2020 Candidate Speculation

[jkjacq]

Oh Joe
Sigh

[notblanche]

Apr 24, 2019 21:15:38 GMT -6 jaygee said:

I’m getting excited about Warren. I’m still team Harris all the way, but I really like what Senator Warren is putting out policy wise and I appreciate her putting her nose to the grindstone. I just love them both so much and they are my top 2. Gillibrand and Booker are my 3 and 4.

ETA: i lied. Castro is a 3 for me. I need to stop
Forgetting he’s running because I really like him.

I saw an email from Castro yesterday that said he's only ~8,500 unique donors from meeting the debate threshold. I should have Mh donate some dollars.

[Minerva]

Apr 25, 2019 4:31:48 GMT -6 Uncaripswife said:

Biden made it official.

My favorite tweet of the morning:

In response to:

I agree. I think in ellipses too often, but I don’t support their use in major Twitter announcements.

[coconutbacon]

Apr 23, 2019 19:43:09 GMT -6 doublestuf said:

Also, this. I'm not hating on Pete, but you can't deny it.

No person of color either.

[Minerva]

Apr 25, 2019 7:01:55 GMT -6 coconutbacon said:

Apr 23, 2019 19:43:09 GMT -6 doublestuf said:

Also, this. I'm not hating on Pete, but you can't deny it.

No person of color either.

It’s so true.

He is a wunderkind in many ways. I really like him overall and I hope he has a brilliant future in politics. But I don’t think that he has enough national experience for the presidency right now. I also wish I believed that Stacey Abrams would have been taken as seriously as he is being taken by the media and the punditry if she had jumped in the fray.

[notblanche]

Apr 25, 2019 6:57:38 GMT -6 Minerva said:

Apr 25, 2019 4:31:48 GMT -6 Uncaripswife said:

Biden made it official.

My favorite tweet of the morning:

In response to:

I agree. I think in ellipses too often, but I don’t support their use in major Twitter announcements.

Oh. Oh that's hard to read.

The staffer who wrote this copy should be hit in the head with an AP Stylebook. 

[notblanche]

Kevin Gannon is one of my favorite Twitter follows.

[Minerva]

Apr 25, 2019 7:11:49 GMT -6 notblanche said:

Kevin Gannon is one of my favorite Twitter follows.

Same. I learn a lot from him and he has cute doggies.

[coconutbacon]

Apr 24, 2019 15:11:01 GMT -6 teatime said:

Truthfully? It does matter to me if it’s a non violent offense or not. A murderer took away someone else’s rights to life, liberty, and property, so I haven’t been too bothered about the separating violent/non-violent offenders wrt rights. The woman who asked the question made a good point about a man who committed a sexual assault against a woman being able to vote for politicians looking to further restrict women’s rights and honestly I’m not sure what to make of that.

I have no problem with non-violent offenders voting. I agree that people who have served their time can and should be reintegrated back into society and be able to participate in the electoral process. We have a criminal justice system so steeped in racism that disenfranchisement due to selective arrest/prosecution/sentencing for criminal activity is a big problem.

There’s a huge disparity in who is considered a violent offender though too. The person driving the getaway vehicle for a robbery “gone wrong” is considered a violent offender. A woman jailed for killing her abuser is considered a violent offender. There are plenty of assholes out of jail who have sexually assaulted women or been heinous bullies, etc and they get to vote. And, there are non-violent offenders who have committed crimes that impacted millions of people, ruining people financially, and no doubt indirectly leading to severe depression and even suicide. So Jeff Skilling (Enron) gets to vote, but a dude caught up in gang violence that is in part fueled by systemic oppression doesn’t? How is that fair?

If being a good person were the standard for getting to vote, a whole lot less people would get to vote. Personally, I don’t think being in prison should prevent someone from having a voice. They’re impacted by political decisions too.

[cakewench]

Seems relevant:

[milano]

Apr 25, 2019 7:26:24 GMT -6 cakewench said:

Seems relevant:

I'm actually shocked that they are finally admitting that white people can be terrorists too.

[cakewench]

Apr 25, 2019 7:31:16 GMT -6 milano said:

Apr 25, 2019 7:26:24 GMT -6 cakewench said:

Seems relevant:

I'm actually shocked that they are finally admitting that white people can be terrorists too.

But they're all still lone wolves. We can't judge all white men by the actions of a few crazies.



Wow, I actually made it through typing that before my eyes rolled out of my head.

[jkjacq]

Apr 25, 2019 7:19:13 GMT -6 coconutbacon said:

Apr 24, 2019 15:11:01 GMT -6 teatime said:

Truthfully? It does matter to me if it’s a non violent offense or not. A murderer took away someone else’s rights to life, liberty, and property, so I haven’t been too bothered about the separating violent/non-violent offenders wrt rights. The woman who asked the question made a good point about a man who committed a sexual assault against a woman being able to vote for politicians looking to further restrict women’s rights and honestly I’m not sure what to make of that.

I have no problem with non-violent offenders voting. I agree that people who have served their time can and should be reintegrated back into society and be able to participate in the electoral process. We have a criminal justice system so steeped in racism that disenfranchisement due to selective arrest/prosecution/sentencing for criminal activity is a big problem.

There’s a huge disparity in who is considered a violent offender though too. The person driving the getaway vehicle for a robbery “gone wrong” is considered a violent offender. A woman jailed for killing her abuser is considered a violent offender. There are plenty of assholes out of jail who have sexually assaulted women or been heinous bullies, etc and they get to vote. And, there are non-violent offenders who have committed crimes that impacted millions of people, ruining people financially, and no doubt indirectly leading to severe depression and even suicide. So Jeff Skilling (Enron) gets to vote, but a dude caught up in gang violence that is in part fueled by systemic oppression doesn’t? How is that fair?

If being a good person were the standard for getting to vote, a whole lot less people would get to vote. Personally, I don’t think being in prison should prevent someone from having a voice. They’re impacted by political decisions too.

Thank you so much for your points! I'm not quite there but you are making excellent arguments to change my mind.

[jaygee]

Apr 25, 2019 6:06:02 GMT -6 notblanche said:

Apr 24, 2019 21:15:38 GMT -6 jaygee said:

I’m getting excited about Warren. I’m still team Harris all the way, but I really like what Senator Warren is putting out policy wise and I appreciate her putting her nose to the grindstone. I just love them both so much and they are my top 2. Gillibrand and Booker are my 3 and 4.

ETA: i lied. Castro is a 3 for me. I need to stop
Forgetting he’s running because I really like him.

I saw an email from Castro yesterday that said he's only ~8,500 unique donors from meeting the debate threshold. I should have Mh donate some dollars.

He should be on the debate stage if only because he has a policy on immigration and represents a state that would actually be impacted by a “border crisis”. He has a lot of other great things to say, but that issue alone is enough that we need to hear from him in a primary debate.

[teatime]

Apr 25, 2019 7:19:13 GMT -6 coconutbacon said:

Apr 24, 2019 15:11:01 GMT -6 teatime said:

Truthfully? It does matter to me if it’s a non violent offense or not. A murderer took away someone else’s rights to life, liberty, and property, so I haven’t been too bothered about the separating violent/non-violent offenders wrt rights. The woman who asked the question made a good point about a man who committed a sexual assault against a woman being able to vote for politicians looking to further restrict women’s rights and honestly I’m not sure what to make of that.

I have no problem with non-violent offenders voting. I agree that people who have served their time can and should be reintegrated back into society and be able to participate in the electoral process. We have a criminal justice system so steeped in racism that disenfranchisement due to selective arrest/prosecution/sentencing for criminal activity is a big problem.

There’s a huge disparity in who is considered a violent offender though too. The person driving the getaway vehicle for a robbery “gone wrong” is considered a violent offender. A woman jailed for killing her abuser is considered a violent offender. There are plenty of assholes out of jail who have sexually assaulted women or been heinous bullies, etc and they get to vote. And, there are non-violent offenders who have committed crimes that impacted millions of people, ruining people financially, and no doubt indirectly leading to severe depression and even suicide. So Jeff Skilling (Enron) gets to vote, but a dude caught up in gang violence that is in part fueled by systemic oppression doesn’t? How is that fair?

If being a good person were the standard for getting to vote, a whole lot less people would get to vote. Personally, I don’t think being in prison should prevent someone from having a voice. They’re impacted by political decisions too.

Totally. The whole thing is fraught with gray areas and variations and would have to be fact dependent in nearly all cases, which is why I see where Bernie’s slippery slope argument comes from. I guess there are some super easy “yes they obviously should get to vote” situations and then as they get harder I get more confused.

[jaygee]

Yikes on that Biden announcement. I had a boss that used to email like that and it became a company wide joke. Not a good look.

[dc2london]

Apr 25, 2019 7:26:24 GMT -6 cakewench said:

Seems relevant:

Literally only Bernie said that though right?
HE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT

[dc2london]

Apr 24, 2019 19:35:17 GMT -6 flippinchica said:

I think I agree with you jaygee. I have been thinking about this today and where should we draw the line for allowing people to vote and can't think of a line that seems fair. Given the way our justice system has been weaponized and the huge unfairness of the system, I think trying voting rights to the justice system in any way contributes to marginalization of minority groups and those with low SES.

Yeah I definitely thought Bernie's point about revoking voting rights being a slippery slope was sound. I honestly haven't formed a solid opinion yet.

[dc2london]

I also just want to say that Ber ie wasn't as bad in his CNN town hall as I feared he might be, but I was PISSED that he swerved on gun control.

What he went on to say about criminal justice reform was fantastic. But he swerved on guns.

[redbears]

I haven't really been paying too much attention, but what is the argument against letting convicted felons vote? I don't have a strong opinion on this, other than I really don't see why allowing more votes is a bad thing.

[jkjacq]

Apr 25, 2019 8:16:38 GMT -6 redbears said:

I haven't really been paying too much attention, but what is the argument against letting convicted felons vote? I don't have a strong opinion on this, other than I really don't see why allowing more votes is a bad thing.

That you have committed a crime against society/the people and while incarcerated you are not allowed to participate in those processes.  Just like you aren't allowed to roam free or drive.

Thats a really bad explanation but I can't think of a better way to describe it.

[stringy]

Apr 25, 2019 7:26:24 GMT -6 cakewench said:

Seems relevant:

Boston media (even NPR) keeps mentioning the boston marathon bomber in regards to this, you know, to pull at the heartstrings.

[jkjacq]

Apr 25, 2019 8:21:54 GMT -6 stringy said:

Apr 25, 2019 7:26:24 GMT -6 cakewench said:

Seems relevant:

Boston media (even NPR) keeps mentioning the boston marathon bomber in regards to this, you know, to pull at the heartstrings.

I think it was because one of the survivors has come out strongly against it. Not just to pull at heartstrings.

[stringy]

Apr 25, 2019 8:22:57 GMT -6 jkjacq said:

Apr 25, 2019 8:21:54 GMT -6 stringy said:

Boston media (even NPR) keeps mentioning the boston marathon bomber in regards to this, you know, to pull at the heartstrings.

I think it was because one of the survivors has come out strongly against it. Not just to pull at heartstrings.

I'm not going to lie....it worked. I also haven't fully formed my opinion on the issue, but since that incident was terrifying for days for the whole area, I'm very happy he's locked in the supermax and happy not to have him participate in society.  So I can see how people even more directly affected/injured would be strongly against it.

[redbears]

I get not voting while currently in prison, but Are they also arguing that once out, they still shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

[Minerva]

Apr 25, 2019 8:38:53 GMT -6 redbears said:

I get not voting while currently in prison, but Are they also arguing that once out, they still shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

Some do. State law is all over the place. Felons who have served time have to individually petition the governor in my state to regain the right to vote. There is precedent from the Supreme Court that it is constitutional for states to limit voting by felons, including after they have served their sentence. I’m curious if federal legislation to give the vote to felons, like Maxine Waters’ proposal, would stand up in court long term. Bringing lawsuits that state felon disenfranchisement laws are intentionally and systemically discriminatory may be a more productive approach. (Obviously we can pursue both strategies.)

The only two states that allow felons to vote while incarcerated right now are ME and VT. I think that trying to get the vote for incarcerated felons is going to be an uphill battle in terms of public opinion. Many victims’ rights groups will fight it tooth and nail. I’m personally not going to blame candidates for being a bit ear-to-the-ground on this.

[jaygee]

So, remember how Florida voted for restoring voting rights for convicted felons who served their time in the 2018 election? It was huge and historic and restored voting rights to approximately 1.4 million Floridians.

Well, now they are doing everything to not uphold the will of the voters. They are trying to pass a bill that says voting rights can only be restored once all court fees, fines , etc are paid.

Previous to this the amendment passing, people had to petition for their rights and the governor was basically the decider. The rate for restoring rights was so pathetically low. And there were so many hoops to jump through. Certain amount of time had to pass from when the sentence was completed, middle of the day court appearances with short notice. It was basically a program in name only because few people got their right to vote back. I listened to a podcast that profiled people going through the process and it was so sad and disheartening.

[dc2london]

I highly recommend John Oliver's story about restoring voting rights for felons.
Rick Scott is garbage.

[jkjacq]

I figured this would happen.

its been 6 hours or so since the Biden announcement? And I have this

From Beto

Joe Biden just announced he’s officially running. The field is the biggest in the history of the modern Democratic Party, and this presidential primary is wide open.

Today is an important day to show the strength of our grassroots campaign, especially given the fact that the former vice president has already been collecting checks from major donors for a week leading up to this launch.

We aren’t starting with the same level of name recognition as Joe Biden. But we can win by making sure every voter is heard and no one is left behind or taken for granted.

[athn64]

I mean, if they have served their sentence, then arguably, they have atoned for their crime. They are still American citizens and whose in charge and the laws that are passed affect them. So they should have the right to vote.