The most populous Muslim nations in the world are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt and Nigeria. NOT ONE of those countries was included on the "Muslim" ban. Please never call it that again or you are lying when hyou have been corrected.
I'm glad that you have established the principle that, once one has been corrected, s/he is lying if s/he repeats the incorrect info.
Please govern your own posts accordingly in future. Thanks.
They don't. But if you ask them who they'd vote for the answer is overwhelmingly the Democrats.
Interesting. Any backup for that, or just pulled out of thin air? For a variety of reasons, I've known a number of people who were behind bars, or ended up there, and my strong personal impression is that--if asked--they'd nearly all tell you, some vehemently, that they were voting for *nobody*. But of course I don't have any backup for that beyond my personal, anecdotal experience. You?
Also, it's worth repeating this: New York CITY has a lower homicide rate (5.5/100,000 residents) than the STATE of Florida (5.9/100,000). By definition, NYC is entirely urban, and of course it has been governed by Democrats for many years; the state of Florida comprises cities (the two largest of which have GOP mayors), suburbs, exurbs, and rural ares, and has been governed by Republicans for decades. So how do you figure?
Also, it's worth repeating this: New York CITY has a lower homicide rate (5.5/100,000 residents) than the STATE of Florida (5.9/100,000). By definition, NYC is entirely urban, and of course it has been governed by Democrats for many years; the state of Florida comprises cities (the two largest of which have GOP mayors), suburbs, exurbs, and rural ares, and has been governed by Republicans for decades. So how do you figure?
I'm not sure the relevance of what you're saying? Compare Florida to Detroit and it's an entirely different discussion. Or comparing North Dakota to NYC.
I'm not sure the relevance of what you're saying? Compare Florida to Detroit and it's an entirely different discussion. Or comparing North Dakota to NYC.
The "relevance" is that situations in different locales are affected by many factors, and that simply ascribing bad situations to governance by "Demonrats" or "Rethuglicans"--as many have done, in this thread and others--is too easy.
To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
They don't. But if you ask them who they'd vote for the answer is overwhelmingly the Democrats.
Interesting. Any backup for that, or just pulled out of thin air? For a variety of reasons, I've known a number of people who were behind bars, or ended up there, and my strong personal impression is that--if asked--they'd nearly all tell you, some vehemently, that they were voting for *nobody*. But of course I don't have any backup for that beyond my personal, anecdotal experience. You?
Also, it's worth repeating this: New York CITY has a lower homicide rate (5.5/100,000 residents) than the STATE of Florida (5.9/100,000). By definition, NYC is entirely urban, and of course it has been governed by Democrats for many years; the state of Florida comprises cities (the two largest of which have GOP mayors), suburbs, exurbs, and rural ares, and has been governed by Republicans for decades. So how do you figure?
The "relevance" is that situations in different locales are affected by many factors, and that simply ascribing bad situations to governance by "Demonrats" or "Rethuglicans"--as many have done, in this thread and others--is too easy.
To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
I see. I can mostly agree with that: different locales have different concerns, and there are plenty of factors that contribute to how violent or murderous an area is and that politics is an imperfect reflection of that.
However, I didn't notice anyone pointing to a specific comparison of locales aside from you, and a more overarching analysis (e.g. urban vs. rural/suburban in a nation-wide analysis, or as a subset of that you could also separate by political tendencies) at least provides a more meaningful/relevant picture in this conversation due to - as you rightfully note - differences between locales.
To the point that seems to be currently discussed: you are right that not all African American criminals should be assumed to be political or wanting to vote for a particular party, and assuming that they would vote one way or another based on their ethnicity and location is questionable in general ... but since the VAST and OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of African Americans (around 90%) vote democrat, it is far more reasonable to assume that another subset of African Americans (those who commit crime) would tend to lean democrat than for Hispanics and Latinos, even in a more polarized area like Texas or Florida ... especially since the political breakdown even in those areas are pretty close to 50/50.
Yea, nobody was worried when Trump called for a Muslim ban. Nothing to worry about there.
Christian nationalism is a threat to American values, and a threat to Christianity.
In reality, Christian nationalism and White nationalism are the same thing. Both see other races and religions as a threat instead of a strength.
Fat Hurts - why do you keep parroting the liberal lies and insist on calling it a Muslim ban? It was not a Muslim ban. Why do I say that? The most populous Muslim nations in the world are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt and Nigeria. NOT ONE of those countries was included on the "Muslim" ban. Please never call it that again or you are lying when hyou have been corrected.
Trump did call for a Muslim ban. This was Trump pandering to Christian Nationalists and White Nationalists. How soon we forget. Here is the quote from Trump himself:
December 7, 2015:
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Remember the poll numbers. You guys all remember this. So, listen. Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
Fat Hurts - why do you keep parroting the liberal lies and insist on calling it a Muslim ban? It was not a Muslim ban. Why do I say that? The most populous Muslim nations in the world are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt and Nigeria. NOT ONE of those countries was included on the "Muslim" ban. Please never call it that again or you are lying when hyou have been corrected.
Trump did call for a Muslim ban. This was Trump pandering to Christian Nationalists and White Nationalists. How soon we forget. Here is the quote from Trump himself:
December 7, 2015:
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Remember the poll numbers. You guys all remember this. So, listen. Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
He said that right after the San Bernardino muslim terror attack which killed 14 people and wounded 24 others.
The muslim terror attack in Chattanooga was just 5 months prior in July.
The muslim terror attack at the University of California was less than a month prior in November.
The muslim terror attack in Paris which killed 130 people was less than a month prior in November.
If FDR was alive at that time he would have put all the muslims in concentration camps and you'd have been calling him a hero because he's a Democrat...
Every time a white guy shoots somebody you immediately call for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. You want to punish 99.99999% of the population for the crimes of a miniscule minority. Because you're "good person".
Trump asks to pause immigration until can we can figure out how so many terrorists are showing up and killing Americans and you call Trump a "RACIST" because you're a "good person".
You're NOT a good person. You're a partisan fool who has no idea he lives in a bubble.
Fat Hurts - why do you keep parroting the liberal lies and insist on calling it a Muslim ban? It was not a Muslim ban. Why do I say that? The most populous Muslim nations in the world are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt and Nigeria. NOT ONE of those countries was included on the "Muslim" ban. Please never call it that again or you are lying when hyou have been corrected.
Trump did call for a Muslim ban. This was Trump pandering to Christian Nationalists and White Nationalists. How soon we forget. Here is the quote from Trump himself:
December 7, 2015:
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Remember the poll numbers. You guys all remember this. So, listen. Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
First you said this: "But if you ask them [whom] they'd vote for the answer is overwhelmingly the Democrats." [Emphasis mine.]
Then you kindly linked to an interesting and useful article, and it said this: "Only 11% of Black respondents identified as Republicans, while 29% identified as Independent and 45% as Democrats." [Emphasis mine.]
For me, "fewer than half" is not the same as "overwhelmingly," but I recognize that we could interpret the latter differently.
First you said this: "But if you ask them [whom] they'd vote for the answer is overwhelmingly the Democrats." [Emphasis mine.]
Then you kindly linked to an interesting and useful article, and it said this: "Only 11% of Black respondents identified as Republicans, while 29% identified as Independent and 45% as Democrats." [Emphasis mine.]
For me, "fewer than half" is not the same as "overwhelmingly," but I recognize that we could interpret the latter differently.
So what's "the norm"? Chicago, which some people seem to love to trot out (despite there being 25+ American cities with higher murder rates)? Who decides "the norm"? Maybe *Chicago* is the outlier. Or maybe there are individual factors in each locale that realistically make it difficult to ascribe crime to one, or a few, factors.
When large numbers of people live in a limited area, we tend to see crime, though the rates are highly variable; when large numbers of people live in a limited area, we tend to see Democratic mayors (though with plenty of exceptions--see: Florida).
Okay, do we then conclude that the Democratic mayors are the *reason* for the crime rates? Not logically, we don't: Correlation is not (necessarily) cause. In NYC specifically, crime rates fell under Giuliani; continued to fall under the pseudo-GOPer, then independent, then Democrat Bloomberg; and continued to fall under de Blasio. [Full disclosure: I voted for none of them.]
Between 2019 and 2020, murder rates for the United States as a whole rose nearly 30%. Do we conclude that the then-incumbent President of the country was the *reason* for the increase? Not logically, we don't.
Maybe people's time and energy and attention would be better directed toward looking at *individual* situations and the multiple potential reasons for cities' safety, or lack of it--for example, NYC's good fortune in having neighboring states with (relatively) tough gun laws. And maybe we, and the country, would be better served by no longer slotting people into Box A or Box Z ("and there are only two boxes!") and by no longer demonizing The Other.
Right and most Hispanics from Texas identify as Republicans right? So the kid was a Republican. That’s your logic.
90% of black voters voted for Biden in 2020.
You either don't understand what 90% means or you're being dishonest.
Of course I’m being dishonest. Why would I argue honestly with someone like yourself? I’ve done that plenty and it’s a waste of my time. More fun to give you hypotheticals based on your own silly ramblings and watch you try to reason through it.
Let’s say 60% of white voters vote Republican and 90% of black voters vote democrat. Let’s say a white person commits a crime. Is that a Republican? Because 90% of course is high enough to just assume black criminals are true blue Dems, according to yourself. But at 60% we can make no assumptions right? What about 70%? When can I just start applying traits to entire groups of people?
Fat Hurts - why do you keep parroting the liberal lies and insist on calling it a Muslim ban? It was not a Muslim ban. Why do I say that? The most populous Muslim nations in the world are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt and Nigeria. NOT ONE of those countries was included on the "Muslim" ban. Please never call it that again or you are lying when hyou have been corrected.
Trump did call for a Muslim ban. This was Trump pandering to Christian Nationalists and White Nationalists. How soon we forget. Here is the quote from Trump himself:
December 7, 2015:
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Remember the poll numbers. You guys all remember this. So, listen. Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
If the outlaw Jesse James announces he is not going to kill anymore people, but he keeps killing people, did he stop killing people? Of course not. Similarly, if Donald Trump announced that he was going to enact a Muslim ban, but then excludes the 10 most populous Muslim nations from the actual ban, then he never enacted a Muslim ban.
So what's "the norm"? Chicago, which some people seem to love to trot out (despite there being 25+ American cities with higher murder rates)? Who decides "the norm"? Maybe *Chicago* is the outlier. Or maybe there are individual factors in each locale that realistically make it difficult to ascribe crime to one, or a few, factors.
When large numbers of people live in a limited area, we tend to see crime, though the rates are highly variable; when large numbers of people live in a limited area, we tend to see Democratic mayors (though with plenty of exceptions--see: Florida).
Okay, do we then conclude that the Democratic mayors are the *reason* for the crime rates? Not logically, we don't: Correlation is not (necessarily) cause. In NYC specifically, crime rates fell under Giuliani; continued to fall under the pseudo-GOPer, then independent, then Democrat Bloomberg; and continued to fall under de Blasio. [Full disclosure: I voted for none of them.]
Between 2019 and 2020, murder rates for the United States as a whole rose nearly 30%. Do we conclude that the then-incumbent President of the country was the *reason* for the increase? Not logically, we don't.
Maybe people's time and energy and attention would be better directed toward looking at *individual* situations and the multiple potential reasons for cities' safety, or lack of it--for example, NYC's good fortune in having neighboring states with (relatively) tough gun laws. And maybe we, and the country, would be better served by no longer slotting people into Box A or Box Z ("and there are only two boxes!") and by no longer demonizing The Other.
So what's "the norm"? Chicago, which some people seem to love to trot out (despite there being 25+ American cities with higher murder rates)? Who decides "the norm"? Maybe *Chicago* is the outlier. Or maybe there are individual factors in each locale that realistically make it difficult to ascribe crime to one, or a few, factors.
When large numbers of people live in a limited area, we tend to see crime, though the rates are highly variable; when large numbers of people live in a limited area, we tend to see Democratic mayors (though with plenty of exceptions--see: Florida).
Okay, do we then conclude that the Democratic mayors are the *reason* for the crime rates? Not logically, we don't: Correlation is not (necessarily) cause. In NYC specifically, crime rates fell under Giuliani; continued to fall under the pseudo-GOPer, then independent, then Democrat Bloomberg; and continued to fall under de Blasio. [Full disclosure: I voted for none of them.]
Between 2019 and 2020, murder rates for the United States as a whole rose nearly 30%. Do we conclude that the then-incumbent President of the country was the *reason* for the increase? Not logically, we don't.
Maybe people's time and energy and attention would be better directed toward looking at *individual* situations and the multiple potential reasons for cities' safety, or lack of it--for example, NYC's good fortune in having neighboring states with (relatively) tough gun laws. And maybe we, and the country, would be better served by no longer slotting people into Box A or Box Z ("and there are only two boxes!") and by no longer demonizing The Other.
Broken homes are the leading indicator for criminality.
Liberal policies incentivize broken homes.
Less police = more crime. Liberals have been demonizing police and demanding they be defunded and even abolished in some areas. It isn't a shock that crime has gone up.
You're so busy defending your team that you can't see the forest for the trees.
You either don't understand what 90% means or you're being dishonest.
Of course I’m being dishonest. Why would I argue honestly with someone like yourself? I’ve done that plenty and it’s a waste of my time. More fun to give you hypotheticals based on your own silly ramblings and watch you try to reason through it.
Let’s say 60% of white voters vote Republican and 90% of black voters vote democrat. Let’s say a white person commits a crime. Is that a Republican? Because 90% of course is high enough to just assume black criminals are true blue Dems, according to yourself. But at 60% we can make no assumptions right? What about 70%? When can I just start applying traits to entire groups of people?
You have to be dishonest. Being honest inevitably leads to your ideas being exposed as idiotic.
Are you unaware of how statistics work? lol...
Imagine you got kicked in the nuts 90% of the time you went out your front door and 60% of the time you got went out your back door.
You're literally arguing that it makes no difference which door you choose because #notall.