You don’t even have your basic biology right. Research indicates that “male” and “female” are insufficient in identifying reproducible results based on unchanging criteria. As such, biology has expanded FAR beyond simple “male” and “female”. And, as you might imagine, gender has expanded much further beyond that.

Congrats on the victory but good god doesn’t ne have any real friends willing to be honest about such an absolutely tacky outfit?
I’ll admit, the hat sends it over the edge but, still, deep autumnal red with fucking FRILLS, and bright yellow accented primary blue? That’s going to look bad even before you pop a recycled…

Maybe try reading the whole thread before responding so you don’t fire off the same arguments that have already been addressed. You’re still missing the point.

You’re missing the point. It’s not about whether you vote for or against self-interest. It’s about having evidence for that, or the lack thereof.

Honestly, if anyone can’t figure out a way to fit “dolphin’s asshole” into their attack ads, have they really even earned my vote?

It’s not surprising that the GOP loves to jerk themselves off to law-and-order rhetoric when it involves killing people of color, but when they are asked to do something by subpoena (you know, the law) this administration cinches up like a dolphin’s asshole.

We never have any assurance that any citizen (incarcerated or not) is voting “in alignment with society’s laws” or unselfishly in any respect.

No one’s offended at soldiers sitting around. The offensive thing is WHERE they’re doing it, and WHY. 

We allow felons to vote in my state and to my knowledge your “introduced uncertainties” have not taken place (although to be fair how would one know unless this were a focus of investigation).

Just one, so long as it’s come to after codified and due process.

Are you advocating for taking away voting rights from the 1% as well?

Focusing on the optimistic is all well and good until you realize you can’t validate any of the assumed conclusions against the possibility of malfeasance.

We already do this. Slippery slopes only apply if you don’t have oversight and accountability.

No games. Check my comment history. I am a VERY semantics-focused pedant. Mostly, I argue about arguing. Semantics are the whole deal.

Disregarding the fact that I never made any character judgements about felons, “evil” or otherwise, they shouldn’t vote because they can’t be held to the same mental standards of free citizens, as evidenced by their breaking the law, and that paradigm is inconsistent with credible elections.

Unless of course you’re of the mind that felons are felons because they just love doing the crime.

No. No more than any non-incarcerated citizen, anyway.

Because the felons - the ones that need to be imprisoned, not the joint smokers - may not vote towards the betterment of society. If a murderer is not “reformed”, as assessed by independent panels, then his judgement is suspect. It’s not that he’s definitely going to vote for something untoward, but we have no…

In a vacuum, absolutely not. Someone losing their voting rights over a joint is absurd (as are most things, in a vacuum).

You don’t see how criminals might vote against the interests of their communities when it conflicts with the interests of their criminal pursuits?