Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[SocialCircle 570]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Because money = votes, right?  Clinton's campaign had more money on hand than Trump's in 2016, yet lost.  Your argument doesn't hold water.

I also believe the outside money has given the D a better chance in this race.  Using the Trump race as an argument is disingenuous as you know Trump got attention in many ways this D in SC simply can't.  

[TexasTiger 12,811]

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

It's very possible. Maybe not sitting on a bench, but walking down the street could have done him in.

"Yes, a person can overdose on fentanyl. An overdose occurs when a drug produces serious adverse effects and life-threatening symptoms. When people overdose on fentanyl, their breathing can slow or stop. This can decrease the amount of oxygen that reaches the brain, a condition called hypoxia. Hypoxia can lead to a coma and permanent brain damage, and even death."

George Floyd died of hypoxia.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl

Do you think the police acted properly?

[Mikey 16,550]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you think the police acted properly?

How would I know that? I wasn't there. My best guess is that a charge of Negligent Homicide or Criminal Negligence would stick. I don't think a charge of Murder will stick when the Fentanyl overdose is a reasonable alternative to Floyd's cause of death. "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt" is a hard sell. The Fentanyl overdose casts more than a shadow.

[SocialCircle 570]

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you think the police acted properly?

No

[TexasTiger 12,811]

7 minutes ago, Mikey said:

How would I know that? I wasn't there. My best guess is that a charge of Negligent Homicide or Criminal Negligence would stick. I don't think a charge of Murder will stick when the Fentanyl overdose is a reasonable alternative to Floyd's cause of death. "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt" is a hard sell. The Fentanyl overdose casts more than a shadow.

The standard is  “reasonable” doubt.

[Mikey 16,550]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The standard is  “reasonable” doubt.

Very well then. The Fentanyl overdose casts reasonable doubt on the cause of Floyd's death. Would a person in Floyd's physical condition, who wasn't OD'd on Fentanyl, have died under similar conditions? That's one slant on the type of questions the jury will have to answer.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

46 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

I also believe the outside money has given the D a better chance in this race.  Using the Trump race as an argument is disingenuous as you know Trump got attention in many ways this D in SC simply can't.  

This race isn't that hard to understand.  You have an intelligent Black man running as Democrat in a state where 27% of the state is African-American and where that demographic's vote makes up a large percentage of the Democratic support.  They happen to be motivated this cycle as well, as evidenced by vote totals and turnout in the primary.  There's also an increasingly White moderate/slightly liberal migration happening in Charleston which could drastically change numbers from what we've seen in the past.

Tie that on top of Graham not being super popular among Republicans and bam, you have a race.

[SocialCircle 570]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This race isn't that hard to understand.  You have an intelligent Black man running as Democrat in a state where 27% of the state is African-American and where that demographic's vote makes up a large percentage of the Democratic support.  They happen to be motivated this cycle as well, as evidenced by vote totals and turnout in the primary.  There's also an increasingly White moderate/slightly liberal migration happening in Charleston which could drastically change numbers from what we've seen in the past.

Tie that on top of Graham not being super popular among Republicans and bam, you have a race.

I agree with everything you said, however, I also believe the outside money is helping the D in this race. 

[aubiefifty 16,709]

On 9/20/2020 at 9:52 AM, alexava said:

Homer, you know I’ve been a democrat for years. The only change I have had in philosophy is gun control. I’m 100% 2a supporter now. Every thing else is basically the same. The whole police killing black people has been a complete farce. If you really examine the numbers with an objective mind you will see it’s a lie. BLM is a lie. Confessed marxists with stated agendas  creating divisions that shouldn’t exist. Selective journalism to appeal to emotions without context or logic. Opposition arguments or simply facts get shutdown to Keep the angry, violent mob appeased. Hardly a word from democrats until the polls start showing Negative  results. Hell they don’t care what damages they have to endure as long as they have power. 
       I’m still a democrat in what I want in government, in my country. I can’t support using any means necessary to get there. The party as a whole has endorsed these tactics. If not directly, with silence and minimizing the violence and destruction. I can see how you consider that mindlessly Manichean. But I respectfully disagree. 

you are looking at black lives matter wrong. a white kid and his dad go fishing. the police pull up and shoot him seven times in the back while he is reaching for his fishing license. people get hung up on who is a criminal and who is not. police are supposed to bring folks in before a court of law instead of being judge,jury, and executioner. america is supposed to be better than that.

[homersapien 11,353]

22 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

The rule makers here tend to allow left biased sources like the WA Post, but call foul with right leaning sources. 

That's just propagandistic BS.

The Washington Post is the most widely circulated paper in the metropolitan area of our capital.  which means it's the paper of record in our capital.  They allocate serious resources to covering our government. 

They provide a check on the current government, which is their primary duty. If it seems they "lean" to the left, it's because our current government clearly "leans" to the right. 

They also publish conservative opinions on a regular basis.  I know because I am a subscriber.

But if you want a right "leaning" paper of equivalent stature to the Wapo, I suggest you subscribe and quote the Wall Street Journal instead of the less prestigious sources you favor.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

34 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This race isn't that hard to understand.  You have an intelligent Black man running as Democrat in a state where 27% of the state is African-American and where that demographic's vote makes up a large percentage of the Democratic support.  They happen to be motivated this cycle as well, as evidenced by vote totals and turnout in the primary.  There's also an increasingly White moderate/slightly liberal migration happening in Charleston which could drastically change numbers from what we've seen in the past.

Tie that on top of Graham not being super popular among Republicans and bam, you have a race.

A lot of anti-Graham campaigning going on here that actually seems to be landing. Basically, South Carolinians know that he hasn't represented the state well. I'm finding that SC isn't quite like Alabama, where the GOP candidate literally has to be a known pedophile running against an extremely moderate Dem to not run away with the vote. Of course, it's not that far off, either. 

[homersapien 11,353]

18 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

The list does help for sure. Do people still need to point out the issue with the content when they point out someone is using a bad source? Or is this only randomly required?

Are you distinguishing news from opinion?

I don't think you are.

[homersapien 11,353]

21 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You're only talking about half of the picture though.

A full picture would be comparing the % of crime committed by blacks and compare it to the % of blacks killed by police. Because when you commit crime, specially violent crime, you're likely going to have encounters with police. If policing in this country is that racist, then the % of blacks killed by police should be higher than the % of crime committed by blacks. 'Disproportionate' is the phrasing used because blacks make up 13% of the population in the U.S.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/

 

That's where the legacy media stop at and don't go any further with data because they want this to be considered the whole picture of blacks being killed by police.

But that's not the whole picture. Here's a fuller picture of why blacks are 'disproportionately' affected by the police. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

Look at Table 12 on the DOJ statistics for 2018

21.7 % of violent incidents in 2018, the offender was black. That's almost identical to the 22% number of blacks killed by police . But in both cases, blacks were disproportionately represented. But that undercuts the narrative that blacks are being targeted by police. If blacks are disproportionately committing violent crime, then it stands to reason that they'll have disproportionate encounters with police. But what the data so far hasn't shown is that police are killing blacks at a disproportionate rate compared to the crime rate.

As someone who respects the field of sociology, I am fine with any statistical analysis of this problem if the statistics are available (which for the most part they are not).  That includes arrests, use of violence and mere "stops".

But let's keep in mind that numbers don't necessarily reflect the historical causes of a disparate crime rate between the races. For example, you'd also need to factor in socio/economic status, which in turn, can be largely influenced by race. Unfortunately, until such data is collected we have to rely on what data we do have plus simple observation. 

I do believe each case should be considered individually.  Having said that, considering the history of racist law enforcement in this country, it's not hard for me to accept the proposition of systemic racial bias still exists.  Things didn't suddenly change overnight when the Civil Rights Act was passed and like it or not, racism still exists in this country, including in some areas of our law enforcement agencies. 

[homersapien 11,353]

21 hours ago, bigbird said:

Agreed. How 'bout vox?

I'd rate them as equivalent to Fox.  Wouldn't use either for news or analysis. 

But if you want to express an opinion piece you agree with from either, it's fair IMO.

[homersapien 11,353]

20 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

Also if you want to show evidence the police are racially driven, then you need to show white police shoot blacks more than do black police while factoring in the percentages. 

"Driven" is little hyperbolic.  "Influenced" would be more accurate.

[homersapien 11,353]

19 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

The list does help for sure. Do people still need to point out the issue with the content when they point out someone is using a bad source? Or is this only randomly required?

FWIW, I think content should is more important that source.  Even marginal sources - like Vox - are rated as "mixed" (in terms of accuracy), but that doesn't mean they never publish a "good" opinion.

I also think there's a difference between "leaning" left or right and being an outright propaganda source.  The former typically includes opinion from the other side, whereas the latter rarely or never does.

[homersapien 11,353]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

I'm saying the only reason it's close is because of Left Coast donations. How much money Graham may or may not have doesn't matter. Take away the $25 million from Hollywood and it's a walk through for Graham.

So, basically, you are saying it wouldn't be close if Harrison didn't have enough money to be competitive with Graham financially. But since Harrison is financially competitive with Graham, it's tied.

In other words, since Harrison can get his message out on an equivalent basis, the people of South Carolina are basing their decision on an equal presentation of the messages, not who simply has the most messaging because they have the most money.

While I deplore the role of money in politics - given the reality it has such a role - this seems like a good thing.  The fact they are competing on a level playing field is what is important.  It essentially takes money out of the contest. All of our elections should be based on a fair contest of ideas and policies, not who has the most money, which is inherently corrupt.

Where the money comes from has no bearing in the matter.  Most of it in either case comes from special interests.  (Personally, I'd rather see both candidates funded by the government on an equal basis.) 

[homersapien 11,353]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

Very well then. The Fentanyl overdose casts reasonable doubt on the cause of Floyd's death. Would a person in Floyd's physical condition, who wasn't OD'd on Fentanyl, have died under similar conditions? That's one slant on the type of questions the jury will have to answer.

Yeah, it's George's responsibility to be adequately prepared physically for a cop to kneel on his neck for 8 minutes while he can't breathe. 

WTF is wrong with you people???   

 

[homersapien 11,353]

2 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

I agree with everything you said, however, I also believe the outside money is helping the D in this race. 

Who cares?   Whatever makes for a fair contest. 

[homersapien 11,353]

2 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

First of all I never said he would have died had he been sitting on a bench somewhere.  I understand the amount of stress he was under that would likely not have existed had he been simply sitting on a bench somewhere. So I agree he very likely wouldn't have died had he been sitting on a bench somewhere.  This is just you distorting what I said. 

As far as evidence goes he said he couldn't breathe long before the police brutalized him.  He was loaded up with drugs and had underlying medical conditions while also having Covid-19.  Saying there is no evidence to even suggest it is a possibility he might have died had the police not put him on the ground and put his knee forcefully on his neck for 8 minutes is you distorting things.....not me.  I am only suggesting it is a possibility.   

You are proving TT's point.  And it's morally despicable.

Murder shouldn't get excused because the victim had a pre-existing condition that made the murder easier.

[homersapien 11,353]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

It's very possible. Maybe not sitting on a bench, but walking down the street could have done him in.

"Yes, a person can overdose on fentanyl. An overdose occurs when a drug produces serious adverse effects and life-threatening symptoms. When people overdose on fentanyl, their breathing can slow or stop. This can decrease the amount of oxygen that reaches the brain, a condition called hypoxia. Hypoxia can lead to a coma and permanent brain damage, and even death."

George Floyd died of hypoxia.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl

Yeah, the knee on his neck for over 8 minutes was incidental.  Hell, he was practically already dead.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Who's "buying what the liberal media is saying"?  I posted an academic study.  You've yet to source any work in this debate.  And the rate, as shown, that Black people are killed by police is far higher than Whites (nearly 3:1 if you need a refresher).  It's right there in the study.

You can argue raw numbers until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the rate statistic, which is similar to a per capita number to give a fair assessment.  It's based on population in order to explain that if a White person or Black person commits the same crime, one is 3x more likely to be killed by the cops than the other.

I'm not sitting here arguing anything else.  You can move the goalposts all you want and start arguing raw numbers, but I never claimed anything about those.  You said that Blacks being killed by police at a higher rate than Whites was BS without any proof.  When provided with proof, you've not given any rebuttal to it with sourcing, but instead tried to move the narrative.

We touched on this discussion before. The Washington Post has kept a database and kept track of police shootings since 2015. The number of unarmed black people shot by police has gone down. And even of those 'unarmed' that were shot, most were justifiable shootings because they attacked the officers before being shot.

There are links to local news sources for each other the shootings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

And the argument that blacks are killed by police more than whites disproportionately is because they commit more crime per capita than whites and commit as much violent crime at a disproportionate level. The number of black people killed by police per capita is going to be higher when the percentage of blacks committing violent crime is also higher per capita. 

All the data available doesn't show a police war on black people.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

37 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

We touched on this discussion before. The Washington Post has kept a database and kept track of police shootings since 2015. The number of unarmed black people shot by police has gone down. And even of those 'unarmed' that were shot, most were justifiable shootings because they attacked the officers before being shot.

There are links to local news sources for each other the shootings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

And the argument that blacks are killed by police more than whites disproportionately is because they commit more crime per capita than whites and commit as much violent crime at a disproportionate level. The number of black people killed by police per capita is going to be higher when the percentage of blacks committing violent crime is also higher per capita. 

All the data available doesn't show a police war on black people.

This literally makes no sense when a per capita number takes the same numbers into account.  I.E. per 100,000 or whatever baseline you want to use.  It's meant to distill down to give a clearer picture.  Just because Black people may commit more crimes per statistics doesn't mean that the per capita number on how many of them are shot or killed by police should be 3x higher.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

18 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This literally makes no sense when a per capita number takes the same numbers into account.  I.E. per 100,000 or whatever baseline you want to use.  It's meant to distill down to give a clearer picture.  Just because Black people may commit more crimes per statistics doesn't mean that the per capita number on how many of them are shot or killed by police should be 3x higher.

Blacks are killed by police disproportionately but dismissing crime statistics as having no correlation to blacks killed by police makes no sense. The % of blacks committing violent crime versus the % killed by police are closely in line, there's not a huge gap. Many want to  just chalk it all up so 'systemic racism' by police and not look at the fact that blacks are committing a similar % of violent crime to the % of them killed by police.  If you're committing a violent crime, you're going to encounter the police. This would be an explanation to the  % of blacks killed by police.

Facts are objectively true but values are not. True, blacks are killed disproportionately by police. When you look at all the data, including crime data, whether you think there is crisis of police killing black people is matter of personal perspective.

[alexava 6,973]

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Who's "buying what the liberal media is saying"?  I posted an academic study.  You've yet to source any work in this debate.  And the rate, as shown, that Black people are killed by police is far higher than Whites (nearly 3:1 if you need a refresher).  It's right there in the study.

You can argue raw numbers until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the rate statistic, which is similar to a per capita number to give a fair assessment.  It's based on population in order to explain that if a White person or Black person commits the same crime, one is 3x more likely to be killed by the cops than the other.

I'm not sitting here arguing anything else.  You can move the goalposts all you want and start arguing raw numbers, but I never claimed anything about those.  You said that Blacks being killed by police at a higher rate than Whites was BS without any proof.  When provided with proof, you've not given any rebuttal to it with sourcing, but instead tried to move the narrative.

https://research.msu.edu/the-truth-behind-racial-disparties-in-fatal-police-shootings/
 

studies like this get shutdown. Facts are not allowed in academic studies.