RNC

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

And Democrats always tell the truth...

I hate the response. Just because the Democrats lie doesn't justify the GOP lying. It doesn't justify the Democrats lying either. 

Does it really sound mature when you hear an adult say, "Well, they lied too!!!" Like that makes it all better. When I hear that I just think of my kid cousins complain why their siblings got away with something they didn't. 

The GOP would have a better leg to stand on if they took the high ground more often. 

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I hate the response. Just because the Democrats lie doesn't justify the GOP lying. It doesn't justify the Democrats lying either. 

Does it really sound mature when you hear an adult say, "Well, they lied too!!!" Like that makes it all better. When I hear that I just think of my kid cousins complain why their siblings got away with something they didn't. 

The GOP would have a better leg to stand on if they took the high ground more often. 

Look, if you want the truth, politics isn't for you.  At least half of what all politicians say is some form a a lie.  

High ground, like the DNC rigging an election against Bernie, referring to Latino's as Taco Bowls,  conspiring to make up lies about Trump and releasing them through Reuters?  Why don't you read through the Wikileaks e-mails from the DNC before you start throwing rocks.  

[Gunther]

43 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I never said it was. I was just pointing how Newt distorts facts, believes in what people feel over truth, and rather play off people's ignorance. 

 

That's not what he did, it's what a liberal comedian said he did.  The point was, this administration is not focused on protecting the American people.  They'd rather continue to push false narratives that do nothing but divide people.  The inner cities are crumbling under this prez, even I wouldn't have expected that 8 years ago.  The Dem elite do not care about minorities, except inasmuch as they can keep them uninformed and voting Democrat.

Go see Hillary's America.  Or better yet, wait til later in the week when a few more Wikileaks come out proving their disdain for minorities.  Taco Bowl voters?  Hmmm.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

That's not what he did, it's what a liberal comedian said he did.  The point was, this administration is not focused on protecting the American people.  They'd rather continue to push false narratives that do nothing but divide people.  The inner cities are crumbling under this prez, even I wouldn't have expected that 8 years ago.  The Dem elite do not care about minorities, except inasmuch as they can keep them uninformed and voting Democrat.

Go see Hillary's America.  Or better yet, wait til later in the week when a few more Wikileaks come out proving their disdain for minorities.  Taco Bowl voters?  Hmmm.

The best part is Wasserman Schultz who rigged the primaries steps down from DNC Chair and gets rewarded with a job working for Hillary, Bernie must feel really good about that.  

[Slice of Life]

TL;DR

 

Gary Johnson 2016 

[nevets88]

I was watching the John Oliver segment and I couldn't help but think golf:

"Feel ain't real".

It's basically Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

[saevel25]

12 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

High ground, like the DNC rigging an election against Bernie, referring to Latino's as Taco Bowls,  conspiring to make up lies about Trump and releasing them through Reuters?  Why don't you read through the Wikileaks e-mails from the DNC before you start throwing rocks.  

Again, I am not saying the DNC did right. They did wrong. Bernie got the raw end of the deal on this one. The DNC is going to have to deal with the outcome to this. There is a nice DNC thread to point that out ;) 

15 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Look, if you want the truth, politics isn't for you.  At least half of what all politicians say is some form a a lie.

Depends on the Politician. I agree. Politicians are good at saying statements that have only partial truths to them. Majority of the time they say things that are either mostly false, half true, or mostly true. 

18 minutes ago, Gunther said:

That's not what he did, it's what a liberal comedian said he did.  

No it's what he did. He rather take outlier cases of big urban cities in the past year and claim that violence has gone up as a generalization. As he quotes, "American's feel less safe." Which doesn't mean they actually are less safe. In fact, the FBI stats show that violence has gown down across the US. He clearly will not recognize this fact. He clearly states he rather pander to the feelings of people rather than the facts of the real world. 

21 minutes ago, Gunther said:

The inner cities are crumbling under this prez, even I wouldn't have expected that 8 years ago.  The Dem elite do not care about minorities, except inasmuch as they can keep them uninformed and voting Democrat.

Off-Topic

 

[Gunther]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

No it's what he did. He rather take outlier cases of big urban cities in the past year and claim that violence has gone up as a generalization. As he quotes, "American's feel less safe." Which doesn't mean they actually are less safe. In fact, the FBI stats show that violence has gown down across the US. He clearly will not recognize this fact. He clearly states he rather pander to the feelings of people rather than the facts of the real world. 

Off-Topic

 

Did you read the Washington Post piece I added, or my original post, at all?  

24 cities are not outliers, one or two might be.  The point Newt was making is that because of Ferguson and BLM and Obama, crime is spiking up rapidly right now, it's a fact, supported by that piece and most anywhere else.  He was trying to show what will happen with 4 more years of the status quo.

Passive policing is occurring, cops are not going into those inner city neighborhoods, they are not proactively policing, which is leading to that spike.  Who is being hurt as a result?  I'll bet you can make that connection.

And, I didn't think you'd have an argument for the rest, it's indefensible.

[saevel25]

27 minutes ago, Gunther said:

And, I didn't think you'd have an argument for the rest, it's indefensible.

No I have an answer, but it's off-topic here. If you want to discuss the demise of urban areas then start at topic on it. This topic is about the RNC. Newt made those comments at the RNC and the video was made about the RNC. 

 

[Gunther]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

No I have an answer, but it's off-topic here. If you want to discuss the demise of urban areas then start at topic on it. This topic is about the RNC. Newt made those comments at the RNC and the video was made about the RNC. 

 

And everything I wrote was directly or indirectly related to Newt's and others' remarks at the RNC.  The rationale behind the words that perhaps John Oliver didn't provide you.

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, Gunther said:

And everything I wrote was directly or indirectly related to Newt's and others' remarks at the RNC.  The rationale behind the words that perhaps John Oliver didn't provide you.

I am specifically speaking to the direct answers he was shown given in that interview at the RNC. I have no comments on any other comments he made. 

Just to show you the misconception on crime rates versus perception over the past 13 years. It's kinda odd that the perceived level of crime was pretty much on par with how much crime there was. Then in 2001 it spiked up and has grown and leveled off at 65%

What changed in 2001? In 2000, the 24 hour new cycle really hit it's full speed with the 2000 election. Then you add in social media in the coming years. People assume there are more violent crimes than before because they are getting more news time. Then they are repeated over and over again. 

---

Is this the article you are talking about? The one Trump quoted the 17% influx in the 50 biggest cities? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/2015-homicides/

Did you read the articles conclusion at all? 

Quote

The fact that there has been little change in the number of violent crimes other than homicide suggests that the officers haven't stopped doing their jobs.

At the same time, if heroin addicts are committing more crimes to pay for their drugs, criminologists would expect an increase in property crime, not continuing declines.

The data on homicides does not conclusively rule out a Ferguson effect or heroin consumption as factors in the overall increase in the number of homicides. Both may have contributed to the violence, along with other factors that researchers haven't yet identified.

Experts on crime understand little about what causes fluctuations in violence and lawbreaking over time. That this past year's increase remains mostly a mystery shouldn't be a surprise, since as Wonkblog has previously reported, the much larger decline since 1991 is still largely unexplained.

"We need to figure out what’s happening and deal with f it now. I refuse to wait," Comey, the FBI director, said in October. "These aren’t data points. These are lives."

1. Your idea that cops have become passive is incorrect
2. You fail to consider the Heroin epidemic that is hitting this country. A large issue that has not been covered by the media. Hey, guns are sexy, drugs are not. 
3. There hasn't been a way to quantify how impact Ferguson was on the increase in homicides.
4. Even experts do not realize what caused the massive downturn from the 1991 peak and It's been 25 years. 

Heck the Director of the FBI claims they need to find out what is going on. You are going to believe Trump and Newt are correct in blaming this president on it? Come on man. The complexity of this issue is stumping even those who spend their careers studying it. People who spend years looking at the data, trying to find a causation, have still yet to find one. 

Here is Trumps rating on that statement of the 17% increase, 

Quote

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-homicides-are-17-percent-50-bigg/

The statement comes from a credible source -- calculations made by the Washington Post. However, in painting a bleak picture, Trump cherry-picks the Post’s overall findings -- and makes mistakes criminologists warn about.

The Post article acknowledged that FBI data found a smaller increase in recent years, with contradictory results for many cities. And experts caution against putting too much stock in short-term changes, since year-to-year data can be volatile for hard-to-discern reasons.

Lost in Trump’s formulation is that, overall, violent crime has been falling consistently for about a quarter century. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores facts that would give a different impression, so we rate his claim Half True.

Yea, Trump and the GOP are taking one data point and assuming it's Armageddon. Of course Newt doesn't care about causation, he cares about what people feel. 

[Gunther]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I am specifically speaking to the direct answers he was shown given in that interview at the RNC. I have no comments on any other comments he made. 

Just to show you the misconception on crime rates versus perception over the past 13 years. It's kinda odd that the perceived level of crime was pretty much on par with how much crime there was. Then in 2001 it spiked up and has grown and leveled off at 65%

What changed in 2001? In 2000, the 24 hour new cycle really hit it's full speed with the 2000 election. Then you add in social media in the coming years. People assume there are more violent crimes than before because they are getting more news time. Then they are repeated over and over again. 

---

Is this the article you are talking about? The one Trump quoted the 17% influx in the 50 biggest cities? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/2015-homicides/

Did you read the articles conclusion at all? 

1. Your idea that cops have become passive is incorrect
2. You fail to consider the Heroin epidemic that is hitting this country. A large issue that has not been covered by the media. Hey, guns are sexy, drugs are not. 
3. There hasn't been a way to quantify how impact Ferguson was on the increase in homicides.
4. Even experts do not realize what caused the massive downturn from the 1991 peak and It's been 25 years. 

Heck the Director of the FBI claims they need to find out what is going on. You are going to believe Trump and Newt are correct in blaming this president on it? Come on man. The complexity of this issue is stumping even those who spend their careers studying it. People who spend years looking at the data, trying to find a causation, have still yet to find one. 

Here is Trumps rating on that statement of the 17% increase, 

Yea, Trump and the GOP are taking one data point and assuming it's Armageddon. Of course Newt doesn't care about causation, he cares about what people feel. 

The article I posted was about 2016, there is a trend my friend.  But now we truly are getting off topic.

[Braivo]

Ahead of the DNC even liberal leaning polls are showing Trump pulling ahead. Those Bernie supporters are really throwing a wrench in the DNC.

Even Nate Silver, who has been wrong this entire election cycle, is putting the odds in favor of Trump. 

 

[Dave2512]

100ish days is an eternity in Trump time. He has a full 3.5 months to watch his mouth. As loose as he has been the only poll that will matter is the GE.

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, Gunther said:

The article I posted was about 2016, there is a trend my friend.  But now we truly are getting off topic.

The article I posted was the one Trump quoted. So there 

Also, Trump didn't take the standard way of looking at data. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/22/fact-checking-donald-trumps-acceptance-speech-at-the-2016-rnc/

The Trump campaign responded to our fact-check and provided more information about the data they used for the speech. The campaign picked July 2014 to July 2015, and compared it to July 2015 to July 2016, using data from the Officers Down Memorial Page. The memorial page works with the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, whose data we cited initially for our fact-check, to update officer death data in real time.

This is not the standard way that both organizations and the FBI maintain police death data, which is by calendar year. 

Here is something regarding that homicides are up comparing the first 2015 to first quarter 2016. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/14/we-have-a-problem-homicides-are-up-again-this-year-in-more-than-two-dozen-major-u-s-cities/?utm_term=.064496a79161

Still not a trend. A trend would be looking at 1991 to 2000 and seeing that overall the trend has been downward. That is based off years of data. Comparing one year to the next is not a trend. Maybe come back next year when they have the yearly totals from 2016 to actually compare to 2015. 

Just now, Braivo said:

Even Nate Silver, who has been wrong this entire election cycle, is putting the odds in favor of Trump. 

Nate Silver's projection is a changing projection. It is not something that is defined in stone. So he can't be wrong since it's not a factual claim, but an estimation based on trends, polling, and other metrics.

Note, your post is if the election were held today, not in November. Hillary is still projected to win in November. Again the model can change between now and then anyways. 

 

[newtogolf]

20 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The article I posted was the one Trump quoted. So there 

Also, Trump didn't take the standard way of looking at data. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/22/fact-checking-donald-trumps-acceptance-speech-at-the-2016-rnc/

The Trump campaign responded to our fact-check and provided more information about the data they used for the speech. The campaign picked July 2014 to July 2015, and compared it to July 2015 to July 2016, using data from the Officers Down Memorial Page. The memorial page works with the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, whose data we cited initially for our fact-check, to update officer death data in real time.

This is not the standard way that both organizations and the FBI maintain police death data, which is by calendar year. 

Here is something regarding that homicides are up comparing the first 2015 to first quarter 2016. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/14/we-have-a-problem-homicides-are-up-again-this-year-in-more-than-two-dozen-major-u-s-cities/?utm_term=.064496a79161

Still not a trend. A trend would be looking at 1991 to 2000 and seeing that overall the trend has been downward. That is based off years of data. Comparing one year to the next is not a trend. Maybe come back next year when they have the yearly totals from 2016 to actually compare to 2015. 

Nate Silver's projection is a changing projection. It is not something that is defined in stone. So he can't be wrong since it's not a factual claim, but an estimation based on trends, polling, and other metrics.

Note, your post is if the election were held today, not in November. Hillary is still projected to win in November. Again the model can change between now and then anyways. 

 

If someone uses stats, provides the sources and the stats reflect the source then they didn't misrepresent anything.  The RNC was in July, it's perfectly appropriate to use stats that cover July 2015 - July 2016.  Who cares how the FBI tracks them?

Matt, I look forward to your fact checking scrutiny of the DNC.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If someone uses stats, provides the sources and the stats reflect the source then they didn't misrepresent anything.  

With out specifying in his speech that the data was from July to July then it's conflicting when normal data is in a calendar year. How the data is defined by the date in which it is taken is important. I could easily say he picked July to July because it gave him the highest percent change. If you want to compare stats from year to year, keep the date ranges the same to make the comparison equal. 

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

With out specifying in his speech that the data was from July to July then it's conflicting when normal data is in a calendar year. How the data is defined by the date in which it is taken is important. I could easily say he picked July to July because it gave him the highest percent change. If you want to compare stats from year to year, keep the date ranges the same to make the comparison equal. 

That's why all stats are crap.  I can use a set of numbers to say whatever I want them too.  We don't know why he used July - July, but it certainly isn't a lie to use those stats versus annual stats.  In some cases July - July is a more current representation.