.

No, I’m trying to figure out how a particular voting law would be harder for a black person to comply with than a non-black person.

Please explain that.

Today’s voting restrictions, WHICH I DON’t SUPPORT,

What "sensible whole" are you referring to.......the other 350,000 rapists and murderers currently incarcerated? Which ones would you like to include in your 'sensible whole". Think before you answer......you're starting to sound like Crazy Bernie.

Interesting how you glossed right over the example of incarcerated drug users and jump right to "rapists and murderers." I take it reading comprehension isn't your thing. That's ok, it doesn't appear to be Jordan Peterson's either after the debate. In that case I'll refrain from citing the many sources factually showing rapists and criminals are a small percentage of the prison population and there are many non-violent, non-victim offenders in prison, people whom I've no qualms seeing vote. But you do you and spew your emotional drivel.

You are starting to show your stupidity and I was really trying to be polite. Actually if you did your homework (or read my previous post), they make up almost 22% of the current 1.6 million incarcerated prisoners. Like, I said, think (a little longer) before you answer about someone else's "drivel".

Poll and literacy tests, at the time, affected blacks specifically (especially tests) more than whites in the same voting districts.

Today’s voting restrictions, WHICH I DON’t SUPPORT, affect individuals of all races equally.

Name for me a single precinct where it doesn’t.

They target precincts which are overwhelmingly black and remove voting stations from that precinct.

So, yes, it might affect the few white people that live there too but they know that it affects many, many more black people.

Do you understand?

They target precincts which are overwhelmingly democrats and remove voting stations from that precinct.

So, yes, it might affect the few republican people that live there too but they know that it affects many, many more democrat people.

Do you understand?

Fixed it for you.

What about the Black Panthers who stand around in front of the voting door with billy clubs and rifles over their shoulders intimidating white voters? This intimidation/suppression works both ways.

Please learn how to reply and quote. I hate searching for what you've written inside a quote. Makes it look you are hitting the quote button and then hitting reply with out actually replying..

You’re getting closer. This tactic is also used to make it hard for college students to vote.

But there’s a big history here, 150 years long, where the black South was the overt target of voter suppression. What you’re writing could’ve been written in 1955. But everyone knows the racial history. You could know it too. Or you could remain oblivious to it. Or fain naïveté.

It “the black vote” were 50/50 or leaned republican instead of going 95% dem none of these things would happen and you know it. It isn’t a race thing it’s a politics thing.

As for college students, they should vote absentee in the district in which they come from. We’ve got UCSB here and the students for shit that will never affect them but leave lasting affects on full time residents. These same students who “vote the environment” are the same people who do this....

Annual “deltopia” trashing of Isla Vista...



http://dailynexus.com/...one-whos-been-there/

Sounds like the BS campaign is doing some damage control and trying to reel back crazy Bernie's statement.

"BERMAN: Okay, but you do that he’s wrong about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should have the right to vote?
REP. KHANNA: I think that I wouldn’t go that far. I mean, obviously, he should have the right to be treated for cancer if he has cancer, and he should have certain human rights, but I wouldn’t go that far in terms of giving him the right to vote."

By the way WTF!!!
" One out of every three black men are in jail or find themselves convicted of a felony."

https://www.breitbart.com/...ton-marathon-bomber/

read some history, bro. educate yourself. then type an opinion. or, you know, just type an opinion, because you can.

Again, no response to what I say, just implications that I’m dumb or ignorant and need to “get educated.”

Do you think republican leaders would gerrymander the districts to weaken the voting power of “predominantly black areas” if black people voted in a much less lockstep fashion almost exclusively for dems?

If the “black vote” was more contestable do you the pubs would try to “suppress” it?

Yes, or no....

Umm no I am directing my comment at you. You have this several times and in more than one thread.

i don't know. it's a possible thought experiment. but it's a rhetorical, not a real, question. for 145 years the majority white people in the south really disfavored the political, social, industrial empowerment of black southerners. that worldview changed zero percent between 1865 and 1965. a lot of republican wet dreamers choose to peddle the fiction that the south has gotten over it all during my lifetime.

you think it's freak luck, a wild coincidence, an oddly shaped venn diagram, that the very people republicans are actively disenfranchising happen to be overwhelmingly black. the world didn't come into being when you were born. stuff happened prior to duffy, and that stuff informs what's going on today. reading about life-before-duffy would be a fruitful exercise.

sorry, wrong guy......only to midwestroadie because he doesnt know how to reply....but thanks for your concern

Wasn't it a white republican president that signed the prison reform act this past December.......although a black democrat president had years to do the same thing but never bothered to get around to it? What race does this highly benefit? Does this sound like republican disenfranchising of black population to you?

what do you want to achieve by posting this to me? what's the outcome you're hoping for?

Dipshit.. here is exactly what I am talking about. Your reply.. Not his. YOU. Clearly you can see YOU posted inside his quote.

Like I said, only to midwestroadie. Having trouble understanding that? Does it make you feel more important calling people names?

Hey, just carrying on a conversation....not hoping for any particular outcome. Just saying that while you seem to be focused on "white people" suppression of black voters.....in the south.....I'm not aware of this happening in my part of the country. But, I am aware of gerrymandering around here to ensure certain districts stay democratic And this crap includes armed black panthers intimidating whites voters here in Philadelphia which appeared to be a non-issue and swept under the carpet by Obama/Holder a few years ago. This stuff happens on both sides. Yet it was a "white" supposedly "racist" president that signed a bill that will help reengaging a large black population. I'll summarize by saying white southerners attitudes towards black voters that you have been describing doesn't describe the country in general.

I dont give a shit if it was just to him or not. It was more than once and its fricken annoying.. Learn how to type after the little line like

It's not hard.

yes. there were 2 new black panther members at a polling place in pennsylvania in 2008. that spawned more than 100 segments on fox news. since then, breitbart and facebook have taken that and run with it, with fake news ("real" fake news) that keeps propping up, like the toilet swirls backwards in australia, the lady who dried off her poodle in the microwave. so, i'm happy to have the discussion. but only a real discussion. you and me. not you, me, breitbart, and people on FB who think you're too stupid to sniff out their propaganda. deal?

No problem....deal. I'm surprised there was only 100 segments on Fox. Not sure why this would be considered "fake news" though.....it actually happened and was given a lot of coverage by local Philly stations. You would of thought two armed black panthers intimidating white voters would have gotten more. Wonder how many segments were on CNN? BTW, I don't consider FB a "real" source of news. Thanks for response.

the fake news is not whether it happened. the fake news is trying to convince you that it ever happened more than once or twice. the fake news is equating 2 bad actors at 1 polling location with 150 years of systemic treatment of slaves as second class citizens, no citizens at all, or not part of the human race. you either do, or don't, have the gene required to understand the difference.

as to your question. yes, a white president signed federal prison reform. good. very good. you aware obama was the first president, ever, to visit a federal correctional facility. and that he couldn't get a republican congress to pass prison reform, so he commuted the sentences of more federal inmates than the last 3 presidents before him combined. you know this. because you're smart, and well informed. this legislation has been in the works since the beginning of obama's 2nd term.

what really got it going in earnest was jared kushner, and this is a case we see so often, that republicans are affected when an issue affects them personally (nancy reagan on stem cell research; the cheney family on gay rights; kushner and his inmate father). great. i think it's great. i'll take it, whatever the reason. i'm happy to give everyone credit to whom credit is due, this president and the last, republicans and democrats. as i'm sure you are too.

but that is entirely separate from state legislatures systematically, for centuries, making sure black people don't vote, can't vote, can't own land, can't own their own freedoms. since the civil war republican legislatures (well, democratic legislatures post-civil-war, and then republican legislatures once LBJ stabbed southerners in the back with civil rights legislation and southerners abandoned the democratic party to move republican) are doing what they can, and overwhelmingly in the south it's the disenfranchisement of the voting rights of black people.

there's two sides to this; and you have to choose which side you'll be on. well, you've already chosen a side. but it's never too late to change.

Have you seen a white male on TV commercials lately that is not a dufus?

First hit on YouTube, searched for “latest tv comerciales”...

Help me out here,please! you said that you are in Philly and there is still gerrymandering in Pa in order to maintain democratic districts. Did not the state supreme court redistrict the state in order to correct an obnoxiously gerrymandered map? I thought most folks on both sides were satisfied with the new boundaries. I do know the map looks a lot cleaner now. I know of a district in central Pa that you as a die hard republican and Trump supporter would feel right at home in. They would fall in love with you even if you did say you were originally from Philly.

What year was the incident of voter intimidation. And it is still ongoing, yes?

Look harder and more often and get back to me.

OK, I'll go to google for the voter intimidation gouge. Might I burden you to reflect on your feelings on how fairly or unfairly the state supreme court redrew your cong. districts. Google can't help me there. Also, I sure would like to know what your parents thought about Mr Frank Rizzo as Mayor. You did offer them as sources.

If you take a closer look, your comment should be directed to midwestroadie. Yes, I got a headache trying to reply to his nonsense.

1/10

He's busy searching Brietbart.

Why go personal and refer to me as a snowflake when you do not know me? If it was my bringing your folks into the post, you offered them up. I was only curious as to their influence on your thinking. If offense taken, I apologize. Your concern for my welfare in a " good safe place" while touching, only leaves me with more questions only you can answer. Try as I might, you do confound me. If you can come up with some compelling testimony in future posts, I might see and agree with the points you try to make.

I assume you are not going to engage in debate on current Pa congressional district maps. I can be influenced toward your direction, but you need to bring a better game.

You just wasted 6 paragraphs on someone who will digest none of them.

It would be awesome if someone would draw a political spectrum chart for the Lavender Room so we could gauge the value of attempting a persuasive argument.

Ha! You're 100% correct. On the whole, I think there are most folks here in the LR who are pretty good at hearing and articulating nuanced positions & discussing them. I disagree with JSA quite often, but can at least see where he's coming from & why (except those times when he's in a pissy mood and is an ass...); I think it's Perseus with whom I've disagreed about faith issues many times, but he's usually respectful and has discourse. And then there are those who only shit all over the board and declare victory. Maybe I wasted the paragraphs on someone shitting on boards, but maybe Gphin will have discourse for once and show the best he's capable of.

You just wasted 6 paragraphs on someone who will digest none of them.

i felt like an idiot last night, because that's what happened to me. i hope i learned from that.

He is a hard nut, but he has an interesting perspective to some of our politics. Somewhere back in the thread he said that he was an Obama voter in 2008. There is constructive thinking in him at some level. I suspect the communication frustration is felt by him more so than us. My learning curve is steeper or I am more hard headed, but I'll keep trying. Cause that's what us snowflakes do.

Not exactly. It's still an insignificant number in the scheme of things. If your number is correct, do you really think that roughly 320,000 people spread across the nation is going to be the thing that turns the country to pure hell -- if 100% of them were to vote, moreso if 100% of them were to vote Democratic (unlikely given that a chunk of that population is going to be of the Republican variety)?

It's interesting how you make the assumptions by categorizing the entire prison population as your political enemy. There's not a whole lot of nuance in your thought process here.

What might it look like if you started at the point of an idea and discussed possibilities around that rather than starting at the point of an enemy (in your case the Democrats and "liberals")? You come on here and spew absolute generalizations and make broad stroke categorizations but I've yet to see you post something actually attempting to open discourse to resolve a problem through consensus.

Let's start here with a few facts: In approximately 25% of states (12), felons indefinitely lose their voting rights. In Maine and Vermont, felons don't lose voting rights, even while incarcerated, and in neither state has this been an issue. Felons lose their voting rights for a period of time post-incarceration in about 40% of states, until those rights might be later restored, in some cases only through an exception process by the governor. Approximately 22% of felons in this country are in for non-violent drug offenses. Incarceration rates have increased fivefold during the last 40 years. Black men are seven times more likely to be incarcerated for drug possession than a white man possessing the same drug. We have a bail and a incarceration system that disproportionately impacts the poor negatively, keeping many low level offenders locked up simply because they cannot come up with the bail. Crime rates have not increased with the rise in incarceration; policies have changed to keep people locked up and for longer lengths of time.

So with that, I would start by saying this: I agree with you that the most violent offenders should be behind bars, and I might even go so far as to agree that those people should not have voting rights restored while incarcerated. But I would also say this -- we have far too many people locked up and people who have committed victimless crimes. If we believe people deserve the kind of second chance that lets them out of jail/prison, I believe everyone should have voting rights restored the moment they're no longer locked up. I'd go farther, those not serving life sentences should not have voting rights stripped away even while incarcerated; they're serving time for their crime, still have rights as individuals, and I believe voting rights should stand. I'd give you this -- perhaps a very narrow set of violent crimes would be the exception to this right to vote while incarcerated.

But if we really believe incarceration has an end-point and the goal of incarceration is to restore people back to being productive members of society, anything that makes them out to be something less than a capable of being a contributing member of society needs to be changed, so the reform of incarceration needs to start with the recognition that they will one day be back out on the streets and we need to equip them for that, treating them as human. Voting is part of the human experience we've based this country on and if people are going to be back in society I think it's only right that they be a part of that since voting has nothing to do with their crime. Surely this is better than your all or nothing approach. But it requires challenging a reactionary posture and having discourse, a rigor that seems lacking in our current climate.

I don't care if you agree with my opinions. What I'm saying is that when people offer information outside your little conservative news bubble, you basically ignore it.

The fact that you don't see Breitbart as propaganda just demonstrates the futility of even discussing a political topic with you.

I think even most of the conservatives on this board would acknowledge what Breitbart is / does. Except you.

Gofigure: I have no animosity towards "snowflakes". Actually feel sorry for them since crying "offended" every time something happens that they don't agree with won't solve the issue.

Ha! You're 100% correct. On the whole, I think there are most folks here in the LR who are pretty good at hearing and articulating nuanced positions & discussing them. I disagree with JSA quite often, but can at least see where he's coming from & why (except those times when he's in a pissy mood and is an ass...); I think it's Perseus with whom I've disagreed about faith issues many times, but he's usually respectful and has discourse. And then there are those who only shit all over the board and declare victory. Maybe I wasted the paragraphs on someone shitting on boards, but maybe Gphin will have discourse for once and show the best he's capable of.

The core issue, certainly as expressed by Sen Sanders, is whether or not you believe a fundamental core right of citizens in a democratic society is the right to have a vote in your representation.

Which also is informed on how you view criminal justice. Is the point rehabilitation, or is punishment and removal from society?

If you think criminal justice is to punish the criminal, why don't we just execute every criminal? Why don't we take a page from our history and send every criminal to a moon colony or space station or Georgia?

Ignoring the political hackery going on in this thread, I'd say the core issue here is not about whether felons should be allowed to vote in prison, or whether a rapist should not be allowed to vote but a drug offender should, or any of that.

The core issue, certainly as expressed by Sen Sanders, is whether or not you believe a fundamental core right of citizens in a democratic society is the right to have a vote in your representation. If you view that as a fundamental right, then the discussion ends there. Felons are still citizens. Congressmen, Presidents, Governors, etc all represent the entirety of their citizen base, which includes those felons sitting in prison. They vote and decide on issues of pardons, prison reform, the laws that put people in jail, prison sentencing, and any number of no prison related issues that impact the lives of felons both in and out of jail. So if having a voice in your government (you know, the whole,..."no taxation without representation" theme, as executed by democratic vote, is a fundamental concept of our country, then it's difficult to justify taking that right away from people, especially as it's not a right that poses imminent physical harm to other citizens, like the right to bear arms.

If you don't think voting is a fundamental right, then there's room for the rest of the discussion on what offenses should result in loss of that right, how long people should lose it, etc.

I don't have a problem with Sen Sanders' position, because it appears consistent. His stance is that everyone should be able to vote on who represents them in government, even if they broke the law. There are, as we all know, some pretty horrible people who were never convicted of crimes or who never spent a day in jail, who have the right to vote, and that doesn't seem to be leading to the death of our democracy.

Of course, it's an easy and cheap tactic to paint that as "Sen Sanders wants the Boston Bomber to have a vote." Sells airtime and generates clicks online.

Convicts are counted toward the census and counted when deciding how many representatives you get in the house so why can’t they vote.[/quote]

Why? Really? Do you think Dylann Roof or Nikolas Cruz should have the right to vote? Yes or no.

while that point is germane to the overall discussion, it's not germane to slowguy's point. one way you can parse people is by how they approach values. whether a person's values are fungible. i don't agree with rand paul on very much. i agree with bernie sanders on slightly more. but they're examples of one kind of person: one who is consistent in his values; and who doesn't bend much based on the popularity of one's values.

even if bernie didn't believe in the concept of redemption; even if he believed every inmate should be executed; he'd still believe every inmate has the right to vote up to the point he gets the chair, because he believes it's a fundamental constitutional right. i don't know that i agree with him. but i can certainly see the argument.

Don't you think some of these rights should be lost or suspended if you are convicted of breaking the laws of our society? What kind of warped value is it that endorses the idea of Dylann Roof, etc etc etc having the right to vote for his choice of president in 2020?

What kind of warped value is it that endorses the idea of Dylann Roof, etc etc etc .

As I pointed out above there are reasons to take away the right to freedom or the right to own guns. Nobody in this thread has been able to identify a reason to take away their right to vote other than they are bad people. Wouldn't you agree that taking away their right to free speech, religion or the advice of council would be wrong?. Naming the most despicable convict you can think of doesn't constitute an argument.[/quote]

Sure it does......because that what Bernie is promoting. Guess you missed my earlier comment. A successful democratic society provides certain rights to its citizens. IN RETURN, a citizen is required to obey the laws of that democratic society. If you become a danger to society and society determines you need to be behind bars and not be part of society....you lose rights.

And I find it interesting that no one yet here has come forward yet to confirm.......with a simple yes or no, that they feel Dylann Roof, Cruz, etc etc should still have the right to vote. Just more discussion and questions about "rights". Including you.

Sure it does......because that what Bernie is promoting. Guess you missed my earlier comment. A successful democratic society provides certain rights to its citizens. IN RETURN, a citizen is required to obey the laws of that democratic society. If you become a danger to society and society determines you need to be behind bars and not be part of society....you lose rights.

And I find it interesting that no one yet here has come forward yet to confirm.......with a simple yes or no, that they feel Dylann Roof, Cruz, etc etc should still have the right to vote. Just more discussion and questions about "rights". Including you.

Don't you think you need to adhere to the laws of our society to maintain your core rights? Don't you think some of these rights should be lost or suspended if you are convicted of breaking the laws of our society? What kind of warped value is it that endorses the idea of Dylann Roof, etc etc etc having the right to vote for his choice of president in 2020? This is just one reason why "Crazy Bernie" deserves his nickname.....and why he will never get elected to lead this country.

He's regarded as 'crazy' because he believes that health care and affordable higher ed should be available to more people - and - now because he does not want to be that guy who says 'this person can not vote' or 'these people can not vote'. Bernie may be crazy but I hope he's more of the direction this country is moving towards.

You need to read the constitution.

Also many people have commented on whether or not convicts should be aloud to vote.

The constitution does not give you rights as you stated. It simply does not infringe upon your rights.

Nice try with the word games......never stated. And you continue to avoid answering my question.

A successful democratic society provides certain rights to its citizens.

Actually that's exactly what you said.

Hmmm, still don't see anything about "constitution" giving rights. Guess you made the mistake of assuming?

You tell me then... how does a successful democratic society provide certain rights to its citizens?

If you want to change the subject of this thread, you might try starting a new one. Still waiting for you to tell me you agree with Bernie and criminals like Tsarnaev, Roof, and Cruz deserve the right to vote.

Since you refuse answer my question, let me phrase it as simply as I can. We allow a felon to maintain his right to a lawyer but we deny his right to vote. What is the criteria for selecting which freedoms to deny or allow?

Since you refuse answer my question, let me phrase it as simply as I can. We allow a felon to maintain his right to a lawyer but we deny his right to vote. What is the criteria for selecting which freedoms to deny or allow?

Pretty simple if you want to spend two seconds thinking about it. Do I really need to tell you?
Still waiting for you and anyone else to tell me they want to see Tsarnaev, Roof, and Cruz have the right to vote.

A convicted sex offender in jail should not be able to cast a vote for a candidate who wants to soften sex offender laws.

A convicted gun trafficker in jail should not be able to cast a vote for a candidate who wants to soften gun regulations.

A convicted Wall Street...

A convicted drug dealer...

I'm just guessing that's the argument.

Here's a question for you. Why do you think that this board is full of Bernie Sanders voters? Has anyone in the LR said that they would want Bernie Sanders to be the President? If they have, I haven't seen it.

No, I haven't really seen anyone who agrees with most of his policies.

Including this one, which for some reason, you are very bent out of shape over.

He's a crazy old man. The US would never elect a crazy old man as the President.

Wait...

We are not talking about "most" of his policies. Seems like most of the recent discussion here has been with others defending Bernie with his intention to let mass murderers vote....while they are in prison no less. Have you missed those posts?

And guess you missed DJTs press conference today where he describes himself as a "young man". Compared to Uncle Joe. Think he might take exception to your describing him as old.

Kay, you remind me of someone who got cut from their high school forensics team and is now trying desperately to make up for it. Try another strategy, please.

Just answer a real simple question: Do you think Dylann Roof and Nikolas Cruz should still have the right to vote? Just a simple yes or no.

And, please show me where in the constitution does it say convicted mass murderers should have the right to vote?

A successful democratic society provides certain rights to its citizens.

A democratic society provides some rights. It doesn't provide the fundamental rights. It protects the rights that society recognizes are inherent to all people.

The whole point is that Sen Sanders views the right to vote for your representation in government as a fundamental right that the govt is required to protect, and shouldn't be able to take away.

Good points but is again just another reason why this guy will never get elected. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of Americans feel convicted felons who have to be removed from society and put behind bars should not be allowed to continue to participate in society by continuing to have the right to vote. And I'm thinking if Bernie demonstrates this kind of judgement when it comes to this issue, what kind of judgement will he demonstrate when it comes to other issues. Take away all guns from all citizens? Institute a $25/hour minimum wage? Free college for all?

Since when is good judgement a requirement for president?

Good points but is again just another reason why this guy will never get elected. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of Americans feel convicted felons who have to be removed from society and put behind bars should not be allowed to continue to participate in society by continuing to have the right to vote. And I'm thinking if Bernie demonstrates this kind of judgement when it comes to this issue, what kind of judgement will he demonstrate when it comes to other issues. Take away all guns from all citizens? Institute a $25/hour minimum wage? Free college for all?

Surprisingly, no major disagreement here....not sure what the issue is. My point has been one of our presidential candidates wants to allow criminals, including the worst of the worst, to maintain these voting rights behind bars. ....to remain part of society. I think that is an example of very poor judgement. This right to vote should be taken away from anyone who has proven by their behavior that they are a danger to society and need to be removed. Removed/incarcerated means removed......totally. Why should they maintain the right to help determine how society operates when our laws and society have determined they should be put away so not to endanger society ever again.....in the case of Cruz, Roof, Tsarnaev, and others. Bernie appears to be on his own on this one.......even the other Dem candidates don't agree.

Surprisingly, no major disagreement here....not sure what the issue is. My point has been one of our presidential candidates wants to allow criminals, including the worst of the worst, to maintain these voting rights behind bars. ....to remain part of society.

This right to vote should be taken away from anyone who has proven by their behavior that they are a danger to society and need to be removed.

Why should they maintain the right to help determine how society operates when our laws and society have determined they should be put away so not to endanger society ever again.....in the case of Cruz, Roof, Tsarnaev, and others.

Bernie appears to be on his own on this one.......even the other Dem candidates don't agree.