The Democratic Presidential Debates

1145146148150151230

Comments

  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    edited February 2020
    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.
    [Retracted]. 
    Post edited by ecdanc on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,667
    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. 
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    mrussel1 said:
    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!! 
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    mrussel1 said:
    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. 
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,750
    ecdanc said:
    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.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    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?
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    ecdanc said:
    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.
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    hedonist said:
    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. 
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    ecdanc said:
    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.  :rock_on:

  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    hedonist said:
    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.  :rock_on:

    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. 
  • what dreamswhat dreams Posts: 1,761
    IGNORE:  You click on the user and then there is a drop down arrow in the upper right hand corner of the user's profile. You select IGNORE.
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,436
    edited February 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    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.





  • what dreamswhat dreams Posts: 1,761
    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. 
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    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. 
    Echo echo echo echo...
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814

    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.





    Who lived in those locations?
  • Using the ignore feature is a virtue of the vicious, according to Emil Gustafsson 
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,667

    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?
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,750
    Well I figured out ignore. Had to go to full page and not mobile. Now I can’t figure out how to go back to mobile 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,750
    IGNORE:  You click on the user and then there is a drop down arrow in the upper right hand corner of the user's profile. You select IGNORE.
    Thanks. Didn’t show for me on mobile page
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 43,596
    edited February 2020
    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
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    Well I figured out ignore. Had to go to full page and not mobile. Now I can’t figure out how to go back to mobile 
    I could have told you how to fix that. 
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,750
    Alright. Thanks all, got it figured out and back to mobile.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,719
    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 )


    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,436

    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




  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,667
    ^ I remember when the vigilante (Goetz) was the biggest story on the news forever.  NY had a horrible reputation, that's for sure. 
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,436
    mrussel1 said:
    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. 
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    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?
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814

    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?        

  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,719
    ecdanc said:
    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.  

    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    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 
This discussion has been closed.