Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
And in Supreme Court news they ruled 5-4, with Gorsuch siding with the liberal judges
, that juries - not judges - must determine whether a sentence should be extended based on new evidence.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of President Donald Trump's two nominees on the court, wrote the opinion and was joined by the court's four liberal justices – for the fourth time this term.
"A jury must find every fact that is essential to an individual's punishment," Gorsuch said. In the case before the court, the accused received "a new prison term based instead only on facts found by a judge by a mere preponderance of the evidence."
It was a victory for Andre Hammond, an Oklahoma man sentenced in 2010 to more than three years in prison on child pornography charges. In 2015, a judge found him guilty of violating his supervised release and tacked on five more years in prison.
The question before the justices: Can a judge, rather than a jury, decide what facts merit a new sentence?
Four conservative justices said yes. In their dissent, Justice Samuel Alito accused the decision by Gorsuch and his liberal allies of "laying the groundwork for later decisions of much broader scope" and "revolutionary implications.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 26th 2019 at 2:12:05 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Our entire criminal justice system is founded on the principle of trial by jury of one's peers.
![]()
![]()
Gorsuch has been siding with the liberal justices on criminal matters quite a lot recently, this is the third time I believe. More respect for his moral compass than for the predictably partisan Kavanaugh.
Activists get permit to fly 'Baby Trump' blimp over July 4 'Salute to Trump' celebration – The “Baby Trump” blimp that has followed President Trump around the world will fly just blocks from the White House hours before his Fourth of July address.
This is an awkward situation for me, because it's one of those cases where I think important legal precedent is at the heart of a weirdly indefensible issue.
Dude committed sex crimes. Child pornography crimes, even. Went to jail. Was released. Evidence was found of further crimes. Judge put him back in jail.
Like, on the face of it, that all seems reasonable. I'm not exactly thrilled about the image of "Liberals (and Gorsuch) Defend Sex Predator".
But also, like, I can see merit in the idea that a judge shouldn't be able to unilaterally tack on more charges to a person's conviction. Like. That feels ripe for abuse. "Black man went to jail for twenty years 'cause of pot. WHOOPS let's put thirty more years on that JUST 'CAUSE!"
Like. It's a good decision to not let judges just declare people guilty of further crimes if they've been convicted once. That's a good decision.
But I kinda wish it was a different case that landed this decision in front of the Supreme Court 'cause. Like. We had to defend a sex predator in order to achieve that progress. And that makes me feel really gross.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Y'know? Ugh. Glad we got this decision. It's better to have made this decision than to wait for a more opportune case and let an unjust law keep being unjust. But I am not looking forward to how FOX News reports on this.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jun 26th 2019 at 12:49:28 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.On the whole "moderates" vs. base enthusiasm thing, I can't help but think the issue is two-fold.
Like, yes, the Democratic Party (both individual states, and federal) should take more in investing in who members are actually interested in, but also, I can't help but judge people for not voting because of lack of enthusiasm, especially with the situation actually being what it is.
Like, there's no part of the equation here that comes out looking totally blameless.
![]()
While it definitely provides some fodder for the "Tough on Crime" narrative of the GOP, that has always and only ever applied to people of color, so it's not going to make the political landscape any worse than it is already.
If a person, having been convicted of a crime, is accused of a new crime, they should be tried again before a jury. Anything else violates the Due Process clause.
Edited by Fighteer on Jun 26th 2019 at 3:09:52 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Exactly. Denying due process to a prisoner, whatever crimes they were accused of, doesn't matter, because of fear of political opposition, is pure cowardice and a horrible mentality that stifled many past progressive movements.
I've seen such criminal cases where one side is clearly unsympathetic but in the right before. It is hard to say it but right goes before sympathy. Sympathy is facile and how does one apply unsympathetic without being right first?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWell, in more weird news, the upcoming European heat wave
, projected to be the worst since 2003 where 15,000 French citizens died, has Germany actually placing speed limits on the Autobahn
for fear that the heat might cause cracks to form and create high-speed hazards (imagine hitting a speed bump at 100+ mph). Temperatures are projected to hit 113 degrees (45 degrees Celsius).
Meterologists attribute this to climate change, hence why I'm mentioning it here.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 26th 2019 at 3:29:29 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Thankfully we missed the record barely and its now on the way down <.<
But I cannot describe the sheer sense of betrayal I felt after I came out of work yesterday, from 8 hours sittig in the 8th floor with no other high rise nearby to take cover behind and sweating liters, then stepping outside and realizing...OUTSIDE WAS EVEN HOTTER.
"You can reply to this Message!"Bank of America is joining JPMorgan and Wells Fargo in stopping lending to private prison firms.
That seems like a gross mischaracterisation of what Bernie said, he repeated the bullshit about it being rigged last time but didn’t indicate he thinks it’s being rigged this time.
He seems liable to stick around all the way again, but that’s actually fair, delegates do more than pick the presidential nominee.
Plus we’ve got a real chance of a contested convention with this many candidates, I could see Sanders failing to get the support to go from 2nd to first and sending his delegates to Warren to get her from 3rd to 1st as a compromise candidate.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIts a interview Snippet from MSNBC, provided by Aaron Rupar from Vox.
SANDERS: I intend to be the Dem nominee
M: But if you're not. You stayed in last time
S: Some people say that maybe if the system wasn't rigged against me, I would've beat Trump
Eh, he did he not answer the question but deflected with a 'I could have beat Trump if the DNC hadn't been RIGGED!'
Edited by 3of4 on Jun 26th 2019 at 10:24:07 AM
"You can reply to this Message!"And in From Bad to Worse news, the replacement CBP chief is likely going to be ICE hard-liner Mark Morgan
.
That quote is altered, I just watched the clip and that’s not an accurate transcript, the reporter trotted out the same old (disproven) line about how “some people say that” Sanders staying in after he couldn’t win hurt Hillary, we know that’s bull because we have the numbers and Bernie voters went for Clinton at the same rate that Clinton voters went for Obama in 2008.
His line about it being rigged is a lie, but he’s using the same “some people say” defensive cover that the reporter used to not take responsibility for posing a question based on a false premise.
Delegates do more than pick the nominee, should people not get a choice for the delegates just because one part of what’s they’re deciding is done?
Also while you can contend he wasted time we know he didn’t turn his own voters against Hillary, which is the lie that the reporter trotted out.
Edited by Silasw on Jun 26th 2019 at 8:29:12 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Among your average Republican voter, they're also referring to myths of anchor babies and illegals being drains on entitlements.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.