It’s bad to not vote for someone simply because they’ve been convicted of a felony, actually.
I just need to do this joke post before someone like Yglesias or nyt pitch bot does so I can come back later to say I told you so
6 Likes
This but unironically? If the only strike against someone is that they’ve been convicted of a felony, it seems perfectly reasonable to continue to vote for them.
People are getting a little too “Rah Rah Rule of Law!” with this because they hate Trump imo
fyp
depends on the nature of the felony imo
5 Likes
Well then you’ll love this next banger…
Why being elected president is a get out of jail free card.
By Jonathan Turley
sure but in my narrow hypothetical that honest man is just spitting facts
And how old they were when it was committed. Like if you were eighteen and got bumped for check fraud, now you’re in your thirties and just want to be a cashier at a retail store. In today’s world they’re never getting hired, but I’d prob vote for them to be president.
1 Like
Assuming we’re not talking about Frank Abagnale levels of check fraud, I’d likely be OK with that as well.
1 Like
I think that’s so silly. We put arbitrary numbers on stuff. At 16 you can drive. At 18 you be tried as an adult. At 21 you can drink, etc. When in reality, you don’t magically become mature enough for any of those things at the stroke of midnight on your bday. I’m a completely different person now than when I was at 18 and I’m not 30 yet. I’m sure I’ll be different still at 40. No one should be judged by what they did at 18 imo
But then, I’m probably in the minority in that I don’t think someone should be judged even by a felony if they paid their debt to society
2 Likes
I think the paying debt to society (or even if they actually got convicted of the felony) is irrelevant, what matters is what someone actually did and how relevant that specific action appears be to present or future behavior.
1 Like
Well this gets into a whole other discussion about the purpose of incarceration. I believe it should be more rehabilitative than vengeance orientated. If it’s deemed you can be a productive member of society again and you’ve satisfied all requirements, why shouldn’t you have all rights restored including the ability to vote, run for office, or own a gun?
Meh, maybe you’re too far the other way. Obv depends on the felony.
1 Like
Given all this stemmed from Trump, I guess I wrongly assumed we were talking about this from a USA as it works today viewpoint as opposed to a philosophical view on what incarceration should be like.
ETA- with the question I was addressing whether people should care that someone was a felon when evaluating their ability to do a job/be trusted/etc
I think if the felony was committed to help your presidential campaign, that should be disqualifying.
4 Likes
5 Likes
Making his appearance at UFC 302. Joe Rogan glazing him, “Wow, the applause he is receiving is staggering.”
You get booed by UFC chuds. You are in trouble (trump)
I didn’t mean I’d ignore it entirely. Just that “has a felony” is a bad way to automatically disqualify someone, in contrast to what a lot of liberals seem to think should happen here with Trump. You get idiot talking heads saying stuff like “how could you vote for someone with a felony” as if our judicial system isn’t a biased, political clusterfuck.
2 Likes
Things that not gonna happen
1 Like
For sure. And I think in context, the subject has shown a willful disregard of the law evidenced over decades of fraud. At 80 years old, his chances of changing into a law-abiding citizen are nil.
2 Likes
Because you’ve shown that you can’t be trusted with those rights. I don’t think it is something that can decided unilaterally because so much of it depends on the circumstances around the crime and behavior of the person who committed the crime. There are crimes so bad I don’t know that someone could ever pay back society for them. And there are crimes committed by people so hopeless that we society should be paying them back for letting them get into such dire straits to begin with.
2 Likes