• @Cosmicomical
    link
    -12
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    In most us states they take your voting right when you are convicted. This is not compatible with running for president as a convict imo.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      34
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Have you considered that maybe that’s tyranny as well?

      What if, for example, someone decided to make weed a felony because he couldn’t outright make being black illegal?

      • @Feathercrown
        link
        English
        -76 months ago

        Wait is there a correlation between being black and smoking weed?

        • @RBWells
          link
          156 months ago

          No, a correlation between being black and being arrested for weed. In my city, they made the legal status of the drug indeterminate and gave cops DISCRETION on whether to arrest or cite someone for having pot. Not a felony now in any event, misdemeanor or civil citation or nothing but how do you think this discretion will be used?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            13
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Nixon did specifically consider weed a hippies and black people thing, but even if that was statistically true selective enforcement was always the plan.

            • Tiefling IRL
              link
              fedilink
              76 months ago

              You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?

              We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.

              Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

              • @Feathercrown
                link
                English
                46 months ago

                It’s baffling to me how info like this is public and people still believe the republicans were the good guys.

                • Tiefling IRL
                  link
                  fedilink
                  46 months ago

                  Because those people agree with the Republican view

                  What really baffles me is the existence of Republican BIPOC/LGBT folks

        • @AngryCommieKender
          link
          146 months ago

          "You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?

          We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.

          Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

          • John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon

          https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional

        • Todd Bonzalez
          link
          fedilink
          136 months ago

          Oh sweet summer child, everyone smokes weed. Cannabis prohibition was about giving police the power to arrest anyone they want to - and they used that power to arrest Black people.

          And if you don’t smoke weed? Well what about this little baggy we “found in your pocket”?

          • @Feathercrown
            link
            English
            -46 months ago

            I really, really, really hate the phrase “Oh sweet summer child”. Is it possible to be any more patronizing? Couldn’t you just say it normally?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              26 months ago

              Not that I care about either of you guys or your argument, but I gotta point out that it’s a phrase intended to be insulting and condescending. You’re just letting the other guy know they got to you by writing this.

              • @Feathercrown
                link
                English
                -26 months ago

                Based, but I never denied that. I gave them the benefit of the doubt because I’ve unironically seen people saying stuff like this without realizing that it has a negative connotation.

                • Todd Bonzalez
                  link
                  fedilink
                  26 months ago

                  I guess the fact that you were more willing to believe that Black people have a natural inclination towards drug use than to understand that cops are bad leads me to the conclusion that you aren’t a great person with smart ideas, and didn’t see the necessity in being super nice about it when responding to you.

                  I could have laid into you for the racist-leaning narrative, but instead I insinuated that you were naïve, so truthfully I did give you the benefit of a doubt in regard to the racially insensitive question you asked.

            • @bc93
              link
              06 months ago

              deleted by creator

              • @Feathercrown
                link
                English
                16 months ago

                Yup. Also:

                interlocutor

                New cool word discovered!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          36 months ago

          There has certainly been a correlation for being black and being charged with possession of weed if that’s what you mean.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I never understood the logic behind that. What’s the reason for it?

      Are we afraid that all of the criminals will form a Crime Party and campaign to legalize burglary and murder? 😈

      Or do we think the type of person who would commit a violent crime is going to be incentivized to not commit a crime because of losing their right to vote, in a country where half the people don’t vote anyway?

      Before I mug this old lady, I really should consider that this upcoming election has huge ramifications and I really don’t want to risk losing my right to vote. I don’t mind jail, community service, or monetary fines; it’s voting that might prevent me from commiting this offense. 🤓

      No, I think it’s more likely that some people don’t want other people who are disproportionately convicted of crimes (you know, those people) to have a voice.