No non-partisan Politics allowed in NC

[Covar]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-nonpartisan-vote/?feat=home_cube_position1#

/facepalm

basically, residents of Kinston North Carolina last year voted to strip party affiliation from local elections. Federal Justice department rules that this is racist, and without being able to see who is a democrat would disenfranchise black voters and canidates.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Huh.

Candidates aren't listed by party for local elections here in Canada. Never have as far as I'm aware. But then, the party system doesn't exist at the local level here anyway.

 

[GasBandit]

This little guy's probably shouted himself hoarse over the last year.

 

[Shakey]

As much as we would like to think that everyone will research every candidate for every elected position, it isn't going to happen. So people rely on voting their party of choice. Removing that option is simply going to lead to blank ballots and people paying even less attention to who they are voting for.

Making it an issue of race is pretty silly though. They're coming off as saying black people are too stupid to find out who they should vote for.

 

[Adam]

Huh.

Candidates aren't listed by party for local elections here in Canada. Never have as far as I'm aware. But then, the party system doesn't exist at the local level here anyway.

Yeah, that's always a shocker when I drive across into Washington state and the sheriff advertises whether he's a democrat or a republican - let alone the mayor, council members, etc.

 

[Covar]

As much as we would like to think that everyone will research every candidate for every elected position, it isn't going to happen. So people rely on voting their party of choice. Removing that option is simply going to lead to blank ballots and people paying even less attention to who they are voting for.

I hope it would lead to more empty ballots. I'd rather someone not vote than vote uninformed.

Making it an issue of race is pretty silly though. They're coming off as saying black people are too stupid to find out who they should vote for.

And that's part of what irks me. The other is the blatant disregard to the will of the citizens, and the ability of a non-elected federal bureaucrat to overturn an small town's local election.

I'm also annoyed because I spent most my life growing up right next to Kinston.

 

[Shakey]

As much as we would like to think that everyone will research every candidate for every elected position, it isn't going to happen. So people rely on voting their party of choice. Removing that option is simply going to lead to blank ballots and people paying even less attention to who they are voting for.

I hope it would lead to more empty ballots. I'd rather someone not vote than vote uniformed.
[/QUOTE]

I'd rather have people vote based on party than by making a random pattern on their ballot.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I'd rather someone not vote than vote uniformed.

cops, firefighters and soldiers don't deserve to vote? I know that's my anti-authoritarian position, but I'm surprised to see you espouse it.

 

[SpecialKO]

Loretta King's logic in that article makes no sense to me.

If there's a problem with voter apathy, what does that have to do with race or partisan elections?

A lot of towns in northern jersey have non-partisan local elections just because so many of the candidates in those elections identify as Democrats, and when there are Republican candidates, they're scarcely different from the Democrats, the partisan identifier is meaningless.

---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------

*high-fives Grue*

 

[Covar]

I'd rather someone not vote than vote uniformed.

cops, firefighters and soldiers don't deserve to vote? I know that's my anti-authoritarian position, but I'm surprised to see you espouse it.[/QUOTE]



Fixed, thanks.

 

[GasBandit]

In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.

 

[Shakey]

In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.

Unfortunately that's not how it works here. If one word at the end of a candidates name helps people decide which candidate better fits with their political beliefs, I'm all for it.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.

*has a computer and easy access to boundless information and time to assimilate that information*

*ironically chooses to read michelle malkin and glenn mccoy comics and claims to be "informed"*

*hates and wants to disenfranchise poor people*

*is gasbandit*

 

[AshburnerX]

Regardless of whether or not removing party affiliation on ballets is a good idea, claiming that it's racist because it won't allow Black people to know who's the Democrat is without a doubt THE DUMBEST THING I have ever heard.

 

[Krisken]

Regardless of whether or not removing party affiliation on ballets is a good idea, claiming that it's racist because it won't allow Black people to know who's the Democrat is without a doubt THE DUMBEST THING I have ever heard.

I agree with this. This is a good example of playing the race card in a situation that doesn't warrant it. The problem with that is it delegitimizes those instances when it is really called for.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

The situation warrants it in that poor voters tend to be far less informed due to less access to information, and OHOHO GUESS WHICH RACE TENDS TO BE THE POOREST

Incidentally GUESS WHICH RACE ALSO TENDS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

Basically it seems like an argument could be made that it's attempt to disenfranchise certain poor voters (though not necessarily poor black voters, though they would be the largest affected demographic)

 

[Rob King]

As much as we would like to think that everyone will research every candidate for every elected position, it isn't going to happen. So people rely on voting their party of choice. Removing that option is simply going to lead to blank ballots and people paying even less attention to who they are voting for.

I hope it would lead to more empty ballots. I'd rather someone not vote than vote uninformed.
[/QUOTE]

I did this in our latest municipal election. I wasn't nearly informed enough about any of the candidates, so I figured it would be best not to vote than to vote ignorant. Especially considering I'm planning on leaving the city in the next year, and I won't really be around to see the full result.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Voting an empty ballot is actually a good thing for young voters to do, as far as bumping up our total voting numbers and showing that there isn't a candidate speaking to our concerns.

 

[SpecialKO]

The situation warrants it in that poor voters tend to be far less informed due to less access to information, and OHOHO GUESS WHICH RACE TENDS TO BE THE POOREST

Incidentally GUESS WHICH RACE ALSO TENDS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

Basically it seems like a pretty clear attempt to disenfranchise certain poor voters (though not necessarily poor black voters, though they would be the largest affected demographic)

I think you're reaching a little bit. Granted, I know nothing about the locale in question that isn't in the article, but they don't seem to be talking about preventing democrat candidates from advertising themselves as democrats, or preventing people's access to actual information during the campaign.

It also sounds like the residents of the area overwhelmingly voted to support non-partisan elections. Unless there's reason to believe that vote was non-representative, or even a tyranny of the majority type of situation, there doesn't seem to be anything to worry about in regards to the change.

 

[GasBandit]

In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.

*has a computer and easy access to boundless information and time to assimilate that information*

*ironically chooses to read michelle malkin and glenn mccoy comics and claims to be "informed"*

*hates and wants to disenfranchise poor people*

*is gasbandit*[/quote]

*puts a lot of words in mouths other than his*

Obviously, those must be the ONLY source of my information, right? It's not like I can read anything else, and it's not like I work at an ABC News affiliated radio station and am bombarded by news at the top of every hour, 9+ hours a day?

Nice non sequitur though. I don't hate poor people (at least not for being poor), I hate stupid people. Granted, that means I hate most people.

Here's a little refresher course on voting, though, folks. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. There is only a guarantee that enfranchisement cannot be determined (or denied) due to reasons of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc.

You do not have a right to vote, except how your state determines if you are eligible to vote.

Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.

And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.

If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.

And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.

I think wanting poor people to not be able to vote is COMPLETELY DIRECTLY hating them.

 

[Krisken]

Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.

And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.

I think wanting poor people to not be able to vote is COMPLETELY DIRECTLY hating them.[/QUOTE]
You'll never get into the Gas Bandit Country Club with that attitude.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.

*has a computer and easy access to boundless information and time to assimilate that information*

*ironically chooses to read michelle malkin and glenn mccoy comics and claims to be "informed"*

*hates and wants to disenfranchise poor people*

*is gasbandit*[/quote]

*puts a lot of words in mouths other than his*

Obviously, those must be the ONLY source of my information, right? It's not like I can read anything else, and it's not like I work at an ABC News affiliated radio station and am bombarded by news at the top of every hour, 9+ hours a day?

Nice non sequitur though. I don't hate poor people (at least not for being poor), I hate stupid people. Granted, that means I hate most people.

Here's a little refresher course on voting, though, folks. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. There is only a guarantee that enfranchisement cannot be determined (or denied) due to reasons of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc.

You do not have a right to vote, except how your state determines if you are eligible to vote.

Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.

And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.

If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.[/QUOTE]
Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow.

Maybe you should look at how much you spend on... fubu....

Hmmmmmm

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Haha, holy shit, how did I miss the FUBU line.

FYI, I copy-pasted that post to share with my friends to laugh at.

 

[GasBandit]

Income mobility.

Win the lottery, go back to broke. Stupid people are often such because American public education is there to make you a subservient little federal dependent, not a thinking, striving person. They are brainwashed into being poor.

America's poor better off than europe's middle class.


Become less stupid, ye blind and ignorant drelbs.

 

[makare]

Win the lottery, go back to broke. Stupid people are often such because American public education is there to make you a subservient little federal dependent, not a thinking, striving person. They are brainwashed into being poor.

Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.

In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

How about some non-biased sources

EDIT: LOL no, i'm just fucking with you, I know you'll never provide a source that doesn't agree with your twisted, repugnant worldview

 

[Shakey]

Money is not a measure of intelligence, and it shouldn't be used as a barrier for voting. If anything we should try to help inform people on the candidates and their goals while in office instead of trying to prevent people from voting. If we try to block out a group of people they are going to become disenfranchised and resort to violence to get their point across. Voting makes people feel like they are making a difference, maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I'd just rather help them make informed decisions rather than random ones.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

heritage dot org what the fuck

 

[Covar]

The situation warrants it in that poor voters tend to be far less informed due to less access to information, and OHOHO GUESS WHICH RACE TENDS TO BE THE POOREST

Incidentally GUESS WHICH RACE ALSO TENDS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

Basically it seems like an argument could be made that it's attempt to disenfranchise certain poor voters (though not necessarily poor black voters, though they would be the largest affected demographic)

~9000 of the ~15000 voters in Kinston are black. Kinston had one of the largest voter turnouts in the state this past November. The measure was passed on nearly a 2 to 1 basis. I trust even you can see where I'm going with this. Sure though. Fuck the will of the people. After all, someone up in Washington clearly knows whats best for the people of Kinston.

 

[GasBandit]

Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.

In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.

You're completely wrong, but why should that surprise anyone? You're always wrong about everything. If anything, people who have had to really struggle to make ends meet should be BETTER equipped to keep money once they have it - after all, haven't they had to make the tough choices about whether to clothe the kids or buy a new XBOX? Those that make money and keep it are those who continue to make decisions as if they were poor even after they stop being such... those that become poor are those who live like they are rich even when they don't have the income stream to provide it. Many of the stories in that link illustrated just that - a complete lack of common sense.

How about some non-biased sources

EDIT: LOL no, i'm just fucking with you, I know you'll never provide a source that doesn't agree with your twisted, repugnant worldview

Yeah, shame on me for providing links that support my assertions. I should only ever supply links that disagree with my own points. That's how discussion works, after all. Where are YOUR links that don't support YOUR view? Matter of fact, where are ANY of your links at all?

Money is not a measure of intelligence, and it shouldn't be used as a barrier for voting. If anything we should try to help inform people on the candidates and their goals while in office instead of trying to prevent people from voting. If we try to block out a group of people they are going to become disenfranchised and resort to violence to get their point across. Voting makes people feel like they are making a difference, maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I'd just rather help them make informed decisions rather than random ones.

Where did I ever say that money was a measure of intelligence? I didn't say smart people were rich and poor people are stupid, I said that, abarring other understandable circumstance, a lot of people who find themselves perpetually poor do so because of their own stupidity. There's a distinction.

I also didn't say all poor people should not be allowed to vote, I said those on government financial assistance, IE Welfare. You get off welfare, you vote again.

And spare me the "voting makes them feel better." How about they accomplish something, thus giving them REASON to feel better about themselves?

heritage dot org what the fuck

A very smart bunch of guys out there. You'd do well to... well, at this point, you're so tragically moronic you'd do well to pretty much start with even the knowledge gleaned from the side of a cereal box and work your way up from there.

 

[makare]

Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.

In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.

You're completely wrong, but why should that surprise anyone? You're always wrong about everything. If anything, people who have had to really struggle to make ends meet should be BETTER equipped to keep money once they have it - after all, haven't they had to make the tough choices about whether to clothe the kids or buy a new XBOX? Those that make money and keep it are those who continue to make decisions as if they were poor even after they stop being such... those that become poor are those who live like they are rich even when they don't have the income stream to provide it. Many of the stories in that link illustrated just that - a complete lack of common sense.

[/QUOTE]

No. That is contrary to reality. I have alot of experience dealing with poor people. I grew up poor myself. I don't like to pull the "I am edumacated" card but I have spent great deal of time with groups dealing with poverty and educating people on how to deal with money issues, getting it,having it and keeping it. Especially in local native american communities that are among the poorest in the nation. I know how the poor think and I know that handling money is difficult because they never had an opportunity to learn how to do it.

What I do not know is how you come up with these ideas of yours. They are not based on education OR experience.

 

[GasBandit]

Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.

In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.

You're completely wrong, but why should that surprise anyone? You're always wrong about everything. If anything, people who have had to really struggle to make ends meet should be BETTER equipped to keep money once they have it - after all, haven't they had to make the tough choices about whether to clothe the kids or buy a new XBOX? Those that make money and keep it are those who continue to make decisions as if they were poor even after they stop being such... those that become poor are those who live like they are rich even when they don't have the income stream to provide it. Many of the stories in that link illustrated just that - a complete lack of common sense.

[/quote]

No. That is contrary to reality. I have alot of experience dealing with poor people. I grew up poor myself. I don't like to pull the "I am edumacated" card but I have spent great deal of time with groups dealing with poverty and educating people on how to deal with money issues, getting it,having it and keeping it. Especially in local native american communities that are among the poorest in the nation. I know how the poor think and I know that handling money is difficult because they never had an opportunity to learn how to do it.

What I do not know is how you come up with these ideas of yours. They are not based on education OR experience.[/quote]

I was poor too, once. I work with poor people too (most people at this station make less than 22k a year). Bingo-bango, we're equally qualified! Wasn't that fun? Native Reservations may be a special case, but I'm not speaking of the niches, the disabled or those who have experienced genuine tragic catastrophe.

 

[makare]

Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.

In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.

You're completely wrong, but why should that surprise anyone? You're always wrong about everything. If anything, people who have had to really struggle to make ends meet should be BETTER equipped to keep money once they have it - after all, haven't they had to make the tough choices about whether to clothe the kids or buy a new XBOX? Those that make money and keep it are those who continue to make decisions as if they were poor even after they stop being such... those that become poor are those who live like they are rich even when they don't have the income stream to provide it. Many of the stories in that link illustrated just that - a complete lack of common sense.

[/quote]

No. That is contrary to reality. I have alot of experience dealing with poor people. I grew up poor myself. I don't like to pull the "I am edumacated" card but I have spent great deal of time with groups dealing with poverty and educating people on how to deal with money issues, getting it,having it and keeping it. Especially in local native american communities that are among the poorest in the nation. I know how the poor think and I know that handling money is difficult because they never had an opportunity to learn how to do it.

What I do not know is how you come up with these ideas of yours. They are not based on education OR experience.[/quote]

I was poor too, once. I work with poor people too (most people at this station make less than 22k a year). Bingo-bango, we're equally qualified! Wasn't that fun? Native Reservations may be a special case, but I'm not speaking of the niches, the disabled or those who have experienced genuine tragic catastrophe.[/QUOTE]


I thought your mother was a lawyer and your father is in the military. how were they poor?

I am talking no tv, no car, no phone, clothes from the church, welfare, food from the pantry poor. Were you poor?

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

makare those people don't exist

EDIT: in gasbandit's world

EDIT2: which is a fantasy world full of bootstraps and gold standards