Is there any measurable way the country does better with Republican presidents?

[Mina]

. It's why you have the nerve to try and use Wikipedia as an actual source.

As a reminder, we confirmed the Wikipedia data was identical to the underlying FBI data -- merely presented in an easier to see format. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia data, just use the FBI data, since they're exactly the same. But, you don't like what that data indicated, so you're trying to change the subject from the actual data to the question of which particular link we use to reach that identical data.

We're not talking about other Presidencies. We're talking about Reagan's predecessor.

Yes, he was a good man and a good president. It's too bad he was followed by such a malignant blunderer, don't you think?

 

[Granule]

As a reminder, we confirmed the Wikipedia data was identical to the underlying FBI data -- merely presented in an easier to see format. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia data, just use the FBI data, since they're exactly the same. But, you don't like what that data indicated, so you're trying to change the subject from the actual data to the question of which particular link we use to reach that identical data.



Yes, he was a good man and a good president. It's too bad he was followed by such a malignant blunderer, don't you think?

And as a reminder, we (I at least) confirmed that Wikipedia was an unnecessary step. Why waste time with an unnecessary step (especially with an editable source) unless you're a raving egomaniac?

He was a bleeding heart and a fuckup. So much worse than a true leader like Ronald Reagan.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

... Because of Jimmy Carter. Kind of reminds me of another fuckup who sits in the Oval Office even as I'm typing this message.

...He was a bleeding heart and a fuckup. So much worse than a true leader like Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for proving all of your religious ranting was bullshit.

 

[Mina]

And as a reminder, we (I at least) confirmed that Wikipedia was an unnecessary step

It was a necessary step for my argument, since I couldn't rely on the people here to go to the trouble of using the FBI applet correctly to pull the same data, whereas Wiki presented all the same data in a one-click, clear format. If you, PERSONALLY, don't find Wikipedia to be helpful for that kind of thing, then you're free not to link to them. But I suspect it's because you don't tend to make any kinds of arguments that are based on data. You're just posting your personal feelings, or at best links to right-wing propaganda outlets, so the difficulties people will have in retrieving data from official outlets is a non-issue for you.

He was a bleeding heart and a fuckup. So much worse than a true leader like Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was bad for the country. He got the advantage of huge interest rate cuts and deficit growth, and left us with almost nothing to show for that other than higher debt. Real incomes hardly budged, poverty rates didn't budge at all, and we never even cracked under 5% unemployment.

 

[Granule]

It was a necessary step for my argument, since I couldn't rely on the people here to go to the trouble of using the FBI applet correctly to pull the same data, whereas Wiki presented all the same data in a one-click, clear format. If you, PERSONALLY, don't find Wikipedia to be helpful for that kind of thing, then you're free not to link to them. But I suspect it's because you don't tend to make any kinds of arguments that are based on data. You're just posting your personal feelings, or at best links to right-wing propaganda outlets, so the difficulties people will have in retrieving data from official outlets is a non-issue for you.



Reagan was bad for the country. He got the advantage of huge interest rate cuts and deficit growth, and left us with almost nothing to show for that other than higher debt. Real incomes hardly budged, poverty rates didn't budge at all, and we never even cracked under 5% unemployment.

Nope. It was a necessary step for an egomaniac. There is no room for editable sources in a debate, ever.

Sorry, but high taxes and burgeoning government are not conducive to a healthy society. Reagan was opposed to that shit (thank God) and the country grew stronger for it. This should be a country of makers, not takers.

 

[Granule]

Thanks for proving all of your religious ranting was bullshit.

And thank you for sharing your opinion (worthless as it was).

You may shut up and take your seat now.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And thank you for sharing your opinion (worthless as it was).

You may shut up and take your seat now.

Once again you prove you are not really Christian. You just play one on the Internet to use as a weapon.

Look at the first paragraph. it has Christian values all over it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

if you disagree, then show me where this kind of wording stems from. Well, clearly you disagree, so show me where this kind of wording stems from.

Wrong. It's a government based on Christian principles, by design. It's what sets us apart from the heathens of the East and the barbarians of the Middle East.

The God of Abraham, of course.

You start with aggressive enforcement. Actually getting into those neighborhood war zones and breaking that shit up. The citizenry has to step up too. It may come to a point where everyone who isn't tolerant of criminal behavior to step up and stamp that shit out.

 

[Mina]

here is no room for editable sources in a debate, ever.

All sources are editable.

Anyway, I see what you're doing. You were embarrassed about the fact that the underlying FBI data confirmed my point, which made you look like, well, a bit of a twat, for having made a big deal about the Wikipedia link. Fine. I get it. You feel humiliated, and you're angry that your attempt to dispute the argument I'd made fell apart so quickly. Sucks to be you. But your tender feelings don't alter the reality that the crime data was just what I said, and thus supports the position I took.

Sorry, but high taxes and burgeoning government are not conducive to a healthy society

Well, as you know, the society was sickly throughout the Reagan/Bush era. During that time, poverty rates rose, real incomes stagnated, and violent crime rates shot up to an all-time high, even as both private and public debt hit all-time highs, incarceration rates surged, and various other measures of social well-being took a turn for the worse (e.g., teen pregnancy rates, school test scores, and so on). It is particularly interesting in contrast with periods that saw nearly across-the-board improvements, like the Clinton and Obama eras.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

All sources are editable.

Anyway, I see what you're doing. You were embarrassed about the fact that the underlying FBI data confirmed my point, which made you look like, well, a bit of a twat, for having made a big deal about the Wikipedia link. Fine. I get it. You feel humiliated, and you're angry that your attempt to dispute the argument I'd made fell apart so quickly. Sucks to be you. But your tender feelings don't alter the reality that the crime data was just what I said, and thus supports the position I took.

Well, as you know, the society was sickly throughout the Reagan/Bush era. During that time, poverty rates rose, real incomes stagnated, and violent crime rates shot up to an all-time high, even as both private and public debt hit all-time highs, incarceration rates surged, and various other measures of social well-being took a turn for the worse (e.g., teen pregnancy rates, school test scores, and so on). It is particularly interesting in contrast with periods that saw nearly across-the-board improvements, like the Clinton and Obama eras.

Agreed. Those who hate Wikipedia are, IMO, usually fanatics who are also Qanon members, anti-vaxxers and believe the US government should be overthrown because the current President illegally stole the election from the ex-prez.

The key for intelligent, educated and sane people to use Wiki is to check the resourced links. Overall, while Wiki is easy and I enjoy using it, the data should be easily corroborated by others sources.

 

[Mina]

Agreed. Those who hate Wikipedia are, IMO, usually fanatics who are also Qanon members, anti-vaxxers and believe the US government should be overthrown because the current President illegally stole the election from the ex-prez.

The key for intelligent, educated and sane people to use Wiki is to check the resourced links. Overall, while Wiki is easy and I enjoy using it, the data should be easily corroborated by others sources.

Yep. And for the kinds of uses I put it to, I've found it's extremely reliable. I don't tend to use it for linking to details about controversial stories, where armies of partisans on both sides are editing it constantly and then it has to be locked down by the editors. I usually just use it as a clearing house for hard data, where the page has been in more or less the same condition for a decade, and all that changes is that each year when new official data comes out, someone makes a new column in the table and copies that in.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yep. And for the kinds of uses I put it to, I've found it's extremely reliable. I don't tend to use it for linking to details about controversial stories, where armies of partisans on both sides are editing it constantly and then it has to be locked down by the editors. I usually just use it as a clearing house for hard data, where the page has been in more or less the same condition for a decade, and all that changes is that each year when new official data comes out, someone makes a new column in the table and copies that in.

The point being you use it wisely and understand the problems, while haters just bitch, whine and moan about something they clearly do not understand.