Thread: Why Obama will Win

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^So would it be OK to peruse the list of crimes and adjudicate thus. I am interested to know what type of crime renders one disenfranchised...

Ask that to a mother of a child who was tortured, raped and killed -- and the guy gets out of jail. Or the children of an elderly mother beaten, robbed and sliced up with a knife and the perp gets out of jail. Or the nice family neighbourhood where a released child molester decides to move to.
Disenfranchised? Too bad; you commit a felony, you should pay. There are halfway homes that taxpayers fund (after they pay for the perp's imprisonment) to help people rehabilitate. But give them the vote? No way.

^Yes, but is there any chance you could address the other crimes in the list?

^ Told you, as I see it, no voting rights for people convicted of felonies.

^So, which then?

1. Murder;
2. Rape;
3. Arsen;
4. Assault;
5. Illegal possession of a firearm;
6. Fly Tipping;
7. Graffiti;
8. Vandalism;
9. Drink Driving;
10. Possession of cannabis.

^ In your legal book, which ones are felonies?

^No idea, no such thing in UK or Thailand, that's why I asked you...

^ I think UK and Thai lawyers would beg to differ. We better check with Ant.

^There is no such definition. I don't get why you can't simply indicate those that are and those that are not from my list. I mean, you were confident about disenfranchising certain criminals, so tell us which ones...

^Thank you bugs.

Interesting, so a DUI with damage to another vehicle is a felony and this then means that the offender is never able to participate in elections again, right?

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^Thank you bugs.

Interesting, so a DUI with damage to another vehicle is a felony and this then means that the offender is never able to participate in elections again, right?

Varies from state to state. But I don't think a basic accident would be a felony. An accident where someone is killed would be.

Most states the first two or three DUI's are misdemeanors, while the third or fourth becomes a felony.

DUI laws are generally gettting tougher and tougher in the US. Would not surprise me if eventualy even a basic DUI becomes a felony.

^Well, according to this:

Is a DUI a Felony? - DUI / DWI

A DUI that results in a injury is a felony in some states. An injury could be a cut, a bruise, etc., etc., so is it really appropriate to exclude such an offender from the democratic process for their entire life?

Jeezus wept, BA, what are you on about? The minutiae of which crimes should block the perp's voting rights? Diff between a felony and a misdemeanour? Check it out in a law library. Or apply some common sense.

^Yes, when it comes to perminently removing the democratic rights of citizens, the minutiae of the detail is very important. I am wondering who (and on what criteria) is deciding whether people should be prevented from voting.

So, to go back to my example, the DUI with minor injury 'felon' to be perminently excluded from elections - reasonable or not?

^ That's for the Supreme Court of whatever land to decide. The people can dispute the decisions. Of course I do not agree with all laws, but we don't live on our own private islands do we?

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^Yes, when it comes to perminently removing the democratic rights of citizens, the minutiae of the detail is very important. I am wondering who (and on what criteria) is deciding whether people should be prevented from voting.

So, to go back to my example, the DUI with minor injury 'felon' to be perminently excluded from elections - reasonable or not?

Actually there are a number of people in the US who would think it is reasonable. I don't think the offense in and of itself should cost someone their right to vote. But the reason this type of thing gets felony status in some states is because they feel that it is a really big deal and should be treated as such. The goal of moving it into felony status is not to take away the right to vote, but to increase the level of punishment that can be given for violators.

I do think those that commit felony crimes should have their right to vote taken away. At least for a while - I would be open to debate how long that might be.

And I also support the right for each state to determine which crimes are felony crimes and which are not. Sure some states are going to have more crimes fall into the felony area than others - it's up to them. And it is up to the citizens of each state not to commit a felony if they want to keep their right to vote. Not too much to ask really.

^ I disagree with each state having the right to pick the penalty, especially for death sentences. That's just my innate thinking.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^It was just a question to whether, in the instance that I outlined, you felt it was reasonable...
Most people don't require a lawyer to help them have an opinion.

I don't need a lawyer for an opinion. I held my judgement because all there is on this board lately is criticism. Bugs did not give you an opinion either.
As I said felonies. Misdemeanours -- hey, that's jaywalking or running a red light among other things like graffitti or vandalism in Canada -- mind, rather serious offences here, especially B&E (home invasion is the new label), muggings, swarming and beatings, etc. are taken lightly by the liberal judges. Be a criminal so you can have rights; the victims get little.
The loss of voting rights is piffle to criminals anyway -- tell me, how many would register to vote? Why give rights to criminals anyway, BA?

^You are not 'giving' anybody rights, the debate is what rights are being taken away.

In the UK right now, you can have a criminal record for putting your rubbish out too early, or leaving an inch gap between lid and body of the rubbish bin. It is for this reason that I am now somewhat cynical of the labelling of groups as criminal or not. It is then a dangerous path to go down (IMO) to start selecting groups within the burgening 'criminal' population to select for disenfranchisement.

If you are willing to buy into the vote-removal plan, then you have to define and opine on the perameters where the sanction should be used.

Again, for example, there is a larger fine available for the rubbish-bin fines, as described above, in the UK, than for some assaults where an injury may be sustained, which would, no doubt gain 'felony' status in the US. So to translate this into UK law priorities, this would suggest that, if similar vote-removal laws were adopted in the UK, reducing support for a particular party would be simple - go round to each of their supporters' houses and leave their bin lids ajar!

Can the blue team measure up in the debates - this bloke seems to think otherwise:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aB7zfbsSOGcE

That leaves the candidates with only one more high- visibility opportunity to reach undecided voters: the debates.

How will the candidates do? Looking at past debates, they often seemed to turn on questions that the candidates were able to dodge until the debate.

Four years ago, Democrat John Kerry whiffed when moderator Charles Gibson asked him to explain how he could cut the deficit in half while increasing taxes only on the rich. Al Gore couldn't defend himself against the accusation that he proposed to boost spending more than Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale combined.

On substance, it seems likely the Democrats will face the tougher and more treacherous questions, especially with regard to the two big topics -- health care and the federal budget.

On health care, the Obama plan calls for a large tax increase on businesses that have to ``pay or play'' with regard to health insurance. On taxes, the key distinction between Obama and McCain is Obama's desire to increase taxes on those with incomes of more than $250,000, and his opposition to McCain's proposal to reduce taxes on U.S. corporations.

Tax Increases

Both the health plan and the tax plan revolve around increasing taxes. But the economy is struggling. Nobody thinks it's a good idea to raise taxes during a recession. Obama and Biden will have a difficult and swaying tightrope to walk.

The other tricky area for Obama will be trade. He has staked out a position that is hostile to free trade. Yet second-quarter gross domestic product grew 3.3 percent, with 3.1 percent of that coming from net exports. Exactly how is it that one can make the case that our trade deals are hurting the country?

The trade area is ripe territory for tough questions. After all, we now have trade deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea that are ready for passage but are being held up by Democrats for purely political reasons. U.S. companies are paying millions of dollars in tariffs every day to the Colombian Treasury because of congressional obstructionism on trade. Isn't it more important to lighten the load on U.S. businesses now that the economy is weak?

For McCain, the tax cuts will be easy to defend, especially now when the economy is weak. The challenge will be to make the case that he will be able to constrain government spending enough to make his fiscal program sustainable. Talking tough on spending comes naturally for the man, however, and one can expect that he will be up to this challenge.

It seems likely that the story of these debates will turn on the dissonance lurking below the surface in Obama's economic plans, and on his team's ability, or lack thereof, to address it.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Jeezus wept, BA, what are you on about? The minutiae of which crimes should block the perp's voting rights? Diff between a felony and a misdemeanour? Check it out in a law library. Or apply some common sense.

Jet, and he has no common sense and doubt if he even has 2 brain cells to rub together.

^Seemingly enough common sense to ask a few questions that many here that are so free with their opinions are suddendly shy to answer...

"In the UK right now, you can have a criminal record for putting your rubbish out too early"

What the fuck does this have to do with politics in the USA?

^ Mebbe he had control of the food stamps war chest.