Random Thoughts Thread

[prfsnl_gmr]

Given the gerrymandering (NC is one of the worst states), the "many" is likely not the "majority" of NC residents, which is the main issue here. The state govt. has been hijacked by ideological buffoons, and stating that doesn't automatically make me a "biased" or "non-objective" observer/critic.

The most recent gerrymandering in NC was done after the Republicans took office. Accordingly, my fellow citizens are getting exactly the government they deserve at the moment.

To be fair, the State was horribly gerymandered in the Democrats' favor for many, many years, and I think that the citizens are sick of it. Moreover, Luke was correct when he said that North Carolina politics stink to high heaven. I just found it slightly more tolerable when moderate, pragmatic Democrats - rather than right-wing ideologues - were the ones who stunk.

[Jmustang1968]

I don't represent a party, so I call it like I see it. I see writers from both political extremes write articles like that. Of course that article is biased, you just agree with it so it most likely sounds good to you.

That is hardly an article written from an extreme position. Just because someone is making a political argument doesn't mean that it is full of "bias" and can't be trusted as valid and useful. Again, there's transparency, sourcing, and context to help make the article a strong one. Don't just dismiss it because you assume the writer has some ideological axe to grind and thus must be only presenting "one side." This is the same logic as the "both sides do it" dismissal that I find so infuriating when I talk politics with folks.

I would say many think the prior policies were a mistake when made and that they were being reverted. So call it regressive like it is a negative thing if you want, but the connotations of the word usage suggest an inherent dislike for conservative views. Many didnt see them as 'progress' to begin with.

Given the gerrymandering (NC is one of the worst states), the "many" is likely not the "majority" of NC residents, which is the main issue here. The state govt. has been hijacked by ideological buffoons, and stating that doesn't automatically make me a "biased" or "non-objective" observer/critic.

No I just take it with a grain of salt. I didn't say I completely dismissed the article, but I wouldn't just make knee jerk reactions without further looking into it and seeing what exactly was done. Of course democrats or liberal minded writers etc would not agree with most of the policies.

I don't know the full extent of NC politics, I was merely referencing the article and moreso the response of retrodude with whom I fundamentally disagree with on almost anything. I am a very skeptical person though, and tend to believe most situations expressed in media aren't as dire or as bad as they are often portrayed. So again, with a grain of salt.

I say both sides do it as from my experience, reading editorials like this from both sides will paint contrasting pictures while both cite sources and cherry pick points.

[Luke]

Of course that article is biased, you just agree with it so it most likely sounds good to you.

Nope.

No I just take I with a grain of salt.

Yes (and I know you meant "it").

NC still runs a "good ol' boy" system, and probably will for decades to come.

[Blu]

I'm curious about the ideological differences between Northern and Southern Republicans. The biggest contentions here in Michigan are government takeovers of failing school, cutting funding to K-12 education and Higher education, becoming a right-to-work state, and economic woes. I'm wondering if in the next 20 years or so we see an assimilation of sorts amongst the parties, because the Republicans are sure to lose a good deal of voters when all they seem to do is outrage their constituents.

Those things are terrible to hear about in NC, especially the voter identification bit, with the recent overturning of the VRA of 1964 via Supreme Court ruling. You'll likely see more gerrymandering and manipulation of voting processes in the near future. Such a shame, NC is a great state.

[Jmustang1968]

I have mixed feelings on voter identification stuff. On one hand, the prior things done to minorities in the past with the quizzes and what have you are obviously bad and unethical. On the other hand, it is very easy for non citizens and dead people to vote when their votes aren't supposed to count. I'm not sure what a happy medium is.

[Luke]

On one hand I believe the DMV voter registration system is efficient.

[AppleQueso]

On the other hand, it is very easy for non citizens and dead people to vote when their votes aren't supposed to count. I'm not sure what a happy medium is.

Actual cases of voter fraud of that sort are ridiculously rare. It's basically a non-issue that's used to justify the voter ID legislation.

Most cases of "voter fraud" that do exist are generally things like people voting outside of their appointed districts.

[dsheinem]

I have mixed feelings on voter identification stuff. On one hand, the prior things done to minorities in the past with the quizzes and what have you are obviously bad and unethical. On the other hand, it is very easy for non citizens and dead people to vote when their votes aren't supposed to count. I'm not sure what a happy medium is.

Here's another one of those false equivalencies.

There are very, very few charged cases of voter fraud that are confirmed to be true. Here's an article from just last month about a typical fraud claim that was totally debunked in South Carolina: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-vo ... thout-fire. Yes, a miniscule amount of voter fraud likely occurs. This kind of scaremongering gets bandied about all the time. In reality, there are something like less than 20 confirmed cases of in-person fraud at a voting booth since 2000.

So why the fuss? Strict voting ID laws drive away many poor people who lack a state/federal ID (e.g. because they don' drive), and who largely vote Democrat. The Voter ID stuff is just another tactic, like gerrymandering, that is about gaining power and not about any solving any kind of actual problem.

[Blu]

Exactly what Dave said, and what I failed to mention in my former post. Voter identification from a standpoint of preventing undocumented immigrants is what I see a lot of Republican bases rallying to. That and it is a deterrent to those people from lower SES and don't have the means to get an ID card. But it is a tactic to limit your would-be opponents in an election. With it coming into law it could pose a significant regression in voting processes, and shape the future in a negative way.

[Jmustang1968]

I don't know, documented cases and actual cases may have a wide variance.

I also think some of these false equivalencies you are throwing out aren't as unequivalent as you make them out to be.

Blu, I am also not a republican, or don't identify myself as one.

It is very easy to get a state issued Id card. They issue them as well as drivers licenses. That being said the voter Id stuff isn't a big deal to me, but I see where both sides are coming from.

But this is a really pointless debate I didn't want to get this far into. Dave is very entrenched into his democrat beliefs and we aren't going to sway each other.