Election: What Is Your Take...

[Sparko]

Yeah - I have to admit I was a bit surprised. But then again, Florida is one of the major retirement areas in the country - this has been a law for many years - so we're talking across most age groups. According to this site, Florida (1.6M) is way past the second runner up: Virginia (500K).

My thinking is that for lower class felonies, the right to vote should be restored after the sentence/parole is served completely. If they get a second strike, then it is taken away permanently. And major felonies, murder, robbery, etc, it should be take away permanently on first conviction and never given back.

[carpedm9587]

My thinking is that for lower class felonies, the right to vote should be restored after the sentence/parole is served completely. If they get a second strike, then it is taken away permanently. And major felonies, murder, robbery, etc, it should be take away permanently on first conviction and never given back.

Murder and sex abuse felonies are excluded, so you have at least half your wish. I can't support the second until we stop incarcerating more of our citizens than China or Iran.

[Sparko]

Murder and sex abuse felonies are excluded, so you have at least half your wish. I can't support the second until we stop incarcerating more of our citizens than China or Iran.

We have more criminals than either. China and Iran are pretty harsh on their punishments which is a pretty good deterrent. Maybe we need stricter sentences and harsher punishments too then?

And I am pretty sure there isn't any real voting done in either country, felony or not.

[Cow Poke]

Murder and sex abuse felonies are excluded, so you have at least half your wish. I can't support the second until we stop incarcerating more of our citizens than China or Iran.

That's a weird comparison - that we incarcerate more of our citizens than other countries. Unless you have evidence that we unnecessarily incarcerate more... per capita? Actual number? Should we execute offenders like China and Iran? I realize you have a flair for the dramatic, but these kinds of comparisons are not really helpful. Should there be an incarceration threshold, like we can't incarcerate more than 4.5% even if.....

Perhaps we should look at WHY we are incarcerating so many.

[carpedm9587]

That's a weird comparison - that we incarcerate more of our citizens than other countries. Unless you have evidence that we unnecessarily incarcerate more... per capita? Actual number? Should we execute offenders like China and Iran? I realize you have a flair for the dramatic, but these kinds of comparisons are not really helpful. Should there be an incarceration threshold, like we can't incarcerate more than 4.5% even if.....

Per capita. As a percentage of our population - we dominate the world with the rate at which we jail our own citizens. A significant part is due to the "war on drugs" and the illegal status of pot. Another huge part of it is our bail structure, which punishes the poor and is friendly to the rich. We are one of the small number of countries who have a significant number of inmates who have never seen a trial, sometimes for months or even years, because they cannot afford the bail. Finally, we have shifted to a private prison model (Obama was moving to end this, so - of course, Trump reversed it). Prisons for profit introduce absolutely no motivation for reducing recidivism because inmates = money. That is exactly what we have been seeing in our prisons since prisons began to be privatized.

It's a mess and, as with so many other things, predominately impacts the poor and minorities.

[Cow Poke]

Per capita. As a percentage of our population - we dominate the world with the rate at which we jail our own citizens. A significant part is due to the "war on drugs" and the illegal status of pot. Another huge part of it is our bail structure, which punishes the poor and is friendly to the rich. We are one of the small number of countries who have a significant number of inmates who have never seen a trial, sometimes for months or even years, because they cannot afford the bail. Finally, we have shifted to a private prison model (Obama was moving to end this, so - of course, Trump reversed it). Prisons for profit introduce absolutely no motivation for reducing recidivism because inmates = money. That is exactly what we have been seeing in our prisons since prisons began to be privatized.

It's a mess and, as with so many other things, predominately impacts the poor and minorities.

[carpedm9587]

MLK tried addressing this back in 1961... "Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes?

So it all depends on what "face that" means. Crime is not causally linked to race. Study as study has shown this. The link is not to race, but to poverty and education. The reason such a high percentage of violent crime is perpetrated by black people is because a significantly higher percentage of black people are poor and/or under-educated. And note the specification of "violent" crime. The majority of ALL crime is not perpetrated by black people - it is perpetrated by white and wealthy people. But they can afford the good lawyers, and often don't see a day of jail time. Meanwhile, a poor person (often black) with too many unpaid parking tickets can be jailed. Lacking bail they are stuck waiting for their trial, so they lose any work they might have had. This can go on for days, weeks, months, an (a few times) even years. When trial comes, they are in the hands of an overworked, underpaid, public defender who fairly regularly encourages them to plead guilty and accept a deal. So then they walk out of jail with their problems compounded, their chance of getting a job reduced, and back into the cycle they go.

But there is no dealing with any of this, because systemic racism and implicit bias apparently don't exist and we just need to accept that. That is the message from the right and Republicans over, and over, and over again.

And then they wonder why minorities and the poor tend to align with Democrats and the left...

[Cow Poke]

So it all depends on what "face that" means. ...

In the overall context, he was talking about taking personal responsibility - and he was leading by example - being a black man calling out blacks and challenging them to do better. Instead, we have a bunch of poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and others blaming the system, and... who are the MKLs of today, calling for blacks to take responsibility for their own condition, where possible?

You tend to put this all on "the system", when it's often more complicated than that. But much easier, of course, just to blame "the system".

[Cow Poke]

In the overall context, he was talking about taking personal responsibility - and he was leading by example - being a black man calling out blacks and challenging them to do better. Instead, we have a bunch of poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and others blaming the system, and... who are the MKLs of today, calling for blacks to take responsibility for their own condition, where possible?

You tend to put this all on "the system", when it's often more complicated than that. But much easier, of course, just to blame "the system".

And I will be quick to point out that there ARE blacks who are calling for blacks to do better - but the ones I work with do this on a local scale, and with a considerable amount of success. I would love to see somebody have the guts to do this on a national scale, but "the system" won't let them - they'd be blasted as Uncle Toms.

[carpedm9587]

In the overall context, he was talking about taking personal responsibility - and he was leading by example - being a black man calling out blacks and challenging them to do better. Instead, we have a bunch of poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and others blaming the system, and... who are the MKLs of today, calling for blacks to take responsibility for their own condition, where possible?

You tend to put this all on "the system", when it's often more complicated than that. But much easier, of course, just to blame "the system".

No - I tend to recognize the system as a contributing force. You apparently want to put it all on personal responsibility. I want to recognize that the situation is a combination of a system that makes it hard for the poor (especially minorities) to succeed - and the lack of personal responsibility that has become commonplace for many people. It's TWO things - not one. BOTH need attention - not ONE.

Those on the left tend to emphasize the system to the exclusion of personal responsibility...
Those on the right tend to emphasize personal responsibility to the exclusion of the system...

When we're ready to tackle/challenge BOTH - perhaps we'll get to a solution.

[Cow Poke]

No - I tend to recognize the system as a contributing force. You apparently want to put it all on personal responsibility.

Wrong.

I want to recognize that the situation is a combination of a system that makes it hard for the poor (especially minorities) to succeed - and the lack of personal responsibility that has become commonplace for many people. It's TWO things - not one. BOTH need attention - not ONE.

This is why you so frequently point out that PART of the problem is the individual, not the system, eh?

Those on the left tend to emphasize the system to the exclusion of personal responsibility...
Those on the right tend to emphasize personal responsibility to the exclusion of the system...

When we're ready to tackle/challenge BOTH - perhaps we'll get to a solution.

I'm in the middle of both nearly every day of the week. It's why we do our Jobs for Life program, our car clinic, our faith mission.... I can't change the global system, but I can sure as heck help change individual lives, and that's my focus.

[carpedm9587]

Wrong.

Fair enough - I accept your word for it.

This is why you so frequently point out that PART of the problem is the individual, not the system, eh?

On this you have a point - sort of. It is true that I tend to focus on the system - here - because that is the part that is so often denied - here. There is no systemic racism. There is no implicit bias. Privilege doesn't exist. So the attention goes in that direction, and I am clearly leaving the impression that I think "personal responsibility" is not part of the equation. So that is on me and I'll try to be more balanced in my expressions going forward.

I'm in the middle of both nearly every day of the week. It's why we do our Jobs for Life program, our car clinic, our faith mission.... I can't change the global system, but I can sure as heck help change individual lives, and that's my focus.

If we all take the position "I can't change the system," then the system won't change. It will take all of us supporting initiatives like insisting candidates support backing away from private prisons; affirming the reality of systemic racism and implicit bias and encouraging programs to help turn those things around; raising awareness to friends, family about the links between poverty/education and violent crime; contributing to legal groups that help provide legal support for some of these people trapped in the system; working to change laws so the bail issue is resolved, and so forth.

And of course, we need to continue to work with the individuals as well. But every time we deny the very existence of the systemic problems - we contribute to the problem. That happens a LOT here. Perhaps not you specifically, and I may be guilty of painting you with too broad a brush (again). If so, I apologize.

And speaking of apologies - while I do think the exchange in the other thread was pretty ridiculous and uncivil - I was the one who used "turd" first in the exchange - in reference to you. That flies in the face of the things I said in the "Why We Hate" thread - and is a marvelous example of me failing to live up to my own ideals. So... I apologize... profusely and earnestly. It was inappropriate of me. I owe you at least one

[Cow Poke]

Fair enough - I accept your word for it.

That should be your first response always.

On this you have a point - sort of. It is true that I tend to focus on the system - here - because that is the part that is so often denied - here. There is no systemic racism. There is no implicit bias. Privilege doesn't exist. So the attention goes in that direction, and I am clearly leaving the impression that I think "personal responsibility" is not part of the equation. So that is on me and I'll try to be more balanced in my expressions going forward.

I've always been taught "it is what it is", and life isn't always going to be a bowl of cherries - I grew up pretty poor, and was the first in my family (of 9) to get a college degree, and to own a home, etc... The system sucks, but it should never define us.

If we all take the position "I can't change the system," then the system won't change.

I prefer to spend my time where it makes the most impact, the soonest.

It will take all of us supporting initiatives like insisting candidates support backing away from private prisons; affirming the reality of systemic racism and implicit bias and encouraging programs to help turn those things around; raising awareness to friends, family about the links between poverty/education and violent crime; contributing to legal groups that help provide legal support for some of these people trapped in the system; working to change laws so the bail issue is resolved, and so forth.

And of course, we need to continue to work with the individuals as well. But every time we deny the very existence of the systemic problems - we contribute to the problem. That happens a LOT here. Perhaps not you specifically, and I may be guilty of painting you with too broad a brush (again). If so, I apologize.

I don't deny the system sucks - but, again, I prefer to spend my time and money where it actually makes an appreciable difference.

And speaking of apologies - while I do think the exchange in the other thread was pretty ridiculous and uncivil - I was the one who used "turd" first in the exchange - in reference to you. That flies in the face of the things I said in the "Why We Hate" thread - and is a marvelous example of me failing to live up to my own ideals. So... I apologize... profusely and earnestly. It was inappropriate of me. I owe you at least one

This is where I really really don't get you. I ASSUMED you were being light-hearted, and I responded in kind, thinking we were good-naturedly kidding. When you see me making purposefully dumb statements like "nailing an M1A1 main battle tank to a rose bush", or declaring that you are "the turdiest" - you should be able to deduce that I'm being pretty facetious. I thought you were posting in good humor, and I replied in kind. Sometimes, though, you seem to go off your "I'm such a nice guy" image and -- I hate to say this -- revert to what MAY be your "true self".

I don't know how may times I have to say I really like you and enjoy you being here, I have no animosity to you, I like to poke you IN FUN ---- but, SHEESH, you can be so.....

[Sparko]

So a dead republican pimp won the state election in Nevada. They must really hate the democrats.

Dennis Hof, dead brothel owner from Nevada, just won in a landslidehttps://www.aol.com/article/news/201...share_facebook

[Cow Poke]

So a dead republican pimp won the state election in Nevada. They must really hate the democrats.

Dennis Hof, dead brothel owner from Nevada, just won in a landslidehttps://www.aol.com/article/news/201...share_facebook

If he had been a Democrat, would dead Democrats have voted for him?