US Presidential Race

LeBéninois wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Trump's race to the bottom continues. This is simply an inaccurate statistic.

Waht are the accurate one ?

All of it.

LeBéninois wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Trump's race to the bottom continues. This is simply an inaccurate statistic.

Waht are the accurate one ?

Well, first and foremost the "Crime Statistics Bureau of San Francisco" doesn't exist.

Second, the most comprehensive breakdown of violent crime is compiled by the FBI on a yearly basis, so the 2015 report isn't available because 2015 isn't over yet.

However, here are the 2014 statistics:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls



Actual information (using parlance of the image for consistency):
Blacks killed by whites [sic] ~ 7.6%
Blacks killed by blacks [sic] ~ 89.9%
Whites killed by whites [sic] ~ 82.4%
Whites killed by blacks [sic] ~ 14.7%

So every single figure he provided is wrong, with some being basically reversed from reality.

Kinda sad that in this day and age, murder is still this segregated.

I've been following this thing mainly on a headlines level, but tell me, am I wrong when I've gotten the picture that the quality of candidates is really, err, questionable? As in 'not very good'.

That rather depends on your political position and level of overall cynicism. Certainly on the Republican side the leading candidates don't inspire much confidence from the wider electorate. Hillary and Sanders seem to illicit more ambivalent reactions though.

Let's forget about the Republicans for a minute. Trump and Carson are both a joke anyway.

What I REALLY wonder is, why is the Democratic field so incredibly thin?
I'm actually kind of shocked, thought people would jump in, but they didn't.
Now it's Hillary. That's basically it. And Sanders, who of course has got no chance at the nomination even if he's doing admirably well. And he isn't even a Democrat either.

Then some guy named O'Malley, and then the other one who's slogan was to bring in the metric system?

Jim Webb was in there too I think, why isn't he getting anywhere? He always struck me as a capable candidate.

Aren't there any governors etc who are ambitious?
Why are they leaving it to Hillary just like that?
Isn't there anyone? What about this Ed something governor from Pennsylvania? What happened to the other ones from back then? I don't know. Bill Richardson? ANYONE?

Am I the only one who finds this strange, and dissapointing from a, err, standpoint of plurality?

I'm pretty sure many Democrats are hedging their bets and don't want to blow any funds, or overextend themselves politically, when many feel that Hillary has this in the bag.

Because despite a few gaffes and the depressing inevitability of it, she'll probably do very, very well in the general election. She's a strong candidate, and the only high profile Democrats right now are people like Kerry and Gore, who can easily be called "losers" in smear campaigns after they lost in general elections, and Biden, who'd be a "traitor" in the same mold, because he's the Veep.

And behind those three I just don't see anyone who's built the kind of profile I feel you'd need. Then again I didn't think Obama had that either, so what do I know.

RedOranje wrote:

LeBéninois wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Trump's race to the bottom continues. This is simply an inaccurate statistic.

Waht are the accurate one ?

Well, first and foremost the "Crime Statistics Bureau of San Francisco" doesn't exist.

Second, the most comprehensive breakdown of violent crime is compiled by the FBI on a yearly basis, so the 2015 report isn't available because 2015 isn't over yet.

However, here are the 2014 statistics:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls



Actual information (using parlance of the image for consistency):
Blacks killed by whites [sic] ~ 7.6%
Blacks killed by blacks [sic] ~ 89.9%
Whites killed by whites [sic] ~ 82.4%
Whites killed by blacks [sic] ~ 14.7%

So every single figure he provided is wrong, with some being basically reversed from reality.

Am I correct to think Hispanic or Latino in the U.S. is *mostly* categorised as white?
Just trying to understand why the number whites killed by H/L was over a factor of 7 larger than blacks killed by H/L

DuringTheWar wrote:Am I correct to think Hispanic or Latino in the U.S. is *mostly* categorised as white?
Just trying to understand why the number whites killed by H/L was over a factor of 7 larger than blacks killed by H/L

I  would surmise this is because many murders happen among persons who are somewhat related to each other (in Germany we have the term "Beziehungstat", that is a murder where murderer and victim have some relationship so that the murderer gains something, be it money or other valuables via insurances, inheritance etc, while the other reason very often is love/hate and jealousy), and no matter what people say, the groups "of similar colour" very often do stick together.

Hapless_Hans wrote:Let's forget about the Republicans for a minute. Trump and Carson are both a joke anyway.

What I REALLY wonder is, why is the Democratic field so incredibly thin?
I'm actually kind of shocked, thought people would jump in, but they didn't.
Now it's Hillary. That's basically it. And Sanders, who of course has got no chance at the nomination even if he's doing admirably well. And he isn't even a Democrat either.

Then some guy named O'Malley, and then the other one who's slogan was to bring in the metric system?

Jim Webb was in there too I think, why isn't he getting anywhere? He always struck me as a capable candidate.

Aren't there any governors etc who are ambitious?
Why are they leaving it to Hillary just like that?
Isn't there anyone? What about this Ed something governor from Pennsylvania? What happened to the other ones from back then? I don't know. Bill Richardson? ANYONE?

Am I the only one who finds this strange, and dissapointing from a, err, standpoint of plurality?

There are plenty of dems who could and want to run, but don't want to challenge Hillary. She is by far the strongest candidate, and any dems with presidential ambition don't want to damage themselves fighting a fight they know they are going to lose.

The dems were never going to challenge her this cycle the moment Obama picked her as Secretary of State.

There is a talent depth problem however.. The dems get slaughtered at the local level and it kills the field of talent. Friggin millennials think they only have to show up once in every 4 years think they are doing their job. The turn out in primary and local elections is what is killing this country

No, they are not categorized as white in most/all cases; including, to my knowledge, this particular one. They have their own separate section

VendettaRed07 wrote:There is a talent depth problem however.. The dems get slaughtered at the local level and it kills the field of talent. Friggin millennials think they only have to show up once in every 4 years think they are doing their job. The turn out in primary and local elections is what is killing this country

That's as much (perhaps more) down to the way districts are laid out currently than voting turnout for certain demographics.

VendettaRed07 wrote:There is a talent depth problem however.. The dems get slaughtered at the local level and it kills the field of talent. Friggin millennials think they only have to show up once in every 4 years think they are doing their job. The turn out in primary and local elections is what is killing this country

Maybe the local democrats should actually put up a person worth voting for if they want young people to come out?

The myth that Millenials don't vote was soundly proven wrong in 2008 when we all came out and voted for a guy we believed in. What happened in 2010? They put up garbage, and did again in 2012. It isn't our fault that the party is trash locally.

I am not going to waste my time voting for yes men.

RedOranje wrote:No, they are not categorized as white in most/all cases; including, to my knowledge, this particular one.  They have their own separate section.

Look at the numbers in the table closely. The way they add up to the same total strongly suggests the Hispanic and Latinos are counted there in the race section. My best assumption given how segregated murder is is that most of them are put in with whites and that's why they seems to kill a lot more "whites" than blacks.

I HAVE looked at the table closely... on multiple occasions and for multiple different overall perspectives. The separate section for "Hispanic
or Latino" under Ethnicity does not line up with the "White" sections in any meaningful way as would be expected if the two were closely correlated over overlapping in either section.

Trump's race to the bottom continues.

Now he is mocking the disabled:

I just watched a National Geographics documentary about certain Bible stories today, and for some reason my first thought was that the perfect fit for the Anti Christ image of "John's Revelation" story would be Donald Trump ^^

rwo power wrote:I just watched a National Geographics documentary about certain Bible stories today, and for some reason my first thought was that the perfect fit for the Anti Christ image of "John's Revelation" story would be Donald Trump ^^

That would actually be a perfect fit.

Donald Trump had a rally in my state last night. It was about 85 miles(~130 km for the people not in 'Murica) from where I lived. If I didnt have to work so late with the international team I would have definitely taken my grandpa to see the show.


The crowd looks exact how I would expect a crowd in Macon to look

I know this part of the convo has died down a bit, but there is a student at George Washington who was ordered by campus authorities to take down the Palestinian flag that he had publicly displayed or risk disciplinary action.

And yet, the "Free Speech!!" "PC on Campus!!" "Babied college students!!" crowd is somehow nowhere to be found in this story? I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY!

A petition calling for Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump to be barred from entering the UK has gathered more than 250,000 names, so MPs will have to consider debating it.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35052505

How Donald Trump even is a presidential Candidate for such an educated and forward thinking first world country is beyond comprehension.

Adit wrote:How Donald Trump even is a presidential Candidate for such an educated and forward thinking first world country is beyond comprehension.

And not even any candidate, the Republican front-runner for some time

RealGunner wrote:A petition calling for Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump to be barred from entering the UK has gathered more than 250,000 names, so MPs will have to consider debating it.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35052505

bbc pls

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/107516

Well, the UK has their right wingers (called "UKIP"), just as many other countries have them, too. But even though the UKIP supporters are backing this with 61%, the UKIP leader stated that Trump has "gone too far".

Donald Trump is a possible candidate of a possible government party which even has the majority of the US senate, so this appears to be far more serious, unless the Republicans really decide to oust Trump. The real danger is the fact that this guy is so rich that he might continue his campaigns and with his money he could even draw in a substantial number of voters if he goes independent.

I cannot say how thrilled I am Trump has promised to run as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination. If (hopefully) the republicans see sense and vote for some else, the conservative vote will be split, guaranteeing another democrat. Which at this stage seems to be the only way America doesn't destroy itself and the rest of the world.