2016 US Election thread: the begininning

[Shryke]

17 hours 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. 

No, these neighbourhoods in fact do not benefit from racists policing. Ask the people there. They sure as hell don't appreciate being discriminated against for being not-white. This kind of framing is goddamn ridiculous.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

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.

And Obama supports (either directly, or tacitly) racially discriminatory immigration enforcement by allowing ICE to dramatically increase its deportation efforts against Central Americans, including children. Bloomberg has been a vocal advocate for immigration reform (Obama has too, but in the absence of congressional action and court stays against his executive orders, his administration has not merely maintained its enforcement actions; its dramatically increased them).

There's more to discrimination and civil liberties than just policing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Shryke said:

No, these neighbourhoods in fact do not benefit from racists policing. Ask the people there. They sure as hell don't appreciate being discriminated against for being not-white. This kind of framing is goddamn ridiculous.

Shryke,

Interesting that you reject the "just ask them" anicdotal evidence when talking about independents and their impact on elections but go to it in this circumstance.

[Shryke]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Shryke,

Interesting that you reject the "just ask them" anicdotal evidence when talking about independents and their impact on elections but go to it in this circumstance.

Uh, I would also go to the evidence in this case. Look up the numbers Scot. I had thought the racial discrimination numbers for stop and frisk were well known enough at this point that you would have done this since I just assume everybody has already accepted that fact. In this case the evidence supports the individual experiences of the affected.

And Nestor's silly argument hinges on the idea that it will be totally better for them which is supported neither anecdotally, nor factually.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shyrke,

I'm not disputing your claim just pointing out that you went anicdotal when you've been vociferous in denouncing anicdotal evidence in other contexts.

[lokisnow]

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.

Projection. This seems like something you want to believe about Bloomberg rather than supported by the data which illustrates his contempt of civil liberties.

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Shyrke,

I'm not disputing your claim just pointing out that you went anicdotal when you've been vociferous in denouncing anicdotal evidence in other contexts.

When it contradicts actual evidence. Which it doesn't in this case

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Projection. This seems like something you want to believe about Bloomberg rather than supported by the data which illustrates his contempt of civil liberties.

I'm not saying Bloomberg would be a champion of civil liberties, just that I don't think his hypothetical presidency would be any worse on the issue than Obama's or a hypothetical Clinton or Sanders presidency. Especially since the area that he is worse on, policing, is an issue where presidents have very little sway to effect change.

[lokisnow]

Projection. This seems like something you want to believe about Bloomberg rather than supported by the data which illustrates his contempt of civil liberties.

I'm not saying Bloomberg would be a champion of civil liberties, just that I don't think his hypothetical presidency would be any worse on the issue than Obama's or a hypothetical Clinton or Sanders presidency. Especially since the area that he is worse on, policing, is an issue where presidents have very little sway to effect change.

Fair enough.

[lokisnow]

Death to tapatalk!

(Aka, doublepost)

[Iskaral Pust]

Probably not a surprise to anyone but if Sanders and Trump/Cruz win their primaries then I would like Bloomberg as a centrist candidate. It's riskier for liberals/centrists because it might split the vote and let Trump/Cruz win but it would at least offer a centrist candidate outside the primary gauntlet and may even offer a clearer distinction between voting for an angry candidate who fuels your fear and despair or voting for a candidate that can and will actually govern the world's only superpower and largest economy.

I don't love Clinton, but so far she's the only candidate who could actually govern. If she loses to Sanders then we need another option. I'd really like Sanders as VP, I just think his policy focus is far too narrow for POTUS, plus he has no route to actually achieve what he wants or the legislation he wants (the two are not necessarily the same, unfortunately).

[Kalbear]

Showing the broad ability to govern and compromise for a party's goals, Bernie Sanders welcomed the new FDA chair with open arms.

Oh, sorry, that's wrong. He personally blocked Obama's appointment. 

[Altherion]

5 hours ago, Mexal said:

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

That is an interesting article. In some sense, the things it describes as making Trump attractive are a reflection of how far modern politicians have fallen. For example:

Quote

She conceded that Trump was not religious and hadn’t shown a commitment to any of the social issues she cared about. But she liked him because he showed “strength” and says “whatever he wants to say without having someone buffer it for him.” She explained that forthrightness, more than any particular issue, was at the foundation of her own religion.

That's a pretty low standard, but in fact if at least occasionally saying what you think and not "walking it back" the moment it is lambasted by the media and/or various special interest groups is important to an individual, than Trump is literally the only candidate who comes close (this summer, I would also have said Sanders, but sadly, not anymore).

[Gneisenau]

If Bloomberg enters, then he will probably split the vote enough to prevent anybody from getting a majority, resulting in the House of Representatives electing Trump (because Democrats can't win congressional elections to save their lives).

[ThinkerX]

The Donald is skipping Thursdays debate.  How many more of these are there, anyhow?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trumps-campaign-manager-says-trump-will-not-be-participating-in-gop-debate-thursday/ar-BBoKiiG?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

Trump previously had said he may not show up. But campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said during a Tuesday evening news conference in Marshalltown, Iowa, that the GOP front-runner "will not be participating in the Fox News debate Thursday."

Trump has criticized Fox News for "playing games" and for including anchor Megyn Kelly as a debate moderator. He says Kelly is a third-rate reporter who is bad at her job and shouldn't be allowed to participate.

Might be the start of the Donald's fall.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

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

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

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. 

I'm not even sure where (or why) to begin, as this is mostly an irrelevant non sequitur to what I actually said. I will respond to the one relevant contention that you appear to be making, which is apparently to dispute (are you disputing?) that blacks are disproportionately both the perpetrators and victims of violent crime.

According to the US Department of Justice, from 1980 to 2008, Blacks accounted for over half (52.5) of perpetrators of homicide, despite making up only 13% or so of the population. Homicide is a primarily intraracial crime, and 93% of black victims of homicide are killed by other blacks. Blacks are also dramatically over represented in robbery statistics, and blacks are significantly more likely to be robbery perpetrators AND robbery victims than either Whites or Hispanics. Carjackings are yet another example where Blacks are significantly over represented in proportion to their percentage of the population. According to a ten-year National Crime Victimization Survey, carjacking victims identified their victimizers as being black 56% of the time - again, despite making up only 13% of the population. And of course the interesting thing about the last one is that this was a survey of victims of carjackings - not of arrest or conviction statistics. Gang membership? Blacks are also over represented, making up 35% of all gang members - almost three times their representation in the general population - although this is the one area where Hispanics have them beat. 

The rest of your post is largely irrelevant to anything I've said, except for the remark about Hillary. What I've actually said about Hillary Clinton in other threads is that I disapprove of her support for Bill's decision to double-down on sentencing disparities for crack vs. powder cocaine. Which... remains completely true, and contradicts nothing I've said in this thread. At all. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

7 hours ago, Shryke said:

No, these neighbourhoods in fact do not benefit from racists policing. Ask the people there. They sure as hell don't appreciate being discriminated against for being not-white. This kind of framing is goddamn ridiculous.

I remain unconvinced that increasing police presence in crime-ridden neighborhoods is, in and of itself, "racist policing" - even if it happens to be the case that crime ridden neighborhoods are also heavily minority neighborhoods. 

I'm also not convinced that you can determine whether an increased police presence in a crime-ridden, minority neighborhood is a good thing or a bad thing just by asking the residents who live there, since that provides you with neither (i) a metric to determine if "good things" or "bad things" are happening nor (ii) a reliable method which which to measure the former. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

6 hours ago, Fez said:

I'm not saying Bloomberg would be a champion of civil liberties, just that I don't think his hypothetical presidency would be any worse on the issue than Obama's or a hypothetical Clinton or Sanders presidency. Especially since the area that he is worse on, policing, is an issue where presidents have very little sway to effect change.

For what it's worth, the Obama Justice Department had a clear opportunity to submit a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the lawsuit against NYC's "stop and frisk" policy, and they chose to... take absolutely no position on the issue whatsoever, even though they decided to chime in on a related issue. 

[Kalbear]

Got any references to police use in new york, nestor? Because all of my references were actually related to how badly new York abused various parts of their police effort, cooked books and fabricated crimes.

But I'm sure you'll call things like the Schoolcraft incident irrelevant to your point a second time.

Also way to move the goalposts - the policy of stop and frisk is not equivalent to more police presence.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

 

Got any references to police use in new york, nestor? Because all of my references were actually related to how badly new York abused various parts of their police effort, cooked books and fabricated crimes.

But I'm sure you'll call things like the Schoolcraft incident irrelevant to your point a second time.

Also way to move the goalposts - the policy of stop and frisk is not equivalent to more police presence.

I'm not even sure what position of mine you think you're arguing against. I have an entire post expressing skepticism of stop and frisk as an effective policing tool.