|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 08 2016 02:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 08 2016 00:26 biology]major wrote:On July 08 2016 00:15 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 08 2016 00:08 biology]major wrote:On July 07 2016 23:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Umm....no. That's just....not how proportions and math works. You need to rethink your math here. I think the proportion of african americans in the US is around 12 or 13 percent. If a quarter of police shootings are black folks, then they are far, far over-represented in police deaths than they should be (for technical statistical details they are actually shot at much greater than twice the rate because when you analyze differences in proportions you convert to odds ratios, but this is a bit above most stats level education), if shootings were "randomly distributed" among the population. This is not a x > y, this is a case of "the proportion of y is much higher than it should be if we were to just randomly sample the population". As op mentioned black people commit crimes at a higher rate than the rest of the population, so you have to factor that into it as well. There are a lot of crimes which wouldn't need to result in police shooting people to death. All these oh so smart naïve fallacys here are (almost) useless to begin with. Would the "Falcon Heights Shooting" already be defined as a "crime" here? Would a white have been shot in the same circumstance? That's the question you have to ask, not if we can somehow interprete data the way we want (that there is no problem indeed) To answer the question if white would have been shot in this circumstance, It all comes down to subconscious profiling. If the white guy was tattooed up and looked like a criminal then yeah the cop coulda felt he was in danger when he reached into his pocket, or it coulda been a black man in a suit and maybe the same situation wouldn't have happened. We subconsciously profile for good reason, it helps keep us alive and is efficient. I think these last two killings have been a combination of assholery and incompetence/poor training, but racism is still something I am not convinced of. Cops need body cams, and need to be trained better. The FBI should also investigate all of these cases and come to their own conclusions and honestly these cops should be tried in court for murder/incompetence (would any reasonable police officer have fired or handled that situation in a similar way?) Ok we got the easy solution then, black people should simply always wear their best suit because it decreases the chance of being shot to death by white police men. I think that is fair enough. This smartass comment does nothing to address his point.
Are we working off hiking rules to avoid being shot police? Please do not dress in a fashion that will attract or aggravate the police officers, they could attack at any time, without warning?
|
lol Comey redirects his anger at the question toward the State Dept basically sayin you should ask them what the hell was wrong with her (and the current) State dept.
|
There's clearly plenty of grounds for various administrative sanctions and penalties against various people.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
this senator makes a good argument about the culture of the state department allowing for some degree of neglilence towards the email handling
|
On July 08 2016 01:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
Race is an issue at all levels of the judicial system. First is that minorities tend to be involved in crime more - not commit alone, but their rather poorer socioeconomic status and the related issues put them in a bad position so they are both adjacent to crime and commit crime at a higher rate
Not all minorities.
|
On July 08 2016 02:36 zlefin wrote:
There's clearly plenty of grounds for various administrative sanctions and penalties against various people.
But all the members of congress care about is why Clinton wasn’t charged. Correcting the ongoing problem with securing government communications and making them useable on mobile systems, not the topic of the day. Or ever, really. Nothing will change on that front.
|
Best part lately was the State Department defending their culture after Comey said,
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government
This was going on for YEARS. Staffers were just okay with it, deferred to superiors or whatever. Comey points out how fucked up that is for a standard ... like one of big agencies you'd expect to be pros at this ... and here's the spokesman up there saying Comey's wrong. I mean they ought to be up there trying to restore some faith in government after all the shit that's gone down. "Sorry, aides played fast and loose just as Clinton did, we're doing a retraining it won't happen again." It's like they don't even realize how elitist that response has been.
|
I'm finding it hard to believe if a staffer did the same thing Hillary did and top secret information was put at risk, that they wouldn't be criminally charged.
Also not comforting that she OR TRUMP could do the same thing if they became president, without consequence.
|
On July 08 2016 02:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 08 2016 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 08 2016 00:26 biology]major wrote:On July 08 2016 00:15 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 08 2016 00:08 biology]major wrote:On July 07 2016 23:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Umm....no. That's just....not how proportions and math works. You need to rethink your math here. I think the proportion of african americans in the US is around 12 or 13 percent. If a quarter of police shootings are black folks, then they are far, far over-represented in police deaths than they should be (for technical statistical details they are actually shot at much greater than twice the rate because when you analyze differences in proportions you convert to odds ratios, but this is a bit above most stats level education), if shootings were "randomly distributed" among the population. This is not a x > y, this is a case of "the proportion of y is much higher than it should be if we were to just randomly sample the population". As op mentioned black people commit crimes at a higher rate than the rest of the population, so you have to factor that into it as well. There are a lot of crimes which wouldn't need to result in police shooting people to death. All these oh so smart naïve fallacys here are (almost) useless to begin with. Would the "Falcon Heights Shooting" already be defined as a "crime" here? Would a white have been shot in the same circumstance? That's the question you have to ask, not if we can somehow interprete data the way we want (that there is no problem indeed) To answer the question if white would have been shot in this circumstance, It all comes down to subconscious profiling. If the white guy was tattooed up and looked like a criminal then yeah the cop coulda felt he was in danger when he reached into his pocket, or it coulda been a black man in a suit and maybe the same situation wouldn't have happened. We subconsciously profile for good reason, it helps keep us alive and is efficient. I think these last two killings have been a combination of assholery and incompetence/poor training, but racism is still something I am not convinced of. Cops need body cams, and need to be trained better. The FBI should also investigate all of these cases and come to their own conclusions and honestly these cops should be tried in court for murder/incompetence (would any reasonable police officer have fired or handled that situation in a similar way?) Ok we got the easy solution then, black people should simply always wear their best suit because it decreases the chance of being shot to death by white police men. I think that is fair enough. This smartass comment does nothing to address his point. Are we working off hiking rules to avoid being shot police? Please do not dress in a fashion that will attract or aggravate the police officers, they could attack at any time, without warning?
Another smartass comment that does nothing to address his point.
|
And Comey confirmed today that Hillary didn't lie to the FBI. She even contrasted HRC's truthfulness with Patreus's outrageous lying. The "HRC lied" talking point is taking a trashing today. Good luck keeping it going boys.
|
Comney has been basically saying for hours now that Clinton is inept over and over and over again.
|
On July 08 2016 02:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
And Comey confirmed today that Hillary didn't lie to the FBI. She even contrasted HRC's truthfulness with Patreus's outrageous lying. The "HRC lied" talking point is taking a trashing today. Good luck keeping it going boys.
She is a liar there is video evidence I showed you of her blatantly lying. How do you keep arguing this?
|
On July 08 2016 02:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
And Comey confirmed today that Hillary didn't lie to the FBI. She even contrasted HRC's truthfulness with Patreus's outrageous lying. The "HRC lied" talking point is taking a trashing today. Good luck keeping it going boys.
Notice you never came back on the lying to the judge?
We knew she didn't lie to the FBI. It's that she lied to a judge, congress, and the American people, try to keep up.
Did Comey just say "I won't be chill"?
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:52 zeo wrote:
Comney has been basically saying for hours now that Clinton is inept over and over and over again.
thats a great talking point to tell people: "Comey has been confirming that Clinton is inept through and through. Do you want an inept person for president?"
|
On July 08 2016 02:56 amazingxkcd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:52 zeo wrote:
Comney has been basically saying for hours now that Clinton is inept over and over and over again. thats a great talking point to tell people: "Comey has been confirming that Clinton is inept through and through. Do you want an inept person for president?"
Inept or Trump? Inept. We are not in a position, today, to select any other candidate. Unless you are arguing Clinton is worse than Trump, there's no argument to be made.
|
poor comey has to pee and is just repeating himself at this point
|
The fact that the best argument that Hillary supporters can generally make is "she isn't Trump" is rather telling.
|
On July 08 2016 02:56 amazingxkcd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:52 zeo wrote:
Comney has been basically saying for hours now that Clinton is inept over and over and over again. thats a great talking point to tell people: "Comey has been confirming that Clinton is inept through and through. Do you want an inept person for president?"
And he's unimpeachable so his assessment of her lack of technical sophistication, and the lack of seriousness with which she took the State Dept. extreme carelessness dealing with sensitive information is beyond reproach. She was in no way prepared to be SoS and failed at the basic duty to actually manage the agency.
Doesn't make a good case for her to be made president for sure.
|
On July 08 2016 02:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
And Comey confirmed today that Hillary didn't lie to the FBI. She even contrasted HRC's truthfulness with Patreus's outrageous lying. The "HRC lied" talking point is taking a trashing today. Good luck keeping it going boys. She is a liar there is video evidence I showed you of her blatantly lying. How do you keep arguing this?
So you can prove that when she said those statements she intended to deceive? Not that she didn’t remember or truly believed that they had complied with the requests for all emails? Or that she truly believed there were classified emails on the server?
|
On July 08 2016 02:58 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that the best argument that Hillary supporters can generally make is "she isn't Trump" is rather telling.
Explain the problem with the argument. Tell me how reality differs from the decision between Trump and Clinton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
