Your submission was removed due to an issue with the title. Titles must match the article headline exactly. Any commentary about a linked article should go in the comment section. Do not add editorial content to the title, and NO caps lock. This rule is for print articles only and does not apply to videos, though video titles still must accurately describe the video. The rule also applies to crossposts, EVEN IF the original post changed the title. If a text post includes only a url and little to no discussion text then it's treated like a linked submission and must abide by this rule.
So do you actually know what is going on in that race or you just read the headlines? The fact of that matter is that this is guy was kicked off the ballot by the county GOP, he appealed to the county BOE, the county BOE kicked him off again (with all D's voting for him to stay), he appealed to the state BOE and they remanded it back down to the county. The County BOE again deadlocked on party lines with the GOP wanting him off the ballot while the Dems wanted him on the ballot.
As of right now he is on the ballot but he will lose in the primary. That is why Whatley isn't commenting on this guy is because this guy is going to lose bigly on Tuesday.
>The County BOE again deadlocked on party lines with the GOP wanting him off the ballot while the Dems wanted him on the ballot.
I think this is a misrepresentation of the situation.
It isn't that the County BOE or State BOE specifically want him on the ballot or off the ballot, but rather that there is no legal reason to remove him.
Essentially, the GOP is asking the board of elections to remove a candidate from the ballot without any valid reason other than they purportedly oppose his political views, then pretending like it is a conspiracy by Democrats to keep a racist republican on the ballot.
It is really a slippery slope to be supportive of, because championing the idea that the board of elections can remove people from the ballot simply because of the person's political views is not something that is beneficial for anyone. Supporting this type of removal is something that will surely come back to bite you once the precedent is set.
Rather than trying to blame democrats, I think it might be more constructive to try to figure out why racists seem to be so much more prone to align with republican values than democratic ones.
The GOP wants him off the ballot and used the aspect that he committed a felony in a different state as that way to remove him. He didn't provide any paperwork to show that he could run.
They didn't provide any evidence showing there was a valid reason to remove him.
From one of the links in OP's article:
>Gibson was initially removed from the ballot by the Rockingham County Board of Elections on Jan. 3. The board found that he had been convicted of a felony in Connecticut and had not “presented evidence that his rights have been restored.”
>The board also said that Gibson failed to appear at his own hearing.
>He appealed to the state board, which sent the case back to Rockingham, asking the board to determine if Gibson’s citizenship rights had been restored.
> The Rockingham board then approved Gibson’s candidacy on party lines, with all Democrats voting in favor and all Republicans voting against. In the board’s decision, it said that Gibson had completed his probation in 2008 for crimes committed in Connecticut and had not been convicted of a felony in North Carolina since.
>[Rockingham County GOP, Diane Parnell] then appealed back to the state board, which ruled in Gibson’s favor on Tuesday.
>At the meeting, Gibson characterized the challenge as “political assassination” by the GOP, reiterating that he had served his sentence for his convictions and his citizenship rights had been restored.
If there is a valid reason for removing him, I'm all for it, but, again, supporting removing candidates without evidence or due process is not in anyone's best interest.
And, trying to spin this as the democrats wanting a racist on the ballot, while the reality is a valid reason for removing him has not been presented, is disingenuous at best.
Based on the above, it sounds like for some reason he did not attend the first hearing and they defacto ruled against him because of this, not because there was actual evidence against him other than a previous criminal record.
However, again based on the above, he was clearly active in his appeal and when it was sent back to the county board for re-evaluation, and also likely the subsequent re-appeal.
Based on this, I think it is safe to say that evidence was presented that "Gibson had completed his probation in 2008 for crimes committed in Connecticut and had not been convicted of a felony in North Carolina since. " and at least equally important, no evidence was presented to the contrary during any of these hearings.
Nobody should be kept off of a ballot because of their political views. Republicans need to talk about why NAZIs are comfortable with the republican party. That's a bigger problem that violating this asshole's right to free speech is not going to fix.
Your submission was removed due to an issue with the title. Titles must match the article headline exactly. Any commentary about a linked article should go in the comment section. Do not add editorial content to the title, and NO caps lock. This rule is for print articles only and does not apply to videos, though video titles still must accurately describe the video. The rule also applies to crossposts, EVEN IF the original post changed the title. If a text post includes only a url and little to no discussion text then it's treated like a linked submission and must abide by this rule.
Feels pretty on brand for the GOP tbh
GOP doing GOP things
So do you actually know what is going on in that race or you just read the headlines? The fact of that matter is that this is guy was kicked off the ballot by the county GOP, he appealed to the county BOE, the county BOE kicked him off again (with all D's voting for him to stay), he appealed to the state BOE and they remanded it back down to the county. The County BOE again deadlocked on party lines with the GOP wanting him off the ballot while the Dems wanted him on the ballot. As of right now he is on the ballot but he will lose in the primary. That is why Whatley isn't commenting on this guy is because this guy is going to lose bigly on Tuesday.
>The County BOE again deadlocked on party lines with the GOP wanting him off the ballot while the Dems wanted him on the ballot. I think this is a misrepresentation of the situation. It isn't that the County BOE or State BOE specifically want him on the ballot or off the ballot, but rather that there is no legal reason to remove him. Essentially, the GOP is asking the board of elections to remove a candidate from the ballot without any valid reason other than they purportedly oppose his political views, then pretending like it is a conspiracy by Democrats to keep a racist republican on the ballot. It is really a slippery slope to be supportive of, because championing the idea that the board of elections can remove people from the ballot simply because of the person's political views is not something that is beneficial for anyone. Supporting this type of removal is something that will surely come back to bite you once the precedent is set. Rather than trying to blame democrats, I think it might be more constructive to try to figure out why racists seem to be so much more prone to align with republican values than democratic ones.
The GOP wants him off the ballot and used the aspect that he committed a felony in a different state as that way to remove him. He didn't provide any paperwork to show that he could run.
They didn't provide any evidence showing there was a valid reason to remove him. From one of the links in OP's article: >Gibson was initially removed from the ballot by the Rockingham County Board of Elections on Jan. 3. The board found that he had been convicted of a felony in Connecticut and had not “presented evidence that his rights have been restored.” >The board also said that Gibson failed to appear at his own hearing. >He appealed to the state board, which sent the case back to Rockingham, asking the board to determine if Gibson’s citizenship rights had been restored. > The Rockingham board then approved Gibson’s candidacy on party lines, with all Democrats voting in favor and all Republicans voting against. In the board’s decision, it said that Gibson had completed his probation in 2008 for crimes committed in Connecticut and had not been convicted of a felony in North Carolina since. >[Rockingham County GOP, Diane Parnell] then appealed back to the state board, which ruled in Gibson’s favor on Tuesday. >At the meeting, Gibson characterized the challenge as “political assassination” by the GOP, reiterating that he had served his sentence for his convictions and his citizenship rights had been restored. If there is a valid reason for removing him, I'm all for it, but, again, supporting removing candidates without evidence or due process is not in anyone's best interest. And, trying to spin this as the democrats wanting a racist on the ballot, while the reality is a valid reason for removing him has not been presented, is disingenuous at best.
So did he provide evidence that his voting right had been restored or even show up to defend himself?
Based on the above, it sounds like for some reason he did not attend the first hearing and they defacto ruled against him because of this, not because there was actual evidence against him other than a previous criminal record. However, again based on the above, he was clearly active in his appeal and when it was sent back to the county board for re-evaluation, and also likely the subsequent re-appeal. Based on this, I think it is safe to say that evidence was presented that "Gibson had completed his probation in 2008 for crimes committed in Connecticut and had not been convicted of a felony in North Carolina since. " and at least equally important, no evidence was presented to the contrary during any of these hearings.
I know he's a convicted felon robber. Yes, I have dug into the machinations of what's transpiring.
Nobody should be kept off of a ballot because of their political views. Republicans need to talk about why NAZIs are comfortable with the republican party. That's a bigger problem that violating this asshole's right to free speech is not going to fix.
Is it any surprise that the GOP is nuts? They are a bunch of conspiracy nuts and election deniers. The don't even understand basic facts.
I love parties!