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
So to answer your question; yes.
edited 2nd May '13 7:44:26 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I would think being poor is a more accurate indicator of crime rates. Minorities just happen to be poorer on average than white people.
I'm also unsure of how his logic works out. Because 70% of crimes are committed by black people that means the percentage of blacks searched must be comparable? That doesn't seem like a logical statement to make.
![]()
I think what he's tying to say is that since Blacks commit more violent crimes than any other group; than it makes sense that they would be stopped and frisked more than any other group.
edited 2nd May '13 7:57:36 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The issue comes from a tautology. Blacks commit crime, so we must therefore screen a greater amount of them than of other races. But since crime statitics can only be conclusively drawn from arrests and convictions, the increasing the rate of searches of Black people will only increase their porportion of the arrests and convictions.
Ideally, the stop and search stats should hold true to city demographics, rather than just "criminal" demographics.
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."@Kostya: The problem I see with your theory is that (as has been said upthread), the Tea Party believes that conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
If Bachmann were to be nominated and clobbered, then it's her failure and not a failure of their movement, and they'll go right on sabotaging things, because their base is not in danger. Maybe the loss of Texas and Arizona around 2020 will force them into irrelevance.
It all ties into private prisons to some extent, and good old fashioned institutionalized racism. (Which is what most of us want to fight against.)
Ugh, at this point I feel like we'd simply be better off legalizing pot across the board and work on making privately run prisons illegal simply so less people are arrested to begin with. What cops have spoken out about that racist stuff in the NYPD has seemed to indicate that they'd rather just not operate that way but are rather being forced to it by beauracracy or they'll lost money or something.
Shrinking bases unfortunately not enough. Is not just gerrymandering, Democrats are losing 'number of county' they win every election. democrats number increase in dense area that already democratic, winning 71% rather than 51% in any electoral district is just waste of votes. Republicans win the house because Democrats over-concentrated in very small, very democratic cluster.
![]()
They already split district based on population. the problem is democrats usually getting very dense very small district with more winning votes than needed. this happen even without gerrymandering.
edited 2nd May '13 9:40:45 PM by PhilippeO
The producers behind the hit “Twilight” movie franchise are making a Hillary Clinton movie
![]()
...And God is dead.
Redrawing districts will only work for so long. Key Democratic groups are growing while core Republican ones are static or beginning to die. Eventually they will have to either fade into irreverence or shift into a more sane position. Barring a major Democratic fuck up that tricks the public into voting a loony into office.
edited 2nd May '13 9:36:35 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.They're already split by population, Zendervai. That's how you get Dallas and Houston being their own districts, or more than one, but out in the boondocks, large swathes of Texas are made up of many counties because people are so far apart it takes up that much space in land to equal the population of the cities.
The gerrymandering is still occurring.
edited 2nd May '13 9:40:48 PM by AceofSpades
Our districts tend to be determined by how many people we get to vote into the House. So it depends on how much the population has grown or decreased by the time the Census comes around. We have twenty something in Texas right now. Not sure how it applies to the state legislature, but I rarely get to vote for anyone good who has a chance of winning.
The problem isn't how many districts we have, but how they're drawn. check this out for some examples
Note that there are some rules about keeping communities of interest together, sometimes. Not necessarily, though (apart from federal Voting Rights Act guidelines). Also, different states do things differently. Some states are good because they have independent redistricting panels. Others, however, basically let those in power in the state legislature draw the lines for themselves and for the federal House district.
By the way, if you ever thought that those small-scale elections for state House/Assembly/Senate don't count...oh yes they do.
edited 2nd May '13 9:54:13 PM by GlennMagusHarvey
The other side getting just as crazy does nothing to vindicate the crazy already being generated by the Tea Party. That is a bullshit argument: extremism of this sort is never vindicated.
Anyway... I'm not sure about this argument, but really the "food insecure" part seems like the more important part of that article. The prostitution bit is just a cheap shot to gain readers. Overall, the argument is more reasonable than the title makes it seem.
FYI, Rep. Lee seems to be talking about women in third-world countries, from my skimming the article quickly.
And she's actually right about that, in the sense screwing up the climate increases the chance of destabilizing impoverished regions of the world, which easily leads to more conflict and flagrant violations of human rights, among which are sex crimes.
However, that was by far not the right way to put it. And it's not like men in those regions won't be affected; they'll be the ones shooting each other, for what it's worth. The picture isn't going to be pretty for anyone.
![]()
In all fairness to them, sex-for-food was incredibly common in Western Europe following the fall of the Third Reich. A huge number of Tommies and GIs traded their rations for some legover.
With the Sovs, on the other hand, it was sex-for-life.
I'm not seeing anything hugely unreasonable with that argument. There is a pretty obvious causal link between societal breakdown and rape, hunger, etc.
edited 2nd May '13 11:53:58 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiSenator Reid defends remark likening Tea Party to modern-day anarchists

I am trying to figure out what exactly he means by that. Is he saying that he thinks minorities(who are already disproportionately stopped) should be stopped even more often?