SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
McAuliffe had issued a sweeping executive order in April that affected 206,000 ex-offenders in the state.
In a 4-3 ruling, the state's justices said under the state constitution, McAuliffe didn't have the authority for such a proclamation.
[...] Nothing stops the governor from granting rights to felons on an individual basis, but the justices said it was unconstitutional to do it through a blanket order.
[...] Under McAuliffe's order, the restoration of rights only extended to felons who have finished serving their terms — anyone in prison, or on supervised probation or parole, was still barred from voting. The order also granted felons the right to serve on juries and become a notary.
[...] He also noted that most states allow felons who have completed their terms to vote — Iowa, Kentucky and Florida are the only other exceptions.
[...] "Republicans suspect the real motive for McAuliffe's order is political," [NPR's] Pam [Fessler] reported [earlier this month]. "The governor is a close ally of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who could benefit from more African-American voters if the race in Virginia is tight. McAuliffe denied that was his reason for issuing the order."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @12:19AM
Wholly irrelevant reply.
The point is that Republicans do not want to grant voting rights to a group that is likely to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Blacks vote for Democrats at around 85-95%, and make up about 35-40% of the prison population. Once you're past them, you've got the roughly 20% Hispanics who lean Democratic, and then the rest. You don't come away from this without handing tens of thousands of votes to the Democratic Party, which could be enough to decide the election.
If the roles were reversed, the Democratic Party would probably disenfranchise these potential voters as well. It's a numbers game.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2016, @12:24AM
I think the point is relevant. Democrats have their own reasons for keeping black voters on the plantation, and for keeping felons unregistered.
Again - democrats haven't made any inroads into re-enfranchising felons. As you point out, felons are disproportionately black, so where are the dems on this issue? Why isn't Hillary campaigning on the issue? There are far fewere homosexuals in this country than there are felons. Many politicians campaign on gay rights, but no one campaigns on felon's rights?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @12:38AM
Well that's obvious, its because she's not liberal or progressive in any way, shape, or form, she's just another right wing conservative authoritarian, a Republican in all but name.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @12:39AM
Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, a Democrat, for starters.
We don't have to wonder about Hillary's stance on this, because she tweeted it: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/723585247443619840 [twitter.com]
The 12 states in which the right to vote is stripped permanently are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming. By my count, 9 of those are Republican controlled, 2 split, and 1 Democratic controlled (Delaware). The ball seems to be in the court of Reps, not Dems.
Maine and Vermont actually allow prisoners to vote.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @10:05PM
Dems get more black votes, so it's better for them that criminals vote. For Reps it's the other way around.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday July 25 2016, @12:47AM
Why isn't Hillary campaigning on the issue?
Make no mistake, despite the blatant tokenism, they are still the party of George Wallace. "Roots run deep"
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @12:55AM
She does support it: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/723585247443619840 [twitter.com]
http://addictinginfo.org/2016/04/22/hillary-clinton-calls-for-federal-effort-to-restoring-voting-rights-to-felons-video/ [addictinginfo.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday July 25 2016, @01:30AM
When did this "support" begin? Did she ever make one squeak about it while she was in the senate? Or any other time before her 2008 campaign? Sorry, sounds like regular electioneering... *Blowin' in the wind* These people are supposed to lead, not follow fickle public opinion. She's definitely bogus. But *he who shall not be named* is there to help her out. This election is a tragic farce. And it's all our own damn fault, just couldn't turn our backs. People made fun of the US for Bush. Man! What are they thinking now?! I kinda doubt they're laughing this time, more like watching with gaping eyes and their tongues on the floor.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2016, @04:57AM
Electioneering, exactly. Young women who have found a new boyfreind can develop an interest in cars, and those same young men can find the girl's interests interesting too. Electioneering sounds all wonderful. After a couple years of marriage, she ain't coming out of the house to crawl around under the car, and he's not the least bit interested in housekeeping.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday July 25 2016, @05:12AM
Yeah kinda suspicious when her husband passed three strikes and she did the "brought to heel" comment on black teens.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 25 2016, @04:45AM
So if the Democrats are "still the party of Wallace" that must mean the Republicans are now the party of...who, exactly? Atilla the Hun?
I know you "conservative" types like to remind people that prior to the Civil Rights Act, the Democrats were pretty damn racist. This is true; no one with historical knowledge would deny that. But you conveniently forget that the Republicans decided to rebrand themselves with the Southern Strategy over 50 years ago specifically to cater to the kind of people who pronounce "African-American" with two Gs in it. In other words, your little snark-bomb has an expiration date half a century ago.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2016, @05:21AM
President Obama’s Kenyan half-brother wants to make America great again — so he’s voting for Donald Trump.
“I like Donald Trump because he speaks from the heart,” Malik Obama told The Post from his home in the rural village of Kogelo. “Make America Great Again is a great slogan. I would like to meet him.”
Obama, 58, a longtime Democrat, said his “deep disappointment” in his brother Barack’s administration has led him to recently switch allegiance to “the party of Lincoln.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/24/obamas-half-brother-says-hes-voting-for-donald-trump.html [foxnews.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 25 2016, @05:40AM
Fixed that for you: "Malik Obama is another low-IQ, low-information voter who actually thinks anything Trump says is worth the oxygen he consumed to say it with."
What was your point? Also, they haven't been the party of Lincoln since the 60s, so you can cut that shit out too.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2016, @09:23AM
That is a horrible way to talk about our first black president's brother. It almost sounds racist. "Get back on the plantation, Boy!"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 25 2016, @01:53PM
To paraphrase Sturgeon, 90% of all voters are idiots.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday July 25 2016, @02:42PM
How? Racist would be to cut him some slack because of his presumably dark skin. Azuma didn't bring his appearance / heritage into play at all...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2016, @02:54PM
SJW rules - if you say anything about a member of a downtrodden/minority/subjected race which isn't complimentary, they you're being racist. No need to actually mention that person's race.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday July 25 2016, @05:44PM
Ok, with those rules you are probably more familiar than me :-) (Although I tried to learn the basics for implementing SoylentBob...)
To Azuma this label doesn't fit too well. Her rambling against Islam and other religions gets into the way, I think tolerance trumps woman suppression in SJW logic. Usually she actually hides some sense in her rants, when she doesn't limit herself to name-calling and flaming.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 25 2016, @06:04PM
"Rambling?" Thanks for that Q *groan.* Which one of us, exactly, has spent nearly a decade on church history, comparative religion, apologetics and counter-apologetics, logic, philosophy, and yes, reading the Koran? I don't ramble, thank you very much.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday July 25 2016, @08:00PM
That's why there usually is some (or some more) sense in your posts - but as I wrote before, your strong language sometimes drowns the voice of reason a bit, and tempts some individuals to provoke you. (Well, I didn't put it exactly that way, but the meaning was similar.)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 25 2016, @04:14PM
Sorry to burst your sewage-bubble, Runaway, but I'm not an "SJW." Take your aggrieved whinging elsewhere; I call out stupid when I see it, no matter what color skin or what genitalia the perpetrator has.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @02:28PM
Well, He's full black so fully retarded. Obama is at least half white so that's the part which is doing all the work.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday July 25 2016, @07:27AM
Southern Strategy
Yes, I was perfectly aware of what Nixon did. It was still preferable to Wallace, who was at the height of his fame at the same time, and it was also still preferable to Humphrey, who really gave the game away as the party intentionally threw the election by nominating him when McCarthy was favored by over 19 to 1. In fact Humphrey had the least votes of all their nominees. After '72 it became more than obvious that the democrats and republicans were really a tag team, each tossing it to each other ever since. And remember, Carter and Mr. Bill had to appeal to that same Southern Strategy to win also. So let's not mince meat. Both parties suck, but I consider the democrats more cynical and deceitful, promising just enough to keep the the more sincere liberals (which are still bit players in the party, and to me they are suckers) from taking their money elsewhere. This year Sanders was the designated sheepdog, and it worked beautifully, exactly as planned, almost too smoothly. The ploy did attract a little attention though, but was quickly squashed as "conspiracy theory".
Oh, and the new phrase with 2 Gs is "super-predator" and "thug". They should at least call them "Super-Predator/Thug-Americans", with proper capitalization. After all they are citizens. But the party is still George Wallace underneath the facade that nobody wants to acknowledge. I can only imagine the names they call Obama when the mics are turned off and the "help" has gone home. They just have to remember to respond to him politely with "That's nice". My Captain Crunch decoder ring knows all.
Sorry, the democrat campaign is Jim Jones Kool-Aid. I'm staying away from the stuff, and from the republicans too. They really came unglued during the Reagan gag.
I know you "conservative" types
You really shouldn't be so revealing. We know that tactic also. "If you're not for democrats, you're for the republicans". You won't make a sale that way. In fact it confirms all the bad things that are said about the party and its followers. It very repulsive on all counts. While you call me a "conservative", the other side calls me a commie. Your mass media definitions just don't apply, and only serve as distractions.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 25 2016, @08:05AM
Whoa there, tiger. If you think I'm a democrat you're really not reading me right. Personally I wish just about every single person in both parties would die. Ease off the caffeine, will you?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday July 25 2016, @08:26AM
I know you "conservative" types
You seem a little jumpy yourself :-) And a tiny bit one sided to boot
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 25 2016, @04:16PM
Jumpy? No, I prefer the term "vigilant." You see, in every era there are people like this...and in every era there arise people like me who find them and ridicule them. It's dirty work, but necessary. in much the same way a swimming pool needs regular de-wee-ing and chlorine treatments.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday July 25 2016, @05:20PM
I can tell you, that wasn't "vigilance". Cleaning the pool with sulfuric acid might kill the germs, but it doesn't exactly make it safe to enter. Not that I won't jump in anyway. I can have fun too.
and in every era there arise people like me who find them and ridicule them.
:-) You work "alone" [vox.com]?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 25 2016, @06:02PM
In many ways I've always been alone in this world. I was lucky enough not to be an orphan at least, but most of the time I've been very internal and solitary, studying and learning from a distance. This planet is insane, and I want no part of that insanity; the phrase "in the world but not of it" describes me well.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday July 25 2016, @07:22PM
Yes, detachment can be a good thing. I'm a bit of a practitioner myself, but I still buy canned beans and drink city water.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 25 2016, @07:38PM
Canned beans AND tap water? Consider that the detachment may be on the part of others...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jcross on Monday July 25 2016, @12:50AM
Yeah, I think felons are an easy category of people to throw under the bus if needed, and that both parties have taken advantage of this fact at various times. It's just too easy to attack a politician for "siding with criminals" and too hard to attack them for siding against.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @01:04AM
Beyond the tweet I linked with Hillary supporting the VA governor, I have found that, yes, Hillary HAS campaigned on the issue:
http://addictinginfo.org/2016/04/22/hillary-clinton-calls-for-federal-effort-to-restoring-voting-rights-to-felons-video/ [addictinginfo.org]
Sheeeeit
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2016, @05:04AM
Either this or the tweet by itself amounts to nothing. Together, they almost add up to something. Now - how long was she in office in New York? How many times did she propose something like this while sitting around in Washington, drawing a fat check as a representative? Did she author or sponsor a bill for it?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @08:05AM
New York isn't one of the states that permanently denies voting rights to ex-felons.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2016, @09:21AM
WHile literally true, your statement here is irrelevant. Clinton was in a position to have a federal law passed, and made no effort to do so. Errrr - slight correction. She was in a position to have a bill introduced that might result in a federal law regulating the felon right to vote. She did nothing.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday July 25 2016, @05:23AM
In the US prior to 1920, women weren't allowed to vote. Of course before the Civil War, blacks couldn't vote. But even earlier, only landowners could vote. The young aren't allowed to vote, have to be at least 18 years old, a relatively recent improvement on the older minimum age of 21.
You start denying people the right to vote, and you do several things. You make the swarm intelligence less intelligent. If we're going to consult the swarm intelligence, we ought to do a proper job of it, not try to skew the results. Otherwise, why even bother holding an election? For the sake of appearances, while in reality our nation becomes a dictatorship? Another thing you do is hand vote suppressors another tool. In this case, they could encourage local governments to ramp up the policing to extreme levels, try to drag as many people as possible into court and slap them with trumped up felony convictions. A bunch of interested parties-- lawyers, the prison industrial complex, and the municipalities-- make more money from all the activity, and a bunch of voters get kicked off the rolls.
I've heard of way too many wrongful convictions, even at the felony and death penalty level where one would hope they'd be more careful, to want to add this condition of no felony convictions to the right to vote. That complicates things for no good reason. What are you afraid that ex-felons could possibly do with their votes? Protest? Surely that's better than resorting to violence. Take away their right to vote and what message do you send? That violence is the only way to make themselves heard?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2016, @05:35AM
"ramp up the policing to extreme levels, try to drag as many people as possible into court and slap them with trumped up felony convictions."
But - we are already there. I don't remember the first time I heard that the US incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world. At first, I denied that - there must be some dicatatorships that imprison more than we do. What about that evil sumbitch, Saddam Hussein? But, no, the fact is, in today's modern world, we do imprison more poeple than any other nation. Oh wow - we slipped to number two last year, Seychelles has 868 prisoners per 100k population, compared to our 698.
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-prison-population-rates-in-the-world.html [worldatlas.com]
1 Seychelles 868
2 United States of America 698
3 St. Kitts and Nevis 611
4 Virgin Islands (USA) 542
5 Turkmenistan 522
6 Cuba 510
7 Rwanda 492
8 El Salvador 465
9 Russian Federation 463
10 Thailand 452
11 Belize 449
12 Grenada 430
13 Virgin Islands (United Kingdom) 425
14 Guam (USA) 422
15 Bermuda (United Kingdom) 411
16 Anguilla (United Kingdom) 407
17 Sint Maarten (Netherlands) 396
18 Panama 392
19 Antigua and Barbuda 389
20 Bahamas 379
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday July 25 2016, @06:22AM
2nd highest incarceration rate? All the more reason not to deny felons the right to vote. You know a lot of people are in there who shouldn't be, victims of the War on Drugs among other misguided law making and enforcement.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 25 2016, @02:02PM
the US incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world. At first, I denied that - there must be some dicatatorships that imprison more than we do. What about that evil sumbitch, Saddam Hussein? But, no
That doesn't include summary executions, does it?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2016, @02:14PM
I wouldn't think so. Of course, it's hard to tell which killings are summary execution, and which are self defense. Right here, in the US, we've had 986 killed by police in 2015, and 532 in 2016 - apparently as of June 30.
I would HOPE that most of those killings were in self defense, but in view of current events, you've got to wonder.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3794553/police-killings-2016/ [thinkprogress.org]
An article from the Guardian says that Russia only killed 200 people in 2015.
I didn't find articles on China, but the wikipedia suggests that China isn't into killing citizens at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_China [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @10:17PM
Seychelles? I've been to the Seychelles several times and I'd swear there wasn't 868 people on the whole island!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 25 2016, @01:59PM
The young aren't allowed to vote, have to be at least 18 years old, a relatively recent improvement on the older minimum age of 21.
You start denying people the right to vote, and you do several things. You make the swarm intelligence less intelligent.
You're really going to follow up that thought with talking about intelligence?
So what arbitrary age do you think people become smart enough to vote at? Speaking from experience, I sure as hell wasn't well-enough informed to vote effectively even by 18.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday July 29 2016, @01:10AM
Speaking from experience, a grand majority of voters sure as hell aren't well-enough informed to vote effectively even when they are well past 18 years old. You could allow small children to vote and it wouldn't make much of a difference; we'd still end up with the same rabid partisan garbage that we have now, due in large part to the fact that most people are incredibly short-sighted and tribal.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday July 25 2016, @12:48AM
You do realize that the restriction of right of felons to vote was in these states constitution since before there existed republicans and democrats, right?
And those states were admitted to the union with those prohibitions intact. We've come to expect you to blame every evil in the world on Republicans, but even for you, this is a long reach.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by black6host on Monday July 25 2016, @12:54AM
"You do realize that the restriction of right of felons to vote was in these states constitution since before there existed republicans and democrats, right?
That may be true. I'm sure that today there are many more laws (ways) to make one a felon than there were back then.
(Score: 4, Touché) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @01:02AM
Who are you even talking about? Not me, I hope.
Whatever the case, it is obvious which party opposes the restoration of voting rights to ex-felons: Republicans. As I've shown in an above comment, only 12 states don't restore the right to vote, and most of them are Republican controlled.
If you reply, why don't you let us know whether or not you support restoring the right to vote to ex-felons who have served their time (go ahead and use whatever criteria makes you feel comfortable, like no voting while on probation).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:23AM
You'd also have to ask what percentage of felons vote before making pronouncements over how much of an affect they have on elections.
And you'd be tinkering with state voting laws, with the obvious move to make them federally enforced.
I don't think that would work as well as you'd hope (at least felons still have the option to move to get their voting rights back).
At a bare minimum, I'd opt that everyone should get their voting rights back with some minimal administrative heartache to go through, especially for repeat offenders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:31AM
> Blacks vote for Democrats at around 85-95%,
What proportion of black felons vote?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @02:13AM
I don't know. If there is data, it won't be completely reliable since some states don't consistently notify [washingtonexaminer.com] felons that they can vote again, or require an application to be submitted. I can tell you that a greater proportion of blacks than whites voted in the 2012 U.S. elections. We'll see how well that holds up with Hillary instead of Barack.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]