More red state Idiocy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jordan, R-Ohio, pointed to the "disparagement" of law enforcement overstressing police forces across America.

"We're not getting enough good people applying because of the disparagement on police officers," Jordan told NBC's "Meet the Press." Gym a lying seditious scumbag who should be on trial like the foot soldiers already charged and convicted


police are the victims FYI most people don’t want to be cop because the hours and shift work blows and the pays poor unless you’re in a big city or a state trooper in the NE
See article below


https://www.statista.com/statistics/...olice-by-race/

Statistics don’t lie

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 1,060 civilians having been shot, 220 of whom were Black, as of December 20, 2022. In 2021, there were 1,055 fatal police shootings, and in 2020 there were 1,020 fatal shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 5.9 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and December 2022.

now here comes what’s called 13/50 argument

The “13/50” argument is an overused and under-analyzed conservative talking point, one that unfortunately aids in perpetuating lies about the black community and in casting an unfounded presumption of guilt onto black people. The argument proposes that while black people make up only 13 percent of the population of the United States, we commit 50 percent of all known crime. Occasionally, the 50 percent statistic will vary, sometimes only referring to murder or more broadly to violent crime. Nonetheless, because this argument lacks truly concrete evidence

If you look at the rates blacks are shot by police and compare that to the black makeup of the entire US population, it's disproportionate. But it's a silly way to look at it, because violent crime doesn't happen universally or evenly throughout the country. Most violent crime happens in poor urban areas, and common sense suggests that's where you'll have most dangerous encounters between cops and civilians.

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Blacks don't need to be white to prosper. As a group, they need to embrace a culture that emphasizes better decision-making.

It's not about race. It's about socio-economics and culture. Black kids born to 2 loving, committed parents, do just fine. White kids born to single teenage mothers who have a chaotic life, struggle.

But all the left sees is race. It's not accurate. It's not helping to solve the problem. But it helps democrats win elections.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you look at the rates blacks are shot by police and compare that to the black makeup of the entire US population, it's disproportionate. But it's a silly way to look at it, because violent crime doesn't happen universally or evenly throughout the country. Most violent crime happens in poor urban areas, and common sense suggests that's where you'll have most dangerous encounters between cops and civilians.

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Blacks don't need to be white to prosper. As a group, they need to embrace a culture that emphasizes better decision-making.

It's not about race. It's about socio-economics and culture. Black kids born to 2 loving, committed parents, do just fine. White kids born to single teenage mothers who have a chaotic life, struggle.

But all the left sees is race. It's not accurate. It's not helping to solve the problem. But it helps democrats win elections.

Well as usual what you’re claiming is sorta kinda true, but misses whats happened in black communities since the beginning of the war on drugs.
There’s a reason blacks are imprisoned at 5 times the rate of whites and it has become a self propagating mechanism.

Since the late 1980s, a combination of federal law enforcement policies, prosecutorial practices, and legislation resulted in Black people being disproportionately arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for possession and distribution of crack cocaine. Five grams of crack cocaine — the weight of a couple packs of sugar — was, for sentencing purposes, deemed the equivalent of 500 grams of powder cocaine; both resulted in the same five-year sentence. Although household surveys from the National Institute for Drug Abuse have revealed larger numbers of documented white crack cocaine users, the overwhelming number of arrests nonetheless came from Black communities who were disproportionately impacted by the facially neutral, yet illogically harsh, crack penalties.
Far easier targets to arrest and convict.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Moving the goal posts again .. sadly Jim you can’t provide and data for your conclusion.. “rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens”

but yet you claim your conclusion is factual, what is this nonsensical argument? I’ve posted statically Analysis and the fallacy of the 13/50% rule I knew you would use as a defense. And of course , The myth of the absent Black father excuse. You don’t disappoint

There’s a lot of single parents in America

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Moving the goal posts again .. sadly Jim you can’t provide and data for your conclusion.. “rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens”

but yet you claim your conclusion is factual, what is this nonsensical argument? I’ve posted statically Analysis and the fallacy of the 13/50% rule I knew you would use as a defense. And of course , The myth of the absent Black father excuse. You don’t disappoint

There’s a lot of single parents in America

Every time I point our where you're wrong, I'm either moving the goal post of engaging in false equivalence.

Earth to Wayne...there isn't a huge amount of violent crime in leafy, upper middle class suburbs. That's why comparing rates at which blacks die by cop to their makeup of the general population, means absolutely nothing. Cops on Nantucket don't routinely find themselves in life or death situations with guns drawn. So you exclude the outliers.

In another thread, you mentioned you aren't a biblical scholar (big shock), Add to that list, that you're not a statistics scholar either.

Wayne, what's the rate at which blacks are murdered in general (not just by cops), compared to their makeup of the general population? It's also much higher. Yet most blacks are murdered by other blacks. Is that because of white racists? Or is it because of socioeconomics?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...lice-shootings

From the Manhattan institute...

"these data and studies rebut the most extreme accusations of racial bias, in which police officers are thought to be killing nonthreatening black men with astounding frequency"

Cops don't shoot people at random, uniformly across the country. It's something that's mostly concentrated in the big cities, so that's the universe you look at.

Chapter 1 of any statistics book.

Of course there are racist cops to be rooted out. But there's nohting even close to an epidemic of police killing of blacks.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So you exclude the outliers.
.

Except when you use Brentwood TN? Isn't that the one you use to talk about how great TN is while ignoring all the stats about how far behind the state of TN is?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Except when you use Brentwood TN? Isn't that the one you use to talk about how great TN is while ignoring all the stats about how far behind the state of TN is?

You lie about this again, and again, and again, and again. Because you know you are clobbered by the truth.

I never, ever said, or even came close to saying, that every single square inch of Tennessee is great.

Here's what I always say, and you know it, which shows you're the scummy liar.

There are many places in TN, and in NH, and FL, where I would never, ever want to live. There are also many places in CT where I would never want to live.

Here's what makes those states "better"...there are specific places in those states (like Franklin, TN, or Hollis/Brookline, NH) that (1) offer a very nice quality of life that's attractive to a huge number of Americans, AND (2) which also have super low total taxes (state + local).

Paul, I have asked you many times here, to name for me one single place in CT that offers s great quality of life, with super low state+local taxes. I don't think you have ever responded, because stupid and dishonest as you are, even you know you can't answer it honestly without it being obvious that I'm correct.

If I moved to a nice leafy suburb of NH, I'd pay 0 state income tax and 0 state sales tax, probably more in local property taxes but nowhere near enough for it to even out. And I wouldn't give up a single state service that I currently enjoy here in CT. In fact, last time I checked, the university of new hampshire was a lot cheaper than UCONN, despite having almost zero state taxes.

Paul, don't take my word for it! Look at the data. Which states are people leaving, which states are they moving to.

The "outliers" in those states, are the value proposition offered by those states. CT has exactly, and I mean exactly, zero similar outliers. There isn't one single town in CT with comparable tax burden. Not one. If I am wrong, please share with me, please enlighten me.

Scummy liar,

If I moved to NH today I'd save more than $10k a year in state income tax, god knows what we pay in annual state sales tax (must be 10k a year), and give up absolutely not one single thing. And I'd enjoy those savings every single year, a fortune over a lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. For what? What do I get?

Go to realtor.com and look at Hollis, Brookline, Bow, or Amherst NH. They can't build $650,000 houses fast enough. You think it's all meth heads moving there, all trailer trash that's scooping up those beautiful colonials? All a bunch of fat, ignorant rednecks, eating fried twinkies and watching Hee Haw re-runs all day? Or is it hard working, successful, productive families? Which is it?

And the cost difference between CT and those places, will increase over the next 15 years, CT will have no choice but to drastically raise taxes as the idiotic promises that the liberals made to labor inions, come due. The money isn't there, not even close. So taxes will skyrocket. Look at the estimates of our unfunded debt - not good. That's why every cent of retirement savings we have is in Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, any idiot could see these huge tax hikes coming, so we are insulated against it.

Paul, I have never come close to saying "throw a dart at a map of TN and it will hit a place nicer than anything in CT". But I did the math for my brother to show him what he'd save. And I visited him in Franklin. It's as nice as, say, Avon CT, at a fraction of the cost. There's no comparing the cost. ANd he didn't lose a single service after he moved.



None of you can respond to what was actually said. Not a one.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You lie about this again, and again, and again, and again. Because you know you are clobbered by the truth.

I never, ever said, or even came close to saying, that every single square inch of Tennessee is great.

Here's what I always say, and you know it, which shows you're the scummy liar.

There are many places in TN, and in NH, and FL, where I would never, ever want to live. There are also many places in CT where I would never want to live.

Here's what makes those states "better"...there are specific places in those states (like Franklin, TN, or Hollis/Brookline, NH) that (1) offer a very nice quality of life that's attractive to a huge number of Americans, AND (2) which also have super low total taxes (state + local).

Paul, I have asked you many times here, to name for me one single place in CT that offers s great quality of life, with super low state+local taxes. I don't think you have ever responded, because stupid and dishonest as you are, even you know you can't answer it honestly without it being obvious that I'm correct.

If I moved to a nice leafy suburb of NH, I'd pay 0 state income tax and 0 state sales tax, probably more in local property taxes but nowhere near enough for it to even out. And I wouldn't give up a single state service that I currently enjoy here in CT. In fact, last time I checked, the university of new hampshire was a lot cheaper than UCONN, despite having almost zero state taxes.

Paul, don't take my word for it! Look at the data. Which states are people leaving, which states are they moving to.

The "outliers" in those states, are the value proposition offered by those states. CT has exactly, and I mean exactly, zero similar outliers. There isn't one single town in CT with comparable tax burden. Not one. If I am wrong, please share with me, please enlighten me.

Scummy liar,

If I moved to NH today I'd save more than $10k a year in state income tax, god knows what we pay in annual state sales tax (must be 10k a year), and give up absolutely not one single thing. And I'd enjoy those savings every single year, a fortune over a lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. For what? What do I get?

Go to realtor.com and look at Hollis, Brookline, Bow, or Amherst NH. They can't build $650,000 houses fast enough. You think it's all meth heads moving there, all trailer trash that's scooping up those beautiful colonials? All a bunch of fat, ignorant rednecks, eating fried twinkies and watching Hee Haw re-runs all day? Or is it hard working, successful, productive families? Which is it?

And the cost difference between CT and those places, will increase over the next 15 years, CT will have no choice but to drastically raise taxes as the idiotic promises that the liberals made to labor inions, come due. The money isn't there, not even close. So taxes will skyrocket. Look at the estimates of our unfunded debt - not good. That's why every cent of retirement savings we have is in Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, any idiot could see these huge tax hikes coming, so we are insulated against it.

Paul, I have never come close to saying "throw a dart at a map of TN and it will hit a place nicer than anything in CT". But I did the math for my brother to show him what he'd save. And I visited him in Franklin. It's as nice as, say, Avon CT, at a fraction of the cost. There's no comparing the cost. ANd he didn't lose a single service after he moved.



None of you can respond to what was actually said. Not a one.

Suck my #^&#^&#^&#^& you #^&#^&#^&#^&ing POS