2016 US Election thread: the begininning

[karaddin]

The combination of stop and frisk with condoms as evidence (if you happen to be non white and trans) was just such a gross policy I can't give the guy responsible for it any level of credit for supporting same sex marriage. It makes the divide quite clear in who it's being done for. 

[Altherion]

This thread actually provides interesting anecdotal evidence of who might be in Bloomberg's audience and who will not be there. I suspect he will not be any more popular with the Democratic social values people (i.e. the identity grievance politics crowd) than with their Republican counterparts. However, he might stand a chance with pragmatists who are willing to overlook a few highly symbolic, but mostly irrelevant issues in exchange for results.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think a Bloomberg run is literally the only feasible way of getting a Trump Presidency. Which is really all that needs to be said. Of course, throwing the election into the gerrymandered and thoroughly crazy House also means President D,J. Trump, since even those Republicans who aren't keen on him are utterly terrified at being primaried from the Right.

As for the argument that Bloomberg also attracts Republicans - which currently Republican states would he either win or throw to Sanders? I can't think of any. Sure, he might get the votes of remaining socially liberal Republicans, but such people tend to live in Democratic states to start with. Bloomberg is not about to make Missouri or North Carolina blue.

[Shryke]

11 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This thread actually provides interesting anecdotal evidence of who might be in Bloomberg's audience and who will not be there. I suspect he will not be any more popular with the Democratic social values people (i.e. the identity grievance politics crowd) than with their Republican counterparts. However, he might stand a chance with pragmatists who are willing to overlook a few highly symbolic, but mostly irrelevant issues in exchange for results.

Again, if you are white. And well off.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Guess it depends on whether you consider the massive racial profiling and reduction of nonwhite civil liberties worth the security cost:
 

 

Well, to be clear, I am not sure that "stop and frisk" actually works at reducing crime generally, or violent crime specifically. It's an aggressive form of "broken window" policing, and the jury is still more or less out on whether that works as a philosophy of policing. We just don't have the kind of evidence we would want to really evaluate whether or not something like stop and frisk works, and a lot of arguments, anecdote, and questionable parsing of data substituting for the kind of evidence we would actually want. But I do believe that the people pushing stop and frisk do believe that it actually works, and that this belief is not crazy. 

And when you talk about stop and frisk, there are generally two parallel strands of argument that occasionally intersect. The first is whether it's unfairly discriminatory. The second is whether it actually works. But I am going to answer this question by taking the efficacy question out of it. If stop and frisk actually doesn't work at reducing crime, and it can be definitively shown that it does not, then it shouldn't be used.

But on the other hand, if stop and frisk does work at reducing violent crime, then I am okay with it even if it means that the targets are disproportionately minorities, who also happen to be the disproportionate perpetrators and victims of violent crime. If stop and frisk actually works the way it's supposed to work, then police are supposed to be deployed primarily in high crime neighborhoods that are also, surprise surprise, minority neighborhoods. You send the police into the worst neighborhoods because those neighborhoods benefit the most, even if those neighborhoods are minority neighborhoods. 

[Kalbear]

I doubt very seriously that major arrests due to pot possession are particularly welcomed by the communities that they're occurring.

You know very well the category error your argument falls into.

[Inigima]

20 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Well, to be clear, I am not sure that "stop and frisk" actually works at reducing crime generally, or violent crime specifically. It's an aggressive form of "broken window" policing, and the jury is still more or less out on whether that works as a philosophy of policing. We just don't have the kind of evidence we would want to really evaluate whether or not something like stop and frisk works, and a lot of arguments, anecdote, and questionable parsing of data substituting for the kind of evidence we would actually want. But I do believe that the people pushing stop and frisk do believe that it actually works, and that this belief is not crazy. 

And when you talk about stop and frisk, there are generally two parallel strands of argument that occasionally intersect. The first is whether it's unfairly discriminatory. The second is whether it actually works. But I am going to answer this question by taking the efficacy question out of it. If stop and frisk actually doesn't work at reducing crime, and it can be definitively shown that it does not, then it shouldn't be used.

But on the other hand, if stop and frisk does work at reducing violent crime, then I am okay with it even if it means that the targets are disproportionately minorities, who also happen to be the disproportionate perpetrators and victims of violent crime. If stop and frisk actually works the way it's supposed to work, then police are supposed to be deployed primarily in high crime neighborhoods that are also, surprise surprise, minority neighborhoods. You send the police into the worst neighborhoods because those neighborhoods benefit the most, even if those neighborhoods are minority neighborhoods. 

I recall reading that it's not actually true that minorities disproportionately commit crimes; they are merely arrested for them disproportionately often, feeding the public perception that they commit more crimes.

Trying to find the supporting documentation now. I recognize that this is only an assertion until I find it.

[Kalbear]

Okay, let's assume you're simply ignorant of the various stats involving crime. Like the stats about how drug use is basically exactly the same but minorities are overwhelmingly arrested and convicted for it more. Or how targeting minorities for arrests does not lead to more successful arrests, but does let a lot of non minorities free (as we saw in ferguson). Or the various and oft reported issues of having quotas to arrest and convict, resulting in a number of trumped up charges.

Now the reason I think you're arguing in bad faith is that you recently said how Clinton's policies in the 90s directly led to these conditions. So how could you not be aware of them?

[Kalbear]

Now that I'm at a computer I can use quote correctly.

Here's what I'm talking about, Nestor:

Quote

But on the other hand, if stop and frisk does work at reducing violent crime, then I am okay with it even if it means that the targets are disproportionately minorities, who also happen to be the disproportionate perpetrators and victims of violent crime. If stop and frisk actually works the way it's supposed to work, then police are supposed to be deployed primarily in high crime neighborhoods that are also, surprise surprise, minority neighborhoods. You send the police into the worst neighborhoods because those neighborhoods benefit the most, even if those neighborhoods are minority neighborhoods. 

I have an issue with the bolded statement to start. They are at best disproportionately targeted as perpetrators. Minorities are also not any more likely to be victims of violent crime, on a per capita basis. 

I also have issue with the italicized part. The reason that high crime neighborhoods are minority neighborhoods is not because of more crime in said neighborhoods - it's almost entirely because of disproportionate targeting. Again, we have Ferguson as an example of this, where statistically a white and a black person are equally likely to be carrying contraband - but black people are three times more likely to be arrested and convicted for it. 

And again, you're apparently aware of this because you're hitting Clinton for Clinton's big tough drug laws, which caused much of this in the first place. 

I finally have issue with the underlined part. Interaction with minorities and police is not a particularly net positive thing for most minority groups, especially in New York. This behavior is not particularly 'positive'. These discipline issues aren't positive, either. New York saves $100 million a year to spend solely on lawsuits against the police. While violent crime was reduced the amount of innocent bystanders shot by police increased by a factor of 10. And then there's the Schoolcraft thing, where a police officer recorded hundreds of illegal actions by police and when attempting to blow the whistle was committed to a mental hospital against his will. It also had information that the violent crimes weren't being reduced, just being underreported and the books were being cooked. But again, you've been really active in the police using undue force and police brutality threads, so you know this too. Why play coy?

And the best part? There's a whole lot of evidence to indicate that stop and frisk doesn't reduce shit, especially crediting it to Bloomberg. Bloomberg didn't start it - Giuliani did. Do you know what does correlate with Bloomberg? Gun control. Also, installing like 600 cameras around New York and increasing the police force by a factor of 2. 

[lokisnow]

This thread actually provides interesting anecdotal evidence of who might be in Bloomberg's audience and who will not be there. I suspect he will not be any more popular with the Democratic social values people (i.e. the identity grievance politics crowd) than with their Republican counterparts. However, he might stand a chance with pragmatists who are willing to overlook a few highly symbolic, but mostly irrelevant issues in exchange for results.

Civil liberties are irrelevant?

[Fez]

7 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Civil liberties are irrelevant?

In terms of civil liberties, Bloomberg is no worse than Obama (there's some variation in which ones get violated, but overall I'd say they are comparable) and I don't see Sanders as being better than Obama. It takes an incredibly focused President, along with a bit of luck, to reverse policy being supported by bureaucratic inertia, and civil liberties has never been Sanders' focus. He'll push his economic justice agenda, may or may not have success (I tend to think not), and watch from the sideline as the DOJ, DEA, ICE, NSA, FBI, etc. continue operating as they have been; apart from maybe a couple mostly symbolic, but highly visible, reforms (like ending raids on marijuana stores in states where its been legalized). Bloomberg would be the same, albeit more actively supportive of those operations.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Want more proof that Ted Cruz is a dispicable person?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-flint-water-abortion_us_56a649b4e4b0404eb8f23abb

 

 

[Martell Spy]

The Republican Party May Be Failing
What “The Party Decides” could get wrong about Donald Trump and the GOP.

By NATE SILVER

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-may-be-failing/

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The Republican Party May Be Failing
What “The Party Decides” could get wrong about Donald Trump and the GOP.

By NATE SILVER

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-may-be-failing/

Funnily enough, I just read an article on Slate about how badly Silver misread the Trump phenomenon which partially placed the blame on his reliance on "The Party Decides."

[Mexal]

Ryan Lizza from the New Yorker wrote an article for Feb's issue about being on the road with Trump and Cruz.

Quote

Trump’s fans tend to express little regard for political norms. They cheer at his most outlandish statements. O’Reilly asked Trump if he meant it when he said that he would “take out” the family members of terrorists. He didn’t believe that Trump would “put out hits on women and children” if he were elected. Trump replied, “I would do pretty severe stuff.” The Mesa crowd erupted in applause. “Yeah, baby!” a man near me yelled. I had never previously been to a political event at which people cheered for the murder of women and children.

The racism of some Trump supporters has been well documented. At one rally in Las Vegas in mid-December, attendees punched a black protester while others yelled, “Shoot him,” “Kick his ass,” “Light the motherfucker on fire,” and “Sieg heil.” But most of the Trump supporters I encountered were people struggling to get by in an economy they no longer understand.

 

Quote

On January 2nd, Trump staged a rally at the Mississippi Coast Coliseum, in Biloxi, a gambling and resort town on the Gulf. The venue was adjacent to Beauvoir, the estate where Jefferson Davis lived after the Civil War. At Trump events, the press is confined to a section that is surrounded by metal barriers, preventing journalists from mingling with the crowd. To avoid that, I waited in line for almost three hours with Trump supporters. Popular buttons and stickers included ones that say, “If she can’t please her husband, she can’t please the country,” “Bomb the hell out of ISIS,” “Up Yours Hillary,” and “Trump That Bitch.” A middle-aged man in front of me joked to his friend, “If they turn the entire Middle East into a parking lot, are we still going to have to take our shoes off at the airport?”

 

[mormont]

[mod] A reminder:

On 25/01/2016 at 0:57 PM, mormont said:

The normal board expectations of civility and respect to other users apply. Be civil to each other, or if you feel you can't manage that, go vent somewhere else.

The offending posts have been removed but let's not make a habit of it.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Funnily enough, I just read an article on Slate about how badly Silver misread the Trump phenomenon which partially placed the blame on his reliance on "The Party Decides."

I read that, too, although I feel as though I'd like to wait until Trump is actually the nominee before we say Silver got it wrong. (Actually, I am still about 80% sure Trump won't be the nominee, which is down from my 99% two months ago.)

[IheartIheartTesla]

19 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

But on the other hand, if stop and frisk does work at reducing violent crime, then I am okay with it even if it means that the targets are disproportionately minorities, who also happen to be the disproportionate perpetrators and victims of violent crime. If stop and frisk actually works the way it's supposed to work, then police are supposed to be deployed primarily in high crime neighborhoods that are also, surprise surprise, minority neighborhoods.

Ok, but are the two 'disproportions' equal? My understanding of it was that you had an almost 100% chance of being stopped (it was some ridiculously high number) if you were black, which is way beyond what the percentage of criminal offenders are part of any ethnic group. So it still isnt worth the trade off.

Anyway, I am skeptical of this broken windows mumbo-jumbo (excuse me, theory) so naturally disinclined to be favorable to any policy based on it.

[Paladin of Ice]

But on the other hand, if stop and frisk does work at reducing violent crime, then I am okay with it even if it means that the targets are disproportionately minorities, who also happen to be the disproportionate perpetrators and victims of violent crime. If stop and frisk actually works the way it's supposed to work, then police are supposed to be deployed primarily in high crime neighborhoods that are also, surprise surprise, minority neighborhoods.

Ok, but are the two 'disproportions equal? My understanding of it was that you had an almost 100% chance of being stopped (it was some ridiculously high number) if you were black, which is way beyond what the percentage of criminal offenders are part of any ethnic group. So it still isnt worth the trade off.

Anyway, I am skeptical of this broken windows mumbo-jumbo (excuse me, theory) so naturally disinclined to be favorable to any policy based on it.

At least 1 or 2 years, more black males were stopped and frisked than the total number that lived in the city.

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, Fez said:

In terms of civil liberties, Bloomberg is no worse than Obama (there's some variation in which ones get violated, but overall I'd say they are comparable) and I don't see Sanders as being better than Obama. It takes an incredibly focused President, along with a bit of luck, to reverse policy being supported by bureaucratic inertia, and civil liberties has never been Sanders' focus. He'll push his economic justice agenda, may or may not have success (I tend to think not), and watch from the sideline as the DOJ, DEA, ICE, NSA, FBI, etc. continue operating as they have been; apart from maybe a couple mostly symbolic, but highly visible, reforms (like ending raids on marijuana stores in states where its been legalized). Bloomberg would be the same, albeit more actively supportive of those operations.

Uh, what? Again, Stop and Frisk is a thing he still supports.

At best Obama is incapable of effecting large scale change in US policing. Bloomberg is a guy actively for racially discriminatory policing.