Where was Sanders during all this? Using his position in Congress to stop this behavior? He's all talk, like a certain failed politician in the UK, who did little other than purge his party of moderates and lose one winnable election after another.
Printable View
Where was Sanders during all this? Using his position in Congress to stop this behavior? He's all talk, like a certain failed politician in the UK, who did little other than purge his party of moderates and lose one winnable election after another.
Exceptional events in 1993 and 1997? Exceptional events in 2005? A majority of left-wingers in NYC consistently supported these policies and refused to vote for Democrats seen as weak on crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
There's a sort of yo-yo effect here, being tough on crime works but then because its worked people stop being afraid of the crime and are outraged at the actions taken, so they get dropped, so crime returns, then the call for action returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In the noughties here the Labour government increased stop and frisk etc copying New York, it work and crime fell dramatically, then the Tory/Lib Dem coalition largely stopped it on civil liberties concerns saying too many young black men were being targeted by stop and frisk policies. In recent years knife crime has shot up to the point were now lots of young and predominantly black men are getting murdered by knife crime. Its become an epidemic in London. So the government has brought back stop and frisk as a policy and knife crime has started to go back down.
According to that link provided by Steely 90% of murder suspects were black and 80% of stops were black. If the purpose of stop and frisk is to prevent murders then it seems like Bloomberg has a point about maths to me.
Sanders is not as good on race as he should be (one reason I'd prefer Warren, but that's not happening) and I don't like his "everything is about economic inequality actually" analysis of racism and sexism (Indeed, Bloomberg is living proof that these things are not caused by income inequality), but I'd still vote for the guy who failed to do enough to stop [bad thing] over the guy who actually perpetrated [bad thing].Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Stop and frisk does nothing but waste police time harassing mostly black or asian men out minding their own business, almost all of whom will be innocent because most people aren't criminals and picking people and random to search means... most of the people you search will be innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The idea of finding the tiny proportion of the population who do murders, on their way to do a murder, with random searches of the general population is also extremely fucking stupid.
It functions because it makes criminals fearful of carrying weapons since they can be randomly stopped. This isn't a recommendation for it - people have rights and shouldn't be subject to search and seizure without probable cause. A better police tactic is very aggressive borderline entrapment scenarios, since that specifically targets criminals and not just anyone from the community where a lot of criminals exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Of course that only works if its illegal to carry weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You're assuming they're being picked at random. Also you're assuming you're trying to find people who do murders while on their way to do a murder. Do you think criminals only carry illegal weapons having premeditated that they're going to kill someone today?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Do you think on the streets of London tomorrow night the only people carrying a knife will be people intending to kill that same day?
Or do you think that people are getting in the dangerous habit of carrying a deadly weapon which then gets used if they happen to get into a fight?
If the Police ensure that deadly weapons aren't being carried then when a fight does start it could still be dangerous but is far less likely to result in a murder.
They were picked on the basis that the police decided they looked or were acting "suspicious", so good as, especially if the allegations that there were quotas were true. The reason stop and frisk was controversial was that the overwhelming majority of stops weren't based on probable cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-chec...k-reduce-crimeQuote:
Originally Posted by John MacDonald, A Criminologist
When stop and frisks were dramatically curtailed in 2013 (after a Federal judge pronounced them unconstitutional), the crime rate in New York stayed exactly where it was, a fact the man himself recently acknowledged.
The conclusion I draw from this is that not only is Michael Bloomberg a racist, he's also basic as fuck.
For people with certain types of criminal records it is. Also a lot of crime is done using stolen weapons, etc. Like I said earlier I'm not in favor of the system because individual rights > safety however the idea that it plain doesn't impact crime is foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
1993 - increase in turnout in white neighbourhoods, underwhelming turnout in black neighbourhoods. 1997 - lowest turnout in a decade, black voters as likely to vote for Messinger as white voters were to vote for Giuliani. 2005 - 32% turnout. If you presume that stop-and-frisk as opposed to just your garden-variety broken windows policing was a salient issue in 1993 and 1997, what emerges is a pattern of a minority of New Yorkers successfully pushing through policies that disproportionately screwed other people. Sure, that may constitute a "majority of left-wingers in NYC" - I'll grant that for the sake of argument - but it sure as hell doesn't seem to have constituted a majority of those disproportionately harmed by those policies - members of groups that now make up a greater share of voting-age New Yorkers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No. No, no, no, no, no - that is super dumb. The vast overwhelming majority of black people are not murderers. Even if 80% of murder suspects are black men, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to stop and hassle hundreds of thousands of innocent black men. It's as dumb as stopping hundreds of thousands of men in general to take semen samples because the majority of child-rapists are men. It's as dumb as making hundreds of thousands of people with strong Irish accents empty their pockets to prove they haven't stolen anything from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Completely without meaning to, you ended up saying something smart that makes the opposite point of the one you're trying to make. You're absolutely right that the people who were stopped, questioned and frisked - often over and over again - were not "picked at random"; that non-random selection not only made the policy extraordinarily unjust but also made for a decade-long display of clownish incompetence. The hit-rate for contraband, among black people who were stopped, was lower than it was among white people who were stopped, and the hit-rate was abysmally poor regardless. This reflects a trend seen all over the US - all else being equal, cops suck at identifying the right black people to hassle.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
However, even though the hit-rate among black targets was poorer than it was among white targets, because black people were stopped and searched at such a disproportionately high rate compared to white people, far greater numbers of black people were arrested - and had their lives ruined - for low-level drug offenses of the kind that are equally common among white people, but that white people can get away with. That is unjust. These policies, as they were implemented in NYC, were unjust, stupid, racist - both in intent and in effect - and devastating; the only good thing you can say about them is that they were supported by people who were okay with subjecting other, politically weak groups to stupid, dangerous, institutional racism.
See, this is what makes Bloomberg's "take a math class scrubs lol pwnd" comment so galling, when his approach to probability and statistics is so simplistic.
He's the one who should take a math class, or logic class. Or better yet, a stats class.
If its wrong for the black men, its wrong for the white men too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If anyone made Irish people with strong accents empty their pockets that would be disgusting.
This is a tangential problem. The argument for having the stops is due to murders but then lower level crimes, which in my book shouldn't even be a crime, are what people get arrested for. That's wrong and I 100% oppose that.Quote:
Completely without meaning to, you ended up saying something smart that makes the opposite point of the one you're trying to make. You're absolutely right that the people who were stopped, questioned and frisked - often over and over again - were not "picked at random"; that non-random selection not only made the policy extraordinarily unjust but also made for a decade-long display of clownish incompetence. The hit-rate for contraband, among black people who were stopped, was lower than it was among white people who were stopped, and the hit-rate was abysmally poor regardless. This reflects a trend seen all over the US - all else being equal, cops suck at identifying the right black people to hassle.
However, even though the hit-rate among black targets was poorer than it was among white targets, because black people were stopped and searched at such a disproportionately high rate compared to white people, far greater numbers of black people were arrested - and had their lives ruined - for low-level drug offenses of the kind that are equally common among white people, but that white people can get away with. That is unjust. These policies, as they were implemented in NYC, were unjust, stupid, racist - both in intent and in effect - and devastating; the only good thing you can say about them is that they were supported by people who were okay with subjecting other, politically weak groups to stupid, dangerous, institutional racism.
If stop and search exists they should only be searching for illegal weapons. Not drugs. If they're searching for drugs then you need to compare to drug user ratios and its way off.
The difference is that self-funding billionaires can use their own money to bypass and/or exploit the nominating process. They can spend hundreds of millions on radio, TV, and social media ads to influence "public opinion polls", and solicit "unique donors", to get on the debate stage....which elicits more name recognition, and more donations, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Bloomberg didn't even bother competing in the early states, but the DNC probably didn't consider that when they created their metrics. :bulb:
I don't think all political money is equal. The Koch Brothers is not like labor unions, as you said up there, just because they both have influence over politics. And disagreeing with the *direction* money takes policy just isn't good enough. Other than that, Steely said it better than I can. :bored:Quote:
As opposed to BUYING them with a non-wealthy benefactor like with the others?
But I like being "unaffiliated". I shouldn't have to choose one party over the other to have my vote count. It would be better if all states had open primaries. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Besides, I don't like how candidates switch their party affiliation for political "expedient" reasons, and I refuse to play that game, too. :down:
I'm going to change my opinion of Sanders having no hope in the General Election.
Even after a shocking 5 years or so since Trump jumped on the scene, the reaction to the COVID outbreak is so mangled, so disastrous and so incompetent that I think this could do to him what the Iranian hostage crisis did to Carter.
Sanders should have no hope, but Trump is giving it to him.
I have to admit, Trump's pro-covid stance is not something I saw coming but I don't think it changes anything. Can't wait for the "Why Curing the Corona-virus Is Just As Bad as the Corona-virus" by Hermen T Serious Centrist op-eds in the New York Times, though.
I think it has the potential to change everything. Especially with mass rallies, imagine if someone with COVID goes to a pro-Trump rally and spreads it around the others at the rally.
Its one thing to use the word hoax to dismiss your opponents calls on propriety in Ukraine or other issues that don't affect you. If your loved ones come down with an illness the POTUS dismissed as a hoax and didn't act to curtail then that's another matter. If Trump supporters come down with this hoax how likely are they to go campaigning for him afterwards?
They'll wear "I :heart: The Corona Virus" t-shirts and deliberately infect themselves to trigger the libs.
They're already voting for a party who's made it their life-long mission to make healthcare more costly and harder to access, so this is really just cutting out the middle man.
CDC reports now have to be approved by the administration. An administration that wanted to rake forests, waterbomb an 800 year old cathedral, nuke a hurricane, and pray away the gay. When shit hits the fan our reported numbers are going to look crazier than Iran's. Calling it a hoax sets it up so that when it does start to hit communities their cries can be written off as just that hoaxes, libtards trolling, etc; isolated away from the rest of the voters. One of Florida's House reps has already accused our state of hiding numbers to protect its tourism industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which areas and which groups do y'all think will be hit the hardest, and be the most inconvenienced? Non-white Dem-leaning city-dwellers.
Meh there's really nothing to see here. What are the specific steps that you think Trump is not doing that Sanders would have? Ultimately you want people to do a number of things in this sort of situation:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
1. Limit international travel
2. Reinforce basic hygiene/flu protocol (wash your fucking hands, sneeze/cough in your arm, if you sick stay home)
3. Prevent panic
That's about it. And Trump is the best at trying to stop international travel :)
It is genuinely embarrassing to see how eagerly you jump at every opportunity to make yourself look stupid just so that you can also make yourself look like a nativist jackass. The govt has a crucial role in ensuring that there be an effective, well-organized apparatus for monitoring the development of a pandemic such as this one, and responding appropriately, in a timely and decisive manner. For example, you need to have an idea of which areas are affected, how many are infected, how rapidly it's spreading, how ready local govts and facilities are and how they're faring, whether there are any critical shortages, what parts of society and the economy are being affected and how, whether anything has deviated from expectations, etc. The Trump admin has gutted or hobbled those entities that are best suited to develop and implement a strategy for dealing with the epidemic, and also undermined efforts to make the public care enough to even take basic precautions. Limiting international travel is a meaningless gesture at this point, because the virus is already spreading through communities in the US; due to Trump's negligence, you've already lost control of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
No that's not all you can do! That's not even coming close to a plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Very basic first steps.
1. Test everyone in your bloody country at risk of the virus - at the expense of the CDC/Federal Government - for the virus.
2. Quarantine - at the expense of the CDC/Federal Government - everyone who has the virus or who is at risk but can't be tested (yet).
3. Daily updates from the CDC on the spread of the virus and testing.
4. CDC speaking directly to the media, no politician involvement or filtering.
So obviously Biden did better than even the polls suggested; certainly gives him a bit of a boost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I've been looking at the MA polls to get a sense of what makes the most sense for a vote against Sanders. The state is likely going to go for Sanders first, then Warren. I am unconvinced that Warren has a solid shot given her polling in other states, so that leaves the remaining four to choose from. Klobuchar doesn't look likely to pick up many if any delegates, so that leaves the three B's.
This all comes down to two questions: national chances (in which case Biden seems to be favored overall, suggesting I should try to bump up his delegate count) and in-state delegate counts.
All three of the B's are hovering around the 15% threshold for statewide delegates, but Biden has a slight edge and is more likely to get a post-SC boost. In the district level delegates, that's a bit more complicated. My congressional district is a bad one for both Bloomberg and Biden, with Buttigieg (and, to a lesser extent, Klobuchar) picking up the remaining votes. Buttigieg has a much better chance of getting past the 15% threshold in my congressional district than Biden/Bloomberg, which would take delegates away from Warren and Sanders... but could risk dropping Biden below the threshold in the statewide race (which is worth more delegates than my district).
Barring any surprises, I suspect the most logical vote would be Biden or Buttigieg. I'm very curious to see what the post-SC polling looks like on Monday. If Biden shows him picking up more voting share, it makes sense to vote for him - Buttigieg's national chances are poor and Biden might then clear my district's 15% threshold. If Biden doesn't see a big bounce, I'll probably have to think carefully about which to choose. Bloomberg's polling trajectory and lackluster campaign are reasons to probably avoid voting for him, especially since he's not super likely to hit either the district or the statewide delegate threshold.
Not a great set of options but that's my current thinking.
All right let's get some predictions here. Will the virus kill more than the flu in 2020 in America. My guess is no, what do you guys say?
Steyer's out. One vote too late for that to help the other moderates much though.
Looks like Biden's still in this. I don't see Pete dropping, but hopefully Klobuchar will. Warren might too.
Should surely be in the covid thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Klobuchar needs to stick around until Wednesday. She should do well in Minnesota. If she's out, Sanders would get a lot of those delegates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Really? Klobuchar is polling very low, and I think she's pulling from the Biden/Buttigieg voter pool more than the Sanders/Warren one. Steyer was a spoiler for the moderate SC vote that just happened, and I want her out so she doesn't do the same thing on Tuesday.
https://i.imgur.com/jMJVkyh.png
Sanders - 58
Biden - 50
Buttigieg - 26
Warren - 8
Klobuchar - 7
Going back to the question of strategic voting on Super Tuesday, Biden's strong showing in SC combined with recency bias is going to mean that he's suddenly back in the game as a viable candidate. A lot of people do strategic voting, even if they don't realize they're doing it, and this many moderate candidates that still look viable is going to make it very difficult to pick the 'correct' one to vote for to beat Sanders. Buttigieg hasn't been able to keep up momentum past the early states, and while Biden is polling a bit better after his victory, he still doesn't look like a credible threat to Sanders. Bloomberg is a spanner in the works since all his focus has been on Super Tuesday and it's not totally clear how his votes are going to go. Klobuchar is definitely DOA though, so don't waste a vote on her. With everything so murky, strategic voters aren't likely to aggregate all on the same candidate, so I'd recommend not trying to vote strategically if you're voting on Tuesday, and just vote your conscience.
It's starting to look like the moderate wing of the party screwed themselves by fielding too many candidates for this primary. It's ridiculous one side can lose an election by being too popular, and I'm wondering how many more times we have to see the most divisive candidate get nominated because there were too many moderates, before people start to realize how dumb this system is and we can maybe consider doing something about it *coughRCVcough*.