created by: CitizenTopix | Oct 7, 2010

Michigan

967 votes

Michigan Felon Politician Ban Amendment, Proposal 2

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (explain below)

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of302
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Car Man

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Oct 9, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well I had to Google 'Michigan Proposal 2' to learn what this is about. I only did that since I haven't heard what it was about. I did receive one of those local political thingies from the Warren City Council urging that I vote 'NO on Proposal 2', but basically it only said this was a bad thing. So, now that I know, I will vote to approve it on Nov 2nd.
Paul

Barbeau, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Oct 9, 2010
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Perhaps I need to be educated here, but what led up to this proposal? Do we have a serious problem with convicted felons being elected into office? More importantly, if voters knowingly elect someone with a past felony, then shouldn't they have a right to do so?

Besides, I suspect that we have a lot of corruption going on among some who have squeaky clean records.
RFist351

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Oct 9, 2010
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Vote NO on both proposals.

Proposal 1 NO (just not now)
The first one will stall the government, and take up time for currently un-needed things.
Not that I don't think the Michigan Constitution shouldn't be changed from time to time, but they need to work on our current problems fast.

Proposal 2 No (won't really help)
(this thread) really don't fix corruption.How many people WITHOUT a record has been guilty ?.
The ones given a second chance, will probably more law abiding than most other people.
Cranky

Seymour, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Oct 9, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

vote out ALL incumbents in Lansing!!!
Really

Dearborn Heights, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Oct 10, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Paul wrote:
Perhaps I need to be educated here, but what led up to this proposal? Do we have a serious problem with convicted felons being elected into office? More importantly, if voters knowingly elect someone with a past felony, then shouldn't they have a right to do so?
Besides, I suspect that we have a lot of corruption going on among some who have squeaky clean records.
Some of these slimy politicians hide behind their adds and the electorate buys it all..Thank God for the internet, but there are some that still don't do their homework..B.O. is a prime example of a propaganda win...If he were not president he could not even take a tour of the white house because of his radical affiliations,he's not a felon(that we know of)but the media is a powerful thing...
Richard Weed

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Oct 12, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Tony wrote:
The proposal doesn't go far enough.
But we have to look at who "desensitized" us in the first place to understand the opposition.
Clinton as an example or Barry Frank
Or, Ensign, Gingrich, DeLay, Limbaugh and Spitzer.
Seeking truth

Holly, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Oct 22, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thats right
Voter

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Oct 22, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

Richard Weed wrote:
<quoted text>
Or, Ensign, Gingrich, DeLay, Limbaugh and Spitzer.
The Senate by not convicting Clinton, "for the good of the country".

http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/n...

Rush would never run for political office, he'd have to take a dramatic cut in pay! He has more influence as a radio talk show host.(By the way, he is not a convicted felon, his record was expunged.

Ensign is being charged and not convicted.

http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2006/01/11/...

Democrat Spitzer was not even charged with a crime.

Just dirty politics as usual. Wonder who sent the notice to "vote" no on the proposal, obviously a politician, usually means to vote yes.
Needs Further Review

Otis, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Oct 27, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Maybe this amendment needs further review. We should never be too rash in voting for an amendment. Maybe someone who made mistakes can do better in office. What do you think?
Another Yes

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Oct 27, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

Needs Further Review wrote:
Maybe this amendment needs further review. We should never be too rash in voting for an amendment. Maybe someone who made mistakes can do better in office. What do you think?
So, I understand if you make an error in judgement back when you are young, perhaps in your late teens, early twenties and you "do better". 20 yrs of being free from the stupidity of your youth is plently of time to allow if a person wants to seek an office and is charged with the public trust. Heck, even Kwamee is young enough to run again for office in 20 yrs.(ie: His mom is atleast 20 yrs his senior). The public office is too ripe for criminals to get away with things. We tend to trust our officials until they are caught, keep in mind some never get caught. What's to reconsider, perhaps someone who made mistakes can do better, but the odds are against them if they are prone to being a politician.
Believe it or not, there are many supporters of Kwammee still in the city of Detroit.
Needs Further Review

Otis, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Oct 27, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Another Yes wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I understand if you make an error in judgement back when you are young, perhaps in your late teens, early twenties and you "do better". 20 yrs of being free from the stupidity of your youth is plently of time to allow if a person wants to seek an office and is charged with the public trust. Heck, even Kwamee is young enough to run again for office in 20 yrs.(ie: His mom is atleast 20 yrs his senior). The public office is too ripe for criminals to get away with things. We tend to trust our officials until they are caught, keep in mind some never get caught. What's to reconsider, perhaps someone who made mistakes can do better, but the odds are against them if they are prone to being a politician.
Believe it or not, there are many supporters of Kwammee still in the city of Detroit.
So we use Kwamee (sp?) as the standard for all felons? Think about it! People are capable of change! You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. I believe that some people change and learn from their life experiences. And politics is a great way to give back to a community. As far as getting caught, wouldn't you feel safer with someone who already knows and has faced the consequences?
Thewayiseeit

Manistee, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Oct 27, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

Nixthis wrote:
Against. The Michigan Penal Code is archaic.
Example: Write a bad check for $200 or more at a retail outlet and you're charged with a felony. When its all said and done, you'll walk away with a misdemeanor, if that.
Take a $10 item from a store or building, and you're charged with a felony and guess what ... if you're convicted, you're a felon, and you may never get that erased from your record.
Have a felony on you record, no matter how slight, and try to get it erased or forgiven.
Not in any court in Michigan.
Michigan's penal code is archaic.
How about your hands get cut off the next time you get caught? Thats what will happen to you in some other parts of the world. You need to thank God you live here! And don't write me a bad check for $200.00, I won't prosecute, but you'll be wondering how your car caught on fire.
Another Yes

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Oct 27, 2010
 

Judged:

2

Needs Further Review wrote:
<quoted text>
So we use Kwamee (sp?) as the standard for all felons? Think about it! People are capable of change! You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. I believe that some people change and learn from their life experiences. And politics is a great way to give back to a community. As far as getting caught, wouldn't you feel safer with someone who already knows and has faced the consequences?
Kwame is young enough to run in 20 yrs. It's not saying never. I prefer someone who never even thought of committing a crime, let alone actually committing one and then getting caught. One thing is everyone should do is "expect" everyone to be honest, if they have proven to be otherwise, then there are consequences. 20 yrs. delay in a person trying to obtain trust after committing and being convicted of a FELONY is reasonable. I have caught and help prosecute people who embezzled. It was difficult to prove and even more difficult to explain in layman's terms how a person actually hid it. The most of the people did not have to pay back the full amount they embezzled, only a portion that was clear enough to prove.(Some were very familiar on how to destroy records and also cover their trail). I strongly suspect that those embezzlers had done this with other companies and either had not been prosecuted (long and costly, in addition to embarrassment) or not even been found out. Only a very few ever get convicted with felonies, most cases end up pleading out. Those companies that didn't or weren't willing to make a "deal" said they wouldn't compromise because they would never want this to happen to anyone else. 20 yrs. is reasonable, and yes certainly we certainly are each entitled to our opinion, this is a forum for that. I, in my opinion, just believe politics is the worst way to attempt to give back, there is so many other ways people can "give back" after being convicted of a felony that would better serve the community.
James

Oklahoma City, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Oct 29, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Why is this even being voted on?? I don't want anyone who has lied or committed a felon to even be able to run for any federal or public office, for that matter.

Talk about stupidity?? Lets go vote a criminal in office... cuz i always wanted to do that...
NOT!!
CitizenTopix wrote:
Michigan Felon Politician Ban Amendment, Proposal 2
A "YES" vote would bar any officeholder convicted of a felony involving deceit and fraud from holding public office for 20 years.
According to reports the amendment would extend an existing 20-year ban on election of legislative officials who have been convicted of felonies involving "breach of public trust." The proposed amendment would broaden the ban to local and state elective offices and would specify "break of public trust" as including dishonesty, deceit and fraud.
How will you vote on November 2nd?
An Eye on the web

Bloomfield Hills, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Oct 29, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Once someone has served his/her time in jail, this person should be given another chance. The rightous sins at least 7 times a day, it is in the Bible !
Hector Hiabus

Hillsdale, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Oct 29, 2010
 
Really wrote:
Some of these slimy politicians hide behind their adds and the electorate buys it all.
But a lot of them hide behind their subtracts.
Mark

Rockford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Oct 29, 2010
 

Judged:

1

I think maybe yes on 1 and no on 2. We need to revamp the constitution of Michigan, to cap government's role. I don't want to see politics persecuting people for trying to make a difference. Lawyers with an ax could manipulate charges to gain political advantage. maybe... thoughts
RFist333

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Oct 29, 2010
 

Judged:

1

This is a no brainier, YES will just create one more law, and waste time, and we will always have problems regardless of this "Law"

"No" on both.
common sense, I have no Axe to grind.
Sassy

Jackson, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Oct 29, 2010
 
Difficult time with this one. Someone that committed a felony when they were young (depends what the felony was), paid for their crime and turned their life around. I can see them being given a chance. However, there are corporations around that have a no hire policy if there is a felony on the individuals record no matter at what age, and yet I've seen that policy broken by the corporation based on who you know(huge discrimination lawsuit) O tolerance is 0 tolerance, policy in place you can't take anyone, but I know someone that was hired this way. I also know someone in same company that didn't know someone that was denied because of felony. So in that aspect, I guess I would not abide by it.
Voter

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Oct 30, 2010
 
Sassy wrote:
Difficult time with this one. Someone that committed a felony when they were young (depends what the felony was), paid for their crime and turned their life around. I can see them being given a chance. However, there are corporations around that have a no hire policy if there is a felony on the individuals record no matter at what age, and yet I've seen that policy broken by the corporation based on who you know(huge discrimination lawsuit) O tolerance is 0 tolerance, policy in place you can't take anyone, but I know someone that was hired this way. I also know someone in same company that didn't know someone that was denied because of felony. So in that aspect, I guess I would not abide by it.
I agree with the first sentence of your statement, young a foolish, people change.(Depending on the seriousness of the offense.)

Sometimes that can happen based on the position a person is applying for. A person who is just working the line or assisting in some for of operation of a machine can in some businesses have a felony record, yet as for the position of say, an accountant or payroll clerk, Officer of that company, they are denied because of the felony conviction.

Other Companies are restricted from hiring felonies. The Casinos cannot hire a felony and you have to have an extensive background check. You cannot even have bad credit. Banks usually have this policy as well. The banks have to answer to the FDIC and the Casinos have to answer to the gaming commission. Most companies have to answer to their stockholders or Board of Directors. Smaller businesses may be unaware of a persons felony conviction, most of them don't actually do what they should which is background checks. Those that do, again have a choice to hire or not hire a person with a felony conviction based on position or their preference.

It's odd that you know felons. I have assisted in convicting people on felony counts, but to know one otherwise, or have knowledge of anyone having one, unless having done a background check for suspicion of one or to hire one, I can't say anyone I personally know of co-workers with a felony conviction. Then again, in my business we really don't have a position where a person can have a conviction on their record and be hired.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of302
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Cassopolis Discussions

Search the Cassopolis Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
MI Who do you support for Secretary of State in Mi... (Oct '10) Jul 7 maeball 169
School board not giving up on Weigel Jul 7 Good King Niles 2
MI 2010 Michigan Primary Election: Did you vote? (Aug '10) Jun 30 TruthBeTold 5,481
Puppymill Jun 10 Animal activist 1
He having baby!! Jun 9 Wow 1
Al Capone's West Michigan ties: Fact or fun-fic... (Jan '06) Jun '14 liz 793
MI Who do you support for Attorney General in Mich... (Oct '10) May '14 Ned Tugent 114
•••
•••
•••
Cassopolis Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Cassopolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Cassopolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Cassopolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Cassopolis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••