Yeah…but they are a swell bunch of fellas anyway.
By the way as soon as you make a good amount of money…I think you will be smart enough to become a republican.
Not to mention the many other issues at hand such as 2nd amendment rights, less regulation on small business, etc
Have a citation for this? And fair warning–there were a lot of false-news stories circulated in this regard, so be careful not to select one.
I like you but I couldn’t call myself in the same political party as you in all honesty. I guess I’ll have to create my own since I’m not a fan of democosts either.
Democosts…ha ha excellent.
Should a cop be more aggressive with me because I’m a 5’11 220 Black Male?
I try my best to serve it with sugar, but I’m sure you’re not as sensitive as you pretend to be 
No, and that’s not what I said. I said they are more quick to act in certain parts of the country because of black crime stats. Should they? No. But they are human. I’m sure when a Police Officer pulls over a car and finds two senior citizens in it their guard comes down and they are far more friendly.
The human condition…it will never change.
Um…yeah you got me.
Let’s be clear about something, because the notion of “a fringe element of a group doesn’t define the whole group” was nowhere to be found by the Left and the media during the campaign. David Duke supported Trump, it was then framed as every Trump supporter was a racist like David Duke. There can’t be a double standard.
indeed
It’s being reported this morning that US taxpayers will fully fund the $10B border wall now according to Trump’s transitional team.
Color me surprised…
Please provide link to said data. I think it’s quite an assertion to say police officers are bias against black males. Are some of them? Sure but claiming police forces to have a systemic bias against black people is absurd. Media creation to the max.
Also, BLM was absolutely created under false pretenses(hands up, don’t shoot.) Haven’t we all been through this already, ha?
I’ll cover this one.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/10018/undercover-videos-allegedly-expose-dnc-hillary-amanda-prestigiacomo
I’m afraid you didn’t cover it. The claim made by @zeb1 was “By the way we all noticed that the violent Trump rallies ended abruptly when the group possibly working for the Clinton campaign was caught hiring thugs to start fights at Trump rallies.” This claim–that ‘thugs were hired to start fights’–is (contrary to popular belief) not supported by the O’Keefe video (even though the video was edited to make it as misleadingly damning as possible). Here’s what was actually on the video:
“From the start, two things are clear: One, the videos are edited in ways that the context of the conversation or the meaning of the statement isn’t always clear, nor do you know when they took place. Two, Project Veritas’ undercover operatives are often goading their subjects with leading statements. It has the effect of making the viewer infer that the people said something that he or she didn’t literally say.From the start, two things are clear: One, the videos are edited in ways that the context of the conversation or the meaning of the statement isn’t always clear, nor do you know when they took place. Two, Project Veritas’ undercover operatives are often goading their subjects with leading statements. It has the effect of making the viewer infer that the people said something that he or she didn’t literally say.”
[…]
"It should be noted, too, that for as problematic as Foval’s statements were, he also says in the tape that he did not coach people to stage confrontations inside the events.
“They’re not starting confrontations in the rally because once they’re inside the rally, they’re under Secret Service’s control,” Foval said.
Nor did he say on tape that he told people to “be violent” and “start fist-fights,” as Trump alleged. Instead, Foval’s stated goal was to bait Trump supporters into violent acts simply by wearing certain t-shirts or saying anti-Trump remarks." [emphasis mine]
Don’t think I said there was a systemic bias. The problem is actually more localized due to the structure of police departments in our country. As for your citations:
This is an entire list of studies with links
http://www.fairimpartialpolicing.com/bias/
Common findings were:
This article reviews a Chicago study and two Denver studies that assessed how community participants compared to trained police officers in shoot/don’t shoot scenarios, where the race of the armed or unarmed target was manipulated. The researchers measured reaction time (time to make the decision to shoot or not) and errors. All three studies revealed that community participants consistently exhibited racial bias, so that a lower criterion to shoot was applied to Black targets compared to White targets. Like the community sample, the researchers found that police officers exhibited pronounced racial bias when reaction time was measured. However, importantly, officers showed no bias in terms of errors. That is, ultimately the officers made the right decision and were not impacted by race. The researchers attribute this finding for the officers to frequent, high quality, role play (e.g., Simunitions, computer scenarios) training in the use of force that can serve to extinguish the race-crime implicit bias for force decisions.
and the first article on the page, which was printed in police chief magazine:
• Police professionals may use more force (or be quicker to use force) against Blacks because, like many humans, they have a Black-crime implicit bias producing greater perceptions of threat from Blacks than from people of other races.
• The above phenomenon can be countered by high-quality use-offorce training.
• Police professionals may use less force (or be slower to use force) against Blacks—possibly putting the officers in danger—out of concern for the social and legal consequences associated with shooting racial and ethnic minorities.
Your response looks remarkably close to something a defense attorney would say, and you are swiftly approaching Mark Geragos territory here. You are suggesting that what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears didn’t actually happen.
This isn’t an episode of Law and Order, where every piece of the puzzle fits neatly into it’s respective place, and we end up with the result of the professor did it in the library with the candlestick.
There is no alternate meaning to (paraphrasing here), “we pay people to go to Trump rallies and provoke Trump supporters.” The DNC also parted ways with this guy, which doesn’t suggest innocence at all.
The first article if you can’t get past NYTIMES pay wall.
“At the same time, the study found blacks and Hispanics were more than 50 percent more likely to experience physical interactions with police, including touching, pushing, handcuffing, drawing a weapon, and using a baton or pepper spray.”
As I have no idea what you saw and/or heard, I’m suggesting nothing of the sort.
Likewise, the term “provoke Trump supporters” is not the equivalent of “hiring thugs to start fights at Trump rallies.”
I never said this guy wasn’t a paid agent provocateur; I said he wasn’t hiring people to start fights.
Ah come on now, ED, the fact that he wasn’t literally paying thugs to punch people doesn’t mean that what he was doing wasn’t paying people to start fights. He was hiring instigators which, but for his engagement thereof, would not have been present at Trump rallies.
If these actors then instigated a fight with a short fused Trump fan (which was the intent all along), I fail to see how he wasn’t hiring them with the intention of starting fights.
Here are some DOJ number compiled by the FBI and I have pulled out the PDF link for your ease. One notable change in the reporting og this most current report is separating the Hispanic from the White Non Hispanic.
