Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 285

Always appreciate your rational view of the Asian community's issues, though you are a jeremy lin racism denier lol.

I will say my views are really complex and everything is a case-by-case thing. I'm not just a pro-Asian leftist idiot on anything that supports Asians gaining more power.

For example when it comes to Asians in corporate leadership, I think because if you are a white person living in Japan/Korea/Taiwan/China there is a definitely a glass ceiling towards your corporate advancement I don't think it should be auto-expected to have equal representation in Corporate Boards.

Also Asians aren't exactly saints when it comes to racism towards blacks living in Asian countries.

etc etc. As an Asian I feel like alot of issues are somewhat nuanced.

However yeah, I will say in my personal experience and observation of current events, Black on Asian-American racism is very very real and I def wish things change to where it's no longer accepted.

On April 02 2021 20:58 blackjacki2 wrote: I'd just like to point out that the delusions of this lady are probably partly influenced by this new wave of leftists that have tried to reinvent the word racism to give it definitions like "only people with power can be racist." In other words, "Only white people can be racist."

I remember Loco said that a long time ago, the good old dictionary play lol

Eh, the typical leftist position is 'racism is a bigger issue when it's backed by a power structure/if it's systemic', not 'non-white people can't be racist'. Like the black dad who doesn't want his daughter to date a white guy is obviously racist, but that racism is less of a big deal than a society that refuses to employ him or incarcerates him on grounds of him being black.

On April 03 2021 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: Eh, the typical leftist position is 'racism is a bigger issue when it's backed by a power structure/if it's systemic', not 'non-white people can't be racist'. Like the black dad who doesn't want his daughter to date a white guy is obviously racist, but that racism is less of a big deal than a society that refuses to employ him or incarcerates him on grounds of him being black.

Guy that is anti-asian on pretty much every issue we have discussed. Says all lives matter detracts from black lives matter movement.

We are discussing racism against asians, and immediately wants to change subject back to racism against blacks even though this is the most covered political story already. a+

where are the rest of your crew, loco and stroggoz

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-am...icked-witnesses-appear-watch-n1262431

On April 03 2021 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: Eh, the typical leftist position is 'racism is a bigger issue when it's backed by a power structure/if it's systemic', not 'non-white people can't be racist'. Like the black dad who doesn't want his daughter to date a white guy is obviously racist, but that racism is less of a big deal than a society that refuses to employ him or incarcerates him on grounds of him being black.

yeah it's not the typical leftist. It's mostly people on the fringe left that are really proud to have these ideas that only white people can be racist or ideas like if you won't date a trans person then you're a bigot. But it's definitely a much larger group of people than it was 5 years ago and the San Francisco school board is probably one of the most likely place for these ideas to infiltrate government

The San Francisco district attorney, whose duty it is to prosecute criminals, acts like a defense attorney and tries his best to keep criminals on the streets.

https://www.marinatimes.com/2021/03/chesa-boudin-by-the-numbers/

Zion Young was charged with 11 firearms felonies, which Boudin reduced to one misdemeanor, calling the stop pretextual, and let him go. Less than 3 months later, Young shot and killed 19-year-old Kelvin Chew in a botched robbery attempt.

In 2020, SFPD presented 6,333 felonies to Boudin’s office. Contrast that with neighboring Alameda County, where 6,331 felony cases were presented, resulting in 1,413 convictions. Alameda dismissed only 11.4 percent of cases, while San Francisco’s dismissal rate was 40 percent.

San Franciscans deserve what they get. He promised to be soft on crime and he is fulfilling his promise.

On April 03 2021 21:42 blackjacki2 wrote: The San Francisco district attorney, whose duty it is to prosecute criminals, acts like a defense attorney and tries his best to keep criminals on the streets. https://www.marinatimes.com/2021/03/chesa-boudin-by-the-numbers/ Show nested quote + Zion Young was charged with 11 firearms felonies, which Boudin reduced to one misdemeanor, calling the stop pretextual, and let him go. Less than 3 months later, Young shot and killed 19-year-old Kelvin Chew in a botched robbery attempt.   In 2020, SFPD presented 6,333 felonies to Boudin’s office. Contrast that with neighboring Alameda County, where 6,331 felony cases were presented, resulting in 1,413 convictions. Alameda dismissed only 11.4 percent of cases, while San Francisco’s dismissal rate was 40 percent. San Franciscans deserve what they get. He promised to be soft on crime and he is fulfilling his promise.

That's a very flawed argument in more ways than one. You focus on a very small statistical sample for one. America is off the spectrum among rich countries in its complete savagery in punishing criminals. Compare with other countries that have much lower incarceration rates, (Every single country in the world), and then look at gun violence as well. I'm not suggesting the two are causally related, but you do not attempt to make the obvious cross-country and cross-cultural comparisons and you imply that this is based on one variable. There's a reason social scientists have to torture themselves by taking stats classes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...carceration_rate_with_other_countries

On April 04 2021 19:36 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On April 03 2021 21:42 blackjacki2 wrote: The San Francisco district attorney, whose duty it is to prosecute criminals, acts like a defense attorney and tries his best to keep criminals on the streets. https://www.marinatimes.com/2021/03/chesa-boudin-by-the-numbers/   Zion Young was charged with 11 firearms felonies, which Boudin reduced to one misdemeanor, calling the stop pretextual, and let him go. Less than 3 months later, Young shot and killed 19-year-old Kelvin Chew in a botched robbery attempt.   In 2020, SFPD presented 6,333 felonies to Boudin’s office. Contrast that with neighboring Alameda County, where 6,331 felony cases were presented, resulting in 1,413 convictions. Alameda dismissed only 11.4 percent of cases, while San Francisco’s dismissal rate was 40 percent. San Franciscans deserve what they get. He promised to be soft on crime and he is fulfilling his promise. That's a very flawed argument in more ways than one. You focus on a very small statistical sample for one. America is off the spectrum among rich countries in its complete savagery in punishing criminals. Compare with other countries that have much lower incarceration rates, (Every single country in the world), and then look at gun violence as well. I'm not suggesting the two are causally related, but you do not attempt to make the obvious cross-country and cross-cultural comparisons and you imply that this is based on one variable. There's a reason social scientists have to torture themselves by taking stats classes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...carceration_rate_with_other_countries

It doesn't matter that it's a small statistical sample when you combine it with the fact that he ran on a promise of decarceration. Through that lens it's obvious that the fact that he is prosecuting far fewer cases than the neighboring county is not a statistical anomaly or coincidence.

In regards to your more broad point that the US already incarcerates more people than it should and criminal justice reform is sorely needed - the solution to that isn't to just have the DA prosecute fewer people. You need social programs, safety nets, less poverty. Unilaterally deciding to not prosecute as many criminals might lower the incarceration rate but I doubt it will lower the crime rate. It's the DA's job to prosecute crimes. If the shoe were on the other foot and a defense attorney decided to do a shit job defending someone because they thought they deserve to go to prison then that wouldn't be very good either.

The USA has turned prisons into a profitable business by targeting their poverty-stricken social layer and managed to put their horrible police on a pedestal while doing so. Nixon managed to cause damage like no other president on so many levels they are struggling to recover.

Awful laws in a combination with untrained cops (lol at becoming a cop after going through an academy ) while policies and media target blacks and poor people specifically while creating a private incarceration business funded by the government while your secret agency is the one importing drugs into the country is actually impressive.

Why am I saying this? There is so much shit that needs to be fixed on a fundamental level while a DA can actually do proper work ...

On April 04 2021 22:15 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 04 2021 19:36 Stroggoz wrote:   On April 03 2021 21:42 blackjacki2 wrote: The San Francisco district attorney, whose duty it is to prosecute criminals, acts like a defense attorney and tries his best to keep criminals on the streets. https://www.marinatimes.com/2021/03/chesa-boudin-by-the-numbers/   Zion Young was charged with 11 firearms felonies, which Boudin reduced to one misdemeanor, calling the stop pretextual, and let him go. Less than 3 months later, Young shot and killed 19-year-old Kelvin Chew in a botched robbery attempt.   In 2020, SFPD presented 6,333 felonies to Boudin’s office. Contrast that with neighboring Alameda County, where 6,331 felony cases were presented, resulting in 1,413 convictions. Alameda dismissed only 11.4 percent of cases, while San Francisco’s dismissal rate was 40 percent. San Franciscans deserve what they get. He promised to be soft on crime and he is fulfilling his promise. That's a very flawed argument in more ways than one. You focus on a very small statistical sample for one. America is off the spectrum among rich countries in its complete savagery in punishing criminals. Compare with other countries that have much lower incarceration rates, (Every single country in the world), and then look at gun violence as well. I'm not suggesting the two are causally related, but you do not attempt to make the obvious cross-country and cross-cultural comparisons and you imply that this is based on one variable. There's a reason social scientists have to torture themselves by taking stats classes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...carceration_rate_with_other_countries It doesn't matter that it's a small statistical sample when you combine it with the fact that he ran on a promise of decarceration. Through that lens it's obvious that the fact that he is prosecuting far fewer cases than the neighboring county is not a statistical anomaly or coincidence. In regards to your more broad point that the US already incarcerates more people than it should and criminal justice reform is sorely needed - the solution to that isn't to just have the DA prosecute fewer people. You need social programs, safety nets, less poverty. Unilaterally deciding to not prosecute as many criminals might lower the incarceration rate but I doubt it will lower the crime rate. It's the DA's job to prosecute crimes. If the shoe were on the other foot and a defense attorney decided to do a shit job defending someone because they thought they deserve to go to prison then that wouldn't be very good either.

it's cherry-picking though, to start with. Basically, the whole argument can be dismissed because it starts by looking at one example of a violent crime instead of the net total of crime, which appears to have dropped while the DA has been in office, although violent crime increased (as it did in most major cities in California during covid). Again, it would also be dumb for me to say his program worked if all types of crime decreased, but it's basically the first statistic you'd want to look into if you were interested in the effects of his program. And you'd start by controlling other confounding variables like the fact that crime has dropped everywhere overall over the last 30 years, so it has to drop proportionately higher than where it's dropping elsewhere. One year is not a long enough time to make any conclusions, and it's almost meaningless when it's during a pandemic.

Violent crime has been steadily decreasing over the last 40 years in almost every country, and it's happened in countries that have increased incarceration rates and it's happened in ones that have decreased them. Violent gun crime, and gun control though, are so strongly correlated and have a lot of comparable examples that you can make pretty strong conclusions about it. And this is why blaming the DA makes no sense to me, you can clearly point the finger at many other things before even considering his policy. It's very strange to focus on one DA when there are a million other variables that are both easier to make conclusions on, and easier to deal with. I mostly agree with what you've said in the second paragraph.

On April 04 2021 23:09 Spitfiree wrote: The USA has turned prisons into a profitable business by targeting their poverty-stricken social layer and managed to put their horrible police on a pedestal while doing so. Nixon managed to cause damage like no other president on so many levels they are struggling to recover.

This is standard practice for controlling populations, it's very self-evident in violent poor countries. I'd venture to guess without even researching into it, that most of Deterte's drug war victims are either street children that no one liked, or political opponents. America isn't as bad as the Philippines so they put people in prison for a very long time instead of murdering them, and you can't just plant drugs on them after murdering/arresting them, like you can in the Philippines.

However as one of the 200IQ econ phd students explained to me once, capitalism can't possibly be racist because corporations will pay black people the same as anyone else for the same amount of work, because it's in their self-interest. Black people getting paid 30 cents an hour in prison may be true in practice, but it doesn't work in theory.

On April 04 2021 23:09 Spitfiree wrote: untrained cops

On April 04 2021 23:09 Spitfiree wrote: (lol at becoming a cop after going through an academy )

Yes, civilized countries where cops don't shoot on sight require people to go through 5 years of study and training before even being considered for the position. The same process in the USA takes around 6 months

You know shit is bad when you even have to say that the USA isn't as bad as the Philippines. They are also not as bad as Russia where everyone that has a different opinion than Putin either disappears or is put in a working colony. E.g. I think Navalny's move to go back was quite poor, as he'll most likely die and become a martyr, but that tactic probably wont work in Russia.

On April 05 2021 06:55 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On April 04 2021 22:15 blackjacki2 wrote:   On April 04 2021 19:36 Stroggoz wrote:   On April 03 2021 21:42 blackjacki2 wrote: The San Francisco district attorney, whose duty it is to prosecute criminals, acts like a defense attorney and tries his best to keep criminals on the streets. https://www.marinatimes.com/2021/03/chesa-boudin-by-the-numbers/   Zion Young was charged with 11 firearms felonies, which Boudin reduced to one misdemeanor, calling the stop pretextual, and let him go. Less than 3 months later, Young shot and killed 19-year-old Kelvin Chew in a botched robbery attempt.   In 2020, SFPD presented 6,333 felonies to Boudin’s office. Contrast that with neighboring Alameda County, where 6,331 felony cases were presented, resulting in 1,413 convictions. Alameda dismissed only 11.4 percent of cases, while San Francisco’s dismissal rate was 40 percent. San Franciscans deserve what they get. He promised to be soft on crime and he is fulfilling his promise. That's a very flawed argument in more ways than one. You focus on a very small statistical sample for one. America is off the spectrum among rich countries in its complete savagery in punishing criminals. Compare with other countries that have much lower incarceration rates, (Every single country in the world), and then look at gun violence as well. I'm not suggesting the two are causally related, but you do not attempt to make the obvious cross-country and cross-cultural comparisons and you imply that this is based on one variable. There's a reason social scientists have to torture themselves by taking stats classes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...carceration_rate_with_other_countries It doesn't matter that it's a small statistical sample when you combine it with the fact that he ran on a promise of decarceration. Through that lens it's obvious that the fact that he is prosecuting far fewer cases than the neighboring county is not a statistical anomaly or coincidence. In regards to your more broad point that the US already incarcerates more people than it should and criminal justice reform is sorely needed - the solution to that isn't to just have the DA prosecute fewer people. You need social programs, safety nets, less poverty. Unilaterally deciding to not prosecute as many criminals might lower the incarceration rate but I doubt it will lower the crime rate. It's the DA's job to prosecute crimes. If the shoe were on the other foot and a defense attorney decided to do a shit job defending someone because they thought they deserve to go to prison then that wouldn't be very good either. it's cherry-picking though, to start with. Basically, the whole argument can be dismissed because it starts by looking at one example of a violent crime instead of the net total of crime, which appears to have dropped while the DA has been in office, although violent crime increased (as it did in most major cities in California during covid). Again, it would also be dumb for me to say his program worked if all types of crime decreased, but it's basically the first statistic you'd want to look into if you were interested in the effects of his program. And you'd start by controlling other confounding variables like the fact that crime has dropped everywhere overall over the last 30 years, so it has to drop proportionately higher than where it's dropping elsewhere. One year is not a long enough time to make any conclusions, and it's almost meaningless when it's during a pandemic. Violent crime has been steadily decreasing over the last 40 years in almost every country, and it's happened in countries that have increased incarceration rates and it's happened in ones that have decreased them. Violent gun crime, and gun control though, are so strongly correlated and have a lot of comparable examples that you can make pretty strong conclusions about it. And this is why blaming the DA makes no sense to me, you can clearly point the finger at many other things before even considering his policy. It's very strange to focus on one DA when there are a million other variables that are both easier to make conclusions on, and easier to deal with. I mostly agree with what you've said in the second paragraph.

There can be several years lag time before any policy changes begin to show up in statistics. Are you suggesting that all arguments against him should be dismissed until then? Why can't I just expect someone to do their job and prosecute someone that was charged with 11 firearms felonies? If it was my family member that was murdered by this guy that should have been in prison would I get to complain then?

On April 05 2021 10:57 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2021 06:55 Stroggoz wrote:   On April 04 2021 22:15 blackjacki2 wrote:   On April 04 2021 19:36 Stroggoz wrote:   On April 03 2021 21:42 blackjacki2 wrote: The San Francisco district attorney, whose duty it is to prosecute criminals, acts like a defense attorney and tries his best to keep criminals on the streets. https://www.marinatimes.com/2021/03/chesa-boudin-by-the-numbers/   Zion Young was charged with 11 firearms felonies, which Boudin reduced to one misdemeanor, calling the stop pretextual, and let him go. Less than 3 months later, Young shot and killed 19-year-old Kelvin Chew in a botched robbery attempt.   In 2020, SFPD presented 6,333 felonies to Boudin’s office. Contrast that with neighboring Alameda County, where 6,331 felony cases were presented, resulting in 1,413 convictions. Alameda dismissed only 11.4 percent of cases, while San Francisco’s dismissal rate was 40 percent. San Franciscans deserve what they get. He promised to be soft on crime and he is fulfilling his promise. That's a very flawed argument in more ways than one. You focus on a very small statistical sample for one. America is off the spectrum among rich countries in its complete savagery in punishing criminals. Compare with other countries that have much lower incarceration rates, (Every single country in the world), and then look at gun violence as well. I'm not suggesting the two are causally related, but you do not attempt to make the obvious cross-country and cross-cultural comparisons and you imply that this is based on one variable. There's a reason social scientists have to torture themselves by taking stats classes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...carceration_rate_with_other_countries It doesn't matter that it's a small statistical sample when you combine it with the fact that he ran on a promise of decarceration. Through that lens it's obvious that the fact that he is prosecuting far fewer cases than the neighboring county is not a statistical anomaly or coincidence. In regards to your more broad point that the US already incarcerates more people than it should and criminal justice reform is sorely needed - the solution to that isn't to just have the DA prosecute fewer people. You need social programs, safety nets, less poverty. Unilaterally deciding to not prosecute as many criminals might lower the incarceration rate but I doubt it will lower the crime rate. It's the DA's job to prosecute crimes. If the shoe were on the other foot and a defense attorney decided to do a shit job defending someone because they thought they deserve to go to prison then that wouldn't be very good either. it's cherry-picking though, to start with. Basically, the whole argument can be dismissed because it starts by looking at one example of a violent crime instead of the net total of crime, which appears to have dropped while the DA has been in office, although violent crime increased (as it did in most major cities in California during covid). Again, it would also be dumb for me to say his program worked if all types of crime decreased, but it's basically the first statistic you'd want to look into if you were interested in the effects of his program. And you'd start by controlling other confounding variables like the fact that crime has dropped everywhere overall over the last 30 years, so it has to drop proportionately higher than where it's dropping elsewhere. One year is not a long enough time to make any conclusions, and it's almost meaningless when it's during a pandemic. Violent crime has been steadily decreasing over the last 40 years in almost every country, and it's happened in countries that have increased incarceration rates and it's happened in ones that have decreased them. Violent gun crime, and gun control though, are so strongly correlated and have a lot of comparable examples that you can make pretty strong conclusions about it. And this is why blaming the DA makes no sense to me, you can clearly point the finger at many other things before even considering his policy. It's very strange to focus on one DA when there are a million other variables that are both easier to make conclusions on, and easier to deal with. I mostly agree with what you've said in the second paragraph. Are you suggesting that all arguments against him should be dismissed until then?

No, what I'm suggesting is that your particular argument should be dismissed.

erudite don lemon on gaslighting that replacement of whites is a conspiracy theory

On April 03 2021 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: Eh, the typical leftist position is 'racism is a bigger issue when it's backed by a power structure/if it's systemic', not 'non-white people can't be racist'. Like the black dad who doesn't want his daughter to date a white guy is obviously racist, but that racism is less of a big deal than a society that refuses to employ him or incarcerates him on grounds of him being black.

"reasonable leftist position" you mean, hell I agree with that position but that is NOT the positon of most progressives they literally say that racism is prejudice + power ergo minorities cannot be racist, actually loco has said that before.

For example, posted 3 days ago by an account with 1.6M followers on twitter than 4.3M in instagram, this isn't some fringe radical nobody, I think Drone, that since yourself and likely your circle of friends are reasonable people you are failing to see where the wind is blowing in regards of modern leftism.

And if you think its just a random tweet from a person, well the platforms state that they do not allow racism yet these tweets are allowed which means they don't consider this racism.