Biden supported anti-busing constitutional amendment

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
Yes of course I did. What part of the article exactly do you want me to re-read because you think I missed something about it?I understand perfectly that nothing including this matters to you whatsoever because you are solely focused on being Trump, but other Dem primary voters may indeed care that he held this position a few decades ago. Plenty of folks think that passed votes are important, such as his vote to authorize use of force in Iraq, his role in the Anita Hill hearings, and more.

Quite frankly if you thought this would not come out, you are delusional. Even if the news media shared your feelings about “we must beat Trump at all costs” It’s not like trump can’t do opposition research himself. And yeah if this story makes him not win the Democratic nomination I will not shed a single tear.
Dude, you still have no idea what you are talking about. It came out in the debate the night before you posted this. We all already knew about it before you did. We all expected conservatives to concern troll about a susbject they can't understand simply because they can frame it in a simplistic way to fool other ignorant fools with a catchy headline about racism, the exact way you did. Multiple people have already explained to you why the vote isn't even a negative, but actually a positive and you still don't understand. We all know the actual story is how poorly he fended off this attack by Harris while you are still flinging shit in the pigsty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Dude, you still have no idea what you are talking about. It came out in the debate the night before you posted this. We all already knew about it before you did. We all expected conservatives to concern troll about a susbject they can't understand simply because they can frame it in a simplistic way to fool other ignorant fools with a catchy headline about racism, the exact way you did. Multiple people have already explained to you why the vote isn't even a negative, but actually a positive and you still don't understand. We all know the actual story is how poorly he fended off this attack by Harris while you are still flinging shit in the pigsty.

You might need to point out to me again why you think that Biden saying supporting a constitutional amendment to oppose busing is actually a positive. At least in 2019 and not the 1970s
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,308
355
126
Sorry, I didn't know this tidbit was required to be in the loop. Are there any membership benefits?

There's membership benefits to knowing how to look up old news before posting on Anandtech. For the plebs and unintiated who don't know how to use a computer or the internet, there's a place called Tomshardware.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Dude, you still have no idea what you are talking about. It came out in the debate the night before you posted this. We all already knew about it before you did. We all expected conservatives to concern troll about a susbject they can't understand simply because they can frame it in a simplistic way to fool other ignorant fools with a catchy headline about racism, the exact way you did. Multiple people have already explained to you why the vote isn't even a negative, but actually a positive and you still don't understand. We all know the actual story is how poorly he fended off this attack by Harris while you are still flinging shit in the pigsty.

Oh I think I get it. You ignorantly think this Is the same thing as the Gurney amendment he spoke of at the debate. The gurney amendment was to a law, this article speaks about a constitutional amendment.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1974/s783
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
There's membership benefits to knowing how to look up old news before posting on Anandtech. For the plebs and unintiated who don't know how to use a computer or the internet, there's a place called Tomshardware.
I honestly expected to find a bunch of links to wackadoo sites searching for something like that. To be completely transparent I haven't even clicked your link to validate that that isn't the case. I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt because it is Saturday and I don't feel like doing political research by the pool. I asked for a source because I figured a quip like that would be plastered all over the news the day he announced his candidacy.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The problem with busing was that it was discriminatory. The proposal should have been to bus white kids into all black schools to integrate them. In no time at all those would have become world class institutions.

PS: I don't get what Harris had against going to school with other black kids that she wanted to flee them to be with white kids.

Denver bused kids in both directions until 1996. Harris didn't choose to be bused but was rather chosen to be by the system.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Shame Biden did not know that last night. Or have the gumption to riposte with something so insightful.

Right or wrong, he showed weakness in age and befuddlement.

Yes he did. Like I said, he's not as electable as has been assumed. He's too gaff prone and has way too much history to be exploited by Trump.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
What’s up @dank69 no clever response?
Jeez man, I just got in from the actual pool. Let me get a chance to go back and see what I fucked up. I'll try to be quick as I can see you are knawing at the bone to be right about something.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
While conservatives try to bash Biden over race using bussing, this is their candidates view on the subject.

D-OtLu0XYAAIUo1


Yes, bussing is, in fact, a way to get kids to school.

Yep, that's our president.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,410
3,183
146
Harris and Swalwell are off my list. They placed their personal ambition above not passing on ammunition Trump will use if Biden wins the contest. That is something Trump would do in a heartbeat. I want him out and not replaced by a clone.

Yawn. Better to get it out of the way. If Biden can’t articulate his position in friendly atmosphere how could he vs Trump?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
What’s up @dank69 no clever response?
Okay I went back and reread the article you linked and still believe you either have not read it or don't understand Biden's reasoning behind "possibly" backing a constitutional amendment.

He said at the time that all the non-racists were assuming forced busing was good simply because the admitted racists were against it. As we know, that would be a logical fallacy. It is important to evaluate ideas on their own merits. Additionally, some scholars at the time were claiming that some types of busing were actually detrimental, and most people, including black people, were against it.

You should be happy. He was standing up for states rights. He was concerned that busing in certain situations was actually counterproductive and wanted the states to evaluate it for themselves since they know their demographics better. If you actually read your own article and understood it, you would already know all this. You would also know that his history on civil rights has been progressive throughout his entire career, so maybe it would have given you pause and motivation to understand that he might have a good reason to say what he did instead of thinking it could possibly be motivated by racism.

Is that clever enough for you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Okay I went back and reread the article you linked and still believe you either have not read it or don't understand Biden's reasoning behind "possibly" backing a constitutional amendment.

He said at the time that all the non-racists were assuming forced busing was good simply because the admitted racists were against it. As we know, that would be a logical fallacy. It is important to evaluate ideas on their own merits. Additionally, some scholars at the time were claiming that some types of busing were actually detrimental, and most people, including black people, were against it.

You should be happy. He was standing up for states rights. He was concerned that busing in certain situations was actually counterproductive and wanted the states to evaluate it for themselves since they know their demographics better. If you actually read your own article and understood it, you would already know all this. You would also know that his history on civil rights has been progressive throughout his entire career, so maybe it would have given you pause and motivation to understand that he might have a good reason to say what he did instead of thinking it could possibly be motivated by racism.

Is that clever enough for you?

Maybe Dems don’t care like you suggest since they’ll see it in the “historical context.” Maybe they will care as Kamala Harris seems to feel, I doubt that she’ll just blow this off. Either way I’m unsure why you think I don’t understand the article. You may disagree on its level of significance (such as not deserving top story on NPR) or whether it will impact the race but I think my understanding of the article is just fine.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
Maybe Dems don’t care like you suggest since they’ll see it in the “historical context.” Maybe they will care as Kamala Harris seems to feel, I doubt that she’ll just blow this off. Either way I’m unsure why you think I don’t understand the article. You may disagree on its level of significance (such as not deserving top story on NPR) or whether it will impact the race but I think my understanding of the article is just fine.
Clearly not since you still think it is mostly about historical context. It's only partially about that, and not in the way you think. I mean, the article explained it and I literally just explained it in the post you just replied to. He was operating on the latest information, not just shitting on black people because it was fashionable for the times. Maybe you think he should have been operating on information available today? Is that what Democrats have to do to please you? Be able to see decades into the future?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Clearly not since you still think it is mostly about historical context. It's only partially about that, and not in the way you think. I mean, the article explained it and I literally just explained it in the post you just replied to. He was operating on the latest information, not just shitting on black people because it was fashionable for the times. Maybe you think he should have been operating on information available today? Is that what Democrats have to do to please you? Be able to see decades into the future?

The article is about an actual statement that he made. You’re the one that’s trying to ascribe political spin to it. Let’s start with the easy thing. Do you agree or disagree that he made that statement about being willing to support a constitutional amendment to ban busing, yes or no.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
The article is about an actual statement that he made. You’re the one that’s trying to ascribe political spin to it. Let’s start with the easy thing. Do you agree or disagree that he made that statement about being willing to support a constitutional amendment to ban busing, yes or no.
I'm not ascribing anything. I'm practically reading his explanation word for word to you since apparently you can't read it yourself. And yes I agree he said that although you seem to have forgotten the word "forced." He was against forced busing. He clearly said he was never against voluntary busing. Read. Your. Own. Link. FFS.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I'm not ascribing anything. I'm practically reading his explanation word for word to you since apparently you can't read it yourself. And yes I agree he said that although you seem to have forgotten the word "forced." He was against forced busing. He clearly said he was never against voluntary busing. Read. Your. Own. Link. FFS.

Again I did read my own link. Evidently you did not because it doesn’t talk about his motive for supporting this amendment other than he was afraid if it was passed out routine law it would be struck down by the court. Feel free to re-read the article.

Now that we’ve established what the article, my OP, and Joe Biden himself said, lets chat. The fact is and will remain that he did to support a constitutional amendment to ban busing. If you can simply admit that I’m fine if you want to argue about how it doesn’t matter. Because it was a long time ago. Or because of the rest of his civil rights record. Or even that Biden could have literally said or supported anything in his long career but beating Trump takes precedence over all. But right now you just sound like you want to put your fingers in your ears and say “ I didn’t hear that.”
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
Again I did read my own link. Evidently you did not because it doesn’t talk about his motive for supporting this amendment other than he was afraid if it was passed out routine law it would be struck down by the court. Feel free to re-read the article.

Now that we’ve established what the article, my OP, and Joe Biden himself said, lets chat. The fact is and will remain that he did to support a constitutional amendment to ban busing. If you can simply admit that I’m fine if you want to argue about how it doesn’t matter. Because it was a long time ago. Or because of the rest of his civil rights record. Or even that Biden could have literally said or supported anything in his long career but beating Trump takes precedence over all. But right now you just sound like you want to put your fingers in your ears and say “ I didn’t hear that.”
This is a direct quote from your article:

"That would clearly do it," he said, adding, "I'm going to go at it through a constitutional amendment, if it can't be done through a piece of legislation."

Here's the full quote from the transcript:

ENSOR: What about a constitutional amendment, I asked Biden. Isn't that what you're going to end up supporting if you want to stop court ordered busing too?
BIDEN: That would clearly do it. We are trying to figure out whether or not we can come up with an innovative piece of legislation which would limit the remedy and I don't honestly don't know whether we can come up with something constitutional. And if we can't I will not in an attempt to eliminate busing violate the Constitution. I won't do that. The only way if I'm going to go at it, I'm going to go at it through a constitutional amendment if it can't be done through a piece of legislation.​
<snip>

Biden also warned in the interview that one of the reasons many liberals were in favor of busing is that racists were against it.

"I think that part of the reason why much of this has not developed, much of the change has not developed, is because it has been an issue that has been in the hands of the racist," Biden said, "and we liberals have out-of-hand rejected it because, if George Wallace is for it, it must be bad. And so we haven't really looked at it. Now there's a confluence of streams. There is academic ferment against it — not majority, but academic ferment against it. There are young blacks and young white leaders against it."
Everything I have told you about your own article is right there in black and white for you. The bolding is mine for emphasis.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
This is a direct quote from your article:


Everything I have told you about your own article is right there in black and white for you. The bolding is mine for emphasis.

That’s his reasoning for pushing it as an amendment rather than a law. To me that’s a process question and the bigger question is his motive for wanting it in the first place regardless if it was a law or amendment. I.e. why he thought busing was so bad we needed an amendment to stop it. Saying “lots of people thought it was a good idea in 1975” doesn’t wash in 2019. I’m guessing if he acknowledges it as a bad idea that was out of character and apologizes that will make it a non-factor going forward. Then he can return to losing the nomination because other candidates are more appealing.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
That’s his reasoning for pushing it as an amendment rather than a law. To me that’s a process question and the bigger question is his motive for wanting it in the first place regardless if it was a law or amendment. I.e. why he thought busing was so bad we needed an amendment to stop it. Saying “lots of people thought it was a good idea in 1975” doesn’t wash in 2019. I’m guessing if he acknowledges it as a bad idea that was out of character and apologizes that will make it a non-factor going forward. Then he can return to losing the nomination because other candidates are more appealing.
Omg are you literally incapable of reading anything past the first sentence? The first part is about why he would consider the amendment route. The rest is about why he opposes court ordered (forced) busing.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Omg are you literally incapable of reading anything past the first sentence? The first part is about why he would consider the amendment route. The rest is about why he opposes court ordered (forced) busing.

Opposing court ordered busing is a position, not a reason. In the article it implies he did so for states rights reasons, then denied that. I’ll post what I suppose you think are the relevant bits from the article:

"I've always been in favor of using federal authority to overcome state-initiated segregation. In fact, I cast the deciding vote in 1974 against an amendment called the Gurney amendment, which would have banned the right of federal courts to be able to use busing as a remedy [to segregation]."

During the debate, Biden also said he was not against voluntary busing, only Department of Education-mandated busing. It sounded like a states-rights argument, similar to what had been used by those who wanted to keep segregation in place. But on Friday, Biden rejected that.
"These rights are not up to the states to decide," he said. "They're the federal government's duty to decide. It's a constitutional question, to protect the civil rights of every single American. And that's always been my position."


So he thinks it was the federal government’s duty to decide and not the states. But he opposed Dept of Ducation mandated busing - last time I checked Ed Dept was part of the federal government. And he wasn’t against voluntary busing, but supported a constitutional amendment to ban busing.

Feel free to find any coherent “logic” in this tragic mess of contradictory and nonsensical statements.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
Opposing court ordered busing is a position, not a reason. In the article it implies he did so for states rights reasons, then denied that. I’ll post what I suppose you think are the relevant bits from the article:

"I've always been in favor of using federal authority to overcome state-initiated segregation. In fact, I cast the deciding vote in 1974 against an amendment called the Gurney amendment, which would have banned the right of federal courts to be able to use busing as a remedy [to segregation]."

During the debate, Biden also said he was not against voluntary busing, only Department of Education-mandated busing. It sounded like a states-rights argument, similar to what had been used by those who wanted to keep segregation in place. But on Friday, Biden rejected that.
"These rights are not up to the states to decide," he said. "They're the federal government's duty to decide. It's a constitutional question, to protect the civil rights of every single American. And that's always been my position."


So he thinks it was the federal government’s duty to decide and not the states. But he opposed Dept of Ducation mandated busing - last time I checked Ed Dept was part of the federal government. And he wasn’t against voluntary busing, but supported a constitutional amendment to ban busing.

Feel free to find any coherent “logic” in this tragic mess of contradictory and nonsensical statements.
This is literally what your article states that Biden literally said during the same interview where he said he would consider an amendment:
Biden also warned in the interview that one of the reasons many liberals were in favor of busing is that racists were against it.

"I think that part of the reason why much of this has not developed, much of the change has not developed, is because it has been an issue that has been in the hands of the racist," Biden said, "and we liberals have out-of-hand rejected it because, if George Wallace is for it, it must be bad. And so we haven't really looked at it. Now there's a confluence of streams. There is academic ferment against it — not majority, but academic ferment against it. There are young blacks and young white leaders against it."
That is literally him explaining why he was against court ordered busing in his own words in the exact same interview.