SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
I'd like to know too. This is very tiresome and kills what is normally an interesting place to discuss issues.
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
I'd like to know too. This is very tiresome and kills what is normally an interesting place to discuss issues.
mrussel wants to go back to pretending he's smart everyone!!
Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.
He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.
I don't think of socialism as a dirty word, although it's had a mixed history of success here in the States. But I agree the label will be potent with the older generation of voters, who are the most engaged.
You're really smart.
*Source - US Census Bureau
Smart enough to know that political engagement isn't coextensive with voting.
I think that political engagement and voting should track pretty closely (unless you disagree with that, which I'd be curious to hear why), which would permit you to use it as a proxy metric at least for trending. Most people who are politically engaged want to do something with that engagement, and I can't imagine they'd forfeit their votes. On the opposite side, even if the argument is that younger people reverse this skew with outsized non-voting political engagement, I'd say its effectiveness should be based on seeing these voting rates increase over time, yet they appear to be more or less stable (and slightly declining in some cases), so an outsized non-vote impact to round up that political engagement from other avenues, doesn't seem to be present either.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but I'm surrounded by people whose political engagement far exceeds voting. Look at Sanders's popularity and the demographics of votes he's pulling. There's a reason; that reason has a lot to do with political engagement; and that political engagement is coming largely from young people.
And if they don't turnout to vote, then what's the point? You work in a privileged world of higher education and certainly not representative of all young people. So your analysis that is completely anecdotal is fundamentally flawed when compared to the empirical data of actual voting results by age demographic. And in every one of those data sets, the cohort of older voters participate in the election at a higher rate than young people. Which was exactly my point that I'm 100% sure Lex and McGruff understood.
Elections are not how political change happens. That's been my consistent point.
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
Coward.
Typical response from you. I’d like to be able to post here and dealing with you could risk that. Enjoy what’s left of your time here.
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
Coward.
Typical response from you. I’d like to be able to post here and dealing with you could risk that. Enjoy what’s left of your time here.
What fun will it be posting here if I don't have narcissistic white liberals to challenge?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
I'd like to know too. This is very tiresome and kills what is normally an interesting place to discuss issues.
mrussel wants to go back to pretending he's smart everyone!!
Do you speak to your students this way? If so, do you find it fosters an open forum for the exchange of ideas, even if polar opposites?
When I was in junior high, I had a history teacher who had a reputation of being an asshole to those he felt were worthy of it (ring a bell?). He could be a good teacher and I suppose I was fortunate that he liked me and my contributions, but he treated some in ways that would get him fired today.
It's a shame too, because he had some decent ideas and methods, but his "bedside manner" made it all moot.
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
I'd like to know too. This is very tiresome and kills what is normally an interesting place to discuss issues.
mrussel wants to go back to pretending he's smart everyone!!
Do you speak to your students this way? If so, do you find it fosters an open forum for the exchange of ideas, even if polar opposites?
When I was in junior high, I had a history teacher who had a reputation of being an asshole to those he felt were worthy of it (ring a bell?). He could be a good teacher and I suppose I was fortunate that he liked me and my contributions, but he treated some in ways that would get him fired today.
It's a shame too, because he had some decent ideas and methods, but his "bedside manner" made it all moot.
Of course not. But, frankly, I don't think I've ever had a student with this level of unwarranted confidence in their own intellect.
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
I'd like to know too. This is very tiresome and kills what is normally an interesting place to discuss issues.
mrussel wants to go back to pretending he's smart everyone!!
Do you speak to your students this way? If so, do you find it fosters an open forum for the exchange of ideas, even if polar opposites?
When I was in junior high, I had a history teacher who had a reputation of being an asshole to those he felt were worthy of it (ring a bell?). He could be a good teacher and I suppose I was fortunate that he liked me and my contributions, but he treated some in ways that would get him fired today.
It's a shame too, because he had some decent ideas and methods, but his "bedside manner" made it all moot.
Of course not. But, frankly, I don't think I've ever had a student with this level of unwarranted confidence in their own intellect.
Ah, got it. This all must be simply insufferable for you, then.
Keep on that earnest fight to enlighten those too dense to do it for themselves.
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
I'd like to know too. This is very tiresome and kills what is normally an interesting place to discuss issues.
mrussel wants to go back to pretending he's smart everyone!!
Do you speak to your students this way? If so, do you find it fosters an open forum for the exchange of ideas, even if polar opposites?
When I was in junior high, I had a history teacher who had a reputation of being an asshole to those he felt were worthy of it (ring a bell?). He could be a good teacher and I suppose I was fortunate that he liked me and my contributions, but he treated some in ways that would get him fired today.
It's a shame too, because he had some decent ideas and methods, but his "bedside manner" made it all moot.
Of course not. But, frankly, I don't think I've ever had a student with this level of unwarranted confidence in their own intellect.
Ah, got it. This all must be simply insufferable for you, then.
Keep on that earnest fight to enlighten those too dense to do it for themselves.
It can be. But I like a lot of the people here. You, for instance: you seem downright decent. I try not to let a few bad eggs ruin things.
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.
It would be interesting to see when the mandatory minimums changed, three strikes you're out, and other harsher penalties. Curious if there's some correlation between those changes and the drops in the 90s.
SAF was supposed to be specific to taking guns off the street. Unfortunately the woke movement has confused that with racism, not location. It was well known to New Yorkers during the crime era where not to go. Location was supposed to be the intent to drop the murder rates, which it did. I’ll agree with trump on this, the media does like to spin its own narrative. But let’s just say it’s abortions with no direct proof.
Regarding conflating the US drop with NY, the evidence is clear, despite the desperate personal attacks by ecd. An image below of NYC murders shows about a 20% decline when SAF began. The country saw a more gradual decline in rate.
This is evidenced by the Wikipedia link showing NY ranked 20th in 1996 (which is after crime rates improved) and ranked 37th in 2005. NY vastly improved its standing in the country. And NYC did see a 9% rise in murders last year.
Evidence demonstrates the impact of 1995 NY policies are even more dramatic. If one were to examine the data in the disaster center link, NY experienced a 12.5 murder rate in 1989 and a 5.0 rate in 1999. 1989 NY was among the worst, 1999 among the best. Conflating.
I am sure outsiders or younger people who did not do live thru this can conflate stats any way they wish. The irrefutable facts are the city was considered one of the more dangerous US locations in the 70s and 80s and one of the safest after 2000, in comparison to the rest of the country.
its absurd to suggest otherwise, especially without specific evidence nor the experience of spending a lifetime here and knowing what it WAS like and what it IS like. (Not necessarily you mr, but others in this thread as a whole)
The 3rd column shows a GRADUAL DECLINE in the late 90s murders for the US. In the second image below shows NYC murders among all time highs in the early 90s, with much larger declines beginning in the mid 90s.
Right now, I love how for every one comment by everybody else, there are 10 comments I can't see, because ecdanc loves talking to himself. Same with SC. No more memes, videos, stupid stuff. There was one time, I had to skip a whole page to get to the next poster. Hahahaha! It's great to converse only with rational people, even when I don't agree with them.
Right now, I love how for every one comment by everybody else, there are 10 comments I can't see, because ecdanc loves talking to himself. Same with SC. No more memes, videos, stupid stuff. There was one time, I had to skip a whole page to get to the next poster. Hahahaha! It's great to converse only with rational people, even when I don't agree with them.
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.
It would be interesting to see when the mandatory minimums changed, three strikes you're out, and other harsher penalties. Curious if there's some correlation between those changes and the drops in the 90s.
SAF was supposed to be specific to taking guns off the street. Unfortunately the woke movement has confused that with racism, not location. It was well known to New Yorkers during the crime era where not to go. Location was supposed to be the intent to drop the murder rates, which it did. I’ll agree with trump on this, the media does like to spin its own narrative. But let’s just say it’s abortions with no direct proof.
Regarding conflating the US drop with NY, the evidence is clear, despite the desperate personal attacks by ecd. An image below of NYC murders shows about a 20% decline when SAF began. The country saw a more gradual decline in rate.
This is evidenced by the Wikipedia link showing NY ranked 20th in 1996 (which is after crime rates improved) and ranked 37th in 2005. NY vastly improved its standing in the country. And NYC did see a 9% rise in murders last year.
Evidence demonstrates the impact of 1995 NY policies are even more dramatic. If one were to examine the data in the disaster center link, NY experienced a 12.5 murder rate in 1989 and a 5.0 rate in 1999. 1989 NY was among the worst, 1999 among the best. Conflating.
I am sure outsiders or younger people who did not do live thru this can conflate stats any way they wish. The irrefutable facts are the city was considered one of the more dangerous US locations in the 70s and 80s and one of the safest after 2000, in comparison to the rest of the country.
its absurd to suggest otherwise, especially without specific evidence nor the experience of spending a lifetime here and knowing what it WAS like and what it IS like. (Not necessarily you mr, but others in this thread as a whole)
The 3rd column shows a GRADUAL DECLINE in the late 90s murders for the US. In the second image below shows NYC murders among all time highs in the early 90s, with much larger declines beginning in the mid 90s.
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.
It would be interesting to see when the mandatory minimums changed, three strikes you're out, and other harsher penalties. Curious if there's some correlation between those changes and the drops in the 90s.
SAF was supposed to be specific to taking guns off the street. Unfortunately the woke movement has confused that with racism, not location. It was well known to New Yorkers during the crime era where not to go. Location was supposed to be the intent to drop the murder rates, which it did. I’ll agree with trump on this, the media does like to spin its own narrative. But let’s just say it’s abortions with no direct proof.
Regarding conflating the US drop with NY, the evidence is clear, despite the desperate personal attacks by ecd. An image below of NYC murders shows about a 20% decline when SAF began. The country saw a more gradual decline in rate.
This is evidenced by the Wikipedia link showing NY ranked 20th in 1996 (which is after crime rates improved) and ranked 37th in 2005. NY vastly improved its standing in the country. And NYC did see a 9% rise in murders last year.
Evidence demonstrates the impact of 1995 NY policies are even more dramatic. If one were to examine the data in the disaster center link, NY experienced a 12.5 murder rate in 1989 and a 5.0 rate in 1999. 1989 NY was among the worst, 1999 among the best. Conflating.
I am sure outsiders or younger people who did not do live thru this can conflate stats any way they wish. The irrefutable facts are the city was considered one of the more dangerous US locations in the 70s and 80s and one of the safest after 2000, in comparison to the rest of the country.
its absurd to suggest otherwise, especially without specific evidence nor the experience of spending a lifetime here and knowing what it WAS like and what it IS like. (Not necessarily you mr, but others in this thread as a whole)
The 3rd column shows a GRADUAL DECLINE in the late 90s murders for the US. In the second image below shows NYC murders among all time highs in the early 90s, with much larger declines beginning in the mid 90s.
My abortion comment was tongue in cheek, referring back to the Freakanomics theory. However, there were so many changes in the 90's, from Roe in 72, to SAF, to the Crime Bill, mandatory minimums, etc., it's essentially impossible to isolate one policy or social change and point to that being the impetus of the decrease. In the business world, you would isolate populations and only institute one change in each cohort to ensure you aren't polluting the sample, and then compare the different tests. In the world of humans, you can't do it. So to me, this is somewhat of a fruitless argument.
BTW - in the third column, I assume that's murders per X number of people. What's the base?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
i believe those people exist.
Absolutely
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.
You are drawing quite the picture here.
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?
A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.
Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing.
So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions? Hair color? Shoe size?
You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all.
I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems.
Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.
got to go to full site settings... its listed under edit profile
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This shit is sad - was amusing for a while, though. Representative of how people get along via the Internet. (Consistently say things that would see swift and drastic reactions irl....and feel great about being that much of a shit to everyone who feels differently than they do )
Travellers arriving at New York City’s airports in June 1975 were greeted with possibly the strangest object ever handed out at the portal to a great city: pamphlets with a hooded death’s head on the cover, warning them, “Until things change, stay away from New York City if you possibly can.”
“Welcome to Fear City” read the stark headline on these pamphlets, which were subtitled “A Survival Guide for Visitors to the City of New York”. Inside was a list of nine “guidelines” that might allow you to get out of the city alive, and with your personal property intact.
The guidelines painted a nightmarish vision of New York; one that made it sound barely a cut above Beirut, which then had just been engulfed in Lebanon’s civil war. Visitors were advised not to venture outside of midtown Manhattan, not to take the subways under any circumstances, and not to walk outside anywhere after six in the evening.
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.
It would be interesting to see when the mandatory minimums changed, three strikes you're out, and other harsher penalties. Curious if there's some correlation between those changes and the drops in the 90s.
SAF was supposed to be specific to taking guns off the street. Unfortunately the woke movement has confused that with racism, not location. It was well known to New Yorkers during the crime era where not to go. Location was supposed to be the intent to drop the murder rates, which it did. I’ll agree with trump on this, the media does like to spin its own narrative. But let’s just say it’s abortions with no direct proof.
Regarding conflating the US drop with NY, the evidence is clear, despite the desperate personal attacks by ecd. An image below of NYC murders shows about a 20% decline when SAF began. The country saw a more gradual decline in rate.
This is evidenced by the Wikipedia link showing NY ranked 20th in 1996 (which is after crime rates improved) and ranked 37th in 2005. NY vastly improved its standing in the country. And NYC did see a 9% rise in murders last year.
Evidence demonstrates the impact of 1995 NY policies are even more dramatic. If one were to examine the data in the disaster center link, NY experienced a 12.5 murder rate in 1989 and a 5.0 rate in 1999. 1989 NY was among the worst, 1999 among the best. Conflating.
I am sure outsiders or younger people who did not do live thru this can conflate stats any way they wish. The irrefutable facts are the city was considered one of the more dangerous US locations in the 70s and 80s and one of the safest after 2000, in comparison to the rest of the country.
its absurd to suggest otherwise, especially without specific evidence nor the experience of spending a lifetime here and knowing what it WAS like and what it IS like. (Not necessarily you mr, but others in this thread as a whole)
The 3rd column shows a GRADUAL DECLINE in the late 90s murders for the US. In the second image below shows NYC murders among all time highs in the early 90s, with much larger declines beginning in the mid 90s.
My abortion comment was tongue in cheek, referring back to the Freakanomics theory. However, there were so many changes in the 90's, from Roe in 72, to SAF, to the Crime Bill, mandatory minimums, etc., it's essentially impossible to isolate one policy or social change and point to that being the impetus of the decrease. In the business world, you would isolate populations and only institute one change in each cohort to ensure you aren't polluting the sample, and then compare the different tests. In the world of humans, you can't do it. So to me, this is somewhat of a fruitless argument.
BTW - in the third column, I assume that's murders per X number of people. What's the base?
It’s true the country experienced a drop as well, and there are a multitude of factors that you cited. (Per wiki, Rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants per year, but I posted that to highlight a more gradual decline in crimes)
But NY improved In comparison to to the rest of the country and world. It transformed its image from the worst big city to one of the best. They had a policy that went right after the guns, and after 25/years of terror here, we saw dramatic annual improvements. I think the other factors raised have a more gradual impact on crime.
I think folks can benefit from immersing themselves in the fear city comment I posted earlier, explore it online, and get a true feel what the city was like then vs now, in comparison to everywhere else. There was a dynamic and rapid transformation.
This shit is sad - was amusing for a while, though. Representative of how people get along via the Internet. (Consistently say things that would see swift and drastic reactions irl....and feel great about being that much of a shit to everyone who feels differently than they do )
What sort of “swift and drastic” reaction do you mean?
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.
It would be interesting to see when the mandatory minimums changed, three strikes you're out, and other harsher penalties. Curious if there's some correlation between those changes and the drops in the 90s.
SAF was supposed to be specific to taking guns off the street. Unfortunately the woke movement has confused that with racism, not location. It was well known to New Yorkers during the crime era where not to go. Location was supposed to be the intent to drop the murder rates, which it did. I’ll agree with trump on this, the media does like to spin its own narrative. But let’s just say it’s abortions with no direct proof.
Regarding conflating the US drop with NY, the evidence is clear, despite the desperate personal attacks by ecd. An image below of NYC murders shows about a 20% decline when SAF began. The country saw a more gradual decline in rate.
This is evidenced by the Wikipedia link showing NY ranked 20th in 1996 (which is after crime rates improved) and ranked 37th in 2005. NY vastly improved its standing in the country. And NYC did see a 9% rise in murders last year.
Evidence demonstrates the impact of 1995 NY policies are even more dramatic. If one were to examine the data in the disaster center link, NY experienced a 12.5 murder rate in 1989 and a 5.0 rate in 1999. 1989 NY was among the worst, 1999 among the best. Conflating.
I am sure outsiders or younger people who did not do live thru this can conflate stats any way they wish. The irrefutable facts are the city was considered one of the more dangerous US locations in the 70s and 80s and one of the safest after 2000, in comparison to the rest of the country.
its absurd to suggest otherwise, especially without specific evidence nor the experience of spending a lifetime here and knowing what it WAS like and what it IS like. (Not necessarily you mr, but others in this thread as a whole)
The 3rd column shows a GRADUAL DECLINE in the late 90s murders for the US. In the second image below shows NYC murders among all time highs in the early 90s, with much larger declines beginning in the mid 90s.
My abortion comment was tongue in cheek, referring back to the Freakanomics theory. However, there were so many changes in the 90's, from Roe in 72, to SAF, to the Crime Bill, mandatory minimums, etc., it's essentially impossible to isolate one policy or social change and point to that being the impetus of the decrease. In the business world, you would isolate populations and only institute one change in each cohort to ensure you aren't polluting the sample, and then compare the different tests. In the world of humans, you can't do it. So to me, this is somewhat of a fruitless argument.
BTW - in the third column, I assume that's murders per X number of people. What's the base?
It’s true the country experienced a drop as well, and there are a multitude of factors that you cited. (Per wiki, Rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants per year, but I posted that to highlight a more gradual decline in crimes)
But NY improved In comparison to to the rest of the country and world. It transformed its image from the worst big city to one of the best. They had a policy that went right after the guns, and after 25/years of terror here, we saw dramatic annual improvements. I think the other factors raised have a more gradual impact on crime.
I think folks can benefit from immersing themselves in the fear city comment I posted earlier, explore it online, and get a true feel what the city was like then vs now, in comparison to everywhere else. There was a dynamic and rapid transformation.
And you want to argue that racist policing is responsible for that transformation?
This shit is sad - was amusing for a while, though. Representative of how people get along via the Internet. (Consistently say things that would see swift and drastic reactions irl....and feel great about being that much of a shit to everyone who feels differently than they do )
What sort of “swift and drastic” reaction do you mean?
Oh I'm not rising to that bait - my point is clear - people do not treat others this way in person without very strong reactions.
This shit is sad - was amusing for a while, though. Representative of how people get along via the Internet. (Consistently say things that would see swift and drastic reactions irl....and feel great about being that much of a shit to everyone who feels differently than they do )
What sort of “swift and drastic” reaction do you mean?
Oh I'm not rising to that bait - my point is clear - people do not treat others this way in person without very strong reactions.
I would never hit mrussel or cincy for the rude things they’ve said to me, if that’s what you’re implying
Comments
When I was in junior high, I had a history teacher who had a reputation of being an asshole to those he felt were worthy of it (ring a bell?). He could be a good teacher and I suppose I was fortunate that he liked me and my contributions, but he treated some in ways that would get him fired today.
It's a shame too, because he had some decent ideas and methods, but his "bedside manner" made it all moot.
Keep on that earnest fight to enlighten those too dense to do it for themselves.
Regarding conflating the US drop with NY, the evidence is clear, despite the desperate personal attacks by ecd. An image below of NYC murders shows about a 20% decline when SAF began. The country saw a more gradual decline in rate.
This is evidenced by the Wikipedia link showing NY ranked 20th in 1996 (which is after crime rates improved) and ranked 37th in 2005. NY vastly improved its standing in the country. And NYC did see a 9% rise in murders last year.
Evidence demonstrates the impact of 1995 NY policies are even more dramatic. If one were to examine the data in the disaster center link, NY experienced a 12.5 murder rate in 1989 and a 5.0 rate in 1999. 1989 NY was among the worst, 1999 among the best. Conflating.
its absurd to suggest otherwise, especially without specific evidence nor the experience of spending a lifetime here and knowing what it WAS like and what it IS like. (Not necessarily you mr, but others in this thread as a whole)
BTW - in the third column, I assume that's murders per X number of people. What's the base?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Travellers arriving at New York City’s airports in June 1975 were greeted with possibly the strangest object ever handed out at the portal to a great city: pamphlets with a hooded death’s head on the cover, warning them, “Until things change, stay away from New York City if you possibly can.”
“Welcome to Fear City” read the stark headline on these pamphlets, which were subtitled “A Survival Guide for Visitors to the City of New York”. Inside was a list of nine “guidelines” that might allow you to get out of the city alive, and with your personal property intact.
The guidelines painted a nightmarish vision of New York; one that made it sound barely a cut above Beirut, which then had just been engulfed in Lebanon’s civil war. Visitors were advised not to venture outside of midtown Manhattan, not to take the subways under any circumstances, and not to walk outside anywhere after six in the evening.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/18/welcome-to-fear-city-the-inside-story-of-new-yorks-civil-war-40-years-on
I think folks can benefit from immersing themselves in the fear city comment I posted earlier, explore it online, and get a true feel what the city was like then vs now, in comparison to everywhere else. There was a dynamic and rapid transformation.