Page 62 of 62 FirstFirst ... 12525859606162
Results 916 to 926 of 926

Thread: Bernie wins New Hampshire!

  1. #916 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    24,187
    Thanks
    3,497
    Thanked 5,443 Times in 4,169 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,152 Times in 1,088 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    Guest Post: Stop-and-frisk can be an effective crime-fighting tool, at the right time and place

    Two social scientists say the controversial tactic may have had a positive impact in the high-crime 1990s

    The police practice of “stop, question and frisk,” or “stop-and-frisk” — randomly checking citizens for drugs or guns — was used heavily by New York City police starting in the 1990s to deter or stop crime from happening. A combination of court rulings and the end of the tenure of Mayor Mike Bloomberg saw the number of stops plummet from nearly 700,000 in 2011 to about 10,000 in 2017. Bloomberg is now being criticized by some for supporting the practice, which many feel was racially biased. But two professors in public policy, Charles F. Manski of Northwestern University and Daniel S. Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University, argue here that the tactic may have been the right answer for crime in the 1990s, but less so in an era of greatly reduced crime.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime...ht-time-place/




    and all the studies found it was the increase in officers and not the evil SnF part


    read your won shit dude
    FOR FUCK'S SAKE..

    The Obama Administration sued the policy in court and won, with the court saying the policy is unconstitutional.

    Enough.

    Any Democrat defending the Republican mayor's racist and unconstitutional program isn't a real Democrat.
    Don't blame me, I voted for the e-mail lady

  2. #917 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    5,578
    Thanks
    2,439
    Thanked 4,310 Times in 2,690 Posts
    Groans
    88
    Groaned 866 Times in 758 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Exactly.

    AOC, Omar, Pressly, Haaland, Khanna...all these young Democrats, who are the future of the party, are New Deal Democrats, not triangulated plutocrats.
    And more new wonderful Progressives coming in. Many incumbent establishment Dems are going to be facing tough primaries. Time to clean house.
    BLUEXIT
    A Modest Proposal For Separating Blue States From Red

    Dear Red-State Trump Voter,
    Let’s face it, guys: We’re done.


    It is a tragedy that so much of the work that so many men and women toiled at for so long to make this a better country, and a better world, has been thrown away, leaving us all in such needless peril.

    This is why our separation in all but name is necessary.


    https://newrepublic.com/article/1409...mp-red-america

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Cinnabar For This Post:

    LV426 (02-21-2020)

  4. #918 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    16,460
    Thanks
    5,544
    Thanked 7,610 Times in 5,009 Posts
    Groans
    1,497
    Groaned 1,182 Times in 1,083 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    Guest Post: Stop-and-frisk can be an effective crime-fighting tool, at the right time and place

    Two social scientists say the controversial tactic may have had a positive impact in the high-crime 1990s

    The police practice of “stop, question and frisk,” or “stop-and-frisk” — randomly checking citizens for drugs or guns — was used heavily by New York City police starting in the 1990s to deter or stop crime from happening. A combination of court rulings and the end of the tenure of Mayor Mike Bloomberg saw the number of stops plummet from nearly 700,000 in 2011 to about 10,000 in 2017. Bloomberg is now being criticized by some for supporting the practice, which many feel was racially biased. But two professors in public policy, Charles F. Manski of Northwestern University and Daniel S. Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University, argue here that the tactic may have been the right answer for crime in the 1990s, but less so in an era of greatly reduced crime.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime...ht-time-place/




    and all the studies found it was the increase in officers and not the evil SnF part


    read your won shit dude
    I read it

    Youre a lying bitch

  5. #919 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    127,334
    Thanks
    36,164
    Thanked 20,843 Times in 16,234 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 18,558 Times in 17,176 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

  6. #920 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    127,334
    Thanks
    36,164
    Thanked 20,843 Times in 16,234 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 18,558 Times in 17,176 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    I read it

    Youre a lying bitch
    IT WONT LET ME READ IT


    you are being an idiot


    it names two guys from the little it will allow me to see without signing up


    post the part of it that proves what you claim or get another source ass crack

  7. #921 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    127,334
    Thanks
    36,164
    Thanked 20,843 Times in 16,234 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 18,558 Times in 17,176 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

  8. #922 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    24,187
    Thanks
    3,497
    Thanked 5,443 Times in 4,169 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,152 Times in 1,088 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    THE REPUBLICANS CHEATED IN ELECTIONS DUDE
    I agree!

    However, if voter turnout was high, then they wouldn't have been able to cheat.

    So again the question is; how does a moderate increase voter turnout when moderation, by definition, isn't enthusiasm or excitement?
    Don't blame me, I voted for the e-mail lady

  9. #923 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    24,187
    Thanks
    3,497
    Thanked 5,443 Times in 4,169 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,152 Times in 1,088 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    are you now going to defend republican cheating?
    If voter turnout was 65%, it would be impossible for the GOP to cheat without making it painfully obvious.

    So my question to you is; how do you intend on getting voter turnout above 60% (a very low bar) this year with a moderate as the nominee?
    Don't blame me, I voted for the e-mail lady

  10. #924 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    8,819
    Thanks
    3,973
    Thanked 3,193 Times in 2,355 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 540 Times in 495 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    two fuckers say what?


    its not two studies


    its two professors and it wont let me read it


    the vast majority of studies on SnF said it fucked police relations with the honest people in the sectors of town


    but MORE FEET ON THE BEAT reduced the crime
    I always knew you were a closeted republican.

    most whites are.

  11. #925 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    16,460
    Thanks
    5,544
    Thanked 7,610 Times in 5,009 Posts
    Groans
    1,497
    Groaned 1,182 Times in 1,083 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    IT WONT LET ME READ IT


    you are being an idiot


    it names two guys from the little it will allow me to see without signing up


    post the part of it that proves what you claim or get another source ass crack
    Here, Little Miss Helpless...

    ***********************

    Guest Post: Stop-and-frisk can be an effective crime-fighting tool, at the right time and place

    Two social scientists say the controversial tactic may have had a positive impact in the high-crime 1990s

    The police practice of “stop, question and frisk,” or “stop-and-frisk” — randomly checking citizens for drugs or guns — was used heavily by New York City police starting in the 1990s to deter or stop crime from happening. A combination of court rulings and the end of the tenure of Mayor Mike Bloomberg saw the number of stops plummet from nearly 700,000 in 2011 to about 10,000 in 2017. Bloomberg is now being criticized by some for supporting the practice, which many feel was racially biased. But two professors in public policy, Charles F. Manski of Northwestern University and Daniel S. Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University, argue here that the tactic may have been the right answer for crime in the 1990s, but less so in an era of greatly reduced crime.

    By Charles F. Manski and Daniel S. Nagin

    Mike Bloomberg’s emergence as a candidate for president has rekindled controversy about the stop-and-frisk policing policy administered in New York during his period as mayor. Past and current discussions have taken polarized positions: Stop-and-frisk is either good policing or it is reprehensible. The truth is, there are rather obvious, yet overlooked, aspects of the policy that should be in the forefront of these debates. The use of stop-and-frisk may be justified in high-crime environments, but not when crime rates are low. We should always use less intrusive tactics when possible.

    The sharp contrast in positions is readily seen in statements by former New York Police Department commissioner Raymond Kelly, who implemented the policy, and former U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, who ruled it unconstitutional. Kelly wrote: “[T]he New York Police Department has taken tens of thousands of weapons off the street through proactive policing strategies … In the 11 years before [the Bloomberg administration], there were 13,212 murders … During the 11 years of his administration, there have been 5,849. That’s 7,383 lives saved.” Scheindlin wrote: “It is important to recognize the human toll of unconstitutional stops. No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life.”

    Effective policing in a democratic society should balance the (sometimes) conflicting objectives of public safety and community trust. Stop-and-frisk methods may reduce crime, but the costs of intrusion on the rights and privacy of innocent people cannot be overlooked. It is not easy to weigh these costs and benefits, and it is even harder to achieve political consensus, but we have to appreciate the subtlety of the matter rather than succumb to sloganeering.

    We developed a model of confrontational proactive policing and studied the implications of stop-and-frisk. The model considers the questionable aspects of the policy: How much does a police tactic reduce crime, and how much does it interfere with innocent people’s lives? And how much does it have a disproportionate impact across racial and ethnic groups?

    The model’s point of departure is that stop-and-frisk can deter crime but with the cost of invading individual privacy. Another important insight is that it is always preferable to develop and employ effective policing tactics that are less intrusive.

    The benefits of stop-and-frisk depend on the level of crime without the tactic. A basic point from grade school arithmetic is that X percent of a big number is larger than X percent of a small number. Therefore, stop-and-frisk may have had substantial benefits in the high-crime period of the early 1990s but much lower benefit in the present low crime environment.

    We looked at New York City to understand the cost to innocent people and determine how much higher the New York City crime rate would have been without the use of stop-and-frisk. There is limited research on the crime prevention impact of stop-and-frisk. However, some estimate that the 685,000 stops conducted in 2011, the peak year of use of the policy, reduced the New York City crime rate by 2 percent. Close to 90 percent of the stops resulted in no arrest or summons, meaning that the costs of these stops were borne by innocent people.

    The crime rate in New York in 2011 was relatively low. One may think that a 2 percent reduction in a low crime rate is too small of a benefit compared to the significant cost of conducting 685,000 stops — primarily of innocent people and on racial minorities — rather than spread evenly across the residents of New York. Black men ages 14 to 24 accounted for nearly 25 percent of all stops yet composed only 1.9 percent of the city’s population. Therefore, stop-and-frisk may have been bad policy in 2011.

    But the trade-off looks quite different in earlier years, when the New York crime rate was much higher. If we assume that stop-and-frisk reduced crime by 2 percent in 2011, the benefit (in terms of crimes averted per capita) would have been 56 percent larger in 2000 and 220 percent larger in 1991 when crime rates were higher than in 2011.

    Through the heated debates of today, and what we can expect will continue into the coming months, it is important to look back at the data, to understand the context of policy decisions, and to not overlook alternative forms of proactive policing that are less intrusive in the lives of innocent people.


    Charles F. Manski is Board of Trustees professor in economics and fellow of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University. Daniel S. Nagin is Teresa and H. John Heinz III university professor of public policy and statistics at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime...ht-time-place/

  12. #926 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    360
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 85 Times in 61 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 19 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    last time they helped Bernie
    Well duh it was just Bernie and Hillary and they wanted Hillary to lose. Facts are about how you interpret them. But you'd be mad to say Bernie is compromised to Russia in the same way Trump is. Bernie isn't in debt to them.


    Bernie is WHO the republicans want to run against
    I think they're underestimating Bernie and America. They support Bernie to cause chaos among Americans Russia-phobia. It's not ideological. They want Trump to win and they think Bernie is the weakest candidate. That's not a criticism of his policy and it ignores his grassroots support.

    they have compromised his whole system
    The DNC has been compromising itself for a while now. Russia just stepped into it.

Similar Threads

  1. If Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire....
    By Teflon Don in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-03-2020, 06:04 AM
  2. Bernie wins Oklahoma!!
    By leaningright in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 10-09-2016, 05:51 AM
  3. If Bernie Wins California, Should Hillary Step Down?
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-23-2016, 09:53 PM
  4. Bernie Sanders Wins Every Demographic Group
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-10-2016, 05:26 PM
  5. 'Trump wins!' Fox News accidentally declares in New Hampshire
    By Konono in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-10-2016, 02:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •