Page 5 of 338 FirstFirst 123456789101555105 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 6741

Thread: Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

  1. #81
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    [QUOTE=SCdemondeacer;1220119]Well let's see. First you vote early, and then you vote on Election Day. That's 2 votes you cast. Throw in an absentee ballot and there ya' go. 3 votes! Do you honestly think every multiple vote will be caught and disallowed?

    This could be in the Top 5 of stupidest posts ever. With Republicans in every state they control crying about "voter fraud", they would be having press conferences every day if happened even once.

  2. #82
    i see this whole thing as a primarily rural backlash against the excesses of Democratic governance in NC, especially the crookedness and crony politics of the NC Democratic party in the Easley and Perdue years. The rural parts of NC have been simmering with resentment for years over Raleigh's perceived elitism and favoritism in spending - especially transportation spending - on the urban areas.

    The Tea Party rebellion of 2010 was a once in a generation opportunity to sweep out the crooks AND gerrymander the whole state to make sure the rurals can outvote the urbans for the next 10 years, notwithstanding the fact that the urbans outnumber the rurals and all meaningful economic growth originates in the cities. The NC Democrats made their bed and now they're lying in it. Unfortunately, the anti-urban policies of the new Raleigh majority mean that all the cities in the state except Raleigh and Charlotte are going to be collateral damage.

  3. #83
    Carnal Decadence
    HeavyPetter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    13,015
    I just don't understand how someone from a rural area can think they've been getting the shaft when Hwy 264 east of Wilson is the same sized road as I-77 north of Charlotte.

  4. #84
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    To me the whole early voting/voting I.D. conversation is ripe with discriminatory negative stereotypes about poor people. What's interesting is that both sides play up these stereotypes with their arguments.

    From the republican standpoint voting should require a little bit of planning, forethought, and inconvenience. The theory being that if you aren't willing to put up with inconvenience to exercise your democratic right then your vote shouldn't count. It is implied that poor people (democrats) are too lazy or dumb to figure out how to vote if slight barriers are put in their way.

    Democrats affirm these stereotypes by claiming that voter ID laws and reducing early voting will disenfranchise poor people (democrats) as if they are incapable of voting (or don't care enough) when inconveniences are involved.

    Both of these arguments assume that poor people must be democrats and that they must be incapable or too lazy to figure out how to vote.

  5. #85
    Carnal Decadence
    HeavyPetter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    13,015
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    To me the whole early voting/voting I.D. conversation is ripe with discriminatory negative stereotypes about poor people. What's interesting is that both sides play up these stereotypes with their arguments.

    From the republican standpoint voting should require a little bit of planning, forethought, and inconvenience. The theory being that if you aren't willing to put up with inconvenience to exercise your democratic right then your vote shouldn't count. It is implied that poor people (democrats) are too lazy or dumb to figure out how to vote if slight barriers are put in their way.

    Democrats affirm these stereotypes by claiming that voter ID laws and reducing early voting will disenfranchise poor people (democrats) as if they are incapable of voting (or don't care enough) when inconveniences are involved.

    Both of these arguments assume that poor people must be democrats and that they must be incapable or too lazy to figure out how to vote.
    You shouldn't have to figure it out. It's a constitutional right. And unlike the right to maintain a militia or not be forced to quarter soldiers, it's pretty straight forward. It shouldn't be nuanced.

  6. #86
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    To me the whole early voting/voting I.D. conversation is ripe with discriminatory negative stereotypes about poor people. What's interesting is that both sides play up these stereotypes with their arguments.

    From the republican standpoint voting should require a little bit of planning, forethought, and inconvenience. The theory being that if you aren't willing to put up with inconvenience to exercise your democratic right then your vote shouldn't count. It is implied that poor people (democrats) are too lazy or dumb to figure out how to vote if slight barriers are put in their way.

    Democrats affirm these stereotypes by claiming that voter ID laws and reducing early voting will disenfranchise poor people (democrats) as if they are incapable of voting (or don't care enough) when inconveniences are involved.

    Both of these arguments assume that poor people must be democrats and that they must be incapable or too lazy to figure out how to vote.
    The goal for both parties should be to create ways to get 100% of eligible voters to vote.

    The bottom line is the GOP opposes this most basic tenet of a democratic republic knowing the more people who vote the less likely they are to win.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    To me the whole early voting/voting I.D. conversation is ripe with discriminatory negative stereotypes about poor people. What's interesting is that both sides play up these stereotypes with their arguments.

    From the republican standpoint voting should require a little bit of planning, forethought, and inconvenience. The theory being that if you aren't willing to put up with inconvenience to exercise your democratic right then your vote shouldn't count. It is implied that poor people (democrats) are too lazy or dumb to figure out how to vote if slight barriers are put in their way.

    Democrats affirm these stereotypes by claiming that voter ID laws and reducing early voting will disenfranchise poor people (democrats) as if they are incapable of voting (or don't care enough) when inconveniences are involved.

    Both of these arguments assume that poor people must be democrats and that they must be incapable or too lazy to figure out how to vote.
    numbers do bear out the correlation between poor people and democratic affiliation. putting up barriers to vote will result in decreased turnout, and the demographic (and by extension party) most affected can be anticipated. So while we're all using an overly broad brush, the assumptions are not mischaracterizations.

    this whole push is dumb because i feel confident that if either party were pulling some shenanigans the other party would SCREAM and SCREAM and we'd all know about it. internet makes it impossible to control all media outlets.
    This sentence is false.

  8. #88
    rj has another way to look at it.

    fortunately technology has begun to mitigate the problem between size of government and it's representativeness, so conservatives soon can't even trumpet small government as beneficial based on more efficient and effective representation of individual interests.
    This sentence is false.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyPetter View Post
    You shouldn't have to figure it out. It's a constitutional right. And unlike the right to maintain a militia or not be forced to quarter soldiers, it's pretty straight forward. It shouldn't be nuanced.
    Please identify which eligible voter is currently disenfranchised by our system.

  10. #90
    Carnal Decadence
    HeavyPetter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    13,015
    Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
    Please identify which eligible voter is currently disenfranchised by our system.
    Things are more or less fine currently. Don't change them.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
    Please identify which eligible voter is currently disenfranchised by our system.
    exactly. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

  12. #92
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyPetter View Post
    You shouldn't have to figure it out. It's a constitutional right. And unlike the right to maintain a militia or not be forced to quarter soldiers, it's pretty straight forward. It shouldn't be nuanced.
    Agreed. But I don't think that requiring and ID or not, or arbitrarily limiting or expanding the times you can vote moves the needle in either direction. It's a stupid fight for the republicans (like most things they choose to focus on) because there isn't rampant voting fraud and its not likely that there ever will be.

    It's also stupid for democrats because the outcome of a voter ID law would likely be more people with photo IDs (which no one can argue is a bad thing) not the rampant disenfranchisement.

  13. #93
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Agreed. But I don't think that requiring and ID or not, or arbitrarily limiting or expanding the times you can vote moves the needle in either direction. It's a stupid fight for the republicans (like most things they choose to focus on) because there isn't rampant voting fraud and its not likely that there ever will be.

    It's also stupid for democrats because the outcome of a voter ID law would likely be more people with photo IDs (which no one can argue is a bad thing) not the rampant disenfranchisement.
    Wrong there will rampant disenfranchisement in some communities. The Brennan Center and others have pegged the number without current photo IDS at over 11,000,000. That's rampant.

  14. #94
    Carnal Decadence
    HeavyPetter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    13,015
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Agreed. But I don't think that requiring and ID or not, or arbitrarily limiting or expanding the times you can vote moves the needle in either direction. It's a stupid fight for the republicans (like most things they choose to focus on) because there isn't rampant voting fraud and its not likely that there ever will be.

    It's also stupid for democrats because the outcome of a voter ID law would likely be more people with photo IDs (which no one can argue is a bad thing) not the rampant disenfranchisement.
    The Constitution says you can vote. It doesn't say you need a driver's license. When the requirement for owning land was abolished, there wan't anything new put in its place to prove you should be voting. Any new impediments would be more stringent than what's been in place since the 1850's. Our society should be headed towards a goal of more people voting, with easier access to the polls; not less.

  15. #95
    [QUOTE=RJKarl;1220992]
    Quote Originally Posted by SCdemondeacer View Post
    Well let's see. First you vote early, and then you vote on Election Day. That's 2 votes you cast. Throw in an absentee ballot and there ya' go. 3 votes! Do you honestly think every multiple vote will be caught and disallowed?

    This could be in the Top 5 of stupidest posts ever. With Republicans in every state they control crying about "voter fraud", they would be having press conferences every day if happened even once.
    Just happened in Ohio.

  16. #96
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Wrong there will rampant disenfranchisement in some communities. The Brennan Center and others have pegged the number without current photo IDS at over 11,000,000. That's rampant.
    My guess is that most of those 11,000,000 who currently vote or might like to vote in the future would get ID's. It's would be a dumb law because it's not necessary but the result wouldn't be as bad over time as you and others make it out to be.

  17. #97
    [QUOTE=RJKarl;1220992]
    Quote Originally Posted by SCdemondeacer View Post
    Well let's see. First you vote early, and then you vote on Election Day. That's 2 votes you cast. Throw in an absentee ballot and there ya' go. 3 votes! Do you honestly think every multiple vote will be caught and disallowed?

    This could be in the Top 5 of stupidest posts ever. With Republicans in every state they control crying about "voter fraud", they would be having press conferences every day if happened even once.
    Saying that a voter ID bill is akin to a poll tax is Number 1 on Stupidest posts ever! And thanks to all the "tolerant and diversity loving" douchebags for the neg reps! Way to make a newbie feel welcome!

  18. #98
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyPetter View Post
    The Constitution says you can vote. It doesn't say you need a driver's license. When the requirement for owning land was abolished, there wan't anything new put in its place to prove you should be voting. Any new impediments would be more stringent than what's been in place since the 1850's. Our society should be headed towards a goal of more people voting, with easier access to the polls; not less.
    What? 19th Ammendment, Voting Rights Act, etc. happened after 1850 and made it less stringent to vote. Did they have early voting in 1850? Did they have photo ID's in the 1850's?

    The Constitution says you have the right to assemble. It doesn't say you need a permit. In certain places you need a permit to assemble.
    The Constitution says you have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say you need a background check. In certain states (and hopefully all soon) you need a background check.

  19. #99
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    My guess is that most of those 11,000,000 who currently vote or might like to vote in the future would get ID's. It's would be a dumb law because it's not necessary but the result wouldn't be as bad over time as you and others make it out to be.
    Why should they have to?

    There's no problem Even Bush's DOJ said this is so. The AG in PA said ZERO cases of voter impersonation have happened there in the past decade and he didn't expect any to occur in 2012.

    There no reason to make people pay a poll tax to vote.

  20. #100
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Why should they have to?

    There's no problem Even Bush's DOJ said this is so. The AG in PA said ZERO cases of voter impersonation have happened there in the past decade and he didn't expect any to occur in 2012.

    There no reason to make people pay a poll tax to vote.
    It would be a dumb law because it's not necessary. Sorry I should have said that earlier.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •