2020 Elections

[marshwiggle]

How about you respond to what I wrote? I clearly said I was writing about MY city.

If the information about your city was wrong, there are still other places (such as Seattle) where there is a lot of documentation of ongoing violence.

To be clear: I don't care whether rioters are from left or right, whether they are environmental activists or climate-change deniers, pro-life or pro-choice, etc. If they are destroying property and breaking the law, and especially if they are engaging in violence, they should be arrested, jailed, and charged. The alternative is easy to see in Venezuela or Syria.

May I be clear? Of course there is ongoing violence. You are willfully obtuse about the extent overreaction by the police caused a bunch of the problem. That was my city (Fort Wayne, fwiw), Indianapolis and please don't pretend you've forgotten DC when the President had his infamous Bible photo op.

The other complete falsehood is the statement that the damage was primarily due to white activists. We watched in real time what happened in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit and LA. Please STOP generalizing the Portland and Seattle situations to the entire United States. Unlike you this is my country, and I have to live with all this.

From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)

Nevertheless, voters don't really care whether their house or business is torched or looted by a right wing mob or a left wing mob. They don't care whether the thug shooting at their kids is from the left or right; they want their families and properties to be safe. An easy way to get lots of support from middle-of-the road voters who aren't terribly partisan is to show them that their safety is of paramount importance, regardless of whether they accept all of your ideology. (This goes for both parties.)

[jimbogumbo]

I'll just say this and be done. We have serious problems in the USA, and you don't live them or know crap about them. You are a troll, plain and simple. Screw you.

[Puget]

I'll just say this and be done. We have serious problems in the USA, and you don't live them or know crap about them. You are a troll, plain and simple. Screw you.

Instructions for adding posters to your ignore list:
Click Profile (the word itself, not anything in the menu that opens when you hover over it-- a bit confusing that), then from the Modify Profile menu, select Buddies/Ignore list, then Edit Ignore List

Block five or six people and the forum becomes a much nicer place.

[mamselle]

Or just scroll past those names and don't read.

Every now and again one of them may say something worthwhile.

Usually you can just tell by the re-re-re-nested quotes and arguments, though, when they haven't.

M.

[dismalist]

Block five or six people and the forum becomes a much nicer place.

Which five or six? :-)

[mahagonny]

How about you respond to what I wrote? I clearly said I was writing about MY city.

If the information about your city was wrong, there are still other places (such as Seattle) where there is a lot of documentation of ongoing violence.

To be clear: I don't care whether rioters are from left or right, whether they are environmental activists or climate-change deniers, pro-life or pro-choice, etc. If they are destroying property and breaking the law, and especially if they are engaging in violence, they should be arrested, jailed, and charged. The alternative is easy to see in Venezuela or Syria.

May I be clear? Of course there is ongoing violence. You are willfully obtuse about the extent overreaction by the police caused a bunch of the problem. That was my city (Fort Wayne, fwiw), Indianapolis and please don't pretend you've forgotten DC when the President had his infamous Bible photo op.

The other complete falsehood is the statement that the damage was primarily due to white activists. We watched in real time what happened in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit and LA. Please STOP generalizing the Portland and Seattle situations to the entire United States. Unlike you this is my country, and I have to live with all this.

From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)

Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

[marshwiggle]

From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)

Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

It's more that, if Republicans are more racist than Democrats, and if Republicans are more forgiving of excessive force by police, then it stands to reason that the most unrest and the most extreme responses to police use of force would be expected in places with Republican leadership. That appears to not be the case, which raises the question of why not.

[mahagonny]

From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)

Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

It's more that, if Republicans are more racist than Democrats, and if Republicans are more forgiving of excessive force by police, then it stands to reason that the most unrest and the most extreme responses to police use of force would be expected in places with Republican leadership. That appears to not be the case, which raises the question of why not.

I have no idea.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I'll just say this and be done. We have serious problems in the USA, and you don't live them or know crap about them. You are a troll, plain and simple. Screw you.

Instructions for adding posters to your ignore list:
Click Profile (the word itself, not anything in the menu that opens when you hover over it-- a bit confusing that), then from the Modify Profile menu, select Buddies/Ignore list, then Edit Ignore List

Block five or six people and the forum becomes a much nicer place.

I haven't blocked anybody, and I don't think I would do that, but I'm mostly ignoring certain people. I'm all for a spirited debate, but some folks are allergic to logic and evidence, and it is pointless to argue with them.

[mamselle]

Agreed.

And some just missed the "brighten the corner where you are" memo.

M.

[Kron3007]

From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)

Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

It's more that, if Republicans are more racist than Democrats, and if Republicans are more forgiving of excessive force by police, then it stands to reason that the most unrest and the most extreme responses to police use of force would be expected in places with Republican leadership. That appears to not be the case, which raises the question of why not.

I have no idea.

Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country.  Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.

[ciao_yall]

From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)

Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

It's more that, if Republicans are more racist than Democrats, and if Republicans are more forgiving of excessive force by police, then it stands to reason that the most unrest and the most extreme responses to police use of force would be expected in places with Republican leadership. That appears to not be the case, which raises the question of why not.

I have no idea.

Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country.  Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

If the liberal party tends to be Democratic, then it makes sense.

People who want to live only around people like themselves would have to live in a rural area just to reduce the chance that someone would be different from them.

[mahagonny]

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

Can you define 'closed border' please?

Can there be a debate about immigration policy, or should we just dispense with laws altogether?

Nobody has open arms for everybody. It sounds nice, but it doesn't work.

[dismalist]

school choice for-profit charter schools

Yup, choice is bad. Profits are bad. Charter schools are bad.

Competition is bad!

[Hegemony]

It sounds as if Dismalist thinks for-profit schools offer beneficial competition.  That hasn't worked out so well in higher education, has it? The most financially successful for-profit university being Phoenix — if there are others, perhaps that actually offer a solid education, they've been beaten out by Phoenix, so I guess that shows the results of competition. I see they have a graduation rate of 16.65% in 150% of normal completion time (6 years). But the graduation rate is not really the goal of a for-profit, is it? The profit rate is the goal. So I would imagine the profit rate of Phoenix is quite high.