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
![]()
Exactly what I was going for. I didn't intend to confuse people.
Well this article soured me a bit on Harris
- apparently she's walked back her comments on busing, saying that it should be a tool for local districts to use instead of being Federally-mandated - which makes her outrage at the debate seem a lot more Machiavellian in nature.
The article points out that, even in the '70s, local support for busing in Biden's state was in single-digits for white and black residents, and support for it is even lower now.
One thing almost no one is relying on? Busing. “We've learned a tremendous amount about how to integrate schools in a politically feasible manner over the past few decades,” Kahlenberg says. “Virtually no one in the civil rights community advocates mandatory busing; instead, the effort is to provide public school choice with fairness/civil rights guardrails to ensure that choice results in integration.”
Edited by ironballs16 on Jul 9th 2019 at 3:06:19 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
As I mentioned from the article, though, Biden's area was uniformly against it, with even black people not being fond of it for their own areas
, and ironically (according to that link) the practice had sometimes led to an increase in segregation.
My main issue with Harris now is that it appears that she was faux-outraged in order to put Biden on the spot, which is... not a great look, in my eyes.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"It's blatant pandering is what it was. Insincere faux-outrage to score easy points against Biden and nothing more.
It almost makes one feel sympathetic to Biden. I don't like feeling that way since I still don't want Biden to be the winner.
Edited by M84 on Jul 10th 2019 at 3:26:56 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
The general consensus regarding busing making segregation worse is that it was essentially half-assed. The programs weren't continued to the point where good could actually come from them and shot in the foot by people from both sides (as indicated above, it's almost universally unpopular in the richer districts but only mixed in the poorer districts) leading to half-measures that get the worst of all worlds.
In urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her appeal, Michelle Carter’s lawyers called her conviction in Conrad Roy III’s death “unprecedented” and said her case raises crucial questions about whether “words alone” are enough to hold someone responsible for another person’s suicide.
“Michelle Carter did not cause Conrad Roy’s tragic death and should not be held criminally responsible for his suicide,” Daniel Marx, one of her lawyers, said in emailed statement. “This petition focuses on just two of the many flaws in the case against her that raise important federal constitutional issues for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide,” he said.
Carter was jailed in February after Massachusetts’ highest court unanimously upheld her conviction in the death of the then-18-year-old Roy. Carter, now 22, is serving a 15-month sentence.
The court agreed with a judge who found that Carter caused Roy’s death when she told him in a phone call to get back in his truck as it was filling with carbon monoxide and didn’t call Roy’s family or the police.
The phone call wasn’t recorded, but the judge focused on a text message Carter sent a friend two months later in which she said Roy had gotten out of the truck because he was scared and she told him to get back in.
Carter’s lawyers say that’s not enough evidence to prove Carter did that. They also argue there is no evidence he would have lived if she had called for help or that Roy would have listened to her if she had told him to get out of the truck.
Carter’s lawyers said in their Supreme Court petition that the Massachusetts justices acknowledged that not everyone who verbally encourages someone to take their own life should be prosecuted but provided “no guidance to distinguish sympathetic cases of assisted suicide from culpable cases of unlawful killing.”
The Massachusetts high court “imagined a range of conduct from coerced suicide to dignified death, but it offered no clear, meaningful, and constitutional way to determine where a particular case may fall on that spectrum. The deciding factor is the prosecutor’s gut,” they wrote.
Therefore, nothing “would prevent such aggressive prosecutions in all assisted or encouraged suicide cases,” the lawyers wrote.
Carter’s case drew international attention in part because of the thousands of disturbing text messages between Carter and Roy, whose relationship existed almost entirely over the phones.
“You keep pushing it off and say you’ll do it but u never do. It’s always gonna be that way if u don’t take action,” Carter told Roy in one text message.
The case is the focus of a HBO documentary debuting on Tuesday that explores the thorny legal questions, the teen’s twisted relationship and Carter’s own mental health problems.
Prosecutors alleged that Carter pushed Roy to kill himself because she was desperate for attention from her classmates and wanted sympathy as the grieving girlfriend.
Carter’s trial attorney argued that Roy, who had tried to kill himself before, was determined to take his own life and that Carter had actually been trying to help him before going along with his plan.
Yeah, no, fuck her. Not only did she not report the boyfriend's threats of suicide, she even pushed him into it when he started to falter at the end. That's completely inexcusable. And the First Amendment grounds is absolutely laughable, as the case law is abundantly clear that an incitement to violence is not protected - pretty sure telling him "No you're not Conrad. Last night was it. You keep pushing it off and you say you'll do it but u never do. Its always gonna be that way if u don't take action
" is a pretty blatant example of an incitement to violence.
The last communication he made was at 6:25 PM - they'd been talking about his pending suicide off-and-on since 4:07 AM, so her other excuse of "I didn't think help would come in time" is equally bullshit. Oh, and she's only serving 15 months, which is extraordinarily light given what happened, but anything more severe likely wouldn't have stuck.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jul 9th 2019 at 3:59:41 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Welp, Amy Mc Grath is officially the second person I have donated to
PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/TheyI mean, the worst free speech advocates essentially think "if there is literally any barrier to my message reaching everyone, or any negative response to my words, then my rights are being infringed."
Which, ironically, means that they essentially think "free speech matters for me, even (especially) if it infringes on other peoples' free speech."
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.What I find the most funny is these kind of people defending people like that baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of "PRIVATE COMPANY!", but when it comes to bannings on equally private online plattforms, it's suddenly infringing on speech.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
