Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

I doubt it will go anywhere, but I am quite happy with the fact that they ask. If nothing else, it should be standard procedure when a head of state effectively talks shit and declines to clarify.

Yeah, I don't see it going anywhere as it's just the diplomatic version of asking "What the heck are you talking about?"

Oh and just in: The deputy press sec. said that Trump was referring to rising crime, which pretty much matches the speculation.

Better late than never, I suppose. I do hope it sets a precedent to demand clarification from diplomatic channels, if that is indeed what it takes to make the president's staff clarify his more confused ravings.

At least until Trump goes and contradicts them.

[MorleyDev]

Well statistics are useful when you know what you're doing, and are actually using them to compare the same thing and know what the factors can be affecting the statistics. Problem is, like all things, you have to actually know what you're doing. When what's being measured is different, as is very common but not also immediately obvious at a cursory glance with statistics (e.g crime statistics in different countries), you're essentially comparing meters and pounds.

A lot of people have trouble getting their head around how it's possible for both the percentage of the population who are unemployed to rise and the percentage of the population who are employed to rise at the same time.

[Frumple]

Oh and just in: The deputy press sec. said that Trump was referring to rising crime, which pretty much matches the speculation.

Which is kinda odd, now that I look at it. Far as I can tell even with population increases, the immigration stuff, and pretty massive changes to reporting and procedure and whatnot, overall crime is lower than it was a decade ago, and still either going down, holding steady, or barely increasing for most individual sorts of crime. If they're an example of rising crime I think there's a few places in the U.S. that the bloody air will shank you if you try to drive through. And not metaphor, literally picking up knives and stabbing people. Air to knife to eyeball, no hands involved except the ones flailing around trying to make the murderous atmosphere stop putting unhealthy holes in you.

... that said, blatant ignorance of crime statistics is kinda' par for the course for politicians in general and conservative ones in particular. Crime is always going up even when it's going down, so far as most of that lot's concerned.

[Rolepgeek]

It's kindof a matter of where crime is going up. Plus if you go off number of people in prisons as a proxy for crime rate, and then don't update your statistics for the last ten to fifteen years...

[Neonivek]

Actually we had a very interesting statistical bastardization not too long ago.

Which was statistics that "Prove that immigrants are, relatively speaking, criminals" and that they murder many times more often then everyone else.

How did they get that? By averaging people in a prison. (So people with more serious crimes... would still be there... and people with light crimes would cycle out)

[PTTG??]

Little seems more accurate a metaphor for arguing with a Trump supporter than What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.

A, Trump said P=Q.
B, P and Q differ.
C, Things that differ are not equal.
Z, Trump was wrong.

D, If A,B, and C, then Z.
E, If A,B,C, and D, then Z.
....

Although occasionally, it devolves into:
A, Evidence suggests Q.
B, I don't like Q.
Therefore C, A is fake news.

Or possibly:
A, Evidence suggests Q.
B, Trump claims P, which is that he is going to make America Great Again.
Therefore P.

And sometimes:
T, LOCK HER UP
R, MAGA
U, OBAMA'S GONNA TAKE MY GUNS
M, [White nationalist slogans]
Therefore, P, which is whatever Trump wants it to be.

[alway]

If you want to try decreasing crime by deporting people, start with citizens of the country they're in. After all, the general consensus from studies is that immigrants help suppress crime levels compared to the general populace: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not-increase-crime-research-shows/

[Neonivek]

If you want to try decreasing crime by deporting people, start with those native to the country they're in. After all, the general consensus from studies is that immigrants help suppress crime levels compared to the general populace: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not-increase-crime-research-shows/

Sorry, but you still have to disprove the statistic that immigrants murder people a lot more then normal.

Because that stupid statistic bastardization I am referring to is going to be around for a while.

[Reelya]

Actually we had a very interesting statistical bastardization not too long ago.

Which was statistics that "Prove that immigrants are, relatively speaking, criminals" and that they murder many times more often then everyone else.

How did they get that? By averaging people in a prison. (So people with more serious crimes... would still be there... and people with light crimes would cycle out)

But that's also biased if courts tend to give immigrants longer sentences.

[Neonivek]

Actually we had a very interesting statistical bastardization not too long ago.

Which was statistics that "Prove that immigrants are, relatively speaking, criminals" and that they murder many times more often then everyone else.

How did they get that? By averaging people in a prison. (So people with more serious crimes... would still be there... and people with light crimes would cycle out)

But that's also biased if courts tend to give immigrants longer sentences.

It had a LOT of problems.

[Starver]

How long until America's first gay president?

I'm betting there already has been, (You didn't say openly gay.)

Theres rumors that Lincolin might have been, but theres no proof as far as I know.

I'm not informed enough to say who¹, but the chances are very good that at least 1 in 45 random people are gay. Sure, the increased scrutiny of public figures may weed out those not sufficiently carefully closeted (when such things are deemed as useful ammunition against them, which so far has been always) but there'll still be a decent chance.

Though I think that the first openly homosexual president (male or female) is going to happen before the first openly atheistic president (Jefferson, Lincoln or Johnson are the closest so far, it seems).  A gay-but-clearly-of-Faith person would be less of a red rag to the red states, as far as I can tell, than one proclaiming themselves as godless. Until the next big societal upheaval, at least.  And it's just IMO, of course, not in any way authoritatively researched.


¹ A very cursory look at what information there is brings up our old ranking-bottom friend Buchanan, with information such as "James Buchanan, elected in 1857, was the only unmarried president to stay single his whole life, " a cancelled engagement (that originally theorised as a money/influence-grabbing move on his part, before the break-off) and apparently no further serious female friends (but a commented-upon relationship with the man who was briefly VP to Buchanan's predecessor as POTUS, before his death).  -   But that's just looking for 'dirt', and might mean very little. For all we know John Tyler (apparently father of 15 kids by two different wives, possibly at least one more by a slave) was just very good at covering his proclivities.

[Starver]

How long until America's first gay president?

-160 Years

Ach, appears I was ninjaed. (By dint of being slow to catch up, mostly.)

[Max™]

I know it isn't 4chan, but...
>implying Reagan and Gorbachev weren't talking about "missiles" being "packed" and the press just confused the whole matter with otherwise reasonable assumptions in the lack of the sort of hot sweaty context one might find in a Reykjavik hot tub

...or as Jack Harkness would say, "spaghetti is also straight until you get it hot and wet" and then flash an unsettlingly attractive smile.

As for McCain, he's the grumpy old bastard we need at this point, misko. I can just picture him teasing Donald about his bone spurs before explaining to a reporter that he'd happily see them tossed into a pit full of hungry dogs, but we need the press specifically because of shmucks like the draft dodger, and that the reporters are safe  from the pit until they've had a big helping of fresh Trump steak.

[PTTG??]

Until McCain actually starts following through with his talk, he's just hot air.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: If the Congressional Republicans turn on Trump, it'll be as an avalanche instead of a gradually growing number of dissenters. That avalanche will be triggered when majority internal opinion shifts towards "Trump is a problem" instead of "Trump is useful". That's how changes of this kind happen, nobody is going to move until moving means something.