Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Polonius wrote:
In a way, it'd be nice to see us move on from judging a person's lifestyle when we vote. The question of who Mr. Cruz was sleeping with is a matter for him and Ms. Cruz, not us.

Agree entirely. Saw it this morning, and it's a private matter.

However, obviously his target demographic probably does care, a lot.

 Ouze wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
In a way, it'd be nice to see us move on from judging a person's lifestyle when we vote. The question of who Mr. Cruz was sleeping with is a matter for him and Ms. Cruz, not us.

Agree entirely. Saw it this morning, and it's a private matter.

However, obviously his target demographic probably does care, a lot.

I think it'll be a matter of staying home. It's hard to imagine somebody that agrees with Cruz, but is disgusted by rumors of affairs, voting for Trump (or Clinton).

I really think that what we'll see here is that fairly selective Christian forgiveness at work. People generally don't look at the facts, and decide who to vote for. They decide who to vote for, then interpret the facts to support that decision.

DutchWinsAll wrote:
So if 50% of American murders are committed by Black males, and its not related to drug and gang turf, then what is it?

Black households earn around a third less, and have much higher rates of unemployment. The US isn't unique among developed countries in having an ethnic minority with a much weaker economic position, but it is unique in adding loads of guns to that. Mix those two things together and bingo bango, there's your murder rate.

And I really wish people would stop acting like the US murder rate is so high. 2 or 4 out of 100K really isn't all that much different honestly.

Meh. If the question becomes 'is gun murder in the US the single most pressing issue in the nation' then the answer is no. If the question is 'does the US have a murder rate which is completely outside the norm in developed countries then the answer is yes, obviously, it's way higher, the other developed countries are all clustered around 1 to 1.4, then the US is just way out there on its own'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Accidental or not... that makes him a genius. And very fething dangerous at the same time.

Yeah, and if it was almost anyone else I'd be cheering that someone was dragging the Republican party towards a viable, popular new political position. But when its Trump it becomes very dangerous, as you say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
When the Tea Party got candidates elected, like Rubio for example, and then those candidates did not deliver on their promises, or worse went the opposite direction (like Rubio on immigration) then Wembly's case they feel ignored is probably not very far off the mark. And seeing candidates like Rubio and Bush being pushed down their throats just exacerbated that feeling.

I think anyone who watched Rubio getting put forward as an example of anything had a right to get angry. And you're forgetting Cruz is still there, he's the Tea Partiest of Tea Parties. Any Tea Party supporter who sees him in the running for president and then votes Trump is incoherent even by Tea Party standards.

Trump and the Tea Party are both symptoms of the same Republican problem. But they are very different kinds of response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
How 'bout we wait for someone more... reputable... no?

Even if God almighty came down and confirmed Cruz was sleeping around, it should be irrelevant. Personal morals and decent political leadership are not the same thing.

And on a political level this is irrelevant. People who believe in Cruz simply won't believe this, and people who are keen to believe this already dislike the guy.

At first I was wondering if I missed some news when wondering why people were talking about Cruz's sex life so I went back a few pages and boy do I wish I hadn't.

I would say that it does matter if the affair(s) story is true.

We wxpect them to keep campaign promises.

If they are unable to keep a promise to be faithful to their spouse, the "sacred bond" of marriage and such....then it absolutely makes sense to question their ability to keep campaign promises (for starters).

Was reading somewhere today that apparently in a book that Trump had written, he was boasting about how he had slept with numerous married women.

Found it.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/ben-sasse-donald-trump-affairs-salesman-iowa/

On the topic of the Tabloid, Trump had posted on Facebook that he had nothing to do with it.

So both candidates are denying they had anything to do with the 3rd party attacks on each other. I find myself believing one, and not the other...

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I would say that it does matter if the affair(s) story is true.

We wxpect them to keep campaign promises.

If they are unable to keep a promise to be faithful to their spouse, the "sacred bond" of marriage and such....then it absolutely makes sense to question their ability to keep campaign promises (for starters).

Keep in mind that Trumps is best buds with the editor of National Enquirer.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
If they are unable to keep a promise to be faithful to their spouse, the "sacred bond" of marriage and such....then it absolutely makes sense to question their ability to keep campaign promises (for starters).

I know that's generally the logic applied to why these kinds of things are relevant, but in my observation there's pretty much no link between the two. There's no shortage of lying political gaks that are great family men, and no shortage of cheaters who genuinely fight for their political values.



Anyhow, I just came across a great NPR article;
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/03/23/470908502/on-who-gets-to-be-a-real-american-and-who-deserves-a-helping-hand

It does a great job of establishing exactly what is going wrong inside the GOP, through the freak out getting played out across the pages of The National Review. The National Review, through William H Buckley, is pretty much the origin point for movement conservatism, it's their ideological centrepoint. Like most political groups, they've been trying to reconcile their beliefs with the economic decline in many areas of America. Their answer is a little different to most.

"If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. ... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die."

Holy crap. The contempt shown in that is amazing. I mean, even if you recognise the argument that communities that lose their economic base shouldn't be left on welfare life support indefinitely, there's a way to argue that, and way to just sound like a bunch of social darwinist lunatics. The National Review chooses the latter.

Anyway, is it really any wonder that people are choosing something different to that? That people who might have been somewhat receptive of an anti-welfare stance as it applied to others, suddenly aren't receptive as it applies to their own benefits?

It's a stupid strategy when you just look at the damn numbers. The poor outnumber the rich and they get to vote just the same.

The most satisfying thing about this race has been watching billionaires waste piles of money on candidates like Jeb Bush while Trump knocks the crap out of them, and watching Bernie Sanders make Hilary sweat despite her massive war chest.

Movement Conservatism is eating itself - it's policies created more inequality, more poor people who have a vested interest not to vote for movement conservatives.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's a stupid strategy when you just look at the damn numbers. The poor outnumber the rich and they get to vote just the same.

The trick has been to convince people that they are not poor, instead they are rich people that just haven't had their break yet.

 d-usa wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
It's a stupid strategy when you just look at the damn numbers. The poor outnumber the rich and they get to vote just the same.

The trick has been to convince people that they are not poor, instead they are rich people that just haven't had their break yet.

And more, that the other poor family one street down is poor because they haven't been trying hard enough, and they're not poor anyway because they had 15 children to buy a Cadillac on social security.

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
When the Tea Party got candidates elected, like Rubio for example, and then those candidates did not deliver on their promises, or worse went the opposite direction (like Rubio on immigration) then Wembly's case they feel ignored is probably not very far off the mark. And seeing candidates like Rubio and Bush being pushed down their throats just exacerbated that feeling.

I think anyone who watched Rubio getting put forward as an example of anything had a right to get angry. And you're forgetting Cruz is still there, he's the Tea Partiest of Tea Parties. Any Tea Party supporter who sees him in the running for president and then votes Trump is incoherent even by Tea Party standards.

I'm not forgetting anything. You're taking my comment out of context, my post had nothing to do with Trump, supporting him or against him. It was answering a comment stating the Tea Party was basically in control of the Republican Party. And it is not. The fact that even now Party Big Wigs are not behind Cruz solidifies my point.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
So if 50% of American murders are committed by Black males, and its not related to drug and gang turf, then what is it? I have trouble believing that levels of melanin really affect violence rates that much, or that the police are unfairly targeting Black males for murder convictions.

According to one report that I have read, economic despair is the number #1 "cause" of crime. As Polonius points out, most murdering is done by people who fairly intimately know each other is the most common "form" of murder, and most murders are actually "crimes of passion" and not pre-meditated.

You are correct in that melanin levels aren't to blame, but you can quickly see how looking at things economically, people with more melanin, statistically speaking are in a bad way economically. We also know from statistics that if a black person goes to court for the "same" crime as a white person, the black person is far more likely to receive the maximum sentence.

But yet, as a raw number, there are more economically depressed Whites that aren't putting up these same numbers. And knowing the murder victim doesn't change the fact it could be gang or drug related.

Roughly 7% of the population commits roughly 49% of all homicides in the US, round that off to a clean 6000. That means the other 6500 or so come from the other 93% of the nation. If these ratios were brought in line with each other, America's homicide rate would be in line with the rest of the Western world then, or at least a lot closer to it.

I was asking why the homicide rates for Black males are so much higher? A couple of people have said "economics" and thats part of it, but hardly the whole answer. Nor is my answer of strictly drugs and gangs. Gun ownership rates aren't terribly far off between the races. So what is it if not a combination of the first three?

DutchWinsAll wrote:
But yet, as a raw number, there are more economically depressed Whites that aren't putting up these same numbers. And knowing the murder victim doesn't change the fact it could be gang or drug related.

Roughly 7% of the population commits roughly 49% of all homicides in the US, round that off to a clean 6000. That means the other 6500 or so come from the other 93% of the nation. If these ratios were brought in line with each other, America's homicide rate would be in line with the rest of the Western world then, or at least a lot closer to it.

I was asking why the homicide rates for Black males are so much higher? A couple of people have said "economics" and thats part of it, but hardly the whole answer. Nor is my answer of strictly drugs and gangs. Gun ownership rates aren't terribly far off between the races. So what is it if not a combination of the first three?

So instead of asking questions that have already been answered, just tell everyone what you think the reason is.

I wonder if what he is trying to ask, in a PC way, is this: Nature vs Nurture


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BACK TO POLITICS....

Sanders projected to squash Clinton in Washington, and win Alaska and Hawaii.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-washington-caucus-win/

Alaska was Sanders 80.7% to Clinton 19.3%

Washington Sanders 72.3% to Clinton 27.6%

Only Twitter feeds from Hawaii yet. But those feeds are showing Sanders again with a 3rd high level victory.

He needed around 58%-60% he has crushed that estimate so far. Hawaii looks to be another such win.

Impressive, I'd love to see the demographics at play.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

I was asking why the homicide rates for Black males are so much higher? A couple of people have said "economics" and thats part of it, but hardly the whole answer. Nor is my answer of strictly drugs and gangs. Gun ownership rates aren't terribly far off between the races. So what is it if not a combination of the first three?

It's a combination of where they live, education, and economics.

-There has been shown a correlation between education level and crime. This of course refers to gang and drug activity, but also covers the realm of "petty" crime and other random acts. People who commit violent crimes, when we get rid of spousal abuse... so things like robbery, murder, etc. tend to be people who are less educated. The more educated the person is, the more the tendency is to commit "white collar" crimes.
-Black Americans do have a greater tendency for living in urban centers than white people of the same economic standing (extremely poor white people tend to be more rural). This urban living creates its own set of issues regarding work, food scarcity and criminal prospects.

So while I personally would center my argument on living space, education and economics... I suppose you could also extend this argument a little bit to popular culture. By this I mean that there is a very large portion of the "Hip Hop World" (I use this term specifically to encompass music, rappers themselves, video channels like World Star, etc.) glorifies a particular type of person and a particular lifestyle. For many black youth, this is basically the only musical influence they have from birth till well after they reach 18. However, I cannot, and will not blame exclusively the musical apparatus, because that would be as stupid as blaming GTA games or "Metal" for why school shooters do their acts: there isn't a single bogeyman present to blame, it's a host of ingredients mixing in the right way.

You also have to consider the "hardening" aspect of prisons, and many black people who end up going to prison for non-violent drug offences, end up joining gangs, or becoming violent in prisons.

Random political thoughts for the day:

Before you start putting your hopes in a Presidential candidate, take fifteen minutes and re-familiarize yourself with the actual powers of a President.

Keep in mind that the majority of people in the US that are screaming about 'Trump', or 'Clinton', or 'Bernie' in one way or another... probably couldn't tell you who their Congressman is, much less pass a basic government quiz.

My chief complaint: As deplorable as I find Mr. Trump to be, I find his ideological adversaries to be equally deplorable.

I've sat and listened to people saying that if he is elected, they're going to 'riot' and 'burn everything down'. Yes, because nothing says 'Democrats are better' like getting upset and torching the lives and livelihoods of other people who've done nothing wrong.

Also, in regards to Mr. Trump... much of what he has said has been taken out of context. He has never said 'Mexicans are rapists, murderers, and drug-dealers'. He did, however, say that there was concern for those types of individuals fleeing their own country and coming into ours illegally because our border security and immigration system is broken. To deny this is a concern is foolish- I encourage you to talk to someone from some of the areas of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. that have to deal with their criminal elements. Here's a starting point- Los Zetas love snatching up pretty little girls, doing what they want with them, and using them as meat shields.

There's enough to dislike about Mr. Trump without twisting his words and fabricating statements, I assure you.

Mr. Sanders has made multiple statements that borderline foolish. I must be honest, at some point I'm waiting for him to come out and state that he was pulling our legs and just wanted to show us how gullible the low-information voters truly are. If you genuinely believe you can tax 'the one percent' and other high-income families an astronomical amount of money... and they'll just sit here and take it? You're delusional. These individuals will relocate themselves or their money to tax shelters, and we will be sitting on programs that have to be funded -somehow-.... so guess who's footing that bill? Also I would respect the man a little more if he could comb his hair.

Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is the only candidate that genuinely gives me chills. Ask any member of the armed forces that's had the uh... 'pleasure' of having any dealings with her. Speak to someone who's worked for the State Department during her tenure. I'm not one to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon, but I can genuinely tell you that something is horribly amiss with Benghazi and so much protocol went into the toilet, it's bizarre. Some things were said after the fact, that would make the average civilian think "that makes sense", but a LOT of military personnel were saying, "Wait, hold on- no way!" I'm honestly scared of that woman.

All in all, I think every candidate we have is garbage. Each and every one of them. Fortunately, I'm not losing sleep because a President can only do so much... and half of what people seem to believe our candidates are going to do... well, that's not their decision any more than it is my decision to fire someone at a 7/11 in Cambodia.

Something I found on Facebook today:

The Gettysburg Address - the Donald Trump version

It was a long time ago – I don’t think anyone can even remember, but I can remember, I have a great memory, I’ve got the best memory ever. These guys, they made the most special thing, really, really special. Where everyone was free and everything was great, just the way I’ve made America, I really, really mean that.

Now we’ve got these people – I don’t like these people, let me tell you, they’re really awful, they said, “Hey Trump, you’ve got small hands,” and so I went after them, I really did, I sued them, and what did they do? They decided they wanted a fight and I said, “Okay, we’ll see who’s still here in a few years,” and see, we’re still here, on this battlefield. It’s a yuge battlefield, and it’s really, really, great, it’s so special. See, we’ve built this cemetery, so how big it is? It’s so special. And these guys – we’ve got the best guys – they tell me, “Hey Donald, give us someone who can lead us and we’ll beat these rebels,” and so I made things happen – it’s what I do – and boom, look, we’ve got this big, big win. These guys died winning, and I’m sure that makes their families just so, so happy, all this winning. It’s really great that we can be here to make this place special because of all the winning they did.

But really, we can’t make this place any more special than they did by winning so hard, unless it’s to build a brand new Trump Towers – Gettysburg – that’s right ladies and gentlemen, that’s right, right here, right where you’re standing, we’re going to build this yuge tower, and oh my goodness, it will be so special, so big. You’ll just get sick from how big it is. You say to yourself, “Hey, I wonder if anyone will remember this place.” And now you don’t have to wonder anymore because you’ll be able to see it from miles and miles away, that’s how yuge it will be. We’ll make those rebels remember this place where they lost, where they became losers. I really hate losers. I hate them so much that we’re going to keep on winning, just to show them how much of losers they really are, that’s what we’re going to do. What these guys did – and they’re just the best, so special – well, we’re going to make sure that what they won for is going to be kept alive forever. Know what I’m going to do? I’m going to build a wall, a yuge wall, really, really yuge, all along the Mason-Dixon Line, and know what? I’m gonna make Jeff Davis pay for it, I really am. That guy’s such a loser, it’s why I hate him so much, and I think it’s what the guys that won here would really want. I’m just going to keep this great country really great, and yuge, just like me. We’re going to keep winning until we’re so tired of winning that you’ll have to thank me for making everything so great. My government is going to be around for a while, so get used to that winning.

Oh hey, look, we’ve got someone yelling about issues over there. What’s that? Slavery? Throw that guy outta here, get him out, this is about winning, and he’s a loser.

The issue with black crime:

Look, we must be honest. 15% of our population is responsible for over 65% of the violent crime. This is just a cold, hard, sad fact. That's the thing about facts- they don't care about how you feel. You can't change a fact by getting upset about it, it won't go away unless you actually do something to make the numbers change.

I have a radical theory that many of the problems within the black community are, in fact- the fault of a certain type of white person. Not all white people, just a very specific set.

When you sit and tell a group of people that all of their problems are specific to their race, and are the fault of someone else- you tend to cultivate communities that gravitate away from taking responsibility. Instead of saying, "Hey, your son went to jail because he robbed a store", they're often told "Your son was only robbing that store because those 'bad whites' made him poor".

These particular individuals, the 'good whites' always remove the agency of black and hispanic people. Instead of holding them to the same standards that they'd hold themselves or any other human being with the same situation- they've treated them like helpless, untrained, wild animals. This is beyond insulting.

And it always just so happens that the 'bad whites' are ideologically opposed to the 'good whites' for some reason. And not in a 'bad' or 'good' way. The 'white saviors' always claim to have the best interest of minorities in mind, yet have no problem using them- whipping them into an angry mob to put against their opponents. Like animals.

If that doesn't fit the definition of 'systematic racism', then I don't know what does.

When you live in a culture that has incentivized being a victim by giving them a blank check to be unrepentant jerks, outright bigots, and violent mobs... you have to expect that people will gravitate toward individuals that cater to their desire to be a victim and spin the narrative to justify it. Hence, 'Microaggressions'.

To say 'cops target minority neighborhoods' is a bit deceptive. If you ask police how they set up their patrols, believe it or not, they will tell you. If you have ten patrol cars for two areas- and area 'A' is getting fifty calls a weekend, and area 'B' is getting three... why would you put five cars in each? Police respond to where the crime is. If it's in a minority neighborhood? Well, keep in mind... many times minorities live in the inner city as well. That is often because housing projects are located there so the people can utilize various functions of the city without driving. Inner cities tend to be more dangerous, regardless of what color the people are.

Police can only do so much by 'targeting' individuals of a certain race by patrolling a neighborhood. They aren't catching violent murderers by sitting in a parking lot and looking for them. That's not how you catch a murderer- forensic evidence, eyewitnesses, video surveillance, etc... all these things are what catches violent criminals. They don't get 'busted' on the spot- it can take months, sometimes even years to catch and prosecute a violent criminal.

As to the root cause of this, I don't think it's as simple as 'that thing'. You can't say it's the influx of guns- there are tons of people with guns in the US that aren't committing crimes at that rate. To say it's the Gangster Rap culture is to remove the agency of individuals and not hold them accountable at the end of the day for the decisions they've made. To blame it on 'racism' completely ignores the fact that 'racism' isn't enough to put a guy in prison for murder these days, and assumes every single person involved in the case is also a racist- which borderlines on 9/11 conspiracy theory. It would appear that it's a variety of factors, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter- you are responsible for the choices you make. There are millions of people every day that have their share of crap thrown at them, live in poverty, are victimized by various types of bullies, get dealt a bad hand- and they aren't murdering, robbing, raping, or hurting people.

I will say that it is a bit like radical Islam- outsiders can try to 'fix' it all they want, but it's not going to change unless Islam itself starts to work within its own community.

Brother Armiger wrote:Random political thoughts for the day:

Before you start putting your hopes in a Presidential candidate, take fifteen minutes and re-familiarize yourself with the actual powers of a President.

Keep in mind that the majority of people in the US that are screaming about 'Trump', or 'Clinton', or 'Bernie' in one way or another... probably couldn't tell you who their Congressman is, much less pass a basic government quiz.

My chief complaint: As deplorable as I find Mr. Trump to be, I find his ideological adversaries to be equally deplorable.

I've sat and listened to people saying that if he is elected, they're going to 'riot' and 'burn everything down'. Yes, because nothing says 'Democrats are better' like getting upset and torching the lives and livelihoods of other people who've done nothing wrong.

Also, in regards to Mr. Trump... much of what he has said has been taken out of context. He has never said 'Mexicans are rapists, murderers, and drug-dealers'. He did, however, say that there was concern for those types of individuals fleeing their own country and coming into ours illegally because our border security and immigration system is broken. To deny this is a concern is foolish- I encourage you to talk to someone from some of the areas of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. that have to deal with their criminal elements. Here's a starting point- Los Zetas love snatching up pretty little girls, doing what they want with them, and using them as meat shields.

There's enough to dislike about Mr. Trump without twisting his words and fabricating statements, I assure you.

Mr. Sanders has made multiple statements that borderline foolish. I must be honest, at some point I'm waiting for him to come out and state that he was pulling our legs and just wanted to show us how gullible the low-information voters truly are. If you genuinely believe you can tax 'the one percent' and other high-income families an astronomical amount of money... and they'll just sit here and take it? You're delusional. These individuals will relocate themselves or their money to tax shelters, and we will be sitting on programs that have to be funded -somehow-.... so guess who's footing that bill? Also I would respect the man a little more if he could comb his hair.

Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is the only candidate that genuinely gives me chills. Ask any member of the armed forces that's had the uh... 'pleasure' of having any dealings with her. Speak to someone who's worked for the State Department during her tenure. I'm not one to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon, but I can genuinely tell you that something is horribly amiss with Benghazi and so much protocol went into the toilet, it's bizarre. Some things were said after the fact, that would make the average civilian think "that makes sense", but a LOT of military personnel were saying, "Wait, hold on- no way!" I'm honestly scared of that woman.

All in all, I think every candidate we have is garbage. Each and every one of them. Fortunately, I'm not losing sleep because a President can only do so much... and half of what people seem to believe our candidates are going to do... well, that's not their decision any more than it is my decision to fire someone at a 7/11 in Cambodia.

Exalted for the truth! I don't really like any of the candidates either, although I feel that Trump is the least bad (probably gonna get flamed for daring to say that in this thread). We really do need better control over who comes into this country, as we have enough deadbeats and criminals that are born US citizens without having deadbeats and criminals come here from other countries. I have nothing at all against foreigners in general (indeed, immigration is part of what has made this country great), but I do have a problem with all the ones who come here and either cause trouble or just sit on their asses and collect entitlement benefits without actually doing anything useful.

Brother Armiger wrote:The issue with black crime:

Look, we must be honest. 15% of our population is responsible for over 65% of the violent crime. This is just a cold, hard, sad fact. That's the thing about facts- they don't care about how you feel. You can't change a fact by getting upset about it, it won't go away unless you actually do something to make the numbers change.

I have a radical theory that many of the problems within the black community are, in fact- the fault of a certain type of white person. Not all white people, just a very specific set.

When you sit and tell a group of people that all of their problems are specific to their race, and are the fault of someone else- you tend to cultivate communities that gravitate away from taking responsibility. Instead of saying, "Hey, your son went to jail because he robbed a store", they're often told "Your son was only robbing that store because those 'bad whites' made him poor".

These particular individuals, the 'good whites' always remove the agency of black and hispanic people. Instead of holding them to the same standards that they'd hold themselves or any other human being with the same situation- they've treated them like helpless, untrained, wild animals. This is beyond insulting.

And it always just so happens that the 'bad whites' are ideologically opposed to the 'good whites' for some reason. And not in a 'bad' or 'good' way. The 'white saviors' always claim to have the best interest of minorities in mind, yet have no problem using them- whipping them into an angry mob to put against their opponents. Like animals.

If that doesn't fit the definition of 'systematic racism', then I don't know what does.

When you live in a culture that has incentivized being a victim by giving them a blank check to be unrepentant jerks, outright bigots, and violent mobs... you have to expect that people will gravitate toward individuals that cater to their desire to be a victim and spin the narrative to justify it. Hence, 'Microaggressions'.

To say 'cops target minority neighborhoods' is a bit deceptive. If you ask police how they set up their patrols, believe it or not, they will tell you. If you have ten patrol cars for two areas- and area 'A' is getting fifty calls a weekend, and area 'B' is getting three... why would you put five cars in each? Police respond to where the crime is. If it's in a minority neighborhood? Well, keep in mind... many times minorities live in the inner city as well. That is often because housing projects are located there so the people can utilize various functions of the city without driving. Inner cities tend to be more dangerous, regardless of what color the people are.

Police can only do so much by 'targeting' individuals of a certain race by patrolling a neighborhood. They aren't catching violent murderers by sitting in a parking lot and looking for them. That's not how you catch a murderer- forensic evidence, eyewitnesses, video surveillance, etc... all these things are what catches violent criminals. They don't get 'busted' on the spot- it can take months, sometimes even years to catch and prosecute a violent criminal.

As to the root cause of this, I don't think it's as simple as 'that thing'. You can't say it's the influx of guns- there are tons of people with guns in the US that aren't committing crimes at that rate. To say it's the Gangster Rap culture is to remove the agency of individuals and not hold them accountable at the end of the day for the decisions they've made. To blame it on 'racism' completely ignores the fact that 'racism' isn't enough to put a guy in prison for murder these days, and assumes every single person involved in the case is also a racist- which borderlines on 9/11 conspiracy theory. It would appear that it's a variety of factors, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter- you are responsible for the choices you make. There are millions of people every day that have their share of crap thrown at them, live in poverty, are victimized by various types of bullies, get dealt a bad hand- and they aren't murdering, robbing, raping, or hurting people.

I will say that it is a bit like radical Islam- outsiders can try to 'fix' it all they want, but it's not going to change unless Islam itself starts to work within its own community.

Also exalted for truth. I'm not even gonna start on discussing it, but I totally agree with your points. If people don't like the truth, that's their problem.

What are Sanders chances of winning the primary? I've heard a lot of conflicting stuff and I guess it changes weekly.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

Look, we must be honest. 15% of our population is responsible for over 65% of the violent crime. This is just a cold, hard, sad fact. That's the thing about facts- they don't care about how you feel.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics claimed that, in 2012-13, non-Hispanic white people accounted for 42.9% of violent crimes while non-Hispanic black people accounted for only 22.4%.

The thing about facts indeed.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

Mr. Sanders has made multiple statements that borderline foolish. I must be honest, at some point I'm waiting for him to come out and state that he was pulling our legs and just wanted to show us how gullible the low-information voters truly are. If you genuinely believe you can tax 'the one percent' and other high-income families an astronomical amount of money... and they'll just sit here and take it? You're delusional. These individuals will relocate themselves or their money to tax shelters, and we will be sitting on programs that have to be funded -somehow-.... so guess who's footing that bill? Also I would respect the man a little more if he could comb his hair.

Bolded for hilarity. You do realize that taxes have been way way way higher in the past and we did not see a mass exodus of people, correct?

Low-information indeed

 Scrabb wrote:
What are Sanders chances of winning the primary? I've heard a lot of conflicting stuff and I guess it changes weekly.

Bernie's chances are pretty low but still in the realm of possibility.

 dogma wrote:

 Brother Armiger wrote:

Look, we must be honest. 15% of our population is responsible for over 65% of the violent crime. This is just a cold, hard, sad fact. That's the thing about facts- they don't care about how you feel.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics claimed that, in 2012-13, non-Hispanic white people accounted for 42.9% of violent crimes while non-Hispanic black people accounted for only 22.4%.

The thing about facts indeed.

I think you could have picked a better source than American Renaissance.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I think you could have picked a better source than American Renaissance.

Sure, but I figured that the conservative perspective provided by the American Renaissance article would eliminate any allegation of "liberal media bias". Pointing out what's wrong with the arguments presented therein is step two in the process.

 dogma wrote:

 Brother Armiger wrote:

Look, we must be honest. 15% of our population is responsible for over 65% of the violent crime. This is just a cold, hard, sad fact. That's the thing about facts- they don't care about how you feel.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics claimed that, in 2012-13, non-Hispanic white people accounted for 42.9% of violent crimes while non-Hispanic black people accounted for only 22.4%.

The thing about facts indeed.

My numbers were wrong, thanks for the correction.

I may have derived my number from murders, rather than violent crime with some bad math/rounding... I found this chart on my computer.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Brother Armiger wrote:

Mr. Sanders has made multiple statements that borderline foolish. I must be honest, at some point I'm waiting for him to come out and state that he was pulling our legs and just wanted to show us how gullible the low-information voters truly are. If you genuinely believe you can tax 'the one percent' and other high-income families an astronomical amount of money... and they'll just sit here and take it? You're delusional. These individuals will relocate themselves or their money to tax shelters, and we will be sitting on programs that have to be funded -somehow-.... so guess who's footing that bill? Also I would respect the man a little more if he could comb his hair.

Bolded for hilarity. You do realize that taxes have been way way way higher in the past and we did not see a mass exodus of people, correct?

Low-information indeed

Citation?

Because they aren't going to sit and take it. And you know it.

EDIT: Really? Our taxes in World War 2? LOL. Okay. Sure.

I'll support his tax plan when we're in a massive global war.