Remember that many on r/Boston want to defund the police and also let criminals out of prisons. What could go wrong?

The people in /r/Boston often want leniency towards violent criminals. I'm simply reminding those vile people, that there are consequences to these policies.

According to statistics, his age, race and gender -put him in the likely candidacy for being a victim of a violent crime.

Kramer

Hopefully he will be denied bail, otherwise he can just get out and hide.

https://www.massbailfund.org/

I think every site expects you to have them now. They used to run this experiment demanding that people turn them off before going on their site... but that was a real traffic killer.

I don't have that issue... but then again, I have an ad blocker.

Considering she (Dookhan) was convicted in 2012, they really are taking their sweet time with this. What is the interest rate?

Is that what you tell yourself?

You've avoided a discussion and just went on the attack, so you proved something to me.

If there are any consequences, they are all social. Some people have found out that it's fun to ignore these weak penalties and just do whatever they want. Simon Phoenix has been re-awakened in the world of Demolition man.

It's only you and me talking, so you proved something to yourself.

So you agree, and show up calling me names. Makes sense.

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you must be a troll.

Where were the social workers?

The left handed are underrepresented. There are two hands, correct? Why aren't left handed mayors represented 50% of the time?

Says you, but you aren't exactly representing a "neutral point of view."

I agree that scolding people for not voting for your candidate is a stupid idea. See, we agree.

> No, it's a public policy group who's literally working on increasing voter turnout.

Have you ever tried to write as a group? No, it's a person.

> You keep falsely asserting that this is about a candidate having sour grapes that people didn't vote for her and citing something that had nothing to do with her.

It's called BIAS.

Candidates are limited by campaign finance laws from spending "too much" money on outreach to their potential voters. Therefore, special interest groups exist to spend soft money on voter outreach. They say that they are interested in "voter turnout", but there is only one political party that this "Priorities for Progress" supports.

For example, their founder Liam Kerr has an exclusive history of fundraising for democrats... I also looked up the history of the other "data driven nonprofit" group: Murmuration and found that their employees financially support only left wing PACs.

But this is an open secret. You would have me and others pretend that there is no bias and that this has no political agenda other than to increase voter turnout, regardless of who is running.