|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
Nearly 60 years after the landmark US supreme court ruling that ordered schools to integrate, the classrooms of Cleveland, Mississippi, are still divided by race.
A federal court ordered the Cleveland school district to consolidate its schools entirely on Friday, ruling that after so many decades of resistance, only dismantling and reforming the schools could bring the town’s two sides together.
In a 96-page opinion, the US district court for the northern district of Mississippi wrote: “The delay in desegregation has deprived generations of students of the constitutionally guaranteed right of an integrated education. Although no court order can right these wrongs, it is the duty of the District to ensure that not one more student suffers under this burden.”
To say the town has two sides is no exaggeration; the population of 12,000 is split east and west by the old Illinois railroad tracks. Residents on the east side are black, and attend East Side high school. On the west, white children attend Cleveland high.
The school district had come up with two plans of its own to mix the students, but US judge Debra Brown rejected them as unconstitutional.
“Six decades after the supreme court in Brown v Board of Education declared that ‘separate but equal has no place’ in public schools, this decision serves as a reminder to districts that delaying desegregation obligations is both unacceptable and unconstitutional,” said Vanita Gupta, head of the US justice department’s civil rights division. “This victory creates new opportunities for the children of Cleveland to learn, play and thrive together. The court’s ruling will result in the immediate and effective desegregation of the district’s middle school and high school program for the first time in the district’s more than century-long history.”
In recent years across the country there has been an effort to stop “re-segregation”: in the generations since the supreme court’s Brown vs Board of Education ruling, the white people in many towns have slowly sifted out of integrated schools by moving into certain neighborhoods.
But that’s the not the case in Cleveland according to Wendy Scott, dean of Mississippi College School of Law and an expert in school desegregation. “There are only a handful of cases like that,” she told the Atlantic magazine last February.
Cleveland sits in Bolivar County at the center of the Mississippi Delta, a torpid and poverty-stricken portion of the state that hasn’t known widespread prosperity since slaves hauled cotton on plantations.
Source
|
On May 17 2016 22:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Nearly 60 years after the landmark US supreme court ruling that ordered schools to integrate, the classrooms of Cleveland, Mississippi, are still divided by race.
A federal court ordered the Cleveland school district to consolidate its schools entirely on Friday, ruling that after so many decades of resistance, only dismantling and reforming the schools could bring the town’s two sides together.
In a 96-page opinion, the US district court for the northern district of Mississippi wrote: “The delay in desegregation has deprived generations of students of the constitutionally guaranteed right of an integrated education. Although no court order can right these wrongs, it is the duty of the District to ensure that not one more student suffers under this burden.”
To say the town has two sides is no exaggeration; the population of 12,000 is split east and west by the old Illinois railroad tracks. Residents on the east side are black, and attend East Side high school. On the west, white children attend Cleveland high.
The school district had come up with two plans of its own to mix the students, but US judge Debra Brown rejected them as unconstitutional.
“Six decades after the supreme court in Brown v Board of Education declared that ‘separate but equal has no place’ in public schools, this decision serves as a reminder to districts that delaying desegregation obligations is both unacceptable and unconstitutional,” said Vanita Gupta, head of the US justice department’s civil rights division. “This victory creates new opportunities for the children of Cleveland to learn, play and thrive together. The court’s ruling will result in the immediate and effective desegregation of the district’s middle school and high school program for the first time in the district’s more than century-long history.”
In recent years across the country there has been an effort to stop “re-segregation”: in the generations since the supreme court’s Brown vs Board of Education ruling, the white people in many towns have slowly sifted out of integrated schools by moving into certain neighborhoods.
But that’s the not the case in Cleveland according to Wendy Scott, dean of Mississippi College School of Law and an expert in school desegregation. “There are only a handful of cases like that,” she told the Atlantic magazine last February.
Cleveland sits in Bolivar County at the center of the Mississippi Delta, a torpid and poverty-stricken portion of the state that hasn’t known widespread prosperity since slaves hauled cotton on plantations. Source
"There's no difference between the two parties"
What a sad, sad reality. This is why you need a federal government: To stomp shit like this out of existence. Rural communities can sometimes end up so isolated that it's as if they aren't a part of society.
|
On May 17 2016 22:50 Plansix wrote:
It is early, but the Sander’s camp will hopefully denounce these people sometime today. As terrible as this is, it is likely a small and very loud group of people who think they “standing up to power” or something dumb.
We'll see. The NVDP are currently alleging that the Sanders campaign is deliberately encouraging this type of behavior, and using them to disrupt conventions in their favor and gain delegates. There's no evidence that there is any direct connection to campaign management, but a vocal minority of followers of the Sanders campaign have been exceptionally...zealous and over-the-top. See the superdelegate hitlist that was circulated.
We write to alert you to what we perceive as the Sander Campaign’s penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior—indeed, actual violence—in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting, and furthermore what we can only describe as their encouragement of, and complicity in, a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats.
Full letter.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/312844982/160516-Letter-DNC-RBC-NVDemsConvention
I am personally skeptical that he will. He disavowed responsibility when his supporters took part in violence at Trump rally protests, and I'm fairly certain he will here.
Really, all this campaign season has done was increasingly turn me off Bernie Sanders.
|
On May 17 2016 23:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I am personally skeptical that he will. He disavowed responsibility when his supporters took part in violence at Trump rally protests, and I'm fairly certain he will here.
Really, all this campaign season has done was increasingly turn me off Bernie Sanders.
I think there's a big difference here: Democrat on democrat crime rather than democrat on republican crime. With the macho image of the Trump campaign, I think it was more difficult to assign blame in that situation. But Bernie is running to be the head of the democratic party. Regardless of if he seems to be at fault or not, he is supposed to encourage unity as someone trying to unite the party. If this story picks up, as it seems it is going to, the sanders Campaign will probably say something.
|
On May 17 2016 23:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 23:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I am personally skeptical that he will. He disavowed responsibility when his supporters took part in violence at Trump rally protests, and I'm fairly certain he will here.
Really, all this campaign season has done was increasingly turn me off Bernie Sanders. I think there's a big difference here: Democrat on democrat crime rather than democrat on republican crime. With the macho image of the Trump campaign, I think it was more difficult to assign blame in that situation. But Bernie is running to be the head of the democratic party. Regardless of if he seems to be at fault or not, he is supposed to encourage unity as someone trying to unite the party. If this story picks up, as it seems it is going to, the sanders Campaign will probably say something.
Because Bernie Sanders has always been so very interested in unity.
Excuse me, some of my expanding disillusionment with his candidacy and campaign just leaked out.
|
On May 17 2016 23:13 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 23:11 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2016 23:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I am personally skeptical that he will. He disavowed responsibility when his supporters took part in violence at Trump rally protests, and I'm fairly certain he will here.
Really, all this campaign season has done was increasingly turn me off Bernie Sanders. I think there's a big difference here: Democrat on democrat crime rather than democrat on republican crime. With the macho image of the Trump campaign, I think it was more difficult to assign blame in that situation. But Bernie is running to be the head of the democratic party. Regardless of if he seems to be at fault or not, he is supposed to encourage unity as someone trying to unite the party. If this story picks up, as it seems it is going to, the sanders Campaign will probably say something. Because Bernie Sanders has always been so very interested in unity. Excuse me, some of my expanding disillusionment with his candidacy and campaign just leaked out.
True, but he at least needs the image of unity rather than the coup he's trying to pull.
|
Donald Trump likes to say he has created a political movement that has drawn “millions and millions” of new voters into the Republican Party. “It’s the biggest thing happening in politics,” Trump has said. “All over the world, they’re talking about it,” he's bragged.
But a Politico analysis of the early 2016 voting data show that, so far, it’s just not true.
While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in state after state, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.
It is a distinction with profound consequences for the fall campaign.
If Trump isn’t bringing the promised wave of new voters into the GOP, it’s far less likely the Manhattan businessman can transform a 2016 Electoral College map that begins tilted against the Republican Party. And whether Trump’s voters are truly new is a question of urgent interest both to GOP operatives and Hillary Clinton and her allies, who have dispatched their top analytics experts to find the answer.
“All he seems to have done is bring new people into the primary process, not bring new people into the general-election process … It’s exciting that these new people that are engaged in the primary but those people are people that are already going to vote Republican in the [fall],” said Alex Lundry, who served as director of data science for Mitt Romney in 2012, when presented Politico’s findings. “It confirms what my suspicion has been all along.”
For this analysis, Politico obtained voting statistics from GOP officials and independent analysts in the handful of states that have so far released such information. To varying extents, the findings rebut both of Trump’s central claims: that he has brought in waves of new voters and that he has attracted flocks of Democrats. Among the highlights:
In Iowa, the Republican caucus turnout smashed its past record by 50 percent this year, jumping from 121,000 to nearly 187,000. But, according to figures provided by the state party, 95 percent of the 2016 caucusgoers had previously voted in at least one of the past four presidential elections—and almost 80 percent had voted in at least three of the past four.
The new caucusgoers, in other words, are likely to vote in November anyway.
Source
|
I don't care if he formally says "I take responsibility for their actions" as long as he says something to the effect of "I discourage any and all of my supporters from acting in this way." In fact the latter is more important in my opinion, especially given his past statements.
On May 17 2016 23:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump likes to say he has created a political movement that has drawn “millions and millions” of new voters into the Republican Party. “It’s the biggest thing happening in politics,” Trump has said. “All over the world, they’re talking about it,” he's bragged.
But a Politico analysis of the early 2016 voting data show that, so far, it’s just not true.
While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in state after state, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.
It is a distinction with profound consequences for the fall campaign.
If Trump isn’t bringing the promised wave of new voters into the GOP, it’s far less likely the Manhattan businessman can transform a 2016 Electoral College map that begins tilted against the Republican Party. And whether Trump’s voters are truly new is a question of urgent interest both to GOP operatives and Hillary Clinton and her allies, who have dispatched their top analytics experts to find the answer.
“All he seems to have done is bring new people into the primary process, not bring new people into the general-election process … It’s exciting that these new people that are engaged in the primary but those people are people that are already going to vote Republican in the [fall],” said Alex Lundry, who served as director of data science for Mitt Romney in 2012, when presented Politico’s findings. “It confirms what my suspicion has been all along.”
For this analysis, Politico obtained voting statistics from GOP officials and independent analysts in the handful of states that have so far released such information. To varying extents, the findings rebut both of Trump’s central claims: that he has brought in waves of new voters and that he has attracted flocks of Democrats. Among the highlights:
In Iowa, the Republican caucus turnout smashed its past record by 50 percent this year, jumping from 121,000 to nearly 187,000. But, according to figures provided by the state party, 95 percent of the 2016 caucusgoers had previously voted in at least one of the past four presidential elections—and almost 80 percent had voted in at least three of the past four.
The new caucusgoers, in other words, are likely to vote in November anyway. Source
Someday the "exit polls show self-identified independents voted for me in the primary therefore I'm attracting new and moderate voters" narrative will be thoroughly stomped out as the nonsense it is. I have a feeling it won't be this season, though.
|
On May 17 2016 23:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:I don't care if he formally says "I take responsibility for their actions" as long as he says something to the effect of "I discourage any and all of my supporters from acting in this way." In fact the latter is more important in my opinion, especially given his past statements. Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 23:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Donald Trump likes to say he has created a political movement that has drawn “millions and millions” of new voters into the Republican Party. “It’s the biggest thing happening in politics,” Trump has said. “All over the world, they’re talking about it,” he's bragged.
But a Politico analysis of the early 2016 voting data show that, so far, it’s just not true.
While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in state after state, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.
It is a distinction with profound consequences for the fall campaign.
If Trump isn’t bringing the promised wave of new voters into the GOP, it’s far less likely the Manhattan businessman can transform a 2016 Electoral College map that begins tilted against the Republican Party. And whether Trump’s voters are truly new is a question of urgent interest both to GOP operatives and Hillary Clinton and her allies, who have dispatched their top analytics experts to find the answer.
“All he seems to have done is bring new people into the primary process, not bring new people into the general-election process … It’s exciting that these new people that are engaged in the primary but those people are people that are already going to vote Republican in the [fall],” said Alex Lundry, who served as director of data science for Mitt Romney in 2012, when presented Politico’s findings. “It confirms what my suspicion has been all along.”
For this analysis, Politico obtained voting statistics from GOP officials and independent analysts in the handful of states that have so far released such information. To varying extents, the findings rebut both of Trump’s central claims: that he has brought in waves of new voters and that he has attracted flocks of Democrats. Among the highlights:
In Iowa, the Republican caucus turnout smashed its past record by 50 percent this year, jumping from 121,000 to nearly 187,000. But, according to figures provided by the state party, 95 percent of the 2016 caucusgoers had previously voted in at least one of the past four presidential elections—and almost 80 percent had voted in at least three of the past four.
The new caucusgoers, in other words, are likely to vote in November anyway. Source Someday the "exit polls show self-identified independents voted for me in the primary therefore I'm attracting new and moderate voters" narrative will be thoroughly stomped out as the nonsense it is. I have a feeling it won't be this season, though.
It's interesting how this election has shown the absolutely batshit crazy independents more than the moderate ones. People always assume independent means socially liberal and fiscally conservative or something like that. Turns out a lot of them are just so far right or so far left that they can't even feel at home in the left/right parties o.0
|
On May 17 2016 10:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 08:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 08:23 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 06:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 05:17 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 04:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
lets continue to hold hillary to a separate, higher bar shall we
i feel like people's opinions about the transcripts are almost a litmus test at this point. when they come out they'll be a rorschach test
i expect her to come out with the transcripts after the primary is over, though i dont particularly care. obama will probably be like "for crying out loud its the same stuff i say at commencements" if people try to make a fuss about it What separate higher bar? She and her supporters keep saying that, but can't point to what speeches others aren't releasing. The bar where Sanders doesn't need a plan, just a promise for change that will magically happen when the GOP majority magically leaves and manufacturing just magically comes back while 15 trillion in spending is okay while hilary's 10 trillion in spending makes her a corporate shill. The bar where Hilary uses normal nomenclature in a video for decades past is more anti-black than Bernie calling blacks violent psychopaths is simply "out of context." The bar where almost every single democratic ally in the house and senate already are supportive and wanting to help Hilary push forward her plans, but they are derided by you for not wanting to do what an old white guy says. The part where Hilary is 2-3 million votes ahead of Sanders but SHE is the one you accuse of being unlikable. The part where Bernie could not even tell people whether or not he could even break up big banks when asked directly, or (after hounding Hilary for it for months) eventually said he'd just do what hilary was saying she'd do and use Dodd Frank to make his big attack on the banks. The fact that he keeps not saying anything, only doing the things Hilary and Obama already are doing, all while telling people not to trust the DNC or Democrats in his attempt to ensure a republican house and senate. Bernie is dangerous to liberals--much more than Trump. Not because Trump has less dangerous goals--but Bernie is much more competent at actually following through with his dangerous plans than trump. 1. Politicians have always made promises without a concrete plan on how to do it. See Obama "hope and change" 2. "Super predator" isn't normal nomenclature at any point in history. People don't even use that for super sexual predators. 3. If it was just what an old white guys says the primary wouldn't be contested as it is. People wanting the progressive party to actually be progressive isn't just "wanting to do what an old white guy says" 4. She has terrible likability in polls of people. This isn't something that people are just accusing her of it has polling data to back it up. 5. See number 1. 6. This point of yours makes no sense and is a lie at the best of interpretation. 7. Bernie isn't dangerous to Liberals hes dangerous to conservative and moderate democrats that don't want to worry about their base and want them to just keep voteing them into office without moving the country anywhere. People said the same things about Obama being held to a different standard just because hes black.but instead its because shes a woman. The answer is no and yes. Sexists gets to disagree with her because shes sexist and hide behind shitty reasons and regular people get called sexist because they disagree with her on legitimate reasons. On May 17 2016 05:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Bernie Bonus: his supporters are thugs who try to use heckler's vetos to shut down delegate processes. Hillary won Nevada by 5% but they tried to bully their way into a Sanders "Win" in Nevada by shouting and yelling and refusing to abide by the voted results. We hear endless whining about how the system is Rigged and Corrupt, but these Berniebros certainly love trying to overturn Democratic processes via thuggery. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html EDIT: the Nevada caucus results were 52.6% Hillary, 47.3% Bernie. No amount of yelling and intimidation should result in a Bernie "Win" when he lost at the voting level. what in the fuck is a "heckler's veto" its called people being dumb enough to use voice votes in a contested election. If you read anything about it you'd see how much of a farce Nevada was. The recount people motioned for was because they handed out petitions as people were coming in and in the lines to register which ment that delegates weren't voting on anything. You'd think a party calling itself the democratic party would have experience with holding a democratic process in their meetings. 1st Off When Obama said he would reach out to liberal republicans and conservative democrats because that's the middle ground that allows for compromises to made--that was a specific tool for change. When Obama said he would push healthcare reform--and then passed healthcare reform. That was a goal implemented using the plan he designed. When he said he was against the Iraq War but not against the Afghanistan War, that showed that he wasn't simply being anti-war or anti-foreign policy, but actually wanted to make decisions on a case by case basis. When he said he would cut taxes on the middle class, and did cut taxes on the middle class. Obama had a lot of big ideas. But he also had a lot of specific backend plans to help push those ideas. He had super delegate support, he had corporate money to fund both his and his allies, he had a goal of reaching out to specific voter bases that he actually followed through on. Hope and Change was just the meme. But his been spouting off the need for inclusive politics since the beginning with an emphasis not on saying the craziest things possible, but on looking for middle grounds between both sides and not just his. 2nd Off Non-Democrats telling democrats to stop being democrats is not "being progressive," ignoring global policies in an attempt to stop globailization is not "being progressive," being stuck with 60 year old policies instead of adapting policies to the current trends of the time is not "being progressive." And citing everyone that disagrees with you as being the enemy is simply the talents on non-liberals. When you have a group of people yelling at liberals for not doing it how they used to do it 60+ years ago, that's not being progressive that's being regressive. And telling me that polls dislike Hilary when 3million more people voted for her is just so out of touch it makes sense why you'd be a sandernista. Lol at half your post. The "2nd off" is purely devoid of sense. You show no understanding on how tent building or likability polls work. Healthcare was a power play to ensure democratic supremacy for a generation while they had a super majority to do it. Obama's campaign was based on change that turned to pragmatism once he finaly got into office. What progressive things has obama done in office or has campaigned for? It isn't controversial to say the party took a right turn with bill clinton and continued it with the moderates of Obama and hillary. And I'm not a sandernista. I'm a confirmed conservative. But good job generalizing anyone who doesn't agree with you with your enemy. Which by your standards makes you not a liberal so welcome to the republican party buddy. Before Obama was even a blip on the radar he showed up to my town and talked to us about reaching across the aisle for pragmatic middle ground solutions. Even when he got more and more popularity he continually cried out that it wasn't about red states or blue states. When he got into office he would present plans that were combinations of conservative and liberal ideals, much like the ACA using Romney's own state healthcare plan as its starting structure. He was very much for the pulling of troops out of Iraq as direct attack on the Bush directive, but was also for increasing presence in Afghanistan in direct accordance with the Bush directive. And while under his watch we have seen "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Gay Marriage, and almost two Supreme Court Nominees, and the Amnesty Act he decreed be executive order--all this and more has move the company left. We also have a more explicated Patriot Act policy that is an expansion from the Bush years. All things he promised since before the first debate, all things he followed through on. The stuff he promised to the crowd I was in in 2007 was exactly what he delivered in 2008 and 2012. He was pragmatic from day 1, he was moderate from day 1, and it was that moderation that allowed him to pull the country leftward in respect to how right it had become in the Bush years. And all of this proves my point. The fact that you state that he decided to increase troops in iraq and not increase troops in Afghanistan apparently didn't happen to you but that okay. but that you decide to point to two supreme court cases and an executive order (that you for some reason call an amnesty act despite not having anything to do with amnesty but a lack of enforcement of laws on the books) is the best you can come up with to go alongside his one great legislative victory in repealing DADT? And how did this get about Obama your suppose to be defending Hillary. What good things did she do during the obama administration?
Being that you accused Obama's administration of not having been a moderate movement from the start is the reason I brought it up. Obama's administration has had the longest job growth in years, one of the biggest turn around in our debt ever, and has had near non-stop civil rights battles won all over. Because he is taking the moderate route to victory instead of the antagonistic route to victory.
Hilary promises to build on the wins, and to learn from the losses of the past 8 years. Sanders wants to pretend things have been the same as they were in the Bush Administration. He's almost a decade behind the times in what's happening around the country and now he wants to Defund and ruin the DNC to ensure future republican victories. He's, by and large, a danger to liberalism for the sake of looking badass. its selfish.
|
just, wow.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/05/17/mississippi-town-ordered-to-desegregate-schools-ending-50-year-legal-battle.html
my graduating high school class had students whose grandparents and parents were born in over 10 countries ( off the top of my head bangledesh, india, pakistan, trinidad, canada, scotland, ireland, usa, hong kong/china, korea. ) ... and they still manage to have segregation in mississippi? wtf?
i guess there is a big difference between mississauga and mississippi 
|
On May 17 2016 23:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 23:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:I don't care if he formally says "I take responsibility for their actions" as long as he says something to the effect of "I discourage any and all of my supporters from acting in this way." In fact the latter is more important in my opinion, especially given his past statements. On May 17 2016 23:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Donald Trump likes to say he has created a political movement that has drawn “millions and millions” of new voters into the Republican Party. “It’s the biggest thing happening in politics,” Trump has said. “All over the world, they’re talking about it,” he's bragged.
But a Politico analysis of the early 2016 voting data show that, so far, it’s just not true.
While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in state after state, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.
It is a distinction with profound consequences for the fall campaign.
If Trump isn’t bringing the promised wave of new voters into the GOP, it’s far less likely the Manhattan businessman can transform a 2016 Electoral College map that begins tilted against the Republican Party. And whether Trump’s voters are truly new is a question of urgent interest both to GOP operatives and Hillary Clinton and her allies, who have dispatched their top analytics experts to find the answer.
“All he seems to have done is bring new people into the primary process, not bring new people into the general-election process … It’s exciting that these new people that are engaged in the primary but those people are people that are already going to vote Republican in the [fall],” said Alex Lundry, who served as director of data science for Mitt Romney in 2012, when presented Politico’s findings. “It confirms what my suspicion has been all along.”
For this analysis, Politico obtained voting statistics from GOP officials and independent analysts in the handful of states that have so far released such information. To varying extents, the findings rebut both of Trump’s central claims: that he has brought in waves of new voters and that he has attracted flocks of Democrats. Among the highlights:
In Iowa, the Republican caucus turnout smashed its past record by 50 percent this year, jumping from 121,000 to nearly 187,000. But, according to figures provided by the state party, 95 percent of the 2016 caucusgoers had previously voted in at least one of the past four presidential elections—and almost 80 percent had voted in at least three of the past four.
The new caucusgoers, in other words, are likely to vote in November anyway. Source Someday the "exit polls show self-identified independents voted for me in the primary therefore I'm attracting new and moderate voters" narrative will be thoroughly stomped out as the nonsense it is. I have a feeling it won't be this season, though. It's interesting how this election has shown the absolutely batshit crazy independents more than the moderate ones. People always assume independent means socially liberal and fiscally conservative or something like that. Turns out a lot of them are just so far right or so far left that they can't even feel at home in the left/right parties o.0
You should also take this as a product of the modern internet and prevalence of media sharing. It vastly increases the volume of the extreme ends of the spectrum.
|
berntheconvention.reddit.com
ohhhh boy.
|
Hrm I better not try poking that link again Mohdoo, Google gave me a warning when I tried lol. Anyways, I read the democratic complaint, bunch of idiots for the Sanders campaign at that location. You know what it reminds me of? Catcher in the Rye, there is a reason all the brats in high school hated that book, myself included. Because it described us so perfectly, a bunch of entitled brats who didn't know true misery. Some people never wizened up over the years, only got worse.
The people of the Sanders campaign makes me really angry, mostly because it reminds me of myself when I was 17-18 and fresh in college during OWS.
You know what made me wake up? Watching the misery in people's eyes as they struggled to get any sort of financial relief from the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, watching deadened eyes of people who lost their family members as FEMA slogged along like a snail. Seeing the gratitude in their eyes when my motel provided rooms for them, made me feel shame for how lucky I was being spared in that mess. Educating myself on history to see certain patterns happening over and over again.
Watching the current devastation of Venezuela is just par for the course, people being burned alive in the streets because they are so desperate they resort to stealing and get caught by a lynch mob. You cannot have mob rule, it disrupts everything and only makes things worse.
|
On May 17 2016 23:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 22:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Nearly 60 years after the landmark US supreme court ruling that ordered schools to integrate, the classrooms of Cleveland, Mississippi, are still divided by race.
A federal court ordered the Cleveland school district to consolidate its schools entirely on Friday, ruling that after so many decades of resistance, only dismantling and reforming the schools could bring the town’s two sides together.
In a 96-page opinion, the US district court for the northern district of Mississippi wrote: “The delay in desegregation has deprived generations of students of the constitutionally guaranteed right of an integrated education. Although no court order can right these wrongs, it is the duty of the District to ensure that not one more student suffers under this burden.”
To say the town has two sides is no exaggeration; the population of 12,000 is split east and west by the old Illinois railroad tracks. Residents on the east side are black, and attend East Side high school. On the west, white children attend Cleveland high.
The school district had come up with two plans of its own to mix the students, but US judge Debra Brown rejected them as unconstitutional.
“Six decades after the supreme court in Brown v Board of Education declared that ‘separate but equal has no place’ in public schools, this decision serves as a reminder to districts that delaying desegregation obligations is both unacceptable and unconstitutional,” said Vanita Gupta, head of the US justice department’s civil rights division. “This victory creates new opportunities for the children of Cleveland to learn, play and thrive together. The court’s ruling will result in the immediate and effective desegregation of the district’s middle school and high school program for the first time in the district’s more than century-long history.”
In recent years across the country there has been an effort to stop “re-segregation”: in the generations since the supreme court’s Brown vs Board of Education ruling, the white people in many towns have slowly sifted out of integrated schools by moving into certain neighborhoods.
But that’s the not the case in Cleveland according to Wendy Scott, dean of Mississippi College School of Law and an expert in school desegregation. “There are only a handful of cases like that,” she told the Atlantic magazine last February.
Cleveland sits in Bolivar County at the center of the Mississippi Delta, a torpid and poverty-stricken portion of the state that hasn’t known widespread prosperity since slaves hauled cotton on plantations. Source "There's no difference between the two parties" What a sad, sad reality. This is why you need a federal government: To stomp shit like this out of existence. Rural communities can sometimes end up so isolated that it's as if they aren't a part of society.
I dont see specifics in what they did in the school district here. Can students go to either school regardless of where they live or do they have to have a specific address? if they have to live in the area assigned to their school and people happen to live in that area how is that the districts issue? it sounds like there could be zoning issues going on or something.
what this article describes happens all over the country with inner city schools that are 95% black and the suburbs are 90% white or affluent. there needs to be more detail befors we start jumping on the bandwagon that something sinister is going on here. it could be all economic
|
On May 18 2016 00:53 Reaper9 wrote:
Hrm I better not try poking that link again Mohdoo, Google gave me a warning when I tried lol.
My apologies. Didn't look that way to me. It might be that the page contains links to weird conspiracy shit.
|
On May 18 2016 00:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 00:53 Reaper9 wrote:
Hrm I better not try poking that link again Mohdoo, Google gave me a warning when I tried lol. My apologies. Didn't look that way to me. It might be that the page contains links to weird conspiracy shit.
Remove the www. and the link won't lead to an error.
|
I mean, why can't Hilary just have Sanders as VP, and both work at it together? I support both nominees for the democratic race, so which ever comes out first has my vote.
I rather have people out vote the republican side than have the party split at this point.
|
On May 18 2016 00:56 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 00:55 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 00:53 Reaper9 wrote:
Hrm I better not try poking that link again Mohdoo, Google gave me a warning when I tried lol. My apologies. Didn't look that way to me. It might be that the page contains links to weird conspiracy shit. Remove the www. and the link'll work fine.
o.0
Not familiar with what difference that makes other than making it unclickable. However, done per your recommendation. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
