Yep. Legitimately screwed up events will happen out of a certain amount of interactions, regardless of race. Maybe we can do better. I do think we might need to look at at the better judged by 12 than buried by 6 (or however it goes) mentality that might put officers too much on edge. Maybe we need a big commission on the impact of victimless crimes. Maybe the risk that comes with an interaction isn’t worth combating pot and certain other substances. But then certain communities will be even more impacted by those substances. I don’t know. Either way, it still isn’t remotely an epidemic. And it will never be perfect.
And the more violent the community, the more violent the interactions will be. That’s plain common sense.
I will take a look, but it is an opinion piece by a conservative author. Doesn’t mean the facts aren’t legit, I suspect they are, but it’s not being presented by “a decidedly non Right news operation”.
And look at offender percentage by race of hate crime— (TINY) portion of violent crime in the first place—offenders then compare to percent of population.
So yeah, not sure what screaming at white diners will do about saving black lives when the offenders are almost exclusively black.
How about we stop with the widespread paranoia against whites, citizen and cop, and deal with the real problem that actually might make leaving the house risky for a young black male. I realize there’s a politically expedient reason to keep a paranoid and conspiratorial narrative for the left, but c’mon man, it’s a destructive lie.
Can’t do that, because that wouldn’t increase the Federal Government’s power. We need to nationalize everything so that people don’t have any options at all.
23:50 on.
She rightfully takes them to task, yet what is the question yelled out at the end? Well, a accusation, really. I feel like the hatred of Trump is what will ironically get him re-elected.
Think about this. Everyone knows Trump, or any Republican, couldn’t have gotten away with being kept at such a distance from the press as Biden has. And when interacting with the press, relying (badly) on a teleprompter. It would have been a wall to wall issue. And people resent that.
Rasmussen is garbage if you care about accuracy. The reason is that it is garbage is that they mostly poll older people, because almost all of their polling is by landline.
What percent of people under 40 even have a landline?
Sounds like because they were closest to right, right? One can be right for the wrong reasons too (which I think was the case with Rasmussen).
I thought 538 which is basically a meta analysis of many polls including Rasmussen was probably the best. They had Trump with a good shot at winning, but less than 50%. I think they had him at 30% chance of winning.
Now they are doing odds of actually winning, not just on approval. It is important to look at things like battleground states, and electoral advantage / disadvantage, since popularity does not mean much.
FWIW, I give Trump a good shot. I don’t think he is a shoe in though.
