Indy Week | Comment Archives | Last 7 Days

Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: Last 7 Days

Re: “Poll: McCrory Sees Approval Rating Boost After Hurricane, Democrats Up Big in Early Voting

McCrory LIED about his agenda when he first ran for governor. After he was elected people realized he wasn't the moderate that he claimed to be. Instead he has instituted policies that harm people and the economy of the state. Time to kick him out of office.

9 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Molly Brown on 10/24/2016 at 7:44 PM

Re: “The INDY’s Endorsements for the N.C. General Assembly

Sorry, faux endorsement of Mike W's GOP opponent is more like it. Mike represents one of the most unbeatable districts for a D. Very safe to endorse an GOP with zero expectation they can win. No blood on Indy's hands.

What better situation for the Indy to appear thinking outside the box. I am not impressed.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by MJKopechne on 10/24/2016 at 4:03 PM

Re: “Poll: McCrory Sees Approval Rating Boost After Hurricane, Democrats Up Big in Early Voting

I suppose "like sharpens like." Pat McCrory has been a disaster for NC. His policies and corrupt government has caused damage that will take a long time to recover from.

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Robert Black-Strong on 10/24/2016 at 2:12 PM

Re: “The INDY’s Endorsements for Superior Court and District Court Judges

George Greene. Can you tell me in specifics your own personal experience as a parent in Judge Worley's court? Because this statement "The objections to Judge Worley's alleged "temperament" are subjective, not substantiated" is garbage until she's placed YOUR child in the care of a drug addict who was busted for doing drugs with your child in his presence as he was being arrested and her commenting "Well, drug abuse doesn't mean you're a bad parent?" Have you ever met a college graduate who doesn't know the difference between net pay and gross pay? Have you ever had a judge take the word of someone who could not present them with evidence of their claim but still take their word for it and also fine you for the lie they told her that she chose to believe? Do you trust a judge who's own peers (NC Bar Assoc.) ranked her as the least competent judge on the family law bench? Finally, as a Democrat, what does being a Republican have to do with not caring about children and automatically makes them the bad guy by claiming that if he cared about kids, he'd not be a Republican? Everything in your brief statement is EXACTLY why the Indy chose not to endorse her this time. She was, apparently, terrible in 2012 and I can attest from personal experience, she is just as bad, if not worse, in 2016. I never imagined voting for a Republican in my life but in this particular instance, I totally am. She's ruined too many lives with her lack of knowledge about the complexities of family units, children, parental alienation, financial and emotional abuse and even basic math skills. She is grossly unqualified to be making decisions that affect the lives of children and it has nothing to do with the fact that she has no children nor ever been married. She simply has no idea what she's doing and that's irresponsibly dangerous to anyone whose case is assigned to her. She's probably a decent person but she is NOT qualified for this job. Period!

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Sophia Blake on 10/24/2016 at 12:57 PM

Re: “Durham police excessive force case goes to Court of Appeals

I'm in taking finishing up on my Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice, I would love to know more details on this article, as well as hear some feedback from the officer. Was officer Schneiders a newbie to the force? Why was he in the back seat? It seems to me he acted out of protocol. He felt like he had a point to prove and wanted to feel like he was doing something. It to also, seem like it was three cops in the car, therefore my next question is why the backseat trainee during all the action??? I'm itching to know more, thanks in advance!!!

Posted by Sheriqueenma Rodgers on 10/23/2016 at 9:36 PM

Re: “The INDY’s Endorsements for Superior Court and District Court Judges

If anyone has had a bad or good experience with a judge, you need to post it! Nagle is an embarrassment to the bar association in my opinion. I have only seen 5 cases of his and he was a judge in my case. In all of the cases I saw.... he made no changes and made bias statements against women getting divorced. He made no changes to my case even though there was evidence that financial mistakes were made in my case. He didn't listen and made NO changes. Vote Walter Rand! He has a better record with the N.C. Bar Association. In fact, someone apologized to me from the bar association for Nagle's behavior.

5 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Angeline Oas-Carter on 10/23/2016 at 7:50 PM

Re: “Durham police excessive force case goes to Court of Appeals

I honestly, think the officer should be locked up too. Although, Mr. Ledbetter was in the wrong with the drugs, he did cooperate and surrender with his hands up, as he should had, according to the two witnesses that was standing 30 feet away from him. In my opinion, I feel like this man was profiled, they thought he was someone else, which was Joesph Ledbetter, who had a history of running from the police. This officer needs to be charged. I wanna know whether or not if he read this man his rights before or after he beat him up badly. In my opinion to sounds like Slim was maybe a snitch helping the DDP out. Why didn't he run when he saw the DDP when he was transferring the drugs to Give this man his justice. There are too many dirty cops out here, the people can never feel totally protective by officers, you never know if you are being protected or setup. God Bless America!!!!!

Posted by Sheriqueenma Rodgers on 10/23/2016 at 7:38 PM

Re: “The INDY’s Endorsements for the N.C. General Assembly

A Republican over Mike Woodard? I guess this means I can't use Indy's voting guide anymore. For others in my position, the Durham People's Alliance has an excellent voting guide.

8 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Nathaniel Bakker on 10/23/2016 at 10:47 AM

Re: “Dear Orange County GOP HQ Firebombers: You’re Not Helping

There is certainly an intuitive appeal to the idea that the arsonists of the Orange Co. GOP headquarters aren't helping, and it may even be true that such actions aid or embolden Trump supporters, as the author suggests. Such conclusions may well be sustained in a longer analysis, but most of this item is background; only a single underwhelming sentence ties the facts together to support the central claim: This incident gives Trump die-hards license to say that both sides do it . When held up to the light, this remark raises more questions than it attempts to answer.
1. Do they not already have that license?
It would seem this is a sunk cost at this point. All manner of rowdy behavior has already transpired from opponents of the Trump and/or Hillary campaigns, including an Indiana GOP HQ torched the week before the North Carolina one, flags burnt outside the DNC and RNC, miscellaneous randos punching randos during a California campaign stop, and attacks on anti-Trump protesters in Greensboro. Each time, there has been much moaning and groaning about the negative impacts on the Democrats' campaign and the cause in general, but there has been little evidence of any significant impact, let alone a game-changing one, and each time the short term memory of the news cycle has shuffled on to other things. This isn't unique to this election; the same process takes place whenever action is taken beyond the permitted, well-marshaled street march. If anything, this incident is interesting in that many of the usual criticisms the direct endangerment of other activists without their consent, the choice of politically tangential or irrelevant targets don't apply.

2. Why would a lack of license stop them? When has it?
The bizarre beliefs and violent behavior of many Trump supporters, especially 'die-hards', have been widely reported; is there any reason to believe that, in the absence of such an incident in consensus reality, they wouldn't latch upon one or more of the exotic zoo of conspiracy theories which could be similarly used? For that matter, would anyone who employed such a flimsy pretext to assassinate a politician, need any pretext at all? What license did they have or need early in the campaign when they repeatedly and violently assaulted peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters?

3. Who is this this Trump supporter speaking to?
A third party voter? A Democrat who supported Hillary in the 2008 and 2016 primaries, and will for the foreseeable future? Another Trump supporter? Themselves, as they try to fall asleep at night? The author himself presumably does not accept such an argument, so why does he expect the hypothetical audience to do so?

4. What are the consequences of this speech?
What would happen if someone accepted this rationale? We've already questioned its relationship with interpersonal violence, such as assassination or poll-booth vigilantism (1 & 2). But there is also often an anxiety that some audacious act of direct action, mentioned as a rhetorical weapon by one's opponents, will turn people's minds and behaviors against some cause. What evidence exists to suggest this concern is at all justified? During a simple exchange in the public square, whose mind will be swayed by such a remark? On Facebook and or on the bus, how often do you hear people say I was going to vote for Hillary, but then I heard about (aggressive direct action instance) and now I'm not so sure? Many people seem to believe that *someone other than them will do this, but how often does it actually happen?

5. What is 'it'?
The hypothetical Trumpling draws one, maybe two shaky equivalences in gathering different acts under a single umbrella called violence:
a) property damage is equated with personal injury: melted campaign signs are put on the same footing as a bullet in the head.
b) the violence of the oppressed is equated with the violence of the oppressor: assault perpetrated by a marginalized person against enablers of persecution and deportation (as in San Jose this summer) is put on the same footing as racial profiling by self-appointed poll booth monitors.
Maybe such equivalences hold in this case, but in letting the point slide without a fight, the author is doing the Trump supporters work for him. Doing so makes the author and the rest of us vulnerable to sporadic false flags and antics of bored teenagers, both par for the political and social course.

To be sure, I don't encourage people to just wander around setting fire to things. I don't spend my time that way, certainly. But it's far from clear that any damage done to progressive causes is nonnegligible, or even exists. On the other hand, the $13k donation of which the author writes approvingly quite plausibly made things worse.

From a results-oriented, strategic standpoint, the first-order material consequences of the donation drive seem obvious. This was not a residence, a dance hall, or a hospital that was damaged; its purpose was not to grow tomatoes like a greenhouse, house children like an orphanage, or display art like a museum. It was the headquarters of a regressive political party. Their presidential candidate threatens literal fascism and their local representatives have their own headache-inducing resume. NC Republicans brought us House Bill Two and Amendment One; they are willing to twist data science to overtly racist ends when it helps them keep minorities from voting but they try to outlaw climatology when it comes to sea level rise. Their offices have one function, and that is to produce and enact such social engineering. When their infrastructure suffers damage, their ability to disenfranchise black voters declines, however minutely. If yard signs didnt bring in votes, politicians wouldnt employ them; when such signs are destroyed and must be replaced, the vote efficiency per dollar spent goes down, however infinitesimally. When files are destroyed, informational and organizational havoc is wrought. Maybe this doesnt justify arson. But when the cost of repairs is covered, the sad fact is, theyre left with more resources on hand to slander transwomen.
There are plenty of things such a perspective might be called: callous, cynical, the justification of means or lack thereof by their ends. Yet many of the prominent donors themselves have gone on record, saying that now is no time for anything but! Several have written at length, echoing popular arguments against third party voting (Clay Shirkley is a high-profile example). And yet every charge they levy against the act of voting for Jill Stein or Monica Moorehead, describes the donation drive at least as well.
*It's a waste of resources (even before the devastation of Hurricane Matthew there were oodles of cash-starved organizations in NC doing good work, and buying booze for winos would frankly have been a more worthy cause)
*The donors are acting out of a position of privilege (I wish I was affluent enough to throw in $100 for a pity party benefiting people who hate my guts!)
*it is emotionalistic, performative and self-righteous (this is half the credit the author gives to the donation drive: it made us feel a little bit better about the world, whoever us is)
*it is hopelessly idealistic and lacking in realism (by acting magnanimous, they expect to coax decency out of people who clearly have no interest in it).
Material support for a bass-ackwards political organization is at least as bad as failure to support its most viable competitor! Moreover, if we take seriously the idea that perceived hypocrisy changes minds for the worse (if property damage by 'liberal animals' somehow rationalized violence in the word or thought of Trump's brownshirt wannabes, in the authors example), how does such selective pragmatism look to someone who was previously sold against voting idealistically? With the disingenuity of arguments against doing so laid bare, how many people will reconsider a vote for a third party instead of Clinton? The author concedes that the donation was only useful as PR, but it's far from obvious whether it accomplished even that, and could well have made things worse!

In the course of appealing to centrists and conservatives, Clinton has sought and often gained the endorsement of establishment conservatives, from former president and Iran Contra alum George Herbert Walker Bush, to conspiracy peddler Glenn Beck, to think tanker Roger Kagan. In the process, their role in bringing our current electoral crisis to pass has gotten glossed over. The strategic utility of this move isn't obvious: its a waste of a unique opportunity to render radioactive the vehicle of US conservativism for election cycles to come. DNC staffers themselves have expressed concern that by casting Trump's horrorshow as an aberration of the Republican party rather than its natural conclusion, they were distancing down-ballot Republicans from their unpopular presidential candidate and undercutting their Democratic competitors. It is this atmosphere which has brought us a popular logo of a rainbow flag hugging a confederate flag, and a popular photo of Michelle Obama hugging George W. Bush. Clearly, liberals will forgive anyone except for Ralph Nader. But if one really must give sympathy to the devil, why not send something less fungible and less liquid than money? What about a greeting card, or maybe the ever-popular thoughts and prayers ?

You can forgive Darth Vader for blowing up Alderaan, without chipping in to build him a new Death Star!


3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by TheCarrboroProvocateur on 10/23/2016 at 10:41 AM

Re: “Durham native "Bud" Barbee's sensational career tells the story of segregated baseball in the Triangle

Thank you Arthur.. Walter is my grandfather and Bud is my uncle.. It's a lot of confusion about the both of them! I have so many pics that I can share ...

Posted by barbee on 10/22/2016 at 11:03 PM

Re: “Dear Orange County GOP HQ Firebombers: You’re Not Helping

The question to ask is "Who gains from this?". And the answer is surely not Orange County Democrats, who were likely to win big before this happened.

Posted by Nate on 10/22/2016 at 12:29 PM

Re: “First Day of Early Voting: "The Bluest Areas in N.C. Are on GOTV Steroids"

The lower turnout statewide might also have to do with the ridiculous rules many county Boards of Elections have instituted this year. Guilford County, for instance, the third largest city in the state and reliably blue, has all of *ONE* early voting site open right now. The rest don't open for another week.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Nate on 10/22/2016 at 9:26 AM

Re: “The Greenbox Project Brings Reusable To-Go Boxes to Durham Restaurants

Excellent! I hope they get everybody on board.

Posted by MichaelEdits on 10/22/2016 at 6:11 AM

Re: “Following a Federal Settlement, Duke Energy Is Funding Solar Schools across N.C.—Including in Durham

Clean and lowest cost energy after the initial construction cost. I would not say that everything should be solar but anytime you go to many other countries they are becoming energy independent because of solar and wind. If you are interested in solar energy, go to for more details.

Posted by MonaCrue on 10/22/2016 at 1:42 AM

Re: “Raleigh landlord Bhola Gupta arrested for allegedly breaking into his own house, stealing tenants’ stuff

Not doing a background check on this guy tried to rent a house from him his lack of workmanship is poor we had to wait over a week he called and said the house ready I got off work went to see the house he asked me do I have the money I said I just came by to see how it looked and it still wasn't ready he asked si why am I here if I don't have the money and closed the door in my face I'm not about to give my money for a house that's not ready to move in his attitude is unnecessary a landlord should act like that especially when someone is trying to put some money in your pocket with his attitude no one should rent from a dick head like him he needs his business licenses taken asap he's a thief and a con-artist I will be writing the Mayor and complaining I want him out of business

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Deshawn on 10/21/2016 at 7:17 PM

Re: “The INDY’s Endorsements for Orange County Schools and Affordable Housing Bonds

Another point is that 2014 state legislative changes limit Orange county bond referenda to only even numbered years during the primary or general elections. The county was working on a housing plan and moved ahead with the bond referendum to have funds approved at the lowest cost vs. having to wait two more years as the need continues to grow. Other writers comments are valid. Please reconsider and endorse the affordable housing bond.

10 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Jamezetta on 10/21/2016 at 4:26 PM

Re: “The INDY’s Endorsements for Orange County Schools and Affordable Housing Bonds

Clearly insufficient research lead to your disappointing recommendation to not support the bond for affordable housing. "Asking around" with no citations should not meet your journalistic standards. The Affordable Housing Coalition is handing you the specific plans you failed to ask for. Please admit your error and change your recommendation to "yes." The wellbeing of our most vulnerable citizens are at stake here, this isn't some theoretical exercise. We'll respect you a great deal for changing your position based on the actual evidence that was there all along.

13 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Susan Hoerger on 10/21/2016 at 2:53 PM

Re: “The INDY's Voting Guide

How about a version that doesn't have color or a colored background so we don't waste all our ink?!

8 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by AlSel on 10/21/2016 at 1:58 PM

Re: “Battleground North Carolina: The INDY's 2016 Election Endorsements

Orange County still isn't threading the needle on this one. Yes, there is an "Affordable Housing plan". So how does the $5M tie to the plan? Simply saying "it supports it" is not enough: what is going to get done with the $$$: there are no details.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by John Allore on 10/21/2016 at 1:17 PM

Re: “Battleground North Carolina: The INDY's 2016 Election Endorsements

Indy Week did you read the 5-year plan for Affordable Housing in Orange County? The 5 million Bond will support the county’s overall goal of building 1000 units in the next 5 years, but will not be the sole source of funding to make this goal possible. The Bond is vital to enabling our community to reach this goal!
Read the plan Indy Week at : #makeroomorange

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jonathan Young on 10/21/2016 at 12:16 PM

Our Guides

© 2016 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation