I did say violent felons. We’re coming from the same place mostly. For me it’s just that a violent felon has deprived another citizen of either life, liberty or property. I don’t think they should have a voice on those issues after that.
Should they still pay taxes?
I can see not allowing someone who committed a crime with a gun owning a gun. But the right to vote?
1 Like
My bad I did not see the violent part. When you say violent are you talking about a murderer? I mean we can get in a bar fight and face a possible felony I believe. I just don’t think that type of thing should keep you from voting for life.
If we’re talking about murderers I would think the number would be low enough to not really matter. Most of those people either won’t get out or will have the vast majority of the voting life not matter. But I could probably get on board with rapists/murders not voting even if I think the total number of those people who will be out and vote is pretty low.
But a 20 year old getting a DUI that didn’t kill anyone and we don’t let him vote for life? That’s insane to me personally.
Murderers, rapists, armed robbers, aggravated assault etc… I’m cool with those people never voting again.
There are a lot of crimes I don’t think should be felonies, or crimes at all (over 1 ounce of dope in Texas for instance). So I think the current system of no felons voting is unjust. But then again, only having two incredibly crooked and flawed parties to realistically choose from sucks as well.
A first DUI is not a felony anywhere, as far as I know.
But No. 4 is the key, which Clinton lacked. And that is the economics of the moment for those voters - her inability to have this (and Republican candidates, too) was the single biggest reason Trump won in 2016.
Plus, even if Clinton checked close those same boxes, she came in with very loaded baggage. No one hates Warren or is tired of the Warrens being part of national life. Hillary had both of those at radioactive levels.
2 Likes
Besides @Mufasa’s self proclaimed status as the one who is always wrong…
I am actually beginning to believe/am hopeful that Trump will not win. Besides pocketbook, people vote with their visceral emotions -and unlike Hilary, nobody hates any of the candidates running against Trump as far as I can tell. The HATE thing was the one factor the buffoons cheating for Hilary underestimated/did not factor in enough.
With every tweet, the list of Trump haters grows I believe/hope. His base may not care, but that base alone is not enough to re-elect him imo.
1 Like
Maybe, I’m on the fence at present. I did listen to a great deal of conservative pundits say the exact thing about Obama v Romney, so we shall see.
I hate Trump now. I just thought he was a tool before (lived in NYC for 30 yrs). I don’t consider myself a “democrat”, but even I would vote for a democrat over Trump now. Maybe I could actually watch “news” again.
No idea what you’re talking about wrt Obama vs. Romney. Where was the “hate”? And who was it directed at? I’m not talking the lunatics, I’m talking rational people.
2 Likes
What I mean is that they saw Romney as less hate-able than Obama, and saw narrowing polls and a low-ish approval rate as blood in the water. This led to much gnashing of teeth when it turned out to be wrong.
Like I said, I’m making no strong guess either way, not until I get state level polls anyway.
Edit: I’ll also add myself to @Mufasa on the list of ‘always wrong.’ So my opinion holds the weight of those who have beclowned themselves with prediction.
Nah, imo dislike is a lot different than hate in these things. I can see holding my nose and voting for someone I dislike. For someone I hate, I’m either sitting out, or voting for whoever is on the other side.
To your last point -I do believe in one thing being the same as 2016 though; it will be difficult to interpret the polls correctly.
Absolutely.
You may be entirely correct. The question is if there is a group of new converts we aren’t seeing. I have zero clue on that, and I don’t suspect there is.
I won’t be surprised if he wins or loses though.
This was wishful thinking… I know…
I would add that I suspect that Biden has a glass jaw. Warren is someone I could genuinely see winning.
Absolutely was. But I’m not sure the same isn’t true now. It’s a much lower probability, to be sure, but it’s now outlandish.
Edit: I’m not acting as a prophet for Trump here, just making note of possibly blind spots.
Biden is the perfect example of someone I dislike, but would hold my nose for vs. Trump right now.
Glass jaw, creepy hair plugs, alien face from excessive facelifts…
1 Like
That may be so, and he’d definitely be the favourite in the rust belt, but I dunno if he survives the primaries, never mind a general.
Like I replied to Treco, they hated Hillary because 1) she was Hillary - a known, tired, even loathed character who had exhausted her time on the national stage, and 2) she was part of the corrupt, hated elite they were itching to rebel against. Warren is neither of those.
In no universe is Warren a Hillary 2.0.
1 Like
I think you’re right now that I look. Seems like it’s a misdemeanor almost everywhere but may be a felony based on BAC in some states.
I don’t think so either. By the time Hillary captured the 2016 nomination she was a hated career politician who had tons of baggage.
That isn’t to say I think Warren is an easy win. Painting her and a socialist would be far easier than Biden. However I can’t imagine approval ratings dipping as low as Hillary.
Still I’d much rather face her than Biden if I’m team Trump. Drawing a contrast and saying she wants to ruin America is way easier than with Biden.