|
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 12 2016 04:40 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for? Just because you're being peaceful doesn't mean someone else who disagrees with you can't show up and start shit. And in general, large numbers of people are dangerous to everyone. They have police details are sporting events just because it’s a good idea. The same goes for protests, even those that are peaceful.
|
On July 12 2016 04:40 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for? Just because you're being peaceful doesn't mean someone else who disagrees with you can't show up and start shit. This is an often overlooked facet of public protest. There are few ways to more effectively disparage a public movement than to instigate violence at its gatherings, and it seems like most folks are just accepting that BLM is naturally a violent movement without looking too closely at precisely who it is that's starting violence.
|
On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for?
yeah, in an ideal world. we have crappy roads and frequent traffic jams. sewage bubbles up sometimes when it rains. the sewer and water goes out sometimes. the city simply doesnt have money or manpower. i wholeheartedly support people's right to protests, but recognizing the reality that its causing problems for an already strapped city is important.
protests need police because you dont know if theyre going to be peaceful - doesnt matter if the vast majority of protestors are peaceful, only takes a couple (or one random guy with a sniper rifle) to ruin everything. and they dont want people blocking highways or causing additional problems.
|
On July 12 2016 04:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:40 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for? Just because you're being peaceful doesn't mean someone else who disagrees with you can't show up and start shit. This is an often overlooked facet of public protest. There are few ways to more effectively disparage a public movement than to instigate violence at its gatherings, and it seems like most folks are just accepting that BLM is naturally a violent movement without looking too closely at precisely who it is that's starting violence. There is a long tradition of both political parties throughout history hiring people to cause unrest at rallies and conventions. It is not common in general elections, but was very common in state and local government.
|
In a recent interview with NBC News set to air Monday night, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush described Donald Trump's campaign as an "alternative universe" that will leave Trump's supporters feeling "betrayed."
"The tragedy of this, though, is that there isn't going to be a wall built. And Mexico's not going to pay for it. And there's not going to be a ban on Muslims," Bush told NBC News in a clip released Monday afternoon. "This is all like a alternative universe that he created."
"The reality is, that's not going to happen. And people are going to be deeply frustrated and the divides will grow in our country," he continued. "And this extraordinary country, still the greatest country on the face of the earth, will continue to stagger instead of soar. And that's the heartbreaking part of this, is I think people are really going to feel betrayed."
Bush also acknowledged that his former rival in the presidential race understands the media.
"Trump, to his credit, was very smart at exploiting these kind of opportunities. He's a master at understanding how the media works — more than anybody I've ever seen in politics," Bush told NBC News. "Kudos for him, for kind of creating the environment and then manipulating the environment to his effect."
Source
|
On July 12 2016 04:44 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for? yeah, in an ideal world. we have crappy roads and frequent traffic jams. sewage bubbles up sometimes. the sewer and water goes out sometimes. the city simply doesnt have money or manpower. i wholeheartedly support people's right to protests, but recognizing the reality that its causing problems for an already strapped city is important. protests need police because you dont know if theyre going to be peaceful - doesnt matter if the vast majority of protestors are peaceful, only takes a couple (or one random guy with a sniper rifle) to ruin everything. and they dont want people blocking highways or causing additional problems. Are the protests drawing people in from the outlying towns? I mean, do protests require MORE police per protestor than the usual ratios of police:people? Or are there more people than usual in an area?
As to your unspecified cities' money/manpower issues; then they need better/smarter planning. I guess I'm willing to take over and fix it.
|
On July 12 2016 04:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for? yeah, in an ideal world. we have crappy roads and frequent traffic jams. sewage bubbles up sometimes. the sewer and water goes out sometimes. the city simply doesnt have money or manpower. i wholeheartedly support people's right to protests, but recognizing the reality that its causing problems for an already strapped city is important. protests need police because you dont know if theyre going to be peaceful - doesnt matter if the vast majority of protestors are peaceful, only takes a couple (or one random guy with a sniper rifle) to ruin everything. and they dont want people blocking highways or causing additional problems. Are the protests drawing people in from the outlying towns? I mean, do protests require MORE police per protestor than the usual ratios of police:people? Or are there more people than usual in an area? As to your unspecified cities' money/manpower issues; then they need better/smarter planning. I guess I'm willing to take over and fix it.
you're a little naive to assume you can run one of the top 10 metro areas in the US. if our problems were that easy to fix, they would already be fixed.
|
On July 12 2016 03:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Why does it say there is no racial differences in the use of lethal force in the same article it acknowledges whites are 22% more likely to be shot than blacks?
All the statistics on non-lethal force have less than 21% differential for blacks being more likely to be subjected to non-lethal use of force and that constitutes a racial bias, but 22% more likely to be subject to lethal force as white isn't racial bias?
Is it purely going off the larger differential present in the data revolving around the civilian's takes on the encounters? Because the result was not statistically significant. I.e. they did a logistic regression to learn the coefficients to the "black" dummy variable for probability of lethal force and did, what I'm guessing (the paper didn't specify) was a likelihood ratio test or Wald test to determine whether said dummy variable causes a significant difference in the chi-squared p value of that test.
Again, the paper didn't specify why the results were statistically insignificant (they really don't go into much detail on their statistical analysis) but I'm guessing that their sample of black subjects was just too small. (The overall sample was roughly 4 thousand, all from Houston, but I didn't see them specify anywhere what proportion of that sample was black.)
|
CLEVELAND — A panel crafting the Republican Party’s platform on trade has removed all references to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, citing Donald Trump’s rejection of the deal and the difficult politics that Republican incumbents are navigating.
“I think we should take out TPP completely,” said Tracey Monroe-Winburn, an Ohio delegate. “We know that our presumptive nominee isn’t in favor of it, one … and we have some senators who are running across the country that were in support of it at one time.”
The new language must still be vetted by the GOP’s full Platform Committee Monday afternoon.
Andy Puzder, one of the co-chairs of the GOP platform economic subcommittee, suggested that TPP has become too thorny of an issue to take a specific stand on. Trump has found flaws in the current version, he said. Rather than wade into the specific agreement, he suggested embracing a broad trade platform that discourages “massive trade deficits,” negotiating better trade deals and enforcing existing deals.
“Who can argue with we shouldn’t have such big deficits?” he wondered.
The language Puzder described would dovetail more completely with Trump’s language on trade.
Source
|
On July 12 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for? yeah, in an ideal world. we have crappy roads and frequent traffic jams. sewage bubbles up sometimes. the sewer and water goes out sometimes. the city simply doesnt have money or manpower. i wholeheartedly support people's right to protests, but recognizing the reality that its causing problems for an already strapped city is important. protests need police because you dont know if theyre going to be peaceful - doesnt matter if the vast majority of protestors are peaceful, only takes a couple (or one random guy with a sniper rifle) to ruin everything. and they dont want people blocking highways or causing additional problems. Are the protests drawing people in from the outlying towns? I mean, do protests require MORE police per protestor than the usual ratios of police:people? Or are there more people than usual in an area? As to your unspecified cities' money/manpower issues; then they need better/smarter planning. I guess I'm willing to take over and fix it. you're a little naive to assume you can run one of the top 10 metro areas in the US. if our problems were that easy to fix, they would already be fixed. I'm not naive; I'm silly (sometimes) Also, the hard part isn't having a sound budget and such, the hard part is doing it in a way that gets you reelected. Are your local politicians good, average, poor, or terrible? Usually power in a city is also diffuse enough, with enough parochial interests, that it's hard to push anything through, sound or not.
|
There arn't enough police to even serve warrants and solve crimes as it is. let alone throw in protests that disrupt basic government services.
If there wasn't a police presence then people wouldn't be able to have peaceful protests without the fear of violent non peaceful protests.
|
Well, to what extent is it feasible to not have the police there all the time, and simply call them in when there's an issue? I mean, police spend a lot of time simply being on call, rather than being present. I'm interested in more data on the effect of presence levels on response time and overall system results.
And they need more police clearly (and more reserves)
|
On July 12 2016 05:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +CLEVELAND — A panel crafting the Republican Party’s platform on trade has removed all references to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, citing Donald Trump’s rejection of the deal and the difficult politics that Republican incumbents are navigating.
“I think we should take out TPP completely,” said Tracey Monroe-Winburn, an Ohio delegate. “We know that our presumptive nominee isn’t in favor of it, one … and we have some senators who are running across the country that were in support of it at one time.”
The new language must still be vetted by the GOP’s full Platform Committee Monday afternoon.
Andy Puzder, one of the co-chairs of the GOP platform economic subcommittee, suggested that TPP has become too thorny of an issue to take a specific stand on. Trump has found flaws in the current version, he said. Rather than wade into the specific agreement, he suggested embracing a broad trade platform that discourages “massive trade deficits,” negotiating better trade deals and enforcing existing deals.
“Who can argue with we shouldn’t have such big deficits?” he wondered.
The language Puzder described would dovetail more completely with Trump’s language on trade. Source There are already reports of the first draft having anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion front and center. I am glad they have hit all the social conservative high notes that assure government will be small enough to fit in the bedroom and doctors office.
|
|
I still like that they have dusted off “America First,” and trotted out one out front and center under some delusion that no one will go “wasn’t that the slogan that Nazi sympathizer that wanted to keep the US out of WW2, even after pearl harbor?”
It’s like they are just going through the history books and picking the slogans of the worst people they can find. Maybe Trump will stay that the Wall will need to be built to provide “Living space” for the American people next?
|
On July 12 2016 05:40 Plansix wrote: I still like that they have dusted off “America First,” and trotted out one out front and center under some delusion that no one will go “wasn’t that the slogan that Nazi sympathizer that wanted to keep the US out of WW2, even after pearl harbor?”
It’s like they are just going through the history books and picking the slogans of the worst people they can find. Maybe Trump will stay that the Wall will need to be built to provide “Living space” for the American people next?
Im starting to get the feeling that you dont like Trump.
|
He has dredged up the old slogan of Charles Lindbergh and told a member of congress he is all about protecting the Article XII of the constitution. I am just impressed that at other member of the GOP for not running for the hills.
|
In the primary campaign, Donald Trump boasted he was too rich to be bought – but he is about to travel to two of California’s richest enclaves with an urgent plea for cash.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee hopes to persuade fellow billionaires and even mere millionaires to stump up to $449,400 each to fill gaping holes in his campaign for the White House.
He is due to attend fundraisers at private homes in Rancho Santa Fe and Bel Air next week, on the eve of the Republican national convention in Cleveland, to try to narrow Hillary Clinton’s wide financial advantage.
A bargain-basement ticket, which gets a donor in the door but no picture or dinner, costs $2,700.
Even for that relative trifle, The Art of the Deal author may need to draw on all his charm, charisma and negotiating skills because California’s conservative donors are leery about his campaign, according to analysts.
“Much of the mainstream contributing community is very, very concerned about his candidacy,” said Jack Pitney, a political analyst and professor at Claremont McKenna College. “They worry about two things: that he’ll lose, or that he’ll win. Losing could drag down other Republicans. Winning could be bad for the country.”
Organisers of Wednesday’s event in Rancho Santa Fe, outside San Diego, include Doug Manchester, a developer; Jenny Craig, a diet guru; Madeleine Pickens, the ex-wife of the Texas billionaire T Boone Pickens; and Doug Kimmelman, an energy investor, according to a leaked invitation.
Organisers of Thursday’s event in Bel Air, LA’s swankiest neighbourhood, include Tom Barrack, a real estate investor who hosted a Trump fundraiser in May, Jamie McCourt, the former owner of the LA Dodgers, and Andy Puzder, a fast-food tycoon, according to the Los Angeles Times, which also reported the almost half-a-million dollar price tag for the most expensive tickets.
Source
|
On July 12 2016 04:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:40 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for? Just because you're being peaceful doesn't mean someone else who disagrees with you can't show up and start shit. This is an often overlooked facet of public protest. There are few ways to more effectively disparage a public movement than to instigate violence at its gatherings, and it seems like most folks are just accepting that BLM is naturally a violent movement without looking too closely at precisely who it is that's starting violence. You aren't actually arguing that right-wing/anti-BLM plants are responsible for BLM's bad acts, are you?
|
A majority of Senate Republicans will be attending the party’s national convention in Cleveland this month, despite the reservations that many of them have about Donald Trump.
A survey by The Hill found that 32 Senate Republicans plan to attend the convention in Cleveland later this month, while 15 will skip it. Five Republican senators said they had not yet decided, and two did not respond.
Ben Sasse (Neb.) — Spokesman: “Sen. Sasse will not be attending the convention and will instead take his kids to watch some dumpster fires across the state, all of which enjoy more popularity than the current front-runners.”
Source
Heh.
|
|
|
|