2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Is it true?

Mostly False, since you ask

Politifact wrote:

Cruz said, "Here’s the simple and undeniable fact: The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats."

Research cited by the Cruz campaign supports the claim that, in at least three states, felons released from prison go on to register as Democrats at a disproportionately high rate following their release.

However, there are important caveats. The study in question looked at both violent and nonviolent felons without separating out those two groups. It’s not clear whether the patterns holds in the other 47 states. Also, the study didn’t look at active "criminals" but rather those who had already served their time. Finally, it’s hard to draw a line between cause and effect, particularly given the disproportionately high population of African-Americans -- a traditionally Democratic group -- in the criminal justice system.

We rate his statement Mostly False.

His information comes from a research paper that tallied voter registrations from ex-felons in 3 states out of 50. It did not at all research the affiliations of criminals at the time they committed their crimes. It also pooled all non-violent and violent criminals together, so there is no way to be sure that in the case of violent criminals that republican violent criminals wouldn't outpace violent democrat felons. Further, the data was not offset by the number of ex-felons that did not register to vote, which would have accounted for 50-66% of the voters in those states. The authors of the study say "Cruz is misinterpreting our research."

The larger proportion of ex-felons voting democrat is easily explained by the fact that you never hear Republicans talking about reforming the prison system, which a couple of them are probably financially tied to, frankly. It's liberals like John Oliver, Larry Wilmore, and Bernie Sanders you most often hear discuss the problems of the broken prison and judicial system (eg. suing you for the cost of your incarceration when you get out; people who are jailed because they can't afford bail/citation-fees and thus lose the jobs that would allow them to pay for said bail/fees; the disproportionate number of blacks incarcerated than whites for marijuana use when both demographics use the drug with equal frequency). It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see why they would register Democrat if they had a strong desire to see improvement made to the way America does incarceration.

The sadder part is half of them are rooting for Hillary forgetting it was the Clinton administration in the 90s that passed sweeping "tough on crime" legislation.

Just before the New Hampshire primary, Bill Clinton famously flew back to Arkansas to personally oversee the execution of a mentally impaired African-American inmate named Ricky Ray Rector. The “New Democrat” spoke on the campaign trail of being tougher on criminals than Republicans; and the symbolism of the Rector execution was followed by a series of Clinton “tough on crime” measures, including: a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes; new life-sentence rules for some three-time offenders; mandatory minimums for crack and crack cocaine possession; billions of dollars in funding for prisons; extra funding for states that severely punished convicts; limited judges’ discretion in determining criminal sentences; and so on. There is very strong evidence that these policies had a small impact on actual crime rates, totally out of proportion to their severity.

There is also very strong evidence that these policies contributed to the immiseration of vast numbers of black (and also white) Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder, according to the well-known conclusions of journalists, academics and other criminal justice experts. Federal funding for public housing fell by $17 billion (a 61 percent reduction) under Bill Clinton’s tenure; federal funding for corrections rose by $19 billion (an increase of 171 percent), according to Michelle Alexander’s seminal work, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” The federal government’s new priorities redirected nearly $1 billion in state spending for higher education to prison construction. Clinton put a permanent eligibility ban for welfare or food stamps on anyone convicted of a felony drug offense (including marijuana possession). He prohibited drug felons from public housing. Any liberal arts grad with an HBO account can tell you the consequences for poor, black American cities like Baltimore. As Alexander writes, “More than any other president, [Clinton] created the current racial undercaste.”

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Mostly False, since you ask



His information comes from a research paper that tallied voter registrations from ex-felons in 3 states out of 50. It did not at all research the affiliations of criminals at the time they committed their crimes. It also pooled all non-violent and violent criminals together, so there is no way to be sure that in the case of violent criminals that republican violent criminals wouldn't outpace violent democrat felons. Further, the data was not offset by the number of ex-felons that did not register to vote, which would have accounted for 50-66% of the voters in those states. The authors of the study say "Cruz is misinterpreting our research."

The larger proportion of ex-felons voting democrat is easily explained by the fact that you never hear Republicans talking about reforming the prison system, which a couple of them are probably financially tied to, frankly. It's liberals like John Oliver, Larry Wilmore, and Bernie Sanders you most often hear discuss the problems of the broken prison and judicial system (eg. suing you for the cost of your incarceration when you get out; people who are jailed because they can't afford bail/citation-fees and thus lose the jobs that would allow them to pay for said bail/fees; the disproportionate number of blacks incarcerated than whites for marijuana use when both demographics use the drug with equal frequency). It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see why they would register Democrat if they had a strong desire to see improvement made to the way America does incarceration.

The sadder part is half of them are rooting for Hillary forgetting it was the Clinton administration in the 90s that passed sweeping "tough on crime" legislation.

How about the rest of what Cruz said, that doesn't seem to be reported much? Can you factcheck that?

CRUZ: It is exactly accurate. We can draw a reasonable inference. When elected Democrats support putting judges on the bench that release violent criminals, when elected Democrats such as President Obama try to appoint to senior Justice Department officials lawyers who glorify and lionize cop killers, when elected Democrats push to give felons the right to vote, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable inference to say those Democrats understand that the overwhelming majority of violent criminals vote Democratic. You don't like that. I understand that. In the state of New York, 62% of ex-felons who registered to vote registered at Democrats. Nine percent registered as Republicans. Those are the facts.

hatrickpatrick

The upper echelons of the Democratic Party seem to have seriously f*cked themselves. I've seen a lot of comments online by Clinton supporters over the last 2/3 weeks who are saying that they will now be voting for Sanders in the primaries for no reason other than that they don't like how the DNC has tried to stitch the whole thing up for Clinton by deliberately holding debates when they'll be unlikely to be watched, etc.

I don't know whether those who are pissed off about this will comprise enough of a proportion to further help Sanders' campaign, but essentially it looks like by trying to ram Clinton down people's throats, there are at least some people who are now going to vote for Sanders out of sheer bloody-mindedness, as a f*ck you to the party leadership.

Interesting times. I really, really hope Sanders gets it, but I'm trying not to get my hopes up too far based on the current polls.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

What if the GOP does not pick Trump or Carson (or some other non-Hispanic candidate), rather they nominate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, would Clinton then consider an Hispanic running mate as VP to ensure keeping the large minority voting block?

I doubt that would change her intentions. I do not see either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio making much difference to the latino vote.

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The upper echelons of the Democratic Party seem to have seriously f*cked themselves. I've seen a lot of comments online by Clinton supporters over the last 2/3 weeks who are saying that they will now be voting for Sanders in the primaries for no reason other than that they don't like how the DNC has tried to stitch the whole thing up for Clinton by deliberately holding debates when they'll be unlikely to be watched, etc.

I don't know whether those who are pissed off about this will comprise enough of a proportion to further help Sanders' campaign, but essentially it looks like by trying to ram Clinton down people's throats, there are at least some people who are now going to vote for Sanders out of sheer bloody-mindedness, as a f*ck you to the party leadership.

Interesting times. I really, really hope Sanders gets it, but I'm trying not to get my hopes up too far based on the current polls.

Firstly Bernie Sanders still has a lot of ground to make up nationally to have any chance of beating Clinton overall. But if he did somehow cause a major upset I do not agree that Bernie Sanders being the Democratic nomination for president would be a bad thing for the Democrats. I have said it before a few times that IMHO Bernie Sanders would have a good shot at winning a presidential election and that him winning the Democratic nomination is actually tougher for him. He is well behind Clintin in most Democratic national polls but is running very well against Republicans in potential presidential national polls.

hatrickpatrick

eire4 wrote: »

Firstly Bernie Sanders still has a lot of ground to make up nationally to have any chance of beating Clinton overall. But if he did somehow cause a major upset I do not agree that Bernie Sanders being the Democratic nomination for president would be a bad thing for the Democrats. I have said it before a few times that IMHO Bernie Sanders would have a good shot at winning a presidential election and that him winning the Democratic nomination is actually tougher for him. He is well behind Clintin in most Democratic national polls but is running very well against Republicans in potential presidential national polls.

Everyone on the Sanders for President forum on Reddit is saying the same thing, that the most important battle for his supporters is the primary and that if he can win that, the presidential election will be easier by comparison.

Just to clarify, I wasn't myself saying that he was bad for the Democrats. He's bad for the party establishment because like most political establishment they're bathing in the kind of dirty money Sanders wants to put a stop to. Hence why they're trying their hardest to rig the whole thing for Clinton and as I say, seemingly pissing off a lot of moderate Dems in the process.

Essentially, people aren't as stupid as the party leadership believes and know perfectly well when they're being played. There's absolutely no subtlety to it.

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Everyone on the Sanders for President forum on Reddit is saying the same thing, that the most important battle for his supporters is the primary and that if he can win that, the presidential election will be easier by comparison.

Just to clarify, I wasn't myself saying that he was bad for the Democrats. He's bad for the party establishment because like most political establishment they're bathing in the kind of dirty money Sanders wants to put a stop to. Hence why they're trying their hardest to rig the whole thing for Clinton and as I say, seemingly pissing off a lot of moderate Dems in the process.

Essentially, people aren't as stupid as the party leadership believes and know perfectly well when they're being played. There's absolutely no subtlety to it.

Thanks for the clarification. I would tend to agree. Republicans may be the worst offenders when it comes to being bought and paid for but they have plenty of company on the Democratic side. When push comes to shove the 2 parties are a political cartel which activily works to maintain their monoply over control on power in Washington DC and keep the corrupt dysfunctional system of government which works in the interests of the big businesses and powerful corporations which have bought them and not the people in general whom they are supposed to represent.

Black Swan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Essentially, people aren't as stupid as the party leadership believes and know perfectly well when they're being played. There's absolutely no subtlety to it.

Not sure how this applies to either the registered Democrat or Republican voters, especially those participating in the polls. For example, when I see the huge disparity between Trump's leading polls, and the poorly informed, oversimplistic, and too often bigotry laced mob appeal podium statements coming out of Trump's mouth, I really wonder if "people aren't as stupid" as some claim?

Trump seems to be defying the GOP leadership's expectation that outsider Republicans will fall in polls before primaries, and be replaced by traditional GOP favourites like Cruz or Rubio. Now it appears that outsider Carson is falling, and meeting GOP leadership expectations, but Trump?

Trump Reality Show?

Trump is a skilled telly celebrity entertainer, knows how to draw the news media and talk shows by making highly sensationalist statements without spending a dime, where more established GOP candidates do not, and may blow millions of bucks trying to catch Trump. And the more sensationalist, American-splitting divisive, terror fear filled, and bigotry loaded statements that Trump makes, the more the media rushes to freely report the latest Trump controversy.

Controversy draws the media, and builds media viewers and associated ratings, and ratings draw advertisers resulting in media profits; i.e., media big corporate profits 1st, journalism ethics a very distant 2nd. Trump understands and acts skillfully upon this, and is thus far winning in the polls over traditional GOP presidential candidates who are clueless. Trump is the new reality show on American telly, and viewers tune in to see and hear the next episode filled with the latest extraordinarily nasty thing he has to say about some minority segment of the US population, or its illegal visitors. Some telly audience viewers hate Trump, while others love him, but both tune in and drive up media ratings and profits.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Don't think I would need to consult psychiatrists to explain Trump's success within the Republican primary race so far. He is a classic example of a demagogue.

Overheal

Amerika wrote:

How about the rest of what Cruz said, that doesn't seem to be reported much? Can you factcheck that?

CRUZ: It is exactly accurate. We can draw a reasonable inference. When elected Democrats support putting judges on the bench that release violent criminals, when elected Democrats such as President Obama try to appoint to senior Justice Department officials lawyers who glorify and lionize cop killers, when elected Democrats push to give felons the right to vote, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable inference to say those Democrats understand that the overwhelming majority of violent criminals vote Democratic. You don't like that. I understand that. In the state of New York, 62% of ex-felons who registered to vote registered at Democrats. Nine percent registered as Republicans. Those are the facts.

What am I fact checking there? The statistic is likely pulled from somewhere; the rest is his opinion, based on "inferences." How do you even prove that 'democratic officials glorify and lionize cop-killers?'

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi

Thargor

Poor auld Jeb is in freefall:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/jeb-bush-campaign-free-fall-3-percent/

my friend

The 2016 Presidential Race has been re titled as 'Countdown to Trump calling Hillary a cünt'

my friend

The California branch of ISIS will have certainly aided Trumps march towards DC

hatrickpatrick

my friend wrote: »

The California branch of ISIS will have certainly aided Trumps march towards DC

Exactly what they wanted, of course. Now they just have sit back, do nothing, and watch America slowly self-destruct over a four year period.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

How about the rest of what Cruz said, that doesn't seem to be reported much? Can you factcheck that?

CRUZ: It is exactly accurate. We can draw a reasonable inference. When elected Democrats support putting judges on the bench that release violent criminals, when elected Democrats such as President Obama try to appoint to senior Justice Department officials lawyers who glorify and lionize cop killers, when elected Democrats push to give felons the right to vote, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable inference to say those Democrats understand that the overwhelming majority of violent criminals vote Democratic. You don't like that. I understand that. In the state of New York, 62% of ex-felons who registered to vote registered at Democrats. Nine percent registered as Republicans. Those are the facts.

Overheal wrote: »

What am I fact checking there? The statistic is likely pulled from somewhere; the rest is his opinion, based on "inferences." How do you even prove that 'democratic officials glorify and lionize cop-killers?'

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi

First of all, percentages are descriptive, not inferential. Anyone taking an introductory class in statistics 101 should know that. Secondly, before wasting your time fact checking this Cruz nonsense, you might want to read a very small book that typifies the gross misleading errors in the Cruz statement: How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff (1954).

K-9

my friend wrote: »

The 2016 Presidential Race has been re titled as 'Countdown to Trump calling Hillary a cünt'

Mod:

Tone down the language please, there's no need for that.

my friend

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Exactly what they wanted, of course. Now they just have sit back, do nothing, and watch America slowly self-destruct over a four year period.

8 years of Obama have been quite destructive

Overheal

8 years of bush wasnt?

my friend

Overheal wrote: »

8 years of bush wasnt?

That's a debate for a megathread

Black Swan

Trump surges ahead in presidential polls, way ahead of Carson, Cruz and Rubio. All other GOP candidates in single digits including Jeb Bush.

Although only descriptive percentages per poll (and the RCP average is confounded by attempting to combine different polls from different polling organisations with different methodologies and sampling), several of the same polling organisations taking multiple samples overtime may suggest a tracking poll trend, as appears with Trump and his competitors.

Although caution should be exercised when interpreting polling results for many reasons (only a few given here), the Trump polling surge suggests a trend, and bad news for Carson and the established GOP candidates running for the Republican nomination; especially when the media continues to report Trump's lead to the American voters overtime.

Manach

The insurgent campaign Mr. Trump is running where he combines his populist acumen as well as presenting himself was the ultimate outsider to the political establishment is worrying the GOP. For instance funders are actually comtemplating moving to the Hillary camp (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/elections-2016/article48067815.html). Interesting times.

Black Swan

During campaigns and debates should ALL presidential candidates be asked to clearly state their position on American ownership and regulation of assault weapons ("designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency"), demanding specific answers, not distraction moves or incoherent mumbles? The NY Times suggested this in their front page editorial.

The San Bernardino mass shooting (14 dead, 21 in hospital) with assault weapons occurring only a couple days ago is only 80 kms inland from where I live, attend university and work along the Southern California coast. Many pro-gun citizens suggest that we should ALL carry guns now for self defense. My book bag is already too heavy with netbook and books to add a gun, and I can just picture someone appearing of Middle Eastern heritage walking into my javahouse, while all the baristas, faculty, and students reach for their guns and flip off the safety. Wild west returns. What a lovely atmosphere to sip coffee and study. How backwards, ignorant, and absurd!

It's by far much more dangerous for us to drive on nearby freeways going bumper-to-bumper at 120 km/hr. Using the same pro-gun arm all citizens rationale, perhaps we need to exchange cars for M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks (disabling high speed blocking device), then we could perhaps survive high speed crashes, while also being prepared for the next suspicious looking person that drives by?

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

During campaigns and debates should ALL presidential candidates be asked to clearly state their position on American ownership and regulation of assault weapons ("designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency"), demanding specific answers, not distraction moves or incoherent mumbles? The NY Times suggested this in their front page editorial.

The San Bernardino mass shooting (14 dead, 21 in hospital) with assault weapons occurring only a couple days ago is only 80 kms inland from where I live, attend university and work along the Southern California coast. Many pro-gun citizens suggest that we should ALL carry guns now for self defense. My book bag is already too heavy with netbook and books to add a gun, and I can just picture someone appearing of Middle Eastern heritage walking into my javahouse, while all the baristas, faculty, and students reach for their guns and flip off the safety. Wild west returns. What a lovely atmosphere to sip coffee and study. How backwards, ignorant, and absurd!

It's by far much more dangerous for us to drive on nearby freeways going bumper-to-bumper at 120 km/hr. Using the same pro-gun arm all citizens rationale, perhaps we need to exchange cars for M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks (disabling high speed blocking device), then we could perhaps survive high speed crashes, while also being prepared for the next suspicious looking person that drives by?

The main issue to focus on from the shooting is definitely legislating legal gun ownership, and not the infiltration of violent extremists into society, with the goal of conducting attacks on civilians.

No doubt the government would carry out all these additional background checks and screenings with the same effectiveness as the ones that were conducted prior to issuing the female shooter a temporary visa to enter the US.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

During campaigns and debates should ALL presidential candidates be asked to clearly state their position on American ownership and regulation of assault weapons ("designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency"), demanding specific answers, not distraction moves or incoherent mumbles? The NY Times suggested this in their front page editorial.

The San Bernardino mass shooting (14 dead, 21 in hospital) with assault weapons occurring only a couple days ago is only 80 kms inland from where I live, attend university and work along the Southern California coast. Many pro-gun citizens suggest that we should ALL carry guns now for self defense. My book bag is already too heavy with netbook and books to add a gun, and I can just picture someone appearing of Middle Eastern heritage walking into my javahouse, while all the baristas, faculty, and students reach for their guns and flip off the safety. Wild west returns. What a lovely atmosphere to sip coffee and study. How backwards, ignorant, and absurd!

It's by far much more dangerous for us to drive on nearby freeways going bumper-to-bumper at 120 km/hr. Using the same pro-gun arm all citizens rationale, perhaps we need to exchange cars for M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks (disabling high speed blocking device), then we could perhaps survive high speed crashes, while also being prepared for the next suspicious looking person that drives by?

California is trying to get a ballot initiative that would ban large magazine cap and also would involve background checks on purchases of ammunition.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/california-ballot-initiative-ammunition-sales-san-bernardino-shooting

Black Swan

On the nationwide telly news (at this moment as I make this post) Trump states that American citizens should all arm themselves with guns for self defense against Muslim terrorism.

The news media is also reporting that many fearful citizens asked think that "strong man" Trump would be the best presidential candidate for preventing another terrorist act like the San Bernardino massacre, as well as dealing with ISIS and al-Qaeda worldwide. If I were an HR manager interviewing Trump for the job of improving American security, I would review his education, training, and past experiences (successes and failures) in preventing and dealing with terrorism both domestic and foreign, and not just focus on what comes out of Trump's mouth. Trump has a BIG ZERO in terms of all these qualifying criteria. ZERO!

And if someone suggests that Trump would surround himself with qualified advisers to compensate for his total lack of preparation and incompetence, how about if the GOP nominates one of those "qualified advisers" for president and dump Trump?

Inquitus

Black Swan wrote: »

And if someone suggests that Trump would surround himself with qualified advisers to compensate for his total lack of preparation and incompetence, how about if the GOP nominates one of those "qualified advisers" for president and dump Trump?

Are we really surprised with America? We had the Palin VP fiasco not that long ago, and then of course the GOP brought us the Christine O'Donnell I'm not a Witch comedy.

I for one look forward to the entertainment the Daily Show will bring if Trump gets the GOP nomination!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask

Edit: Lets not forget the great Karl Rove's Meltdown last election night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2HC1W2BR-Q

Memnoch

It's been entertaining so far. But trump is actually starting to scare me. As in he might actually have a shot. La Penn has just done very well in France.... So...

Inquitus

Memnoch wrote: »

It's been entertaining so far. But trump is actually starting to scare me. As in he might actually have a shot. La Penn has just done very well in France.... So...

In the presidential election it comes down to a 2 way run off, historically the mainstream left or right candidate who makes it into a runoff with the FN can count on the support of the other mainstream party to ensure victory as happened in 2002. So despite last nights result LePen has little realistic hope of the French presidency,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002

Manach

eire4 wrote: »

California is trying to get a ballot initiative that would ban large magazine cap and also would involve background checks on purchases of ammunition.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/california-ballot-initiative-ammunition-sales-san-bernardino-shooting

Offhand reading the BBC site, the SC refused to hear an attempt to reject a similar ban on such guns in Chicago. - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35031293