Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

MisterAnarchy

extra gravy wrote: »

Their "opinions" consist of buzzwords and fake outrage. No actual knowledge or evidence to support their claims. Grown men that use "woke" as a slur aren't to be taken seriously.

A recent survey revealed the extent to which the public is misinformed on the issue of police violence.

Participants across the political spectrum in the nationally representative survey were asked how many unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019.
The results were revealing.
Overall, nearly half of surveyed liberals (44 percent) estimated roughly between 1,000 and 10,000 unarmed black men were killed whereas 20 percent of conservatives estimated the same.
The actual number of unarmed black men killed by the police in 2019 is 14.

The second question the survey asked was: “In 2019, what percentage of people killed by police were Black?” While the survey states that the actual percentage is around 25 percent, the average survey respondent guessed 50 percent (58 percent for liberals and 41 percent for conservatives).
The disconnect between perception and reality couldn’t be starker.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/cases-of-police-brutality-against-black-people-are-overestimated/amp/

Police make around 10m arrests each year in the US.

In the last 5 years, the police have fatally shot on average 1,000 civilians annually, the vast majority of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous.

Police shot 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019.
There are about 7,300 Black homicide victims a year.

The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings comprises only 0.2% of that total which is a tiny percentage.

Why aren’t the media up in arms about the majority of these 7300 murders, which are largely black on black crime related ?

Why aren’t they on about the 25 shootings in Chicago last weekend resulting in 5 deaths including a 7 year old killed in a drive by shooting ?

It doesn’t suit the narrative thats why.

In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer.

Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population.

Is that enough stats for you ?

extra gravy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

A recent survey revealed the extent to which the public is misinformed on the issue of police violence.


https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/cases-of-police-brutality-against-black-people-are-overestimated/amp/

Police make around 10m arrests each year in the US.

In the last 5 years, the police have fatally shot on average 1,000 civilians annually, the vast majority of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous.

Police shot 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019.
There are about 7,300 Black homicide victims a year.

The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings comprises only 0.2% of that total which is a tiny percentage.

Why aren’t the media up in arms about the majority of these 7300 murders, which are largely black on black crime related ?

Why aren’t they on about the 25 shootings in Chicago last weekend resulting in 5 deaths including a 7 year old killed in a drive by shooting ?

It doesn’t suit the narrative thats why.

In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer.

Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population.

Is that enough stats for you ?

Complains about "left wing academia" indoctrination then uses a right wing rag to try and make his point. Funny!

biko

extra gravy wrote: »

Complains about "left wing academia" indoctrination then uses a right wing rag to try and make his point. Funny!

Is anything of the reported incorrect?

Overheal

Biden announced a tax credit for businesses who give paid leave to take the vaccine. I think it must mean to next years taxes though.

biko

Overheal wrote: »

It's literally still in the constitution, as a form of punishment for crime. Amendment XIII.

Is that the punishment of penal labour?


It is

The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution, enacted in 1865, explicitly allows penal labour as it states that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".

Unconvicted detainees awaiting trial cannot be forced to participate in forced rehabilitative labour programs in prison as it violates the Thirteenth Amendment.

Fun facts
1 Penal servitude was abolished in Ireland in 1997.
2 Most Japanese prisoners are required to engage in prison labour, often in manufacturing parts which are then sold cheaply to private Japanese companies.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Is that the punishment of penal labour?

Generally yes.

Very good enterprise it became to round up blacks for perceived crimes and then fashion them as your prison labor force. After all, there seems to be the popular belief that they have superhuman strength.

biko

Bring it up with Kamala

For example, Harris’s office fought to release fewer prisoners, even after the US Supreme Court found that overcrowding in California prisons was so bad that it amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

At one point, her lawyers argued that the state couldn’t release some prisoners because it would deplete its pool for prison labor — but Harris quickly clarified that she was not aware her office was going with that argument until it was reported by media.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/23/18184192/kamala-harris-president-campaign-criminal-justice-record

everlast75

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

You think that you can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with you is it ?
Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.

Did you just attribute a bad motive to me?

biko

everlast75 wrote: »

Did you just attribute a bad motive to me?

Next step, assuming genders.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Bring it up with Kamala



https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/23/18184192/kamala-harris-president-campaign-criminal-justice-record

You say take it up with Kamala but then make clear in your quote that she had no knowledge of that argument and repudiated it the moment she heard it had been used. So, what are you actually saying here? Nothing? Or I guess we both agree that there is clearly SYSTEMIC incentive, evidence in your link, to keep prison labor pools and not for any reason of the incarcerated persons' civil rights or for their associated due process concerns. Just for labor.

extra gravy

biko wrote: »

Is anything of the reported incorrect?

A survey from the "Skeptic Research Centre", an opinion piece in a tabloid and a list of "stats" with no citation. I didn't take the post seriously enough to even bother checking.

Cody montana

extra gravy wrote: »

A survey from the "Skeptic Research Centre", an opinion piece in a tabloid and a list of "stats" with no citation. I didn't take the post seriously enough to even bother checking.

I saw the nypost and thus it was pointless.

Biden calls out racism and the usual lot are frothing at the mouth.

MisterAnarchy

Unable to answer the argument so resort to the usual tactics.

everlast75

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Unable to answer the argument so resort to the usual tactics.

Keep watching Tucker and getting angry at white men being blamed for black men who just can't stop getting into trouble

MisterAnarchy

everlast75 wrote: »

Keep watching Tucker and getting angry at white men being blamed for black men who just can't stop getting into trouble

Anymore stereotypes you'd like to tar me with ?

extra gravy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Unable to answer the argument so resort to the usual tactics.

"My posts are below standard but it's eveyone else that's the problem."

Cody montana

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Unable to answer the argument so resort to the usual tactics.

“Posts an opinion piece from the nypost”

Sit down.

everlast75

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Anymore stereotypes you'd like to tar me with ?

I can only judge you by the content of your posts.

Your latest is a citation from a right wing tabloid which screams confirmation bias.

The topic is basically "black man bad".

You don't accept there are reasons why black people may turn to crime.

You don't accept they are discriminated against.

My estimation therefore is that you fit right in with Carlson and Stephen Miller.

When your posts change I'll revise my estimation of what you stand for, but until then I'm fairly confident I'm spot on.

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Anymore stereotypes you'd like to tar me with ?

You referred to Biden's "virtue signaling" and "race baiting" because he has raised the issue of systemic racism... Does sound like something from the Tucker playbook tbh.

MisterAnarchy

I see.
Instead of trying to counter the content of the easily verifiable facts I quoted, its predictably turned to personal insults and trying to attribute bad motives to me.

everlast75

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I see instead of trying to counter the content of the easily verifiable facts I quoted, its predictably turned to personal insults and trying to attribute bad motives to me.

Persecution complex - also present.

I think we have BINGO!

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Unable to answer the argument so resort to the usual tactics.

I had a quick read of it there.

1) The first thing to clarify is that you have (unsurprisingly) stated something that the paper does not claim. The paper states that, as some law enforcement agencies have not provided data for 2020, that they instead estimate that 60-100 unarmed black men were killed in 2020 and not 14 as you state. The correct option is therefore the second option and not the first one. The percentage of people who guessed this correct answer was 30-40% across the board and there wasn't much of a political divide.

2) I noticed some significant evidence that the authors are biased. Two things immediately stood out to me:

a) For the question "if you had to guess, how many unarmed Black men were killed by police in 2019?", they had "about 1,000" as the middle option. I can't remember the name of the phenomenon, but people who are unsure will tend to pick the middle option and surely they are well aware of that being experts and all. They should have listed more options or asked people to enter a number and put those numbers into groups afterwards. If they had listed the options as "10, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1,000" I doubt you would have seen as many people from either side choosing 1,000.

Even the correct answer (about 100) is the upper limit of what is likely the correct answer. Therefore, four out of five options are skewed to people who would guess greatly overestimating the number of unarmed black people killed by police, which indicates that that was the result they were hoping to obtain.

b) They seem to only casually mention the most striking piece of the data, namely that 26.7% of the victims of police shooting fatalities between 2015 and 2020 were black even though black people only make up 13% of the population which goes against some of their claims.

3) Related to the above, but I read a paper recently (I tried to find it there but couldn't, I'll edit this post if I find it) which stated that the average American thinks that 35-45% of the American population is black. This is about three times higher than the actual figure and so any guess the average American makes to the question "if you had to guess, how many unarmed Black men were killed by police in 2019?" would be inflated 300% on average just based on their incorrect guess on this fact alone. Asking instead "what percentage of unarmed people killed in 2020 by police were black?" seems like a more sensible question and one that they would have asked if they were unbiased.

Also the Skeptic Research Center face no review. They're self publishing... I imagine that's why it made the NY Post rather than reputable outlets.

MisterAnarchy

Deleted User wrote: »

I had a quick read of it there.

1) The first thing to clarify is that you have (unsurprisingly) stated something that the paper does not claim. The paper states that, as some law enforcement agencies have not provided data for 2020, that they instead estimate that 60-100 unarmed black men were killed in 2020 and not 14 as you state. The correct option is therefore the second option and not the first one. The percentage of people who guessed this correct answer was 30-40% across the board and there wasn't much of a political divide.

2) I noticed some significant evidence that the authors are biased. Two things immediately stood out to me:

a) For the question "if you had to guess, how many unarmed Black men were killed by police in 2019?", they had "about 1,000" as the middle option. I can't remember the name of the phenomenon, but people who are unsure will tend to pick the middle option and surely they are well aware of that being experts and all. They should have listed more options or asked people to enter a number and put those numbers into groups afterwards. If they had listed the options as "10, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1,000" I doubt you would have seen as many people from either side choosing 1,000.

Even the correct answer (about 100) is the upper limit of what is likely the correct answer. Therefore, four out of five options are skewed to people who would guess greatly overestimating the number of unarmed black people killed by police, which indicates that that was the result they were hoping to obtain.

b) They seem to only casually mention the most striking piece of the data, namely that 26.7% of the victims of police shooting fatalities between 2015 and 2020 were black even though black people only make up 13% of the population which goes against some of their claims.

3) Related to the above, but I read a paper recently (I tried to find it there but couldn't, I'll edit this post if I find it) which stated that the average American thinks that 35-45% of the American population is black. This is about three times higher than the actual figure and so any guess the average American makes to the question "if you had to guess, how many unarmed Black men were killed by police in 2019?" would be inflated 300% on average just based on their incorrect guess on this fact alone. Asking instead "what percentage of unarmed people killed in 2020 by police were black?" seems like a more sensible question and one that they would have asked if they were unbiased.

Only the first paragraph of my post referred to the NY Post article, which was basically used to illustrate how overhyped the threat of an innocent person being shot by the police is.

The number of unarmed black people shot in 2019 was 14, as I stated.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/23/fact-check-how-many-unarmed-black-men-did-police-kill-2019/5322455002/

What about the rest of the post ??

Police make around 10m arrests each year in the US.

In the last 5 years, the police have fatally shot on average 1,000 civilians annually, the vast majority of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous.

Police shot 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019.
There are about 7,300 Black homicide victims a year.

The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings comprises only 0.2% of that total which is a tiny percentage.

Why aren’t the media up in arms about the majority of these 7300 murders, which are largely black on black crime related ?

Why aren’t they on about the 25 shootings in Chicago last weekend resulting in 5 deaths including a 7 year old killed in a drive by shooting ?

It doesn’t suit the narrative thats why.

In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer.

Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population.

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Only the first paragraph of my post referred to the NY Post article, which was basically used to illustrate how overhyped the threat of an innocent person being shot by the police is.

The number of unarmed black people shot in 2019 was 14, as I stated.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/23/fact-check-how-many-unarmed-black-men-did-police-kill-2019/5322455002/

What about the rest of the post ??

Eh your own article points out that the data is incredibly inaccurate as many deaths are misrepresented in terms of what occurred...

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The number of unarmed black people shot in 2019 was 14
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/23/fact-check-how-many-unarmed-black-men-did-police-kill-2019/5322455002/

Nowhere in your link does it say 14. It says 13 is known of but that figure is likely higher, as your first link stated and as I have already stated.

The number of unarmed Black men fatally shot by police is likely higher than the Post's count due to a lack of comprehensive police records, which Kirk does not acknowledge. Despite these issues, the Post's database shows police fatally shot 13 unarmed black men in 2019, not eight.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

What about the rest of the post ??

I will gladly comment on the rest of your post once you first comment on my analysis of the first part of your post. Do you now believe that this study is flawed and that it should be ignored? If not, explain why.

biko

Overheal wrote: »

You say take it up with Kamala but then make clear in your quote that she had no knowledge of that argument and repudiated it the moment she heard it had been used.

She threw the office under the bus. They would not pursue such a policy without her say-so or knowledge.

She's a bad fish.
https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a leading candidate to be Joe Biden’s running mate, repeatedly and openly defied U.S. Supreme Court orders to reduce overcrowding in California prisons while serving as the state’s attorney general, according to legal documents reviewed by the Prospect. Working in tandem with Gov. Jerry Brown, Harris and her legal team filed motions that were condemned by judges and legal experts as obstructionist, bad-faith, and nonsensical, at one point even suggesting that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to order a reduction in California’s prison population.

She was AG then and VP now so untouchable until she leaves.

nolivesmatter

everlast75 wrote: »

White men sitting behind a keyboard in Ireland weigh in on why, despite evidence to the contrary, they think black people aren't discriminated against in the U.S.

A persons argument is either good or isn't, what color they are shouldn't matter. There's just no benefit in calling out race like that when you can go after the holes in their argument.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

She threw the office under the bus. They would not pursue such a policy without her say-so or knowledge.

She's a bad fish.
https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/


She was AG then and VP now so untouchable until she leaves.

So they would say.

You're getting well off the point though: admission that slave labor is a systemic part of our criminal justice system.

MisterAnarchy

Deleted User wrote: »

Nowhere in your link does it say 14. It says 13 is known of but that figure is likely higher, as your first link stated and as I have already stated.


I will gladly comment on the rest of your post once you first comment on my analysis of the first part of your post. Do you now believe that this study is flawed and that it should be ignored? If not, explain why.

The options given are indeed a bit lopsided.

However the fact remains that the amount of unarmed black people shot by the police is quite low.

MisterAnarchy

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't the opposite actually true?

No.
I said unarmed.

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Unarmed

Yes sorry I used the wrong quote.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Police shot 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019.

How is that quite low when only 13% of the population is black? Seems quite disproportionate to me.

MisterAnarchy

Deleted User wrote: »

How is that quite low when only 13% of the population is black? Seems quite disproportionate to me.

If anything its disproportionally lower than what it should be.

In 2015 African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 died from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department.

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/80674/cdc_80674_DS1.pdf?

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

If anything its disproportionally lower than what it should be.

In 2015 African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 died from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department.

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/80674/cdc_80674_DS1.pdf?

I don't quite see how you can conclude that from that fact alone, but I will reply properly in the morning if someone else hasn't taken over from me by then.

everlast75

nolivesmatter wrote: »

A persons argument is either good or isn't, what color they are shouldn't matter. There's just no benefit in calling out race like that when you can go after the holes in their argument.

Not when it comes to racism which you have absolutely no ****ing experience or first hand knowledge of the facts

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't quite see how you can conclude that from that fact alone, but I will reply properly in the morning if someone else hasn't taken over from me by then.

We analyzed 990 police fatal shootings using data compiled by The Washington Post in 2015. After first providing a basic descriptive analysis of these shootings, we then examined the data for evidence of implicit bias by using multivariate regression models that predict two indicators of threat perception failure: (1) whether the civilian was not attacking the officer(s) or other civilians just before being fatally shot and (2) whether the civilian was unarmed when fatally shot. The results indicated civilians from “other” minority groups were significantly more likely than Whites to have not been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians and that Black civilians were more than twice as likely as White civilians to have been unarmed.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12269

walshb

Both sides can spend days posting links that support their sides..

Nothing is definitive.

Simple: cops target crime and criminals. Not colors..

End of story...

Why does it always come back to racism/systemic racism just because some statistics show certain colors being more involved day to day with cops?

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Nothing is definitive.

Simple: cops target crime and criminals. Not colors..

*says nothing is definitive*

*makes a definitive statement*

Professor Moriarty

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

If anything its disproportionally lower than what it should be.

In 2015 African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 died from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department.

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/80674/cdc_80674_DS1.pdf?

Who or what is responsible for this?

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

*says nothing is definitive*

*makes a definitive statement*

Very apt considering your username!!!😅

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Both sides can spend days posting links that support their sides..

Nothing is definitive.

Simple: cops target crime and criminals. Not colors..

End of story...

Why does it always come back to racism/systemic racism just because some statistics show certain colors being more involved day to day with cops?

Except the NY Post study is self published and the other is peer reviewed... So far more credible evidence has been posted by Aristotle.

Smee_Again

walshb wrote: »

Simple: cops target crime and criminals. Not colors..

This is extremely naive.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Very apt considering your username!!!😅

This statement

"Simple: cops target crime and criminals. Not colors.."

needs backing up. You have been provided evidence which strongly indicates that that is not the case.

walshb

Smee_Again wrote: »

This is extremely naive.

No, it is not..

Of course, in any police force anywhere you will have bad apples. We know this.

Nowhere in any cop manual will it ever say that cops are to target colors or treat certain colors more or less favourably..

Cops are there to uphold the law and protect humans. It’s that simple...

They are involved in millions of incidents every month...

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

This statement

"Simple: cops target crime and criminals. Not colors.."

needs backing up. You have been provided evidence which strongly indicates that that is not the case.

Sorry, this thread is pages long. I can’t recall you providing me, specifically with any facts/figures/stats. If you did, thanks. I must have missed the links. Can you point me to the post, please.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Of course, in any police force anywhere you will have bad apples. We know this.

And why is there a common trait every year for those bad apples to target black men over white men year on year?

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, this thread is pages long. I can’t recall you providing me, specifically with any facts/figures/stats. If you did, thanks. I must have missed the links. Can you point me to the post, please.

I posted a link this morning. You can start with that and go from there.

Smee_Again

walshb wrote: »

Nowhere in any cop manual will it ever say that cops are to target colors or treat certain colors more or less favourably..

And yet that's exactly what they do. Why do you think this is?

I'll tell you, but you'll have to read up on it because you didn't understand it yesterday, institutional racism.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

And why is there a common trait every year for those bad apples to target black men over white men year on year?

Bad apples can target anyone of any color. They are bad apples..

Yes, some of these bad sped are also racist bad apples..

We all know this.. it’s part of life...

Now, the systemic racism narrative....

I have seen nothing that definitely shows systemic racism in the police force in America. Nothing. It is gone.

Times have changed dramatically. Eras have changed. Peoples attitudes and tolerances have changed. Rules, laws, guidelines have changed..

This is not the early to mid 20th century..

Racism is still there. And always will be....

Systemic racism is another ballgame altogether.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

I have seen nothing that definitely shows systemic racism in the police force in America. Nothing. It is gone.

It's quite clear that you are not opening any links or reading any of the papers that have been provided in this discussion. The reason you have not seen this is therefore confirmation bias.