The Politics Thread 2020

[MuespachRam]

10 hours ago, maxjam said:

Or maybe its a mixture of both?

Even CNN begrudgingly acknowledge some of Trumps achievements, although they hilariously call him out for being dishonest;

Trump's penchant for dishonesty is well-established. His rhetoric is littered with major fabrications, entire stories he seems to have invented out of thin air. But his remarks are also peppered with extremely trivial exaggerations, slight stretches about accomplishments that would seem not to need any deception to shine.

It sometimes seems as if he has set his Teleprompter to automatically translate the word "almost" to "more than." When the unemployment rate was the lowest in 49 years, Trump boasted of the lowest rate in "more than 50 years." When he had confirmed 91 new federal judges, he claimed "more than 100 new federal judges." When the country had added 481,000 manufacturing jobs since his election, he touted "more than 500,000 jobs."

Fair enough if you are going to be pedantic it is inaccurate, but what politician doesn't round up lowest unemployment in 49yrs to 50yrs? 91 new judges to 100 or 481k new jobs to 500k etc?  I'm not arguing that he does talk a lot of garbage but to say all he's achieved is a 'crock of poo' would be inaccurate as well.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/28/politics/trump-exaggerates-unemployment-accomplishments/index.html

He has done zero/nothing/nada/zip/zilch to improve anything in this country. 
He should never have been allowed to run. 
he should never have been elected. 
he should have been impeached and kicked out. 
 

[ariotofmyown]

1 minute ago, MuespachRam said:

He has done zero/nothing/nada/zip/zilch to improve anything in this country. 
He should never have been allowed to run. 
he should never have been elected. 
he should have been impeached and kicked out. 
 

Seems like some Republican's are starting to turn on him (finally).

[MuespachRam]

6 hours ago, Archied said:

Caught good morning Britain today and I found piers Morgan totally idiotic , because the Madeleine McCann is big news again he asked the question if it was a little black girl would we have the same coverage of the case , how bloody stupid and inflammatory at a time like this , 

why? Well it’s very very clear that it is a class , education, money , contacts issue , NOT a race one , there are lots and lots of very distressing cases of missing white children that received next to zero the attention they deserve because the families are working class and don’t have the privilege the McCann parents have and this disparity is well documented over the years, what a stupid inflammatory emotive thing to come out with.

history history history ,,, it can be helpful to a point but also wallowing in it can hold us all back too ,,,,, racism has to be approached and dealt with for what it is NOW , we ALL need to Start letting the past go , concentrate on creating a better NOW and building a better future 

Yep. If It has been a couple of 17 year olds on a caravan park in SkegVegas they would have been locked up. 

[MuespachRam]

12 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Seems like some Republican's are starting to turn on him (finally).

he surley cannot win again......

[ariotofmyown]

Just now, MuespachRam said:

he surley cannot win again......

Since Coronavirus and the last week he must surely be done for. 

Also, he is clearly senile. That is not supposed to be a joke or abuse. He clearly has mental issues.

[MuespachRam]

2 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Since Coronavirus and the last week he must surely be done for. 

Also, he is clearly senile. That is not supposed to be a joke or abuse. He clearly has mental issues.

yeah, he simply cant get caught lying that many times and think he can get away with it....I think you are right about his mental health too.

[B4ev6is]

I personal I dont trust populations one bit.

[MuespachRam]

3 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

I personal I dont trust populations one bit.

I hear you!! me too

[B4ev6is]

I think they want people to fear it so they can control us.

[cstand]

1 hour ago, MuespachRam said:

He has done zero/nothing/nada/zip/zilch to improve anything in this country. 
He should never have been allowed to run. 
he should never have been elected. 
he should have been impeached and kicked out. 
 

Here is the uncaring racist president who has done nothing to improve people’s lives.

[B4ev6is]

But what frusrating me more in city of up 7k protesting against black man death but yet socail distancing was not kepted so for me no differance attending foofball match.

[FindernRam]

8 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

But what frusrating me more in city of up 7k protesting against black man death but yet socail distancing was not kepted so for me no differance attending foofball match.

You are correct , but 2 wrongs don't make it right.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Just read some of this article (from 2016). Its academic nature might make it more useful than online newspapers, which are naturally going to lean one way or the other. I've attached some quotes that you might find interesting: 

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf

The first two quotes suggest that there is racial bias in non-lethal uses of force, even taking into account contextual factors (see our earlier discussion, @Alpha). The third quote seems to suggest the reverse for shootings, which looks very bizarre (though perhaps partially explained by a small sample size). The important final quote, which offers reasons as to why it's very difficult to come to conclusions on this issue, to me leads to the conclusion that a proper, comprehensive study is needed to ascertain the scale of the issue (and even then the potential for cover ups or bias may make this impossible).

 

Quote

In the raw data, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to have an interaction with police which involves any use of force. Accounting for baseline demographics such as age and gender, encounter characteristics such as whether individuals supplied identification or whether the interaction occurred in a high- or lowcrime area, or civilian behaviors does little to alter the race coefficient.

Quote

Interestingly, as the intensity of force increases (e.g. handcuffing civilians without arrest, drawing or pointing a weapon, or using pepper spray or a baton), the probability that any civilian is subjected to such treatment is small, but the racial difference remains surprisingly constant. For instance, 0.26 percent of interactions between police and civilians involve an officer drawing a weapon; 0.02 percent involve using a baton. These are rare events. Yet, the results indicate that they are significantly more rare for whites than blacks. In the raw data, blacks are 21.3 percent more likely to be involved in an interaction with police in which at least a weapon is drawn than whites and the difference is statistically significant. Adding our full set of controls reduces the racial difference to 19.4 percent.

Quote

In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find no racial differences in officer-involved shootings on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified – we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely. Both coefficients are statistically insignificant ... Partitioning the data in myriad ways, we find no evidence of racial discrimination in officer-involved shootings. Investigating the intensive margin – the timing of shootings or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences.

Quote

Our results have several important caveats. First, all but one dataset was provided by a select group of police departments. It is possible that these departments only supplied the data because they are either enlightened or were not concerned about what the analysis would reveal. In essence, this is equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing to supply a researcher with their Human Resources data! There may be important selection in who was willing to share their data. The Police-Public contact survey partially sidesteps this issue by including a nationally representative sample of civilians, but it does not contain data on officer-involved shootings ... Relatedly, even police departments willing to supply data may contain police officers who present contextual factors at that time of an incident in a biased manner – making it difficult to interpret regression coefficients in the standard way

 

Edit: Probably won't respond to any replies tonight, as my mate has just finished exams and we're on the whisky.

[1967Ram]

22 hours ago, Highgate said:

On 03/06/2020 at 17:59, maxjam said:

Good post, we're not a million miles apart in a lot of our views ? There was plenty of common ground in the last post that's true, we will both just have to live with that  ?

As for your cheeky question you're talking to an ardent Brexiteer than couldn't bring himself to vote Tory at the recent election.  Despite what some people might think around here I consider myself center left and politically homeless atm. 

If you are going to point a gun at my head however and force me to vote I'd go with Tory/Republican as I'm closer to them than the current left.  I am not sure anyone that would choose Trump over AOC is left of centre.  Although not being able to vote for Boris was impressive under the circumstances.

If you separate Trump the man from the stuff that he and the Republicans have done over the past 4 years, for the average American they have actually not done to bad of a job imo - up until coronavirus, record breaking employment (True, the economy was doing well continuing the surge that had started under Obama, although the national debt he promised to eradicate is still climbing ever higher, and the biggest beneficiaries from the boom are the super wealthy) record breaking numbers of minorities in employment (just a consequence of the record breaking employment numbers), new trade deals, (I'm not sure they are improvements on the old ones or who they benefit the most) talked to N.Korea (I give him credit for this, although it was futile so far, N.Korea now have their bomb), taught Iran a lesson {created a problem by pulling out of the nuclear deal, had the dangerous Soleimani killed and nearly started a war doing it.  Soleimani will simply be replaced by someone equally dangerous and enmity will be increased between the two countries, benefiting the hard-liners in Iran who were starting to feel internal pressure from those who wished for reforms. and focussed America's real threat, China (we have no idea how that deal was going to work out).  One thing missing from the analysis of Trump, his complete disregard for the environment. He seems quite happy to trash it for current and future generations as long as it benefits the economy in the short term.  Unforgivable.  For that alone he needs to lose the election in November.

The underlined part above is absolutely spot on. Why don't intelligent people see this?

[GboroRam]

8 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Just read some of this article (from 2016). Its academic nature might make it more useful than online newspapers, which are naturally going to lean one way or the other. I've attached some quotes that you might find interesting: 

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf

The first two quotes suggest that there is racial bias in non-lethal uses of force, even taking into account contextual factors (see our earlier discussion, @Alpha). The third quote seems to suggest the reverse for shootings, which looks very bizarre (though perhaps partially explained by a small sample size). The important final quote, which offers reasons as to why it's very difficult to come to conclusions on this issue, to me leads to the conclusion that a proper, comprehensive study is needed to ascertain the scale of the issue (and even then the potential for cover ups or bias may make this impossible).

 

 

I wonder what proportion of shootings by lone gunmen are affecting the numbers? We know most deaths by shooting in the US are suicides, but the majority of cases I recall hearing where a gunman has opened fire on schools, on concerts and other public attacks are perpetrated by white men. They invariably end when the police shoot and kill the gunman. 

[maxjam]

33 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Just read some of this article (from 2016). Its academic nature might make it more useful than online newspapers, which are naturally going to lean one way or the other. I've attached some quotes that you might find interesting: 

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf

The first two quotes suggest that there is racial bias in non-lethal uses of force, even taking into account contextual factors (see our earlier discussion, @Alpha). The third quote seems to suggest the reverse for shootings, which looks very bizarre (though perhaps partially explained by a small sample size). The important final quote, which offers reasons as to why it's very difficult to come to conclusions on this issue, to me leads to the conclusion that a proper, comprehensive study is needed to ascertain the scale of the issue (and even then the potential for cover ups or bias may make this impossible).

 

I'd agree that greater study is required, especially into the reasons why violent crime is most likely to be committed by Black people in the US - address those reasons and you'll go a long way to addressing claims of racism and/or structural bias.

Re. the 3rd point according to the following article Black people are 53% of all homicide offenders in the US despite making up only 13% of the population (less than that really if you also discount Black women and children as most offenders are male) - hence they are statistically less likely to be shot and killed by police in comparison to white or hispanic offenders. 

Year on year Blacks also kill far more Whites than Whites kill Blacks (once again despite being only a fraction of the population).  Furthermore Black on Black violence is also shockingly high.

https://pointofview.net/articles/myth-of-systemic-police-racism/

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

All it says to me is that pushing one statistic out of many is done so to skew the conversation in one direction and unless you address the real reason why violence is far more prevalent in the Black community you aren't really looking to solve the problem long term, just push an agenda.

[Comrade 86]

11 minutes ago, 1967Ram said:

Why don't intelligent people see this?

I think that's a question and an answer rolled into one mate.

[RoyMac5]

This is so depressing, probably not the place to put it, but it needs to be seen. ?

 

 

[Sith Happens]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

This is so depressing, probably not the place to put it, but it needs to be seen. ?

 

 

It's so bad I wish it was fake,  sadly I suspect it's not. makes me want to cry.

[Comrade 86]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

This is so depressing, probably not the place to put it, but it needs to be seen. ?

 

 

So much respect for the cabby. None at all for the human detritus sat next to him. No way on earth I could have handled that myself. I'd have ended up getting another pinch for hurting the daft, bevvied up old Bamford.