ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It wasn't a Muslim ban, Aim.

Didn't it take three tries before your statement was true? Meaning the first two bans were ruled unconstitutional because they discriminated against Muslims?

No, that's not what happened. I read the original travel ban and the first 9th circuit decision that ruled it unconstitutional. They explicitly said they did not have a First Amendment (freedom of religion) problem with it; they had a Fourth Amendment (specifically, due process) problem with it. And I completely agree with that; the original EO ordered federal government officials to deny visas to some current visa holders, legally staying and working in the US, without any official to appeal that decision to. That was truly wrong and needed fixing.

You could read the ruling yourself, you know. Best policy in an age of Fake News on both sides of the aisle.

For me, the Trump EO was a case of Fake News reality vs Actual reality forcing me into opposing positions. The fake news was that it was a Muslim ban, which I felt compelled to defend against (and still do); the reality was that it was unconstitutional for reasons completely disconnected from the popular criticism, which I tried to tell people about, but they'd keep going back to the media lies. It was, and is, very frustrating.

If you want to criticize the travel ban as an attempt to unconstitutionally attack the rights of immigrants — not Muslims, but visa holders — that's completely fair criticism.

I didn't read the second version or the second ruling, but I suspect that the Trump EO went from blatantly against the 4th Amendment to just slightly against it, and the third time was a charm.

Thank you for the correction, although the vast majority of the people impacted would have been Muslim based on where they immigrated from.

"

Turtledove wrote:

the vast majority of the people impacted would have been Muslim based on where they immigrated from.

I'm not sure about that. If a country is 80% Muslim and 20% other, immigration to America from that country is probably more than 20% other.

Do you have any actual sources for that claim?

"

rojimboo wrote:

The US data is biased low, as per the paper I showed, over half of hate crimes go unreported at the very least. Furthermore, not all police departments record/report hate crimes, notably many southern states.

And I showed you that underreportedness is also a problem in (at least parts of) Canada so it's not a good argument.

"

rojimboo wrote:

The definition of hate crime is likely more lenient in the US.

If you claim something like that, you gotta prove it.

"

rojimboo wrote:

ANd I did the math, as shown, Canada would have 9 times the number of hate crimes per capita! not 3x.

Looks like you're bad at math. It's not 9 times.

I also like the irony of you saying how you can't trust official stats because reasons but at the same time you're basing your assessement of the US being a "hive of racism" on that one event which happened 2 years ago. Just imagine having both of these thoughts in your head at the same time and not feeling any resistance lmao. Only on TDS.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Always check if it's an 'opinion' piece. Then check if the opinion's writer is a known conspiracy theorist.

John Solomon has made up all kinds of wild tales with no basis in fact. He's essentially a fiction writer.

I bet you wrote this with a straight face which makes it even more funny. You're the gift that keeps on giving.

"

faerwin wrote:

I believe the canadian reports portray a relatively accurate situation of hate crime reports even if not all of them are reported (especially true with our first nations, sadly).

However, in the context of the US, it's just impossible that there's so few hate crimes when half the reports come from 6 states. It is illogical and flawed data. As such, that data is a worthless representation of reality.

First, you have to prove that Canada is doing a better job at this than the US. You probably can't. Second, do you realize that populations between states in the US wildly differ? Arkansas, Mississippi etc are pretty small states. Just saying.

This is literally your thought process: "Mississippi must be racist as fuck those fucking hillbilly rednecks amirite" -> the data doesn't support this at all -> "the data must be false!"

Textbook bigotry imo. No wonder Canada has a problem.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Premise 1: The ratio of black drivers — pulled over or not — to nonblack drivers

There are far more patrol cars out during the daytime than at night. The numbers aren't even close. Police set speed traps and make their ticket quotas during the day when there are lots of cars, not at night when there are much fewer cars on the road.

The only statistically valid analysis of stops would be randomly selecting so many thousands of stops and then comparing the reasons listed for the stops, how many stops did not result in a ticket, how many stops resulted in a ticket, but the driver was found innocent and then comparing all those by race - with the racial component of the person stopped completely hidden (much like a double blind placebo vs medicine drug test) from human analysis until all the other data was compiled.

Quantifying the reasons why a stop was made would be the most difficult part. How many times has a police officer's instincts saved their lives or other people's lives?

Could it be that some or a significant portion of the police are unjustifiably biased in their stops? It could be. Could the police have derived their bias from long term experiences?

I don't have the article saved (it was from many years ago), but I recall a reporter that had serious concerns about how quickly police resort to shooting a suspect. A police department offered to put that reporter through the same threat assessment training they use for their officers, and then let the reporter go through the simulator to see how they responded.

The reporter shot far more people than would be a passing score. The reporter wrote afterward how much he appreciated the restraint that real officers showed compared with the threats and split second decisions they had to make.

It's easy to be an armchair police officer.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

ANd I did the math, as shown, Canada would have 9 times the number of hate crimes per capita! not 3x.

Looks like you're bad at math. It's not 9 times.

(7100/327e6)/(2073/37e6)=11% or in reverse, Canada's hate crime per capita are 8.8 times the reported hate crimes in the US to the police.

They are your own numbers for 2017.

Still convinced there are 9 times more hate crimes in Canada than in the US?

OR do we have a data problem and these things are not applicable to do intercountry comparisons (even a toddler knows the answer to this one)?

Still think Sweden is the rape capital of the world, and Canada the kidnapping capital of the world?

"

Turtledove wrote:

Bottom line is that Boem "remembered"the exact opposite of what the statistical analysis bore out. The quoted piece said,

Do you know what a bottom line is? It is whether a company is making a profit or losing money.

The bottom line is that none of the researchers writing this paper, or the references they use to bolster their propositions are responsible for any bottom line. Their jobs are not dependent on whether their statistical analysis is correct.

The statistical 'analysis' was so full of garbage that it isn't worth the ink it was written on. Far too much conjecture involved. Far too little random sampling to be statistically valid.

If they wanted to work with a limited number of cities (without random sampling) to get a somewhat representative sampling of the US population there are far better choices. Most of the cities they chose are NOT on the list that companies and data analysts regularly use for testing out ideas without spending a fortune.

They compiled their data based on limited resources, and no randomizing. The adjusted and normalized the data based on their own biased ideas and using previously flawed studies. One of their primary sources used the word:

inconceivable

in a statistical analysis.



The so called racist police somehow pulled over far more "white people" than Hispanics - that's how racist they were. Once stopped, these same police who didn't like white people somehow decided they would search Hispanics more often and "white people" less often. Why the quotes? Well, the researchers essentially wrote in their paper that race was fluid. How so? The researchers changed the race of people stopped to fit their own ideas, and then changed it back in some places where doing so didn't give the results they wanted.

The paper and the sources it referenced were filled with far too much conjecture and far too little valid statistical study. If you locked these experts in a supermarket they would starve to death.

Garbage In - Garbage Out.

"

rojimboo wrote:

(7100/327e6)/(2073/37e6)=11% or in reverse, Canada's hate crime per capita are 8.8 times the reported hate crimes in the US to the police.

wat? it's 38%. So slightly less than 3x.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Still convinced there are 9 times more hate crimes in Canada than in the US?

No because that's nonsense you made up.

"

rojimboo wrote:

OR do we have a data problem and these things are not applicable to do intercountry comparisons (even a toddler knows the answer to this one)?

You still haven't provided any proof on how underreportedness is a bigger problem in the US than in Canada.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Still think Sweden is the rape capital of the world, and Canada the kidnapping capital of the world?

You keep bringing that up, are you hallucinating?