Shorthands has been takin’ shit from the Republicans for attempting a second deal with ‘Chuck and Nancy’, on immigration this time. After Chuck Schumer announced that the three of them had come to an agreement on resolving the DACA issue (children brought into the United States and raised here as Americans, even though they were not legal citizens), the Republicans have been eager to assert that there was no agreement. Well, there probably was, but it's over now. Shorthands has withdrawn from the deal. He's issued a list of demands in return for legislative relief for thos kids, and conspicuous on the list is funding for his Wall. Reuters The Democrats have already made it clear that's a non-starter; they ain't gonna go there. Now the Republicans are going to have to figure out how to pass this one with only Republican votes.
Now the Republicans are going to have to figure out how to pass this one with only Republican votes.
Or not. Somehow I get the feeling that even Republicans aren't too keen on on some of Trump's ideas, especially as he doesn't feel the need to work with them.
I doubt Thomas Friedman reads this blog, so he probably didn't see the comment. But he did make the same point on national TV. Although my guess is that, like you, there are others out there who noticed before he did so.
Wanna compare gun violence in Switzerland compared to Mexico?
It's not all just about available legal hardware you know...
I am sure there are all sorts of things that can factor into violence in a country. What might be more interesting is to compare Mexico and Japan. Organized crime is prevalent in both, yet the behavior of each is different.
"I get the feeling that even Republicans aren't too keen on on some of Trump's ideas…"
I'm thinking there's an increasing chance that Trump's gonna end up running as an independent this next time. I think that may be his best bet for getting a second term, a three way race and the dedicated Trumpkins just might be enough.
The Indianapolis Colts played the San Fransico Forty Niners yesterday, ex-Indiana Governor and current Veep, Mike Pence attended. Couple dozen 49rs took a knee (as they have been doing consistently since Trump said they should be fired for it). Pence walked out. This was all pre-arranged. Pence went to the game knowing they'd take a knee (all the more certain because he made sure that everybody knew he was there on Trump's behalf to walk out on them over that, guantlet thrown down). Trump was in on it, and tweeted about it yesterday.
The show went on as planned; some 49rs took a knee, Pence walked out (missed a good game), Trump issued a tweet. Thereafter players continued to take a knee all across the NFL all the rest of the day. Very little in the way of blowback has shown.
Trump's dropped that one short tweet about it yesterday and another brief one this morning. TrumpTweets and that's been it. Not much play for a confrontation they'd intentionally set up. Looks like he's losing this one and will soon be obliged to declare victory and slink away, move on to something else. In his wake he'll leave some pissed off NFL owners, who didn't particularly need this grief after the majority of them (majority of those who weighed in) had been big Trump supporters.
Kim Jong Un sure as hell ain't gonna fear him, nor the mad mullahs of Iran.
"EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced Monday that the Trump administration is moving to scrap the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's signature regulatory program to curb emissions from coal-fired power plants." FoxNews
Won't help; the rest of the country has seen the handwriting on the wall. Right now natural gas is cheaper, by the time natural gas isn't cheaper (if ever) someone sane will have reinstated Obama's rules, maybe even stricter. Trump isn't going to bring back the market for coal. There's no such thing as ‘clean coal’ and until there is (if ever) there's gonna be no bringing back coal mining jobs. And, if there ever develops an economical means to clean up coal emissions, likely there'll be no sending men down into mines to get it, machines maybe, but not men.
Democratic ‘strategist’, as he styles himself, says that it's also possible that Trump could win if the #NeverTrump Republicans can't dislodge him in a primary, but then they decide to run an alternate, independent, ‘establishment’ Republican as a strong third-party candidate. That might work too, especially if the Democrats nominate a wild-eyed liberal from the Bernie Sanders wing of their party.
In his wake he'll leave some pissed off NFL owners, who didn't particularly need this grief after the majority of them (majority of those who weighed in) had been big Trump supporters.
There is also the waste of money angle, which CNN has been playing up. What did this PR stunt cost the American taxpayer?
That might work too, especially if the Democrats nominate a wild-eyed liberal from the Bernie Sanders wing of their party.
That is always the danger.
Although Trump has been talking about his next seven years in office as if it were a certainty that he would win any forthcoming election. It would be really, really nice to see someone take the wind out of his egotistical sails.
"What did this PR stunt cost the American taxpayer?"
I'm not sure I get where football is tied to taxpayers, other than maybe taxpayer financing of football stadiums, and that doesn't seem relate to Trump's vendettas.
Ran across a connection. USAToday. It seems Pence traveled from to Indianapolis at taxpayer expense, private plane and all that even after the fuss over the cabinet secretaries doing such (meaning that Chief of Staff Kelly's office should have approved the expense). Then back to Los Angeles. Plus press entourage, and Secret Service.
Trump has two golf resorts in the country -- one near Aberdeen and the other at Turnberry. Their combined losses nearly doubled to £19 million ($25 million) in 2016, according to accounts filed in the U.K.
At a certain point, the distaste becomes exhaustion. Donald Trump’s presence in our national life has been alternately infuriating, embarrassing, revolting, gross and bizarre. His non-stop assaults on our political norms are testing our capacity to sustain constant outrage without giving in to despair. I meet victims of Trump fatigue everywhere. They stop me in airports and restaurants and on the street and ask how long we’ll have to put up with this madness – when will Bob Mueller finally bring him down, and how much more can our systems bend before they break. When I tell them Trump is likely to clamor on until either the 2018 election slows him down or the 2020 election stops him (or if Russian interference, non-white voter suppression and liberal perfectionism succeed again, ‘til he terms out in 2024), the look on their faces is something akin to terror.
Seems it's a good thing I've been busy with actual, real science since Friday as Chumpy finally went full retard. I see he's still trying to claim (with a straight face) that a web page that never once mentions batteries or EVs is about saving gasoline by driving an EV. Go figure. I see he's also been dictionary diving on the word "reduction" to try and out-Jesuit even his own self. Anyway, at least I no longer have to even think about whether the troll is worth conversing with.
"It's clear to a kindergarten child that the EPA page is about the amount of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels." Petes @ Fri Oct 06, 12:53:00 pm
Except it clearly was not about amout of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels.
"Does not include emissions from generating electricity; learn more at fueleconomy.gov." Lee C. @ Fri Oct 06, 02:30:00 pm (emphasis added)
Everybody got it. Everybody also noticed that it just coincidentally took you better than two days of ‘being busy’ to recover from your shock of seeing what you already knew up on the page in front of you for the rest to see.
Deal's done fat boy. I don't think there's any way for you to recover, but you're welcome to try. You try; I'll watch. Floor's yours.
Sorry, I read your comments but didn't make a point-by-point list. (Been busy studying ... did you know that the four black hole merger detections at LIGO are already enough to cast serious doubt on our understanding of the range of black hole sizes that exist? Or, more gruesomely, did you know that pointing a one metre telescope at the Sun would not only cause instant blindness but could completely boil a human eyeball in 2 seconds!).
Anyway, to illustrate the scale of the problem, the total rate of energy expenditure from petroleum used for transport alone in the US is equal to the entire electric generating capacity of the US -- about one terawatt in each case. However, the capacity factor of the existing generating infrastructure is fairly constant at about 45%. In other words when you look at the electricity actually generated, it's less than half the energy used in transport.
You would therefore probably have to triple the generating capacity of the US to cope with fully electrified transport as well as all the existing uses of electricity. Generating capacity costs about $5k per kW to build. The two terawatts needed for transport is therefore going to cost about ten trillion dollars.
Yes, you could burn oil to generate the needed energy. Do you think that's likely? Apart from anything else, do you think anyone is going to commit that kind of dosh to a fuel that half the people think is going to run out soon, and the other half think we shouldn't ever be using. Not going to happen. Neither group would countenance committing to a 60+ year investment in a technology they don't trust and don't want.
But even ignoring that, if you committed to a breakneck $100 billion a year program in building power plants, it would take a hundred years. That's hardly surprising: you've spent a hundred years building the current stuff.
That's why I've been saying all along that none of the options are impossible ... they're just going to take a very, very long time. Simple back-of-an-envelope arithmetic. Unfortunately, it's still over the heads of most people, who think it's obvious we're just going to go all-electric and there'll be nothing else available by the time they buy their next car.
Ah, so… Instead of discussing energy usage in Europe you've move on to transmission capabilities in the U.S.A. And you think they won't notice the change of subject?
"You would therefore probably have to triple the generating capacity of the US to cope with fully electrified transport as well as all the existing uses of electricity."
That is, of course, assuming that people ran their electric cars straight off the grid instead of off of batteries that charged overnight. And it assumes they all drive all at once. (Need more highways for that too.)
Actually, I think it's worse than merely assuming everybody drives all at once; I think those numbers assume everybody does a ‘fast charge’, a burn the battery type 45 minute forced charge, everybody all at the same time. That is correct. isn't it?
"…do you think anyone is going to commit that kind of dosh to a fuel that half the people think is going to run out soon, and the other half think we shouldn't ever be using. Not going to happen."
And, for grins, I'll remind folks that those same gas generators could switch from using petroleum to use of bio-fuels as soon as the switch can be made.
And, if I read this right, off the top of my head:
"…the capacity factor of the existing generating infrastructure is fairly constant at about 45%. In other words when you look at the electricity actually generated, it's less than half the energy used in transport."
I think that actually means that we run the current grid at an average of 45% of its capacity. (I think Petes is trying to run a con here again, pretending his jargon-spew means something other than it really means.) That would mean we already have the generating capacity necessary to supply the electricity currently used by internal combustion engines on the highways. Assuming that the switch to EVs would double the need for electricity. (Put the current grid to heavy use, but, it's already there. Probably need beefed up, but it's already there.)
Watch him for the con folks; watch him for the con.
First thing we need to remember is that somebody's gotta build the EVs and put them out there on the highway before they're gonna consume electricity. Petes needs to prove to us that building the EVs and getting them on the highway will necessarily outrun our ability to simultaneously build up the electrical generating capacity to fuel those EVs.
Go for it, fat boy.
Yes, going to bed now. I know I said that before, but… Ciao for now, be back later.
Shorthands has decided to revisit his war on the NFL. Now he wants to raise their taxes, ‘change the tax laws’. That's gonna go over big with his supporters--raise taxes on professional sports teams (not the players who kneel, the team owners who, by fairly large margins, supported Shorthands early on against Hillary Clinton).
And, just for fun, he put the spotlight on Jerry Jones who has threatened to bench any of the Dallas Cowboys who ‘disrespected’ the flag. Shorthands offered the quote, ‘Stand for the Anthem or sit for the game’. TrumpTweets This is probably illegal, and may very well put Jones in a bad spot if any of his players decide that now they have to contest Jones on this one.
Just for fun, I'll note that the quote did not actually come from Dallas Cowboy owner, Jerry Jones; it originally came from RussiaToday
And, if I read this morning's TrumpTweets correctly, I think Shorthands has just announced that he's going to cut off the federal subsidies for ObamaCare payments for poor people. Let the games begin‼
"DATONG, China -- Scott Pruitt, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, declared Monday that 'the war on coal is over.' He told an audience in Kentucky that he plans to repeal an Obama-era rule that limits carbon emissions from power plants that burn coal. "China, on the other hand, is doing the opposite. Coal is on the way out and solar power is coming in." CBSNews
Returning briefly to the subject of the main blog: The Las Vegas police have had to issue a new timeline for the Stephen Paddock shootings. It seems that a guard for the Mandalay Bay Hotel approached Paddock's room and prompted Paddock to spray 200 rounds through the door and down the hall (and one of them into the leg of the guard) some six minutes before Paddock opened fire on the crowd below. Previously the police had said that the guard had interrupted Paddock's fire on the crowd, and that Paddock had then taken his own life rather than re-start his killing spree.
No explanation has been given for how the timeline got misrepresented to the press the first time.
"At a certain point, the distaste becomes exhaustion. Donald Trump’s presence in our national life has been alternately infuriating, embarrassing, revolting, gross and bizarre. His non-stop assaults on our political norms are testing our capacity to sustain constant outrage without giving in to despair. I meet victims of Trump fatigue everywhere. They stop me in airports and restaurants and on the street and ask how long we’ll have to put up with this madness"
But what about the victims of "Trump fatigue fatigue"? ;-)
I was only in the US a couple of days before total strangers starting asking me what I thought of their national embarrassment. Seriously, what about those of us that are worn down by all this whining? By all those grown adults having tantrums. I haven't had Fox News channel for a couple of years, but CNN seems to be worse nowadays than Fox ever was. Anderson Cooper presides over a non-stop whinge fest. It's just a non-stop parade of sappy guests invited to blub into their microphones.
They had Tony Schwartz, the ghost writer of Trump's Art of the Deal, on yesterday. I suppose he has a double dose of regret, being responsible for such a crappy tome. But he treated us to a dissertation on how Trump's brain switches the locus of his thoughts from his frontal cortex to his amygdala when challenged. I mean, seriously! Why don't they just stop pretending and bring on a phrenologist! The news channels are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their attempts to find ways to be even bitchier about Trump.
Oh yeah, and Melania. At least when Michelle Obama was being torn apart, it was only by the lunatic fringe. Now the MSM publish unbelievable hogwash about her. And I don't mean thoughtful articles about how she's shaping the First Lady role ... I mean stuff about how you can analyse The Donald's failings by looking at Melania's clothes. (That was in one of the UK's leading papers).
It's still only 263 days since the inauguration. Are we really going to have to put up with a non-stop four year tantrum?
It seems that a guard for the Mandalay Bay Hotel approached Paddock's room and prompted Paddock to spray 200 rounds through the door and down the hall (and one of them into the leg of the guard) some six minutes before Paddock opened fire on the crowd below.
I had heard something about that but assumed the guard had been killed. Six minutes? What did the guard then do with those six minutes? Was he not able to communicate with any other security at the hotel or the police?
Btw, despite her rocky start with plagiarizing a Michelle Obama speech I don't think I've heard anyone really criticize her too much. Maybe they feel sorry for her.
"I was only in the US a couple of days before total strangers starting asking me what I thought of their national embarrassment."
A lot of people are really worried about the damage Shorthands is doing to our image internationally. They think, being a foreigner who speaks English, you can enlighten them on how much damage he is or is not doing to our image abroad. Little do they know that you….
"Are we really going to have to put up with a non-stop four year tantrum?"
He may resign, long shot there; or even longer shot, he may be impeached; but, most likely he's gonna be there, throwing TrumpTantrums, for the full four years. In fact, I expect it to get much worse later this year, after they fail to implement a major tax cut for the rich.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "What did the guard then do with those six minutes?"
Well, he'd been shot in the leg, and the guy (or guys) inside obviously had him outgunned. So, he covered the door in case the guy tried to come out, and he called for backup. (He didn't try to rush the door when Paddock started shooting outside, but then, he didn't know what Paddock was shooting at, or how many of them were in there, and he did already know he was seriously outgunned--200 rounds down that hallway.)
"They just can't resist stirring the pot as it has worked so well in the past."
I wasn't surprised that they were stirring the pot again. But, I don't know that I'd have expected Trump to quote from RussiaToday. (In all honesty, it was FoxNews that originally picked up the quote from RussiaToday. Trump probably got it via FoxNews.)
In a truely impressive display of objectivity, Shorthands has now denied a news story that does not exist. I.e. that he's about to fire Chief of Staff John Kelly. Trumptweets
Lee: "The show went on as planned; some 49rs took a knee, Pence walked out (missed a good game), Trump issued a tweet. Thereafter players continued to take a knee all across the NFL all the rest of the day. Very little in the way of blowback has shown."
Probably because we're not privvy to actual visitors numbers or rating figures. I think there's been blowback and that this is part of the result:
"NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday said that “everyone” should stand for the national anthem, according to a leaked internal league memo that also called ongoing national anthem protests by players “divisive” and “a barrier to having honest conversations and making real progress on the underlying issues.”
The marching orders come a week after the commissioner met with the NFL Players Association, where Goodell claims the group decided the protests had to stop."
I can't see how they could come up with that unless it was starting to get evident that there was blowback.
Multi-millionaire balltossers dissing the National Anthem, that's not gonna fly in most of Football-land - USA. Even I know that and I'm not even american. I am amazed that you don't seem to get that. Probably you do get it though, but you've picked sides and therefore to hell with reality, as usual.
""NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday said that ‘everyone’ should stand for the national anthem…"
I was to be honest, surprised that Goodell ever had any other position; when he bucked Shorthands the first round I was indeed surprised. However, Goodell also claimed to have a sign-on to his new position from the Players Union. I'd be surprised again if that were true. And, of course, what he thinks ‘should’ happen matters less than what the individual owners think needs to happen. (It's when Goodell says things ‘must’ happen that we should pay attention.)
Owners' meeting in a week, by the way, we'll know more then about whether or not they're gonna back down on this one. (I was always surprised that Goodell had ever tried to stand up to Shorthands, done anything other than wimp at the earliest available opportunity; not Goodell's style to stand up for anything except cash. Or, maybe not his job.)
This is gonna sound paranoid to folks who've not been paying attention (and therefore it will be labeled as paranoid by fascists and their sympathizers who have been paying attention), but both the ‘establishment’ wing of the Republican Party and the dedicated Trumpkins have decided to turn a blind eye to Russia's election meddling, and to obstruct government efforts to combat further election meddling, on the theory that future meddling is most likely to benefit Republicans and they will in the future need all the help they can get in the face of some seriously challenging demographic trends.
I find this troubling, and I don't yet have any good ideas on how to begin to address it.
Lee: "Owners' meeting in a week, by the way, we'll know more then about whether or not they're gonna back down on this one."
What I have been asking myself is what the hell are the players' hoping to accomplish, what's their end-game? How do they say: "OK, now we've achieved progress and can stand and honour the Anthem again"? What's their plan here? Are they gonna kneel forever? What sort of measurable change are they looking for, for how long will the period of assesssing wether this change ha taken place run, and can any one future incident they disapprov off get them kneeling again? Have they thought this through?
As for the owners:
IMO the owners should've shut this down from the get go. Bench players who kneel for the National Anthem. Make it 100% clear that this has nothing to do with taking any stance on the underlying issue but state that: "in our club we salute the flag and stand to attention when the national anthem is played, and players are totally free to do otherwise but not on the field wearing our uniform".
That would've stopped this whole thing right then and there, because not one of those players are likely to put their career on the line over virtue signalling like this. Now the owners trapped with no easy way out.
"What I have been asking myself is what the hell are the players' hoping to accomplish, what's their end-game?"
What they're hoping to accomplish is publicity for their cause. Unarmed black folks are getting killed by cops at an unreasonably high percentage compared to white folks. They're hoping to have that mentioned and discussed in and among the firestorm Trump's generated about them supposedly ‘disrespecting our soldiers and our flag’. That's not an end-game for them. That's just gettin’ the game started. If you're looking for an end-game there then you're way behind the curve.
"IMO the owners should've shut this down from the get go."
But they didn't. Now they gotta deal with a Players' Union that represents a 70% black, and maybe as high as 80% college educated constituency. Not exactly Trump's dedicated base.
"…because not one of those players are likely to put their career on the line…"
Reasonable chance they get more than just one willing to take it to court as plaintiffs, and the Players' Union willing to foot the legal bill, and dozens of lawyers willing to take it for a discount to get themselves a name.
Lee: "What they're hoping to accomplish is publicity for their cause. Unarmed black folks are getting killed by cops at an unreasonably high percentage compared to white folks."
Well, an unreasonable number of white folks are shot dead by black folks compared to the other way around. Whites in the US are still at about 65% or so (depending on who's white), and 13% or so are black.
So all things being equal (they are not) there should be 4 times more homicides white-on-black than the opposite. But there isn't, is there? It's rather the opposite in fact.
Murder, shootings, all in all blacks are VASTLY outnumbered as culprits. Especially against other blacks, but also against other ethnicities.
Maybe we need a white lives matter campaign? Ya think?
"Well, an unreasonable number of white folks are shot dead by black folks compared to the other way around."
I think your numbers are probably bogus. I think if you control for economic status you'll find it pretty well evens out (e.g. whether white or black, poor folks are more likely to try an armed robbery someplace; black folks are poor in higher percentages).
"The statistics show that the 500 killings of white people attributed to blacks last year were the most since black perpetrators were determined to be responsible for the homicides of 504 white people nationwide in 2008. [...] Prior to that, 2006 saw the most black-on-white killings since 2001, with 573.
The 229 black lives taken by white killers last year, however, marked an even larger leap from 2014, jumping more than 22 percent from the 187 black victims killed by whites that year, which was the second-lowest total since 2001."
So blacks are 13% and whites are 65% and still black-on-white gun murder is 500 whereas white-on-black gunmurder is 230.
The calculous is easy:
500/13*230*65 = 13
A white person is 13 times more likely to be killed by a black than a black person is of being killed by a white. In the USA. Today.
And ya'll sport this #blacklivesmatter BULLSHIT.
The reason blacks are killed by cops is because the stats I provided above are true.
Lee: "And, in any case, the problem the footballers were addressing was the ratio of cops shooting unarmed black folks."
I've seen ONE episode of a cop shooting a black for no good reason. But the most controversial ones where BLM and others made a fuss I stand with the cops.
That huge robber who had just previously beaten a store clerk halfway to death and clearly went for the officers pistol. He got shot, and for sure he deserved it. Still BLM claimed he was almost a saint. He dindu nuffin'. Huge riots on part of this complete A-hole robber and hooligan.
Lee: "I think if you control for economic status you'll find it pretty well evens out"
FUCK that shit. There are poor people all over the world. There were povers here in Sweden up until 1950 or so. There are poor people in China today. Just because you're poor doesn't make you a murderer, a gangbanger.
Almost every single black in the USA is better off today than they would've been in their native Africa. Slavery is long times passed. They too have every opportunity. If they choose to gangbang, run drugs, be delinqients it's not, NOT, whiteys fault.
Lee: "Ratio of blacks kill whites/whites kill blacks is smaller than ration whites to blacks."
Whites are 65% of populatin. Whites kill 230 blacks.
Blacks are 13% of population. Blacks kill 500 whites.
500/13*230/65 = 13
How in the fucking name of fucking hell do you fucking get that to whites killing more blacks percentage ways than the opposite? U cannot math?
I get now how Pete is having a hard time arguing with ya'll. I thought it might be your policies and that you knowingly went against what you know is true. Now I'm starting to think you're just an idiot who don't know from the get go.
(Plus ya'll should really know from anecdotal evidence and a feelz for ya'll owns home country that blacks are hugely over represented in gun murders, so when ya'llz maths fails ya, ya'd to take pause and not piss in yall's pants so publicly)
"…blacks are hugely over represented in gun murders…"
I'm not certain that's true, and if is, it's not exactly relevant. The means of the murder isn't exactly relevant to the result. And it certainly has nothing to do with cops killing unarmed black folks in such high numbers.
Just admit it Lee, for fuck's sake you're embarrasing yourself here. Black-on-white murder in the USA is about 13 times white-on-black murder.
Just admit to that baseline and then we can debate more. It's there in black and white, no pun intended.
(But I AM gonna make fun of you for stating such an insanely erroneous idea that whites are 2.2 times more apt at murdering blacks than the other way around.)
Lee cannot math. We see that very clerly here where only very basic math is needed. Lee cannot math even at High Shool levels. Obviously.
So when Lee debates Pete we need to have this in mind. Pete might be a shill for political correcness sometimes, but so is Lee. When they differ its safe to say Pete is the winner as Lee cannot do basic math.
Nope, I divided by 13 again a second time, instead of dividing by 65 that last time, is what I did. Still, not a full order of magnitude off. And you were off by full order of magnitude. (Besides, I found my own error. You've yet to figure yours out.)
I just made an entry error on the calculator is all, forgot where I was in the sequence and plugged in the wrong number. I'm not off in the ozone on the calculations with you.
"…forgot where I was in the sequence and plugged in the wrong number…"
Comes from doing other things along side; multi-tasking ain't necessarily my best thing. Still, I's off by around 500%; your error is in the 1,000% range. And, so far as I can tell, you ain't found it yet.
"In total, about 61 percent of the 15,696 homicides committed in 2015 are excluded."
On account of they weren't solved. This means that most murderers in America aren't caught.
I'd reckon more, if not most, black on white murders are solved if I had to reckon, or, at least they're ‘solved’ at a much higher ratio, further distorting the ratios here. Black folks seem more apt to be in jail for murders they didn't commit, judging from the headlines I've seen on post-conviction exonerations.
..but both the ‘establishment’ wing of the Republican Party and the dedicated Trumpkins have decided to turn a blind eye to Russia's election meddling, and to obstruct government efforts to combat further election meddling, ...
What have you noticed that leads you to believe that this is the case?
So you admit they have abandoned all pretense of objectivity? I thought they were supposed to be better than that. Maybe Trump's right about them ;-)
I think anybody who has been on the receiving end of the kind of attacks that Trump has indulged in would find it difficult not to dig to see what their attacker is made of. In the case of someone so famous, and now an elected official that is supposed to answer to the American people, it is the media's job as well. Do I think some go overboard? Perhaps. The clothes angle is a little out there. But Trump's past association with Russian officials and or businessmen is certainly fair game. As are his policy changes to important agencies such as the EPA.
"What have you noticed that leads you to believe that this is the case?"
There are virtually no Republicans anywhere, state or federal level, ‘Establishment’ or ‘Trumpkin’ who're showing significat interest in either investigating the Russian interference nor in hardening our system against further tampering. They simply have no interest in fixing the problem (with only a few notable exceptions).
And, 8,846.15 + little bit ÷ 13 = 680.47 + little bit, my first answer; I just divided by 13 a second time instead of 65. Looked away for something else; looked back, picked it up in the wrong spot.
Interesting news: Ya'll remember how Trump was yelling about how James Comey had assured him that he was not the target of a criminal investigation arising out of possible illegal collusion with the Russians in our last presidential election?
Seems the Justice Department will no longer answer that question, neither confirm nor deny as they put it, on account of that information might compromise an ongoing investigation. Politico/legal.Com
[Marcus]: "Multi-millionaire balltossers dissing the National Anthem, that's not gonna fly in most of Football-land - USA. Even I know that and I'm not even american. I am amazed that you don't seem to get that. Probably you do get it though, but you've picked sides and therefore to hell with reality, as usual."
I don't know or care much about the subject. But the stuff I've accidentally fallen across seems to bear you out. Seems like the owners are gettin' worried about it being bad for business.
[Lynnette]: "I think anybody who has been on the receiving end of the kind of attacks that Trump has indulged in would find it difficult not to dig to see what their attacker is made of."
Ah, c'mon Lynnette. Anderson Cooper is a supposedly top notch, multi-million dollar salaried, prime time news anchor. He has a journalist on who explains Trump's volatility as being the result of his brain activity flitting from his cerebral cortex to his amygdala. That is a frankly frighteningly low quality of journalism no matter who they were talking about.
Although that one takes the biscuit for barminess, I see plenty of other US news that scrapes the bottom of the barrel. It also rivals anything I ever saw on Fox News about Obama, and let's face it -- those reached alien conspiracy theory levels of wackiness.
"Do I think some go overboard? Perhaps... But Trump's past association with Russian officials and or businessmen is certainly fair game."
Yes, but when they reach a McCarthyite "Reds under the bed" level of hysteria, they start looking less like alert news hounds and more like people with an axe to grind. Don't get me wrong -- the Fox News treatment of Obama was as bad if not worse. But a lot of the people who (rightly) criticised the lunatic fringe of Fox News seem strangely blinded to the similar excesses of the liberal MSM.
"Seems like the owners are gettin' worried about it being bad for business."
Perhaps they are getting worried about the kneeling thing, or maybe not. We'll know more about that after they gather this coming week. However, for various and sundry reasons, NFL ratings started out way down this year, from week one, and ratings have been improving each successive week, in spite of the best that Shorthands and Glenn Hannibaugh, and, not incidentally, your very own self, can do to spin it otherwise.
(My money's on nothing changing, the NFL will come away from their meeting still ‘suggesting’ players stand at attention, as they always have. We shall soon see.)
[Marcus]: "Lee cannot math. We see that very clerly here where only very basic math is needed. Lee cannot math even at High Shool levels. Obviously."
Seems like his latest glitch was caused by not being able to use a calculator. LOL.
"So when Lee debates Pete we need to have this in mind... When they differ its safe to say Pete is the winner as Lee cannot do basic math."
I would say he has at least as much of a problem with logic as with maths.
However, in this case it seems to me you are both wrong ;-)
Or, at least, you don't seem to have answered the question you set out to. I assume the idea was to check if one race kills a disproportionate amount of the other.
You cannot do this by only checking the absolute numbers killed, unless you assume that people are equally likely to be murderers regardless of race. That isn't true in the US, which might be an interesting datum in its own right, but it's not the question that was asked.
If you take a random murder and ask what the race of the victim is likely to be, in the absence of any other information you would say the chance of a black victim is 13% and white is 65%, in accordance with the overall race demographics.
When you look at the actual statistics, blacks kill 90% other blacks. Whites kill 81% other whites (down from a recent high of 84%). Not particularly surprisingly, people tend to kill people who live near them. So both groups kill far more of their own race than would be expected if all murders were purely random.
But a white person is twice as likely to kill a non-white (~20%) as a black person is to kill a non-black (~10%).
(Source. Of course there are built-in assumptions here too ... for instance, that those murders where the race of both perpetrator and victim are known are representative of all murders).
[Troll]: "NFL ratings started out way down this year, from week one, and ratings have been improving each successive week, in spite of the best that Shorthands and Glenn Hannibaugh, and, not incidentally, your very own self, can do to spin it otherwise."
LOL. My link was to a left wing rag. Even they think the owners are getting the willies.
[Me]: "It also rivals anything I ever saw on Fox News about Obama…"
[Troll]: "That's probably because you canceled your subscription to FoxNews."
If you think I ever paid for a subscription to Fox News you're even more crackers than I thought.
"Seems like his latest glitch was caused by not being able to use a calculator. LOL."
I do tend to get careless with the more boring parts of the process; perhaps you find punching a calculator more challenging than I do.
"However, in this case it seems to me you are both wrong ;-) *** "…a white person is twice as likely to kill a non-white (~20%) as a black person is to kill a non-black (~10%)."
I ran it out to 2.27 times as likely. (Lee C. @ Wed Oct 11, 12:45:00 pm ↑↑) You're more or less claiming my results as your own. You obviously want to pretend that I was wrong really, really badly.
It's beginning to look like Trump's tweeted ‘executive action’ threats to ObamaCare aren't going to involve stopping the subsidy payments, but instead will consist of an executive order allowing non-conforming insurance plans (no pre-existing condition coverage, way high deductibles, caps on coverage payments, exclusions of coverage for some medical conditions, etc.).
This is almost certain to ‘kill’ ObamaCare without an outright repeal. (And this is almost certainly beyond the executive power, but, by the time that gets to the Supreme Court it won't matter, the exchanges will have collapsed by then.)
I looked it up just for grins. The NFL's "League Meeting" is scheduled for the 17th-18th in New York City. Should know where they're gonna come down by Wednesday. (May still have to see where the Players' Union comes down on the subject.)
MIT thinks they have a new battery technology for us. They've announced a sulfur/salt rechargable battery, that'll cost about a fifth of the price of comparable wattages in a lithium-ion battery. It's apparently somewhat more limited on energy ‘density’ and is therefore more suited to storage of renewable electric power power (solar and wind especially) than for batteries onboard an electric vehicle, at least for now. MIT.EDU
[Troll]: "perhaps you find punching a calculator more challenging than I do"
I don't need a calculator for a couple of straightforward divisions and multiplications. Dangerous bloody things, as you've just found.
"I ran it out to 2.27 times as likely. You're more or less claiming my results as your own. You obviously want to pretend that I was wrong really, really badly."
You were really, really bad wrong. Used the wrong inputs. After that, any similarity to the correct result is a coincidence. Y'all might as well have said 1 x 2 = 2, for all the relevance it has. (Though I may be assuming too much, that ya know yer one-times tables ;-)
"I don't need a calculator for a couple of straightforward divisions and multiplications."
Most people don't. You can quit puffing yourself up over that just any ol’ time now. (Next thing we know you'll be bragging to us about how you can tie your own shoes.)
Ah, c'mon Lynnette. Anderson Cooper is a supposedly top notch, multi-million dollar salaried, prime time news anchor. He has a journalist on who explains Trump's volatility as being the result of his brain activity flitting from his cerebral cortex to his amygdala.
Is it Anderson Cooper who picks who appears on his show or his producers? As for Trump's brain activity my guess is the wiring is ass backwards. But I wouldn't go on national television to express that opinion.
Yes, but when they reach a McCarthyite "Reds under the bed" level of hysteria, they start looking less like alert news hounds and more like people with an axe to grind.
If you mean Russian meddling in the US election, I believe there is substantive evidence of that. No hysteria on that score. If you mean the idea of Trump being a Putin stooge, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, yes.
"…the MSM desperately, desperately wanna connect it to Trump."
U.S. Intelligence has already connected it to Trump. The Russians were working to boost his candidacy. All four of the major intelligence agencies concur; there are no notable exceptions save for Trump himself (and Pence, who says whatever Trump says).
Probably not. It's likely not coincidental that white murder ratios of black persons track reasonably closely to white murders of all non-white persons. (Not quite clear on why you'd expect that similarity to be coincidental, but I'll say outright that's not a logical assumption to be making.)
"U.S. Intelligence has already connected it to Trump. The Russians were working to boost his candidacy."
Ah, the Jesuitical nitpickin' troll strikes again. Of course, by the converse, the Russians were working to scupper Hilary's candidacy. So U.S. Intelligence has connected it to her too. So the chants of "lock her up" were right?
Ok, ya dopy troll, the MSM desperately, desperately wanna connect it to collusion by Trump.
[Dopy troll]: " It's likely not coincidental that white murder ratios of black persons track reasonably closely to white murders of all non-white persons. (Not quite clear on why you'd expect that similarity to be coincidental, but I'll say outright that's not a logical assumption to be making.)"
The problem for you, Chump, is that you didn't calculate either of those ratios. Ya did something else entirely. (Something quite meaningless, as it happens).
We also know that the Trump campaign was eager to engage in collusion with the Russians. They've got Trump Jr. on record on that much. The only missing piece is evidence that the Russians found the Trump organization reliable enough to work with. (Pulitzer prize stuff there if a news organization is the first to find it.)
(If it's any consolation, Marcus got it wrong too. Although in his case his maths was sound, he just made an invalid assumption. In yore case, it was just plain meaningless).
Hardly. I did the calculation right. Y'all are so lost that ya don't even know that yore answer is only coincidentally similar to a calculation using different inputs. Even if yore answer was right (and it ain't) ya'd still be lost. Can't get much more lost than that.
"Y'all are so lost that ya don't even know that yore answer is only coincidentally similar to a calculation using different inputs."
I will take pity on you here, and point out the problem with your inputs. Marcus was not dealing with the subject of white murders on non-white victims. He was specifically limiting it to white/black and black/white murders. You went off on the wrong thing there.
As for the crime of ‘eagerness’, yeah, I think attempted collusion is probably a criminal matter as well as actual collusion. Depending on what specifics they can actually prove…. (Don't havta let the spies get away with the data to charge them with spying, ya know.)
[Troll]: "Marcus was not dealing with the subject of white murders on non-white victims. He was specifically limiting it to white/black and black/white murders."
Duh! Exactly. That's why he was barking up the wrong tree, with a very obvious invalid assumption -- which I'm sure y'all will be able to explain to us. (Not! ;-)
On the other hand, I'd be much more interested in yore explanation of what the hell ya thought y'all were calculatin'. Not that there's a snowball's chance in hell of y'all doin' that. Instead, y'all seem to be tryin' yore latest trick again ... claimin' my answer agrees with y'all's which was entirely meaningless. Hilarious.
(Cue the troll to get all snotty and say he dudn't take orders from me).
On a subject that's liable to prove more fruitful than following Petes along while he tries to prove that Marcus was heading where Petes prefers to think Marcus was heading…
Shorthands is expected to announce tomorrow that he is cutting off the subsidy payments on ObamaCare, which will lead to a collapse in the insurance markets much faster than today's moves. Politico.Com He's decided he's brave enough after all; he's gonna own it all.
[Troll]: "On a subject that's liable to prove more fruitful than following Petes along while he tries to prove that Marcus was heading where Petes prefers to think Marcus was heading…"
Troll heaven! He's got TWO lines of diversion goin'. Keep this up and pretty soon folks will forget that you got your kindergarten arithmetic wrong. Again. And this time with a calculator. Not to mention that y'all were tryin' to solve the wrong problem to begin with!
Don't suppose ya'd like to explain what ya thought ya were tryin' to do? Didn't think so.
"Don't suppose ya'd like to explain what ya thought ya were tryin' to do?"
Waste of time to circle those numbers again; you saw them the first time and it didn't sink in. No reason to think you've gotten smarter in the last few hours.
"That's why [Marcus] was barking up the wrong tree…"
Tell ya what… Why don't you stick to trying to tell Marcus that he wasn't really trying to prove what he thought he was trying to prove? That's probably more your speed.
"Waste of time to circle those numbers again; you saw them the first time and it didn't sink in. No reason to think you've gotten smarter in the last few hours."
Aww. Yore no fun. Here, I'll do the circlin' around for ya.
"Almost as serious as making a spelling mistake."
Yep, got one of those right here for ya too:
"Ratio of blacks kill whites/whites kill blacks is smaller than ration whites to blacks." (Chumpy at Wed Oct 11, 12:03:00 pm, emphasis his)
Any particular reason y'all brought the bolded words to our attention? What was the expected correlation y'all were supportin' or refutin'? I'll help y'all out ... there wadn't any. It was meaningless.
"Any particular reason y'all brought the bolded words to our attention?"
Ah, you are indeed a dumbass then. Can't even follow Marcus, and he doesn't do much in the way off twists nor turns. He tends to come at things straight ahead on. Yes, there was indeed a reason. Marcus was trying to tell us that the numbers he'd selected for us to purview showed that:
"…an unreasonable number of white folks are shot dead by black folks compared to the other way around." Marcus @ Wed Oct 11, 11:35:00 am ↑↑
(And then he supplied an equation which made no particular sense that I could see, even allowing for context--"500/13*230*65 = 13") I thought it might be good to demonstrate that his numbers did not show what he thought they showed.
In the case he'd presented, based on the numbers he'd supplied, blacks are seen to be less likely to kill whites (in relation to the number of white folks available for killing) than whites are to kill blacks (in relation to the same criterion). Lacking fixed numbers of whites and blacks, on account of he didn't supply those, I used the percentages he did supply as the basis of comparison because the percentages were given as ‘of’ the same fixed number. This demonstration seems to have worked; he immediately became highly agitated, showing that he did indeed understand the comparison I'd made for him using his own numbers.
So, to repeat a question I last asked last time you were tying yourself in knots trying to make another bunch of numbers mean something they didn't mean:
Think I'll take a minute to point some things out to Marcus, on the theory that he may need to consider these things in light of Petes falling into the debate and confusing things (but not by quite as much as Petes is himself confused).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Marcus wrote that:
"So all things being equal (they are not) there should be 4 times more homicides white-on-black than the opposite." Marcus @ Wed Oct 11, 11:35:00 am ↑↑
You've got that wrong. I'll show you how that actually works. Let's assume there are only black folks and white folks in our selected population. Take out all the ‘other’ categories. Blacks are currently 13% to 65%. That's 1 to 5; so, blacks make up one sixth of our hypothetically stripped down population. Call it 17%. Leaves whites as 83%. Now figure all other things being equal; as you noted, they are not, but for the purposes of this example….
Figure 731 random white people decide to kill one person at selected at random. Random chance is they kill 124 black people and the rest white. (731 × .17 = 124) But those aren't the numbers we see. We see whites kill blacks totaling 229 dead black people; the rest white.
Figure now 731 random black people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they'll kill 607 white people, but those aren't the numbers we see either. We see only 504 dead white people, killed by blacks.
And notice that I rounded in your favor; that makes a difference by about 2 more dead black people.
Pete: "But a white person is twice as likely to kill a non-white (~20%) as a black person is to kill a non-black (~10%)."
But if whites are 65% and blacks are 13% of the population that still means the black (man probably) is about 2.5 times more likely to kill a white person than the other way around.
However: my article stated that in 2016 the 13% blacks in the USA killed 500 whites, and that whites who are still 65% killed 230 blacks.
Just using basic logic you can see in plain sight that a minority (blacks) is murdering a greater amount from the majority (whites) than the majority murders of the minority. And, really, is this news to any of you?
Using those figures we only need to set up the equations:
500/13 = numbers of whites killed/percentage of blacks. 38.5
230/65 = numbers of blacks killed/percentage of whites. 3.5
38.5/3.5 = 11 (OK, so not my original 13, but closer to it than any other suggestion here).
Fault them maths it ya can (except for on the decimals, which I rounded)
I mean, that blacks kill a gazillion other blacks is another story here*. Of course their murder rate is geared to other blacks. And that whites kill more blacks as a proportion of the entire public as they do kill whites is also true.
But what I was talking about was the inter-racial murders black on white and vice versa. A white is 11 more ties likely to get killed by a black than the other way around, as I have shown.
*Actually there's another reason for why this whole "Black Lives Matter" thingy is complete bullshit. Most blacks are killed by other blacks. Kneel to stop that, whydontca.
Works out the same way though. Got percentages on either side of the middle divider so if I put 13 or .13 versus 65 or .65 the result is the same. Want me to show it to ya? Since ya'll cannot math?
Oh for fucks sake I was just tryin' to explain in a different way, never mind those fucking bees just look at my other recent posts. Granted I calculated wrong to get to 13 (cause I was hammered - got close though), but my 11 times calculation is spot on.
"my article stated that in 2016 the 13% blacks in the USA killed 500 whites, and that whites who are still 65% killed 230 blacks."
You can try as you might to get that to anything other than a times 11 over reprentitation of blacks murdering whites compared to the other way around.
One more time. Why should we divide the number of white folks killed by black folks by the percentage of black folks available to do the killing. What does that get us? 3,850 of what? What is that? What does that number measure or count?
Ohhh Jeezus 8 christ, this dude's a dimwit! Of NOTHING you dolt. That's just a carrier to make the math easier for ya'll. Cause ya cannot math and I tried to simplify it.
Lee: "One more time. Why should we divide the number of white folks killed by black folks by the percentage of black folks available to do the killing. What does that get us?"
What we're getting at is how many whities are killed by blacks and vice versa compared to the ratio of blacks and whites in the USA.
And the answer is that 11 times more whites are killed by blacks as the other way around, given the sises of those different populations.
And the endgame here is that it's a fucking sham for blacks to protest as if they are being exterminated as a folk when #1 blacks kill whites 11 times more often that vice versa AND...AND the number one murderer of blacks in America is ANOTHER black. Not whitey.
That's two and two tenths times ‘more whites killed by blacks as the other way around’. We've been here before. Now you have to figure out how to weasel your way away from here again.
"OK, the proper equation is this: (500/13%)/(230/65%)=11"
That's a long ways from your original equation, which was 500 ÷ 13 × 230 × 65, but aside from you making changes along the line to try to get closer to your desired outcome, the question still remains.
WHY is that the proper equation? (Other than those are the operations you have to perform to get close to the result that you want.) Explain why we should divide the number of whites killed by blacks by the percentage of blacks available to do the killing? Why should we do that? What does that get us? 3,850 of what? By the same token 350 of what? What do these numbers signify other than means to the end you want?
That's two and two tenths times ‘more whites killed by blacks as the other way around’. We've been here before. Now you have to figure out how to weasel your way away from here again."
Yes that is perfectly correct. On the whole of the population Blacks kill about 2.2 times more whites than whites kill blacks. Granted.
BUT: Blacks are only 13% of the population and whites are about 65%.
So:
2.2*65/13 = 11
Blacks are STILL about 11 times more likely to kill a white than vice versa.
"Blacks are STILL about 11 times more likely to kill a white than vice versa."
Nope, there are five times as many whites. You can't go switching raw numbers into calculations of percentages like they were equivalents; they are not the same thing; that doesn't work. Percentages are not raw numbers.
Wait, that's not the right way to phrase my objection to your numbers.
Let's try this instead.
"A white person is 13 times more likely to be killed by a black than a black person is of being killed by a white." Marcus @ Wed Oct 11, 11:48:00 am ↑↑ (yeah, yeah, you've modified your calculations along the way; we know that much)
That's a whole different thing than saying that a
"Blacks are STILL about 11 times more likely to kill a white than vice versa."
You've switched ends of the telescope on us. Things look different when you look through the other end of the telescope.
First statement was about the likelihood of a white person being killed by a black person (from white person's perspective) Second statement was about the likelihood that a black person would kill a white person (black person's perspective)
Now, just picking victims at random, white people should make up 83% of the victims of black killers (if we're only working with the black and white sub-populations). To know if blacks inordinately target whites we're going to have to know how many blacks they target along with those whites. So, how many other blacks do black killers take as victims whilst reaching that 504 number of white victims? Gotta know that to know if they're targeting whites at a higher percentage than their fair share of the population.
Okay, here we go. Bottom line, this should explain things. This is from Marcus' linked authority.
"About 15.8 percent of white victims were killed by blacks last year.
And blacks make up 13% of the general population. That's not a significant difference, especially considering the higher percentages of blacks in poverty. Control for socio-economic variables and blacks are no more violent nor more likely to murder (at least across the black/white racial line) than are whites.
[Lynnette]: "If you mean Russian meddling in the US election, I believe there is substantive evidence of that. No hysteria on that score."
[Petes]: "Yeah, but the MSM desperately, desperately wanna connect it to Trump."
Well, they can certainly try, but it will be up to Mueller to find out if there are any unusual or illegal connections between Trump and any Russians. Personally I would prefer to see Mueller play the..er..trump card in that game. (Sorry I couldn't resist. ;))
I'm given to understand that Trump properties are down financially across the globe. Many if not most losing money, and more headed that direction. And, yeah, I'd heard especial mention made of his Scotland properties. Seems his Presidency is making people across the globe less inclined to do business with entities carrying the Trump name.
Shorthands is expected to announce tomorrow that he is cutting off the subsidy payments on ObamaCare, which will lead to a collapse in the insurance markets much faster than today's moves. Politico.Com He's decided he's brave enough after all; he's gonna own it all.
It appears that Trump is upping the ante on his conflicts pretty much across the board. He's said today that if Congress doesn't pull out of the current Iran deal within the 60 days they have to revisit it, then he'll pull us out of it unilaterally. Dangerous stuff there. And, he's making further demands on ObamaCare--wants his Wall funded before he'll agree to any fixes there.
Man's going for broke. I'm beginning to re-think whether we should encourage some action under the 25th Amendment. I haven't changed my mind yet. (He's probably bluffing pretty much across the board.) But, I'm giving it further consideration.
I was looking at the link Marcus gave us and I noticed that he'd given us faulty numbers. According to his source, whites account for 77.1% of the United States population, not 65%. Blacks account for 13.3%. If I have to do numbers for him again, I'll probably use the correct numbers. (I.e. blacks account for less than 15% (14.7% to be more accurate) of the stripped down, hypothetical black/white population, not 17%.)
I've been watching the dynamics change in Washington again. Go back a few weeks, month and a half maybe, and we'd have noticed that Congressional Republicans were no longer afraid of Trump. He was proving himself to be inept at best. Move it forward a few weeks, and the Congressional Republicans have failed spectacularly to do the ‘repeal and replace’ thing on ObamaCare. And now they're looking like a long shot to get a joint budget passed, which they need to do to set up that ‘reconciliation’ thing for the tax cuts they're anticipating. That would be another spectacular failure, and it's looking like it may well happen. Hell, they may not be able to even keep the government open past the new year. Then the wild-eyed crazies won the Alabama Republican primary in spite of all that McConnell and the ‘Establishment’ Republicans could do about it. Suddenly Trump does a 180; he takes down the tweets he put supporting Luther Strange, the ‘Establishment’ loser; they're gone, like it never happened, and he's all of a sudden fully on-board with the wild-eyed Evangelist crazy whom he was trying to defeat just the day before. Now the Republicans in Congress are scared all over again. They can't switch that fast. Trump can, and not lose any support over it. He's right, he could shoot somebody down in the street on 5th Avenue in New York City, in public, and his dedicated Trumpkins would shake it off and still back him. They ain't got that going for them. So now they're scared of Trump all over again.
[Troll]: "Link to the last time Petes tied himself up into knots whilst royally screwing up the application of so-called kindergarten arithmetic"
Not sure why y'all wanna do it, but I can't stop y'all from linking back to the seen of yore most recent embarrassment. (Superseded since, of course). Though it seems to me it was less to do with kindergarten arithmetic in that case than it was to you sufferin' delusions about the context of a web page. In fact, Lynnette actually corrected y'all on it so "yore audience" don't seem to have shared yore particular brain fade on that one.
Apparently a lot of shit goes over your head. Seems you get stupid just about the time proof appears that you're fulla shit. It seems to be an involuntary stupid response, something similar to a possum having one of those nervous seizures which folks misinterpret as ‘playing’ dead.
Probably the thing that will hurt him the most in the eyes of the American public.
He's said today that if Congress doesn't pull out of the current Iran deal within the 60 days they have to revisit it, then he'll pull us out of it unilaterally. Dangerous stuff there.
Probably the thing that will hurt him the most in the eyes of the world.
It has occurred to me, and apparently Nancy Pelsoi, that Trump's actions are not so much done to shore up his base but out of spite. Looking at some of this stuff I can't help but wonder if Trump isn't intent more on dismantling everything that Obama did than on playing to his base. It's just that it ends up being the same. I don't think Trump can forget about that roasting Obama did of him. He doesn't like to be laughed at.
Just to throw a wrench/spanner into Marcus' argument about black and white violence, what really constitutes the term "black"? I knew a girl in college who believed that Iranians are "black". Who is included in those numbers?
Given that they're figuring the ‘white’ contingent to be 77.1%, I'd havta reckon they include light-skinned Hispanics, Arabs and Iranians and maybe even Afghans among their ‘white’ people. (Not sure about the Afghans, but that'd be my guess.) At 13.3% they're almost certainly counting only African-Americans and maybe a few of the darker and more clearly African descendant Caribbeans as ‘black’.
It's not an accident that it ‘ends up being the same’. Quite a lot of the efforts of the Republican Party these past few years have been designed to animate their ‘base’ to resist all things having anything to do with that black bastard holed up in their White House. They were more successful than they'd anticipated. Trump was the first to recognize that. Now they're his base, no longer loyal Republicans, but rather dedicated Trumpkins (‘bout 60% of ‘em anyway, maybe even a higher percentage).
Surprisingly, the resident troll is actually right about most of the objections to your numbers. (Surprising, because at Wed Oct 11, 12:03:00 pm he committed pretty much the same transgression as he accused you of. Also, he's very confused about percentages as you pointed out).
You are right that in absolute numbers black people kill about twice as many white people as vice versa in the US. You are right that compared to the proportions of whites to blacks in the population, this is even more stark (Fri Oct 13, 01:04:00 pm). You seem to want draw an extremely racist conclusion:
"What we're getting at is how many whities are killed by blacks and vice versa compared to the ratio of blacks and whites in the USA."
But interracial crimes are not race hate crimes in general. If that were true, you would expect to see a high proportion of white people killed from among all the people killed by blacks (or vice versa). But you never considered those proportions, as the troll pointed out (Fri Oct 13, 01:37:00 pm). You didn't look at the number of people killed by each demographic, except to pay lip service to it (at Fri Oct 13, 12:04:00 pm) and observe -- correctly -- that the absolute number of murders perpetrated by blacks is shockingly high. You seem to veer dangerously close to assuming that all interracial crimes are race hate crimes. I doubt that's supportable. (I'm presuming it was a typo on your part to say whites kill more blacks than they do other race demographics, which isn't true).
The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of black murder crimes are against other blacks, and the same for whites. Like I said, people mostly kill people who live near them. Nevertheless there is a disparity in the numbers. Here we come to a mathematical faux pas by the troll (no surprise there). He says:
"Okay, here we go. Bottom line, this should explain things... About 15.8 percent of white victims were killed by blacks last year. And blacks make up 13% of the general population. That's not a significant difference, especially considering the higher percentages of blacks in poverty. Control for socio-economic variables and blacks are no more violent nor more likely to murder (at least across the black/white racial line) than are whites".
After all hie bellyaching, he goes right back and commits the same sort of transgression he accused you of. And he's wrong on all counts. First of all, after successfully debunking your wrong assumption that people are likely to kill across race lines in proportion to the population demographics, he then assumes it himself. He reasons that people are likely to be killed by other races in proportion to the demographics. So 15% of murders of whites perpetrated by the 13% of blacks in the population is about right. But it isn't -- as I said people preponderantly kill people in their own neighbourhood.
And the troll could have seen this if he'd just included the other half of the sentence he quoted from your reference: "and 8.6 percent of black victims were killed by whites". In fact, when you properly do it by proportion of crimes committed, black really are twice as likely to murder white people from among all the people they murder as white people are to kill black people from among all the people they murder. (This is only coincidentally similar to the 2.2 you got using the absolute numbers, even though the troll desperately wants to believe he got the right answer by using the wrong figures).
The troll's other bizarre (and very racist) conclusion is that poverty makes black people want to kill white people. While it is true that blacks are twice as likely to live in poverty as whites, it seems strange that it would only increase their propensity to kill whites. In fact blacks appear to commit four to five times as many murders as their proportion of the population would lead you to expect. Of course, that also means they are four times as likely to be victims of murder, a tragedy for their demographic. Whites, by comparison, are considerably less likely (both proportionally and even in absolute terms) to be murder victims.
"black really are twice as likely to murder white people from among all the people they murder as white people are to kill black people from among all the people they murder."
It works out to almost precisely the 2.2 times as much (if calculated from the numbers Marcus supplied us) that I mentioned before. (504 ÷ 229 = ~2.2, although, on a closer reading, I noticed that the 504 was from the year before and I shoulda been using the 500 number--still ~2.2 though.) When correcting Marcus' calculations it helps to use the same or about the same numbers he's using so he find where he went wrong. This idea appears to have gone clear over your head; I'd reckon on account of you're having yourself another one of your stupid attacks.
"(Not surprising he can't bring himself to acknowledge that bit :-)."
I have considered the possibility that you go blind instead of going stupid, you suddenly just aren't able to see anymore when things don't go your way. see post @ Fri Oct 06, 11:08:00 pm However, given your usually delayed reaction time, I'm still leaning towards you just having an attack of the stupids.
"He reasons that people are likely to be killed by other races in proportion to the demographics."
I made no such assumption. I merely noted that the difference between 15.8% and 13% (actually 13.3%) was not a particularly significant difference. I did not speculate as to the likelihood of that concurrence nor the reason for it. You're having some major stupids tonight.
648 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 648 Newer› Newest»Shorthands has been takin’ shit from the Republicans for attempting a second deal with ‘Chuck and Nancy’, on immigration this time. After Chuck Schumer announced that the three of them had come to an agreement on resolving the DACA issue (children brought into the United States and raised here as Americans, even though they were not legal citizens), the Republicans have been eager to assert that there was no agreement. Well, there probably was, but it's over now. Shorthands has withdrawn from the deal. He's issued a list of demands in return for legislative relief for thos kids, and conspicuous on the list is funding for his Wall. Reuters The Democrats have already made it clear that's a non-starter; they ain't gonna go there.
Now the Republicans are going to have to figure out how to pass this one with only Republican votes.
Now the Republicans are going to have to figure out how to pass this one with only Republican votes.
Or not. Somehow I get the feeling that even Republicans aren't too keen on on some of Trump's ideas, especially as he doesn't feel the need to work with them.
Yes, Trump has made another enemy in Corker.
I believe that point has been made before, as in…
I doubt Thomas Friedman reads this blog, so he probably didn't see the comment. But he did make the same point on national TV. Although my guess is that, like you, there are others out there who noticed before he did so.
Wanna compare gun violence in Switzerland compared to Mexico?
It's not all just about available legal hardware you know...
I am sure there are all sorts of things that can factor into violence in a country. What might be more interesting is to compare Mexico and Japan. Organized crime is prevalent in both, yet the behavior of each is different.
"… he did make the same point on national TV.
Well, there ya go; a much wider audience.
"I get the feeling that even Republicans aren't too keen on on
some of Trump's ideas…"
I'm thinking there's an increasing chance that Trump's gonna end up running as an independent this next time. I think that may be his best bet for getting a second term, a three way race and the dedicated Trumpkins just might be enough.
The Indianapolis Colts played the San Fransico Forty Niners yesterday, ex-Indiana Governor and current Veep, Mike Pence attended.
Couple dozen 49rs took a knee (as they have been doing consistently since Trump said they should be fired for it). Pence walked out. This was all pre-arranged. Pence went to the game knowing they'd take a knee (all the more certain because he made sure that everybody knew he was there on Trump's behalf to walk out on them over that, guantlet thrown down). Trump was in on it, and tweeted about it yesterday.
The show went on as planned; some 49rs took a knee, Pence walked out (missed a good game), Trump issued a tweet. Thereafter players continued to take a knee all across the NFL all the rest of the day. Very little in the way of blowback has shown.
Trump's dropped that one short tweet about it yesterday and another brief one this morning. TrumpTweets and that's been it. Not much play for a confrontation they'd intentionally set up.
Looks like he's losing this one and will soon be obliged to declare victory and slink away, move on to something else. In his wake he'll leave some pissed off NFL owners, who didn't particularly need this grief after the majority of them (majority of those who weighed in) had been big Trump supporters.
Kim Jong Un sure as hell ain't gonna fear him, nor the mad mullahs of Iran.
"EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced Monday that the Trump
administration is moving to scrap the Clean Power Plan, the Obama
administration's signature regulatory program to curb emissions from
coal-fired power plants."
FoxNews
Won't help; the rest of the country has seen the handwriting on the wall. Right now natural gas is cheaper, by the time natural gas isn't cheaper (if ever) someone sane will have reinstated Obama's rules, maybe even stricter. Trump isn't going to bring back the market for coal. There's no such thing as ‘clean coal’ and until there is (if ever) there's gonna be no bringing back coal mining jobs. And, if there ever develops an economical means to clean up coal emissions, likely there'll be no sending men down into mines to get it, machines maybe, but not men.
Op-Ed in the Washington Post WaPo finally!
Democratic ‘strategist’, as he styles himself, says that it's also possible that Trump could win if the #NeverTrump Republicans can't dislodge him in a primary, but then they decide to run an alternate, independent, ‘establishment’ Republican as a strong third-party candidate.
That might work too, especially if the Democrats nominate a wild-eyed liberal from the Bernie Sanders wing of their party.
In his wake he'll leave some pissed off NFL owners, who didn't particularly need this grief after the majority of them (majority of those who weighed in) had been big Trump supporters.
There is also the waste of money angle, which CNN has been playing up. What did this PR stunt cost the American taxpayer?
That might work too, especially if the Democrats nominate a wild-eyed liberal from the Bernie Sanders wing of their party.
That is always the danger.
Although Trump has been talking about his next seven years in office as if it were a certainty that he would win any forthcoming election. It would be really, really nice to see someone take the wind out of his egotistical sails.
"What did this PR stunt cost the American taxpayer?"
I'm not sure I get where football is tied to taxpayers, other than maybe taxpayer financing of football stadiums, and that doesn't seem relate to Trump's vendettas.
Ran across a connection. USAToday. It seems Pence traveled from to Indianapolis at taxpayer expense, private plane and all that even after the fuss over the cabinet secretaries doing such (meaning that Chief of Staff Kelly's office should have approved the expense). Then back to Los Angeles. Plus press entourage, and Secret Service.
…from Las Vegas to Indianapolis…
Trump's golf courses losing millions in Scotland.
Trump has two golf resorts in the country -- one near Aberdeen and the other at Turnberry. Their combined losses nearly doubled to £19 million ($25 million) in 2016, according to accounts filed in the U.K.
Why doesn't this surprise me?
It seems Pence traveled from to Indianapolis at taxpayer expense, private plane and all that...
Exactly. Then add in all of those Secret Service types who travel with him.
It seems Daesh may have captured two Russian soldiers.
Something I had not heard anything about.
This is an interesting article.
At a certain point, the distaste becomes exhaustion. Donald Trump’s presence in our national life has been alternately infuriating, embarrassing, revolting, gross and bizarre. His non-stop assaults on our political norms are testing our capacity to sustain constant outrage without giving in to despair.
I meet victims of Trump fatigue everywhere. They stop me in airports and restaurants and on the street and ask how long we’ll have to put up with this madness – when will Bob Mueller finally bring him down, and how much more can our systems bend before they break. When I tell them Trump is likely to clamor on until either the 2018 election slows him down or the 2020 election stops him (or if Russian interference, non-white voter suppression and liberal perfectionism succeed again, ‘til he terms out in 2024), the look on their faces is something akin to terror.
Seems it's a good thing I've been busy with actual, real science since Friday as Chumpy finally went full retard. I see he's still trying to claim (with a straight face) that a web page that never once mentions batteries or EVs is about saving gasoline by driving an EV. Go figure. I see he's also been dictionary diving on the word "reduction" to try and out-Jesuit even his own self. Anyway, at least I no longer have to even think about whether the troll is worth conversing with.
"It's clear to a kindergarten child that the EPA page is about the
amount of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from
fossil fuels."
Petes @ Fri Oct 06, 12:53:00 pm
Except it clearly was not about amout of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels.
"Does not include emissions from generating electricity;
learn more at fueleconomy.gov."
Lee C. @ Fri Oct 06, 02:30:00 pm (emphasis added)
Everybody got it. Everybody also noticed that it just coincidentally took you better than two days of ‘being busy’ to recover from your shock of seeing what you already knew up on the page in front of you for the rest to see.
Deal's done fat boy. I don't think there's any way for you to recover, but you're welcome to try.
You try; I'll watch.
Floor's yours.
"They stop me in airports…"
Dedicated Trumpkins don't fly regularly, nor stop strange black women to chat about Trump.
Side note to Marcus and Lynnette:
Ya'll will notice he did indeed go for the Jesuit thing. Did I call it or what? He's only got the few standard tricks.
Lynnette and Marcus:
Sorry, I read your comments but didn't make a point-by-point list. (Been busy studying ... did you know that the four black hole merger detections at LIGO are already enough to cast serious doubt on our understanding of the range of black hole sizes that exist? Or, more gruesomely, did you know that pointing a one metre telescope at the Sun would not only cause instant blindness but could completely boil a human eyeball in 2 seconds!).
Anyway, to illustrate the scale of the problem, the total rate of energy expenditure from petroleum used for transport alone in the US is equal to the entire electric generating capacity of the US -- about one terawatt in each case. However, the capacity factor of the existing generating infrastructure is fairly constant at about 45%. In other words when you look at the electricity actually generated, it's less than half the energy used in transport.
You would therefore probably have to triple the generating capacity of the US to cope with fully electrified transport as well as all the existing uses of electricity. Generating capacity costs about $5k per kW to build. The two terawatts needed for transport is therefore going to cost about ten trillion dollars.
Yes, you could burn oil to generate the needed energy. Do you think that's likely? Apart from anything else, do you think anyone is going to commit that kind of dosh to a fuel that half the people think is going to run out soon, and the other half think we shouldn't ever be using. Not going to happen. Neither group would countenance committing to a 60+ year investment in a technology they don't trust and don't want.
But even ignoring that, if you committed to a breakneck $100 billion a year program in building power plants, it would take a hundred years. That's hardly surprising: you've spent a hundred years building the current stuff.
That's why I've been saying all along that none of the options are impossible ... they're just going to take a very, very long time. Simple back-of-an-envelope arithmetic. Unfortunately, it's still over the heads of most people, who think it's obvious we're just going to go all-electric and there'll be nothing else available by the time they buy their next car.
Ah, so… Instead of discussing energy usage in Europe you've move on to transmission capabilities in the U.S.A.
And you think they won't notice the change of subject?
How dumb do you think they are?
"You would therefore probably have to triple the generating capacity
of the US to cope with fully electrified transport as well as all the
existing uses of electricity."
That is, of course, assuming that people ran their electric cars straight off the grid instead of off of batteries that charged overnight. And it assumes they all drive all at once. (Need more highways for that too.)
Actually, I think it's worse than merely assuming everybody drives all at once; I think those numbers assume everybody does a ‘fast charge’, a burn the battery type 45 minute forced charge, everybody all at the same time. That is correct. isn't it?
"…do you think anyone is going to commit that kind of dosh to a fuel
that half the people think is going to run out soon, and the other half
think we shouldn't ever be using. Not going to happen."
And, for grins, I'll remind folks that those same gas generators could switch from using petroleum to use of bio-fuels as soon as the switch can be made.
Tell ya what Petes…
You need to take another few days being ‘busy’ before you try this.
This ain't workin’ for ya.
We'll all wait here, patient like.
And, if I read this right, off the top of my head:
"…the capacity factor of the existing generating infrastructure is
fairly constant at about 45%. In other words when you look at the
electricity actually generated, it's less than half the energy used in
transport."
I think that actually means that we run the current grid at an average of 45% of its capacity. (I think Petes is trying to run a con here again, pretending his jargon-spew means something other than it really means.)
That would mean we already have the generating capacity necessary to supply the electricity currently used by internal combustion engines on the highways. Assuming that the switch to EVs would double the need for electricity. (Put the current grid to heavy use, but, it's already there. Probably need beefed up, but it's already there.)
Watch him for the con folks; watch him for the con.
I think I'll nap now. Try and get my sleep cycle back in order.
You got the floor for awhile, fat boy. Unobstructed for a time this time.
Ciao for now; be back later.
Okay, one more note before I do the nap thing:
First thing we need to remember is that somebody's gotta build the EVs and put them out there on the highway before they're gonna consume electricity.
Petes needs to prove to us that building the EVs and getting them on the highway will necessarily outrun our ability to simultaneously build up the electrical generating capacity to fuel those EVs.
Go for it, fat boy.
Yes, going to bed now. I know I said that before, but…
Ciao for now, be back later.
"I've been saying all along that none of the options are impossible..."
Petes @ Mon Oct 09, 09:14:00 pm ↑↑
"It will be impossible to generate enough electricity anytime soon."
Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am (prior page) ↑↑
Troll's gonna troll.
[Troll]: "How dumb do you think they are?"
Thing is, I know how dumb you are and am tailoring the time I devote to yer inane trollery accordingly.
Wrong target.
Back to more fun discussions:
Shorthands has decided to revisit his war on the NFL. Now he wants to raise their taxes, ‘change the tax laws’. That's gonna go over big with his supporters--raise taxes on professional sports teams (not the players who kneel, the team owners who, by fairly large margins, supported Shorthands early on against Hillary Clinton).
And, just for fun, he put the spotlight on Jerry Jones who has threatened to bench any of the Dallas Cowboys who ‘disrespected’ the flag. Shorthands offered the quote, ‘Stand for the Anthem or sit for the game’. TrumpTweets This is probably illegal, and may very well put Jones in a bad spot if any of his players decide that now they have to contest Jones on this one.
Just for fun, I'll note that the quote did not actually come from Dallas Cowboy owner, Jerry Jones; it originally came from RussiaToday
And, if I read this morning's TrumpTweets correctly, I think Shorthands has just announced that he's going to cut off the federal subsidies for ObamaCare payments for poor people. Let the games begin‼
"DATONG, China -- Scott Pruitt, the head of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, declared Monday that 'the war on coal is over.' He
told an audience in Kentucky that he plans to repeal an Obama-era
rule that limits carbon emissions from power plants that burn coal.
"China, on the other hand, is doing the opposite. Coal is on the way
out and solar power is coming in."
CBSNews
Returning briefly to the subject of the main blog: The Las Vegas police have had to issue a new timeline for the Stephen Paddock shootings. It seems that a guard for the Mandalay Bay Hotel approached Paddock's room and prompted Paddock to spray 200 rounds through the door and down the hall (and one of them into the leg of the guard) some six minutes before Paddock opened fire on the crowd below.
Previously the police had said that the guard had interrupted Paddock's fire on the crowd, and that Paddock had then taken his own life rather than re-start his killing spree.
No explanation has been given for how the timeline got misrepresented to the press the first time.
Lynnette, from that article you linked:
"At a certain point, the distaste becomes exhaustion. Donald Trump’s presence in our national life has been alternately infuriating, embarrassing, revolting, gross and bizarre. His non-stop assaults on our political norms are testing our capacity to sustain constant outrage without giving in to despair. I meet victims of Trump fatigue everywhere. They stop me in airports and restaurants and on the street and ask how long we’ll have to put up with this madness"
But what about the victims of "Trump fatigue fatigue"? ;-)
I was only in the US a couple of days before total strangers starting asking me what I thought of their national embarrassment. Seriously, what about those of us that are worn down by all this whining? By all those grown adults having tantrums. I haven't had Fox News channel for a couple of years, but CNN seems to be worse nowadays than Fox ever was. Anderson Cooper presides over a non-stop whinge fest. It's just a non-stop parade of sappy guests invited to blub into their microphones.
They had Tony Schwartz, the ghost writer of Trump's Art of the Deal, on yesterday. I suppose he has a double dose of regret, being responsible for such a crappy tome. But he treated us to a dissertation on how Trump's brain switches the locus of his thoughts from his frontal cortex to his amygdala when challenged. I mean, seriously! Why don't they just stop pretending and bring on a phrenologist! The news channels are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their attempts to find ways to be even bitchier about Trump.
Oh yeah, and Melania. At least when Michelle Obama was being torn apart, it was only by the lunatic fringe. Now the MSM publish unbelievable hogwash about her. And I don't mean thoughtful articles about how she's shaping the First Lady role ... I mean stuff about how you can analyse The Donald's failings by looking at Melania's clothes. (That was in one of the UK's leading papers).
It's still only 263 days since the inauguration. Are we really going to have to put up with a non-stop four year tantrum?
Ok, I'm slightly joking ;-)
Only slightly though.
Wildfire update from California. If it isn't wind and water it's wind and fire. *sigh*
Just for fun, I'll note that the quote did not actually come from Dallas Cowboy owner, Jerry Jones; it originally came from RussiaToday.
They just can't resist stirring the pot as it has worked so well in the past.
Scott Pruitt, the head of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, declared Monday that 'the war on coal is over.'
I was so hoping he would be the one forced to resign for misuse of taxpayer money for travel.
I think Shorthands has just announced that he's going to cut off the federal subsidies for ObamaCare payments for poor people.
So, let's revisit the land of Oliver Twist.
It seems that a guard for the Mandalay Bay Hotel approached Paddock's room and prompted Paddock to spray 200 rounds through the door and down the hall (and one of them into the leg of the guard) some six minutes before Paddock opened fire on the crowd below.
I had heard something about that but assumed the guard had been killed. Six minutes? What did the guard then do with those six minutes? Was he not able to communicate with any other security at the hotel or the police?
Are we really going to have to put up with a non-stop four year tantrum?
What?! Four years? No, no, according to The Donald we have seven more years of fodder for the media frenzy!
The news channels are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their attempts to find ways to be even bitchier about Trump.
When you declare war on the media they don't always respond by using the Marquess of Queensberry rules.
I mean stuff about how you can analyse The Donald's failings by looking at Melania's clothes. (That was in one of the UK's leading papers).
lol! I hadn't heard that one. You could do the same by analyzing Trump's hair. ;)
Btw, despite her rocky start with plagiarizing a Michelle Obama speech I don't think I've heard anyone really criticize her too much. Maybe they feel sorry for her.
"I was only in the US a couple of days before total strangers
starting asking me what I thought of their national embarrassment."
A lot of people are really worried about the damage Shorthands is doing to our image internationally. They think, being a foreigner who speaks English, you can enlighten them on how much damage he is or is not doing to our image abroad. Little do they know that you….
"Are we really going to have to put up with a non-stop four year
tantrum?"
He may resign, long shot there; or even longer shot, he may be impeached; but, most likely he's gonna be there, throwing TrumpTantrums, for the full four years. In fact, I expect it to get much worse later this year, after they fail to implement a major tax cut for the rich.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"What did the guard then do with those six minutes?"
Well, he'd been shot in the leg, and the guy (or guys) inside obviously had him outgunned. So, he covered the door in case the guy tried to come out, and he called for backup. (He didn't try to rush the door when Paddock started shooting outside, but then, he didn't know what Paddock was shooting at, or how many of them were in there, and he did already know he was seriously outgunned--200 rounds down that hallway.)
"They just can't resist stirring the pot as it has worked
so well in the past."
I wasn't surprised that they were stirring the pot again. But, I don't know that I'd have expected Trump to quote from RussiaToday. (In all honesty, it was FoxNews that originally picked up the quote from RussiaToday. Trump probably got it via FoxNews.)
[Lynnette]: "When you declare war on the media they don't always respond by using the Marquess of Queensberry rules. "
So you admit they have abandoned all pretense of objectivity? I thought they were supposed to be better than that. Maybe Trump's right about them ;-)
[Lynnette]: "lol! I hadn't heard that one. You could do the same by analyzing Trump's hair. ;)"
Malfunction of the Melania-bot
In a truely impressive display of objectivity, Shorthands has now denied a news story that does not exist. I.e. that he's about to fire Chief of Staff John Kelly. Trumptweets
Lee: "The show went on as planned; some 49rs took a knee, Pence walked out (missed a good game), Trump issued a tweet. Thereafter players continued to take a knee all across the NFL all the rest of the day. Very little in the way of blowback has shown."
Probably because we're not privvy to actual visitors numbers or rating figures. I think there's been blowback and that this is part of the result:
http://nypost.com/2017/10/10/roger-goodell-everyone-should-stand-for-the-national-anthem/
"NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday said that “everyone” should stand for the national anthem, according to a leaked internal league memo that also called ongoing national anthem protests by players “divisive” and “a barrier to having honest conversations and making real progress on the underlying issues.”
The marching orders come a week after the commissioner met with the NFL Players Association, where Goodell claims the group decided the protests had to stop."
I can't see how they could come up with that unless it was starting to get evident that there was blowback.
Multi-millionaire balltossers dissing the National Anthem, that's not gonna fly in most of Football-land - USA. Even I know that and I'm not even american. I am amazed that you don't seem to get that. Probably you do get it though, but you've picked sides and therefore to hell with reality, as usual.
""NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday said that
‘everyone’ should stand for the national anthem…"
I was to be honest, surprised that Goodell ever had any other position; when he bucked Shorthands the first round I was indeed surprised.
However, Goodell also claimed to have a sign-on to his new position from the Players Union. I'd be surprised again if that were true.
And, of course, what he thinks ‘should’ happen matters less than what the individual owners think needs to happen. (It's when Goodell says things ‘must’ happen that we should pay attention.)
Owners' meeting in a week, by the way, we'll know more then about whether or not they're gonna back down on this one. (I was always surprised that Goodell had ever tried to stand up to Shorthands, done anything other than wimp at the earliest available opportunity; not Goodell's style to stand up for anything except cash. Or, maybe not his job.)
TrumpTweets in favor of Goodell's memo, but no ‘attaboys’ for Goodell; rather, he describes it as ‘about time’.
This is gonna sound paranoid to folks who've not been paying attention (and therefore it will be labeled as paranoid by fascists and their sympathizers who have been paying attention), but both the ‘establishment’ wing of the Republican Party and the dedicated Trumpkins have decided to turn a blind eye to Russia's election meddling, and to obstruct government efforts to combat further election meddling, on the theory that future meddling is most likely to benefit Republicans and they will in the future need all the help they can get in the face of some seriously challenging demographic trends.
I find this troubling, and I don't yet have any good ideas on how to begin to address it.
Lee: "Owners' meeting in a week, by the way, we'll know more then about whether or not they're gonna back down on this one."
What I have been asking myself is what the hell are the players' hoping to accomplish, what's their end-game? How do they say: "OK, now we've achieved progress and can stand and honour the Anthem again"? What's their plan here? Are they gonna kneel forever? What sort of measurable change are they looking for, for how long will the period of assesssing wether this change ha taken place run, and can any one future incident they disapprov off get them kneeling again? Have they thought this through?
As for the owners:
IMO the owners should've shut this down from the get go. Bench players who kneel for the National Anthem. Make it 100% clear that this has nothing to do with taking any stance on the underlying issue but state that: "in our club we salute the flag and stand to attention when the national anthem is played, and players are totally free to do otherwise but not on the field wearing our uniform".
That would've stopped this whole thing right then and there, because not one of those players are likely to put their career on the line over virtue signalling like this. Now the owners trapped with no easy way out.
"What I have been asking myself is what the hell are the players'
hoping to accomplish, what's their end-game?"
What they're hoping to accomplish is publicity for their cause. Unarmed black folks are getting killed by cops at an unreasonably high percentage compared to white folks. They're hoping to have that mentioned and discussed in and among the firestorm Trump's generated about them supposedly ‘disrespecting our soldiers and our flag’.
That's not an end-game for them. That's just gettin’ the game started. If you're looking for an end-game there then you're way behind the curve.
"IMO the owners should've shut this down from the get go."
But they didn't. Now they gotta deal with a Players' Union that represents a 70% black, and maybe as high as 80% college educated constituency. Not exactly Trump's dedicated base.
"…because not one of those players are likely to put their career
on the line…"
Reasonable chance they get more than just one willing to take it to court as plaintiffs, and the Players' Union willing to foot the legal bill, and dozens of lawyers willing to take it for a discount to get themselves a name.
Lee: "What they're hoping to accomplish is publicity for their cause. Unarmed black folks are getting killed by cops at an unreasonably high percentage compared to white folks."
Well, an unreasonable number of white folks are shot dead by black folks compared to the other way around. Whites in the US are still at about 65% or so (depending on who's white), and 13% or so are black.
So all things being equal (they are not) there should be 4 times more homicides white-on-black than the opposite. But there isn't, is there? It's rather the opposite in fact.
Murder, shootings, all in all blacks are VASTLY outnumbered as culprits. Especially against other blacks, but also against other ethnicities.
Maybe we need a white lives matter campaign? Ya think?
"Well, an unreasonable number of white folks are shot dead
by black folks compared to the other way around."
I think your numbers are probably bogus. I think if you control for economic status you'll find it pretty well evens out (e.g. whether white or black, poor folks are more likely to try an armed robbery someplace; black folks are poor in higher percentages).
And, in any case, the problem the footballers were addressing was the ratio of cops shooting unarmed black folks.
By definition we're thereby excluding those black folks shooting white folks that you've imagined up.
I did a quick Google and found this:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers
2016
"The statistics show that the 500 killings of white people attributed to blacks last year were the most since black perpetrators were determined to be responsible for the homicides of 504 white people nationwide in 2008.
[...] Prior to that, 2006 saw the most black-on-white killings since 2001, with 573.
The 229 black lives taken by white killers last year, however, marked an even larger leap from 2014, jumping more than 22 percent from the 187 black victims killed by whites that year, which was the second-lowest total since 2001."
So blacks are 13% and whites are 65% and still black-on-white gun murder is 500 whereas white-on-black gunmurder is 230.
The calculous is easy:
500/13*230*65 = 13
A white person is 13 times more likely to be killed by a black than a black person is of being killed by a white. In the USA. Today.
And ya'll sport this #blacklivesmatter BULLSHIT.
The reason blacks are killed by cops is because the stats I provided above are true.
Ya'll KNOW this.
Lee: "And, in any case, the problem the footballers were addressing was the ratio of cops shooting unarmed black folks."
I've seen ONE episode of a cop shooting a black for no good reason. But the most controversial ones where BLM and others made a fuss I stand with the cops.
That huge robber who had just previously beaten a store clerk halfway to death and clearly went for the officers pistol. He got shot, and for sure he deserved it. Still BLM claimed he was almost a saint. He dindu nuffin'. Huge riots on part of this complete A-hole robber and hooligan.
Looks like you need a little help doing your numbers.
Whites are 65% of the population; blacks are 13%. 65 ÷ 13 = 5
Blacks kill whites = 504 Whites kill blacks = 229 504 ÷ 229 = 2.2
Ratio of blacks kill whites/whites kill blacks is smaller than ration whites to blacks.
Typo:
"Ratio of blacks kill whites/whites kill blacks is smaller than ratio whites to blacks."
Lee: "I think if you control for economic status you'll find it pretty well evens out"
FUCK that shit. There are poor people all over the world. There were povers here in Sweden up until 1950 or so. There are poor people in China today. Just because you're poor doesn't make you a murderer, a gangbanger.
Almost every single black in the USA is better off today than they would've been in their native Africa. Slavery is long times passed. They too have every opportunity. If they choose to gangbang, run drugs, be delinqients it's not, NOT, whiteys fault.
"Almost every single black in the USA is better off today
than they would've been in their native Africa."
The whites are likewise better of than if they'd remained in medieval Europe. (Indians are arguably not better off.
And ‘better off’ arguments don't justify shooting unarmed black folks.
End game is this; you needed help with your numbers.
"Ratio of blacks kill whites/whites kill blacks is smaller than ratio whites to blacks."
Are you fucking fur realz? Or just spoooopid?
Lee: "Ratio of blacks kill whites/whites kill blacks is smaller than ration whites to blacks."
Whites are 65% of populatin. Whites kill 230 blacks.
Blacks are 13% of population. Blacks kill 500 whites.
500/13*230/65 = 13
How in the fucking name of fucking hell do you fucking get that to whites killing more blacks percentage ways than the opposite? U cannot math?
I get now how Pete is having a hard time arguing with ya'll. I thought it might be your policies and that you knowingly went against what you know is true. Now I'm starting to think you're just an idiot who don't know from the get go.
(Plus ya'll should really know from anecdotal evidence and a feelz for ya'll owns home country that blacks are hugely over represented in gun murders, so when ya'llz maths fails ya, ya'd to take pause and not piss in yall's pants so publicly)
"U cannot math?"
I do real math. I'm not sure what that is you're doing.
"…blacks are hugely over represented in gun murders…"
I'm not certain that's true, and if is, it's not exactly relevant. The means of the murder isn't exactly relevant to the result. And it certainly has nothing to do with cops killing unarmed black folks in such high numbers.
So. In 2016:
Whites are 65% of populatin. Whites kill 230 blacks.
Blacks are 13% of population. Blacks kill 500 whites.
Still Lee, doin magic math, suggests that this means whites are 2.2 times more apt to kill a black than the other way around.
Is he stOOpid or is he?
I aks ya'll is this here honkey be loon as a coon up in this muttafukka?
By the way…
500 ÷ 13 × 230 ÷ 65 = 680.47+ little bit ≠ 13
Just admit it Lee, for fuck's sake you're embarrasing yourself here. Black-on-white murder in the USA is about 13 times white-on-black murder.
Just admit to that baseline and then we can debate more. It's there in black and white, no pun intended.
(But I AM gonna make fun of you for stating such an insanely erroneous idea that whites are 2.2 times more apt at murdering blacks than the other way around.)
"But I AM gonna make fun of you…"
Excellent. I hope we all remember this moment for a long time.
"…whites are 2.2 times more apt at murdering blacks
than the other way around…"
2.27 times.
Lee:
"500 ÷ 13 × 230 ÷ 65 = 680.47+ little bit ≠ 13"
So he cannot math after all.
No you wanna go:
500/13*230/65 = 13
number of black murders/portion of blacks * number of white murders/ portion of whites = about 13.
You're gonna havta show your work, ‘cause it works out like I said. (I'll show if asked.)
What you wrote down is what I wrote down--i.e. 500/13 = 500 ÷ 13; and * = ×. Only difference is, I got the right answer; you did not.
Lee: "(I'll show if asked.)"
OK, show.
500 ÷ 13 = 38.46 + little bit.
38.46 + little bit × 230 = 8,846.15 + little bit
8,846.15 + little bit ÷ 65 = 136.09 + little bit
(Okay, I hit a wrong key in there somewhere or missed hitting a key more likely, but I'm not a whole order of magnitude off, and you were.)
Looks like I hit a 5 there at the end, instead of 65.
Lee cannot math. We see that very clerly here where only very basic math is needed. Lee cannot math even at High Shool levels. Obviously.
So when Lee debates Pete we need to have this in mind. Pete might be a shill for political correcness sometimes, but so is Lee. When they differ its safe to say Pete is the winner as Lee cannot do basic math.
Nope, I divided by 13 again a second time, instead of dividing by 65 that last time, is what I did. Still, not a full order of magnitude off. And you were off by full order of magnitude. (Besides, I found my own error. You've yet to figure yours out.)
I just made an entry error on the calculator is all, forgot where I was in the sequence and plugged in the wrong number. I'm not off in the ozone on the calculations with you.
"…forgot where I was in the sequence and plugged in
the wrong number…"
Comes from doing other things along side; multi-tasking ain't necessarily my best thing. Still, I's off by around 500%; your error is in the 1,000% range. And, so far as I can tell, you ain't found it yet.
Interesting data point from Marcus' cited page:
"In total, about 61 percent of the 15,696 homicides
committed in 2015 are excluded."
On account of they weren't solved. This means that most murderers in America aren't caught.
I'd reckon more, if not most, black on white murders are solved if I had to reckon, or, at least they're ‘solved’ at a much higher ratio, further distorting the ratios here. Black folks seem more apt to be in jail for murders they didn't commit, judging from the headlines I've seen on post-conviction exonerations.
..but both the ‘establishment’ wing of the Republican Party and the dedicated Trumpkins have decided to turn a blind eye to Russia's election meddling, and to obstruct government efforts to combat further election meddling, ...
What have you noticed that leads you to believe that this is the case?
So you admit they have abandoned all pretense of objectivity? I thought they were supposed to be better than that. Maybe Trump's right about them ;-)
I think anybody who has been on the receiving end of the kind of attacks that Trump has indulged in would find it difficult not to dig to see what their attacker is made of. In the case of someone so famous, and now an elected official that is supposed to answer to the American people, it is the media's job as well. Do I think some go overboard? Perhaps. The clothes angle is a little out there. But Trump's past association with Russian officials and or businessmen is certainly fair game. As are his policy changes to important agencies such as the EPA.
"What have you noticed that leads you to believe that
this is the case?"
There are virtually no Republicans anywhere, state or federal level, ‘Establishment’ or ‘Trumpkin’ who're showing significat interest in either investigating the Russian interference nor in hardening our system against further tampering. They simply have no interest in fixing the problem (with only a few notable exceptions).
"Do I think some go overboard?"
Not good enough; he's pushing for a blanket condemnation of all non-Trumpkin media.
500 ÷ 13 = 38.46 + little bit.
38.46 + little bit × 230 = 8,846.15 + little bit
8,846.15 + little bit ÷ 65 = 136.09 + little bit
This is correct.
And, 8,846.15 + little bit ÷ 13 = 680.47 + little bit, my first answer; I just divided by 13 a second time instead of 65. Looked away for something else; looked back, picked it up in the wrong spot.
So, Marcus…. How'd you manage to come up with 13 for your answer?
Interesting news: Ya'll remember how Trump was yelling about how James Comey had assured him that he was not the target of a criminal investigation arising out of possible illegal collusion with the Russians in our last presidential election?
Seems the Justice Department will no longer answer that question, neither confirm nor deny as they put it, on account of that information might compromise an ongoing investigation. Politico/legal.Com
@ Lynnette,
PBS' Frontline is doing an hour on Scott Pruitt's ascent to head of the EPA tonight.
[Marcus]: "Multi-millionaire balltossers dissing the National Anthem, that's not gonna fly in most of Football-land - USA. Even I know that and I'm not even american. I am amazed that you don't seem to get that. Probably you do get it though, but you've picked sides and therefore to hell with reality, as usual."
I don't know or care much about the subject. But the stuff I've accidentally fallen across seems to bear you out. Seems like the owners are gettin' worried about it being bad for business.
The NFL stood by African American players … until its money was threatened (Grauniad).
[Lynnette]: "I think anybody who has been on the receiving end of the kind of attacks that Trump has indulged in would find it difficult not to dig to see what their attacker is made of."
Ah, c'mon Lynnette. Anderson Cooper is a supposedly top notch, multi-million dollar salaried, prime time news anchor. He has a journalist on who explains Trump's volatility as being the result of his brain activity flitting from his cerebral cortex to his amygdala. That is a frankly frighteningly low quality of journalism no matter who they were talking about.
Although that one takes the biscuit for barminess, I see plenty of other US news that scrapes the bottom of the barrel. It also rivals anything I ever saw on Fox News about Obama, and let's face it -- those reached alien conspiracy theory levels of wackiness.
"Do I think some go overboard? Perhaps... But Trump's past association with Russian officials and or businessmen is certainly fair game."
Yes, but when they reach a McCarthyite "Reds under the bed" level of hysteria, they start looking less like alert news hounds and more like people with an axe to grind. Don't get me wrong -- the Fox News treatment of Obama was as bad if not worse. But a lot of the people who (rightly) criticised the lunatic fringe of Fox News seem strangely blinded to the similar excesses of the liberal MSM.
"Seems like the owners are gettin' worried about it being bad
for business."
Perhaps they are getting worried about the kneeling thing, or maybe not. We'll know more about that after they gather this coming week.
However, for various and sundry reasons, NFL ratings started out way down this year, from week one, and ratings have been improving each successive week, in spite of the best that Shorthands and Glenn Hannibaugh, and, not incidentally, your very own self, can do to spin it otherwise.
(My money's on nothing changing, the NFL will come away from their meeting still ‘suggesting’ players stand at attention, as they always have. We shall soon see.)
"It also rivals anything I ever saw on Fox News about Obama…"
That's probably because you canceled your subscription to FoxNews.
[Marcus]: "Lee cannot math. We see that very clerly here where only very basic math is needed. Lee cannot math even at High Shool levels. Obviously."
Seems like his latest glitch was caused by not being able to use a calculator. LOL.
"So when Lee debates Pete we need to have this in mind... When they differ its safe to say Pete is the winner as Lee cannot do basic math."
I would say he has at least as much of a problem with logic as with maths.
However, in this case it seems to me you are both wrong ;-)
Or, at least, you don't seem to have answered the question you set out to. I assume the idea was to check if one race kills a disproportionate amount of the other.
You cannot do this by only checking the absolute numbers killed, unless you assume that people are equally likely to be murderers regardless of race. That isn't true in the US, which might be an interesting datum in its own right, but it's not the question that was asked.
If you take a random murder and ask what the race of the victim is likely to be, in the absence of any other information you would say the chance of a black victim is 13% and white is 65%, in accordance with the overall race demographics.
When you look at the actual statistics, blacks kill 90% other blacks. Whites kill 81% other whites (down from a recent high of 84%). Not particularly surprisingly, people tend to kill people who live near them. So both groups kill far more of their own race than would be expected if all murders were purely random.
But a white person is twice as likely to kill a non-white (~20%) as a black person is to kill a non-black (~10%).
(Source. Of course there are built-in assumptions here too ... for instance, that those murders where the race of both perpetrator and victim are known are representative of all murders).
[Troll]: "NFL ratings started out way down this year, from week one, and ratings have been improving each successive week, in spite of the best that Shorthands and Glenn Hannibaugh, and, not incidentally, your very own self, can do to spin it otherwise."
LOL. My link was to a left wing rag. Even they think the owners are getting the willies.
[Me]: "It also rivals anything I ever saw on Fox News about Obama…"
[Troll]: "That's probably because you canceled your subscription to FoxNews."
If you think I ever paid for a subscription to Fox News you're even more crackers than I thought.
"Seems like his latest glitch was caused by not being able to use a
calculator. LOL."
I do tend to get careless with the more boring parts of the process; perhaps you find punching a calculator more challenging than I do.
"However, in this case it seems to me you are both wrong ;-)
***
"…a white person is twice as likely to kill a non-white (~20%) as a
black person is to kill a non-black (~10%)."
I ran it out to 2.27 times as likely. (Lee C. @ Wed Oct 11, 12:45:00 pm ↑↑) You're more or less claiming my results as your own. You obviously want to pretend that I was wrong really, really badly.
"My link was to a left wing rag."
Your link is your link. The facts are the facts.
"If you think I ever paid for a subscription to Fox News…"
I never said you paid for it; I said you had one for awhile, and now you don't.
Or, maybe had access is a better way to put it.
It's beginning to look like Trump's tweeted ‘executive action’ threats to ObamaCare aren't going to involve stopping the subsidy payments, but instead will consist of an executive order allowing non-conforming insurance plans (no pre-existing condition coverage, way high deductibles, caps on coverage payments, exclusions of coverage for some medical conditions, etc.).
This is almost certain to ‘kill’ ObamaCare without an outright repeal. (And this is almost certainly beyond the executive power, but, by the time that gets to the Supreme Court it won't matter, the exchanges will have collapsed by then.)
I looked it up just for grins. The NFL's "League Meeting" is scheduled for the 17th-18th in New York City. Should know where they're gonna come down by Wednesday. (May still have to see where the Players' Union comes down on the subject.)
MIT thinks they have a new battery technology for us. They've announced a sulfur/salt rechargable battery, that'll cost about a fifth of the price of comparable wattages in a lithium-ion battery. It's apparently somewhat more limited on energy ‘density’ and is therefore more suited to storage of renewable electric power power (solar and wind especially) than for batteries onboard an electric vehicle, at least for now. MIT.EDU
[Troll]: "perhaps you find punching a calculator more challenging than I do"
I don't need a calculator for a couple of straightforward divisions and multiplications. Dangerous bloody things, as you've just found.
"I ran it out to 2.27 times as likely. You're more or less claiming my results as your own. You obviously want to pretend that I was wrong really, really badly."
You were really, really bad wrong. Used the wrong inputs. After that, any similarity to the correct result is a coincidence. Y'all might as well have said 1 x 2 = 2, for all the relevance it has. (Though I may be assuming too much, that ya know yer one-times tables ;-)
PBS' Frontline is doing an hour on Scott Pruitt's ascent to head of the EPA tonight.
I noticed that was on, but I just couldn't watch it. Too depressing.
"Used the wrong inputs."
They were not the wrong inputs. It was not a coincidence.
(You can BS Marcus perhaps, but that's only because he so badly wants to be misled.)
"Too depressing."
I can kinda understand that.
"I don't need a calculator for a couple of straightforward
divisions and multiplications."
Most people don't. You can quit puffing yourself up over that just any ol’ time now. (Next thing we know you'll be bragging to us about how you can tie your own shoes.)
Or, maybe I assume too much. You can tie your own shoes, can't you?
Ah, c'mon Lynnette. Anderson Cooper is a supposedly top notch, multi-million dollar salaried, prime time news anchor. He has a journalist on who explains Trump's volatility as being the result of his brain activity flitting from his cerebral cortex to his amygdala.
Is it Anderson Cooper who picks who appears on his show or his producers? As for Trump's brain activity my guess is the wiring is ass backwards. But I wouldn't go on national television to express that opinion.
Yes, but when they reach a McCarthyite "Reds under the bed" level of hysteria, they start looking less like alert news hounds and more like people with an axe to grind.
If you mean Russian meddling in the US election, I believe there is substantive evidence of that. No hysteria on that score. If you mean the idea of Trump being a Putin stooge, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, yes.
"If you mean Russian meddling in the US election, I believe there is substantive evidence of that. No hysteria on that score."
Yeah, but the MSM desperately, desperately wanna connect it to Trump. In no time flat, Trump will be a Russian stooge, just like BHO was a Muslim ;-)
[Troll]: "They were not the wrong inputs. It was not a coincidence."
LOL. Ok, let's put it this way then. They were different from my inputs. Our outputs were (somewhat) similar. Is that a coincidence?
"…the MSM desperately, desperately wanna connect it to Trump."
U.S. Intelligence has already connected it to Trump. The Russians were working to boost his candidacy. All four of the major intelligence agencies concur; there are no notable exceptions save for Trump himself (and Pence, who says whatever Trump says).
"Is that a coincidence?"
Probably not. It's likely not coincidental that white murder ratios of black persons track reasonably closely to white murders of all non-white persons. (Not quite clear on why you'd expect that similarity to be coincidental, but I'll say outright that's not a logical assumption to be making.)
"U.S. Intelligence has already connected it to Trump. The Russians were working to boost his candidacy."
Ah, the Jesuitical nitpickin' troll strikes again. Of course, by the converse, the Russians were working to scupper Hilary's candidacy. So U.S. Intelligence has connected it to her too. So the chants of "lock her up" were right?
Ok, ya dopy troll, the MSM desperately, desperately wanna connect it to collusion by Trump.
[Dopy troll]: " It's likely not coincidental that white murder ratios of black persons track reasonably closely to white murders of all non-white persons. (Not quite clear on why you'd expect that similarity to be coincidental, but I'll say outright that's not a logical assumption to be making.)"
The problem for you, Chump, is that you didn't calculate either of those ratios. Ya did something else entirely. (Something quite meaningless, as it happens).
We also know that the Trump campaign was eager to engage in collusion with the Russians. They've got Trump Jr. on record on that much. The only missing piece is evidence that the Russians found the Trump organization reliable enough to work with. (Pulitzer prize stuff there if a news organization is the first to find it.)
(If it's any consolation, Marcus got it wrong too. Although in his case his maths was sound, he just made an invalid assumption. In yore case, it was just plain meaningless).
"(Something quite meaningless, as it happens)."
Ah, so you were entirely lost then. Well, that's happened to you before.
"Ah, so you were entirely lost then."
Hardly. I did the calculation right. Y'all are so lost that ya don't even know that yore answer is only coincidentally similar to a calculation using different inputs. Even if yore answer was right (and it ain't) ya'd still be lost. Can't get much more lost than that.
"Ah, so you were entirely lost then."
And, that is almost certainly not going to be the last time.
"Y'all are so lost that ya don't even know that yore
answer is only coincidentally similar to a calculation using
different inputs."
I will take pity on you here, and point out the problem with your inputs. Marcus was not dealing with the subject of white murders on non-white victims. He was specifically limiting it to white/black and black/white murders.
You went off on the wrong thing there.
(The rest of your wild-ass speculations I think I'll just ignore as the irrelevancies that they are.)
[Troll]: "We also know that the Trump campaign was eager to engage in collusion with the Russians."
Well then he will soon be locked up for that well known crime of eagerness, right Chump?
Do you instead assume that the Russians found him too unreliable to work with?
As for the crime of ‘eagerness’, yeah, I think attempted collusion is probably a criminal matter as well as actual collusion. Depending on what specifics they can actually prove…. (Don't havta let the spies get away with the data to charge them with spying, ya know.)
(Personally, I think we're probably already looking at a Presidential Pardon for Trump Jr. down the line.)
[Troll]: "Marcus was not dealing with the subject of white murders on non-white victims. He was specifically limiting it to white/black and black/white murders."
Duh! Exactly. That's why he was barking up the wrong tree, with a very obvious invalid assumption -- which I'm sure y'all will be able to explain to us. (Not! ;-)
On the other hand, I'd be much more interested in yore explanation of what the hell ya thought y'all were calculatin'. Not that there's a snowball's chance in hell of y'all doin' that. Instead, y'all seem to be tryin' yore latest trick again ... claimin' my answer agrees with y'all's which was entirely meaningless. Hilarious.
(Cue the troll to get all snotty and say he dudn't take orders from me).
Right. Enough buffoonery. Science calls ;-)
"That's why he was barking up the wrong tree, with a
very obvious invalid assumption…"
Oh my gawd. You are truly clueless.
Maybe lookin’ at indictments (and subsequent pardons) of Manafort and Flynn as well.
On a subject that's liable to prove more fruitful than following Petes along while he tries to prove that Marcus was heading where Petes prefers to think Marcus was heading…
Shorthands is expected to announce tomorrow that he is cutting off the subsidy payments on ObamaCare, which will lead to a collapse in the insurance markets much faster than today's moves. Politico.Com
He's decided he's brave enough after all; he's gonna own it all.
[Troll]: "On a subject that's liable to prove more fruitful than following Petes along while he tries to prove that Marcus was heading where Petes prefers to think Marcus was heading…"
Troll heaven! He's got TWO lines of diversion goin'. Keep this up and pretty soon folks will forget that you got your kindergarten arithmetic wrong. Again. And this time with a calculator. Not to mention that y'all were tryin' to solve the wrong problem to begin with!
Don't suppose ya'd like to explain what ya thought ya were tryin' to do? Didn't think so.
"Don't suppose ya'd like to explain what ya thought
ya were tryin' to do?"
Waste of time to circle those numbers again; you saw them the first time and it didn't sink in. No reason to think you've gotten smarter in the last few hours.
"That's why [Marcus] was barking up the wrong tree…"
Tell ya what… Why don't you stick to trying to tell Marcus that he wasn't really trying to prove what he thought he was trying to prove? That's probably more your speed.
"…you got your kindergarten arithmetic wrong."
Almost as serious as making a spelling mistake.
"Waste of time to circle those numbers again; you saw them the first time and it didn't sink in. No reason to think you've gotten smarter in the last few hours."
Aww. Yore no fun. Here, I'll do the circlin' around for ya.
"Almost as serious as making a spelling mistake."
Yep, got one of those right here for ya too:
"Ratio of blacks kill whites/whites kill blacks is smaller than ration whites to blacks." (Chumpy at Wed Oct 11, 12:03:00 pm, emphasis his)
Any particular reason y'all brought the bolded words to our attention? What was the expected correlation y'all were supportin' or refutin'? I'll help y'all out ... there wadn't any. It was meaningless.
"Any particular reason y'all brought the bolded words to our
attention?"
Ah, you are indeed a dumbass then. Can't even follow Marcus, and he doesn't do much in the way off twists nor turns. He tends to come at things straight ahead on.
Yes, there was indeed a reason. Marcus was trying to tell us that the numbers he'd selected for us to purview showed that:
"…an unreasonable number of white folks are shot dead by black
folks compared to the other way around."
Marcus @ Wed Oct 11, 11:35:00 am ↑↑
(And then he supplied an equation which made no particular sense that I could see, even allowing for context--"500/13*230*65 = 13")
I thought it might be good to demonstrate that his numbers did not show what he thought they showed.
In the case he'd presented, based on the numbers he'd supplied, blacks are seen to be less likely to kill whites (in relation to the number of white folks available for killing) than whites are to kill blacks (in relation to the same criterion). Lacking fixed numbers of whites and blacks, on account of he didn't supply those, I used the percentages he did supply as the basis of comparison because the percentages were given as ‘of’ the same fixed number.
This demonstration seems to have worked; he immediately became highly agitated, showing that he did indeed understand the comparison I'd made for him using his own numbers.
So, to repeat a question I last asked last time you were tying yourself in knots trying to make another bunch of numbers mean something they didn't mean:
"Any of this you don't understand now?"
Lee C. @ Fri Oct 06, 02:30:00 pm
And, just for the record. The last time you tied yourself up trying to work on numbers you invoked ‘kindergarten arithmetic’ as your touchstone.
Like the ‘jesuits’ thing, that's rapidly becoming what poker players would call ‘a tell’, a dead giveaway that you're talkin’ bullshit again.
Link to the last time Petes tied himself up into knots whilst royally screwing up the application of so-called kindergarten arithmetic
Think I'll take a minute to point some things out to Marcus, on the theory that he may need to consider these things in light of Petes falling into the debate and confusing things (but not by quite as much as Petes is himself confused).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Marcus wrote that:
"So all things being equal (they are not) there should be 4 times
more homicides white-on-black than the opposite."
Marcus @ Wed Oct 11, 11:35:00 am ↑↑
You've got that wrong. I'll show you how that actually works.
Let's assume there are only black folks and white folks in our selected population. Take out all the ‘other’ categories. Blacks are currently 13% to 65%. That's 1 to 5; so, blacks make up one sixth of our hypothetically stripped down population.
Call it 17%. Leaves whites as 83%. Now figure all other things being equal; as you noted, they are not, but for the purposes of this example….
Figure 731 random white people decide to kill one person at selected at random. Random chance is they kill 124 black people and the rest white. (731 × .17 = 124)
But those aren't the numbers we see. We see whites kill blacks totaling 229 dead black people; the rest white.
Figure now 731 random black people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they'll kill 607 white people, but those aren't the numbers we see either.
We see only 504 dead white people, killed by blacks.
And notice that I rounded in your favor; that makes a difference by about 2 more dead black people.
Post Script:
I left off the calculation for that last random chance number; it is: (731 × .83 = 607)
Pete: "But a white person is twice as likely to kill a non-white (~20%) as a black person is to kill a non-black (~10%)."
But if whites are 65% and blacks are 13% of the population that still means the black (man probably) is about 2.5 times more likely to kill a white person than the other way around.
However: my article stated that in 2016 the 13% blacks in the USA killed 500 whites, and that whites who are still 65% killed 230 blacks.
Just using basic logic you can see in plain sight that a minority (blacks) is murdering a greater amount from the majority (whites) than the majority murders of the minority. And, really, is this news to any of you?
Using those figures we only need to set up the equations:
500/13 = numbers of whites killed/percentage of blacks. 38.5
230/65 = numbers of blacks killed/percentage of whites. 3.5
38.5/3.5 = 11 (OK, so not my original 13, but closer to it than any other suggestion here).
Fault them maths it ya can (except for on the decimals, which I rounded)
#whitelivesmatter
#wecantstandit
I mean, that blacks kill a gazillion other blacks is another story here*. Of course their murder rate is geared to other blacks. And that whites kill more blacks as a proportion of the entire public as they do kill whites is also true.
But what I was talking about was the inter-racial murders black on white and vice versa. A white is 11 more ties likely to get killed by a black than the other way around, as I have shown.
*Actually there's another reason for why this whole "Black Lives Matter" thingy is complete bullshit. Most blacks are killed by other blacks. Kneel to stop that, whydontca.
Yeah, Marcus… Something you need to know….
500 ÷ 13 ≠ 500 ÷ 13% (13% = .13 ≠ 13)
230 ÷ 65 ≠ 230 ÷ 65% (65% = .65 ≠ 65)
Let me put this so it goes through your political blinders.
If Bumblebees were 13% of the pollinating insects in the USA and they pollinated 500 billion flowers.
And Honeybees were 65% of the pollinating insects in the USA and they pollinated 230 billion flowers.
Which is the most efficient pollinator, the Bumblebee of the Honeybee?
You can conclude that Bumblebees are (500/13)/(230/65)=11 times more efficient pollinators than the Honeybees.
Lee:
"Yeah, Marcus… Something you need to know….
500 ÷ 13 ≠ 500 ÷ 13% (13% = .13 ≠ 13)
230 ÷ 65 ≠ 230 ÷ 65% (65% = .65 ≠ 65)"
Works out the same way though. Got percentages on either side of the middle divider so if I put 13 or .13 versus 65 or .65 the result is the same. Want me to show it to ya? Since ya'll cannot math?
Let's show Lee:
Using those figures we only need to set up the equations:
500/0.13 = numbers of whites killed/percentage of blacks. 3850
230/0.65 = numbers of blacks killed/percentage of whites. 350
3850/350 = 11 (OK, so not my original 13, but closer to it than any other suggestion here).
See, same result.
Black people are bumblebees in your last example; white people are honeybees in your last example.
Who are these flowers, who are not now and never were either bumblebees nor honeybees?
How does that work?
"500/0.13 = numbers of whites killed/percentage of blacks. 3850"
3850 of what?
Oh for fucks sake I was just tryin' to explain in a different way, never mind those fucking bees just look at my other recent posts. Granted I calculated wrong to get to 13 (cause I was hammered - got close though), but my 11 times calculation is spot on.
"my article stated that in 2016 the 13% blacks in the USA killed 500 whites, and that whites who are still 65% killed 230 blacks."
You can try as you might to get that to anything other than a times 11 over reprentitation of blacks murdering whites compared to the other way around.
I'll ask again: 3,850 of what?
One more time. Why should we divide the number of white folks killed by black folks by the percentage of black folks available to do the killing. What does that get us? 3,850 of what? What is that? What does that number measure or count?
Still no answer. I think he does not know the answer.
Lee:
"3850 of what?"
Ohhh Jeezus 8 christ, this dude's a dimwit! Of NOTHING you dolt. That's just a carrier to make the math easier for ya'll. Cause ya cannot math and I tried to simplify it.
OK, the proper equation is this:
(500/13%)/(230/65%)=11
That's the original. It might be put as thus:
(500/0.13)/(230/0.65)=11
Wanna try other ways?
(500/130000000000)/(230/650000000000)=11
or:
(500000000/13)/(230000000/65)=11
See? Same result.
Lee: "One more time. Why should we divide the number of white folks killed by black folks by the percentage of black folks available to do the killing. What does that get us?"
What we're getting at is how many whities are killed by blacks and vice versa compared to the ratio of blacks and whites in the USA.
And the answer is that 11 times more whites are killed by blacks as the other way around, given the sises of those different populations.
And the endgame here is that it's a fucking sham for blacks to protest as if they are being exterminated as a folk when #1 blacks kill whites 11 times more often that vice versa AND...AND the number one murderer of blacks in America is ANOTHER black. Not whitey.
504 ÷ 229 = ~2.2
That's two and two tenths times ‘more whites killed by blacks as the other way around’. We've been here before. Now you have to figure out how to weasel your way away from here again.
"OK, the proper equation is this:
(500/13%)/(230/65%)=11"
That's a long ways from your original equation, which was 500 ÷ 13 × 230 × 65, but aside from you making changes along the line to try to get closer to your desired outcome, the question still remains.
WHY is that the proper equation? (Other than those are the operations you have to perform to get close to the result that you want.) Explain why we should divide the number of whites killed by blacks by the percentage of blacks available to do the killing? Why should we do that? What does that get us? 3,850 of what? By the same token 350 of what? What do these numbers signify other than means to the end you want?
Lee:
"504 ÷ 229 = ~2.2
That's two and two tenths times ‘more whites killed by blacks as the other way around’. We've been here before. Now you have to figure out how to weasel your way away from here again."
Yes that is perfectly correct. On the whole of the population Blacks kill about 2.2 times more whites than whites kill blacks. Granted.
BUT: Blacks are only 13% of the population and whites are about 65%.
So:
2.2*65/13 = 11
Blacks are STILL about 11 times more likely to kill a white than vice versa.
See, same result.
Lee:
3,850 of what? By the same token 350 of what?
Those were just intermediate numbers I gave ya'll since you seem inept at following an equation.
I seriously don't know if you're as dumb as it seems here or if you're just tryning to find a rabbit hole to delve into and bring me with you.
But math is math. And I win.
"Blacks are STILL about 11 times more likely to
kill a white than vice versa."
Nope, there are five times as many whites. You can't go switching raw numbers into calculations of percentages like they were equivalents; they are not the same thing; that doesn't work. Percentages are not raw numbers.
Example:
15% + 73 ≠ 88 ≠ 88%
"Nope, there are five times as many whites."
Wait, that's not the right way to phrase my objection to your numbers.
Let's try this instead.
"A white person is 13 times more likely to be killed
by a black than a black person is of being killed by a white."
Marcus @ Wed Oct 11, 11:48:00 am ↑↑ (yeah, yeah, you've
modified your calculations along the way; we know that much)
That's a whole different thing than saying that a
"Blacks are STILL about 11 times more likely to
kill a white than vice versa."
You've switched ends of the telescope on us. Things look different when you look through the other end of the telescope.
First statement was about the likelihood of a white person being killed by a black person (from white person's perspective)
Second statement was about the likelihood that a black person would kill a white person (black person's perspective)
These are not the same things.
Lee:
" You can't go switching raw numbers into calculations of percentages like they were equivalents"
Why tho?
Bcause it racist?
Bcause your told some math is racist math? And you believe that? You force yourself to believe that?? What a sad, sad, person....
Now, just picking victims at random, white people should make up 83% of the victims of black killers (if we're only working with the black and white sub-populations). To know if blacks inordinately target whites we're going to have to know how many blacks they target along with those whites. So, how many other blacks do black killers take as victims whilst reaching that 504 number of white victims? Gotta know that to know if they're targeting whites at a higher percentage than their fair share of the population.
"Why tho?"
Because ‘15% + 73 ≠ 88 ≠ 88%’. It's neither of those things; it's a nonsense operation.
How many grapefruits do you have if you add five grapes and five fruits together?
Gotta know shit! Ya'll know very fuckikng well who the shooters are at the vast majority of shootings and they are blacks on blacks.
Those were NOT the shootings we debated. We were debating inter-racial murders.
And in intger racal murders blacks are 11 times more likely to kill a white than vive versa.
11 times.
110%.
#whitelivesmatter
No gettin’ through to you is there?
Oh well…
Okay, here we go. Bottom line, this should explain things. This is from Marcus' linked authority.
"About 15.8 percent of white victims were killed by
blacks last year.
And blacks make up 13% of the general population. That's not a significant difference, especially considering the higher percentages of blacks in poverty. Control for socio-economic variables and blacks are no more violent nor more likely to murder (at least across the black/white racial line) than are whites.
[Lynnette]: "If you mean Russian meddling in the US election, I believe there is substantive evidence of that. No hysteria on that score."
[Petes]: "Yeah, but the MSM desperately, desperately wanna connect it to Trump."
Well, they can certainly try, but it will be up to Mueller to find out if there are any unusual or illegal connections between Trump and any Russians. Personally I would prefer to see Mueller play the..er..trump card in that game. (Sorry I couldn't resist. ;))
The only missing piece is evidence that the Russians found the Trump organization reliable enough to work with.
Definitely the most interesting piece of that puzzle.
Btw, did you happen to notice the headline recently about Trump's golf courses in Scotland losing millions of dollars?
I'm given to understand that Trump properties are down financially across the globe. Many if not most losing money, and more headed that direction. And, yeah, I'd heard especial mention made of his Scotland properties. Seems his Presidency is making people across the globe less inclined to do business with entities carrying the Trump name.
Shorthands is expected to announce tomorrow that he is cutting off the subsidy payments on ObamaCare, which will lead to a collapse in the insurance markets much faster than today's moves. Politico.Com
He's decided he's brave enough after all; he's gonna own it all.
Whispers of lawsuits going around.
Gotta run, I have some raspberries and bushes to trim...
It appears that Trump is upping the ante on his conflicts pretty much across the board. He's said today that if Congress doesn't pull out of the current Iran deal within the 60 days they have to revisit it, then he'll pull us out of it unilaterally. Dangerous stuff there.
And, he's making further demands on ObamaCare--wants his Wall funded before he'll agree to any fixes there.
Man's going for broke. I'm beginning to re-think whether we should encourage some action under the 25th Amendment. I haven't changed my mind yet. (He's probably bluffing pretty much across the board.) But, I'm giving it further consideration.
I was looking at the link Marcus gave us and I noticed that he'd given us faulty numbers. According to his source, whites account for 77.1% of the United States population, not 65%.
Blacks account for 13.3%. If I have to do numbers for him again, I'll probably use the correct numbers. (I.e. blacks account for less than 15% (14.7% to be more accurate) of the stripped down, hypothetical black/white population, not 17%.)
And, on a totally ‘nother subject…
I've been watching the dynamics change in Washington again. Go back a few weeks, month and a half maybe, and we'd have noticed that Congressional Republicans were no longer afraid of Trump. He was proving himself to be inept at best.
Move it forward a few weeks, and the Congressional Republicans have failed spectacularly to do the ‘repeal and replace’ thing on ObamaCare. And now they're looking like a long shot to get a joint budget passed, which they need to do to set up that ‘reconciliation’ thing for the tax cuts they're anticipating. That would be another spectacular failure, and it's looking like it may well happen. Hell, they may not be able to even keep the government open past the new year.
Then the wild-eyed crazies won the Alabama Republican primary in spite of all that McConnell and the ‘Establishment’ Republicans could do about it. Suddenly Trump does a 180; he takes down the tweets he put supporting Luther Strange, the ‘Establishment’ loser; they're gone, like it never happened, and he's all of a sudden fully on-board with the wild-eyed Evangelist crazy whom he was trying to defeat just the day before.
Now the Republicans in Congress are scared all over again. They can't switch that fast. Trump can, and not lose any support over it. He's right, he could shoot somebody down in the street on 5th Avenue in New York City, in public, and his dedicated Trumpkins would shake it off and still back him. They ain't got that going for them.
So now they're scared of Trump all over again.
[Troll]: "Link to the last time Petes tied himself up into knots whilst royally screwing up the application of so-called kindergarten arithmetic"
Not sure why y'all wanna do it, but I can't stop y'all from linking back to the seen of yore most recent embarrassment. (Superseded since, of course). Though it seems to me it was less to do with kindergarten arithmetic in that case than it was to you sufferin' delusions about the context of a web page. In fact, Lynnette actually corrected y'all on it so "yore audience" don't seem to have shared yore particular brain fade on that one.
"Not sure why y'all wanna do it…"
Apparently a lot of shit goes over your head. Seems you get stupid just about the time proof appears that you're fulla shit. It seems to be an involuntary stupid response, something similar to a possum having one of those nervous seizures which folks misinterpret as ‘playing’ dead.
And, he's making further demands on ObamaCare...
Probably the thing that will hurt him the most in the eyes of the American public.
He's said today that if Congress doesn't pull out of the current Iran deal within the 60 days they have to revisit it, then he'll pull us out of it unilaterally. Dangerous stuff there.
Probably the thing that will hurt him the most in the eyes of the world.
It has occurred to me, and apparently Nancy Pelsoi, that Trump's actions are not so much done to shore up his base but out of spite. Looking at some of this stuff I can't help but wonder if Trump isn't intent more on dismantling everything that Obama did than on playing to his base. It's just that it ends up being the same. I don't think Trump can forget about that roasting Obama did of him. He doesn't like to be laughed at.
Just to throw a wrench/spanner into Marcus' argument about black and white violence, what really constitutes the term "black"? I knew a girl in college who believed that Iranians are "black". Who is included in those numbers?
"Who is included in those numbers?"
Given that they're figuring the ‘white’ contingent to be 77.1%, I'd havta reckon they include light-skinned Hispanics, Arabs and Iranians and maybe even Afghans among their ‘white’ people. (Not sure about the Afghans, but that'd be my guess.)
At 13.3% they're almost certainly counting only African-Americans and maybe a few of the darker and more clearly African descendant Caribbeans as ‘black’.
"It's just that it ends up being the same."
It's not an accident that it ‘ends up being the same’. Quite a lot of the efforts of the Republican Party these past few years have been designed to animate their ‘base’ to resist all things having anything to do with that black bastard holed up in their White House. They were more successful than they'd anticipated. Trump was the first to recognize that. Now they're his base, no longer loyal Republicans, but rather dedicated Trumpkins (‘bout 60% of ‘em anyway, maybe even a higher percentage).
"Apparently a lot of shit goes over your head."
... says the troll after both me and Lynnette point out his errors to him. (Not surprising he can't bring himself to acknowledge that bit :-).
Marcus,
Surprisingly, the resident troll is actually right about most of the objections to your numbers. (Surprising, because at Wed Oct 11, 12:03:00 pm he committed pretty much the same transgression as he accused you of. Also, he's very confused about percentages as you pointed out).
You are right that in absolute numbers black people kill about twice as many white people as vice versa in the US. You are right that compared to the proportions of whites to blacks in the population, this is even more stark (Fri Oct 13, 01:04:00 pm). You seem to want draw an extremely racist conclusion:
"What we're getting at is how many whities are killed by blacks and vice versa compared to the ratio of blacks and whites in the USA."
But interracial crimes are not race hate crimes in general. If that were true, you would expect to see a high proportion of white people killed from among all the people killed by blacks (or vice versa). But you never considered those proportions, as the troll pointed out (Fri Oct 13, 01:37:00 pm). You didn't look at the number of people killed by each demographic, except to pay lip service to it (at Fri Oct 13, 12:04:00 pm) and observe -- correctly -- that the absolute number of murders perpetrated by blacks is shockingly high. You seem to veer dangerously close to assuming that all interracial crimes are race hate crimes. I doubt that's supportable. (I'm presuming it was a typo on your part to say whites kill more blacks than they do other race demographics, which isn't true).
The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of black murder crimes are against other blacks, and the same for whites. Like I said, people mostly kill people who live near them. Nevertheless there is a disparity in the numbers. Here we come to a mathematical faux pas by the troll (no surprise there). He says:
"Okay, here we go. Bottom line, this should explain things... About 15.8 percent of white victims were killed by blacks last year. And blacks make up 13% of the general population. That's not a significant difference, especially considering the higher percentages of blacks in poverty. Control for socio-economic variables and blacks are no more violent nor more likely to murder (at least across the black/white racial line) than are whites".
(cont'd)...
...(cont'd)
After all hie bellyaching, he goes right back and commits the same sort of transgression he accused you of. And he's wrong on all counts. First of all, after successfully debunking your wrong assumption that people are likely to kill across race lines in proportion to the population demographics, he then assumes it himself. He reasons that people are likely to be killed by other races in proportion to the demographics. So 15% of murders of whites perpetrated by the 13% of blacks in the population is about right. But it isn't -- as I said people preponderantly kill people in their own neighbourhood.
And the troll could have seen this if he'd just included the other half of the sentence he quoted from your reference: "and 8.6 percent of black victims were killed by whites". In fact, when you properly do it by proportion of crimes committed, black really are twice as likely to murder white people from among all the people they murder as white people are to kill black people from among all the people they murder. (This is only coincidentally similar to the 2.2 you got using the absolute numbers, even though the troll desperately wants to believe he got the right answer by using the wrong figures).
The troll's other bizarre (and very racist) conclusion is that poverty makes black people want to kill white people. While it is true that blacks are twice as likely to live in poverty as whites, it seems strange that it would only increase their propensity to kill whites. In fact blacks appear to commit four to five times as many murders as their proportion of the population would lead you to expect. Of course, that also means they are four times as likely to be victims of murder, a tragedy for their demographic. Whites, by comparison, are considerably less likely (both proportionally and even in absolute terms) to be murder victims.
... and since all this is very sombre and tragic, I thought one more quote from Marcus might lighten the tone:
"... never mind those fucking bees just look at my other recent posts."
Now that made me actually laugh out loud.
"black really are twice as likely to murder white people from
among all the people they murder as white people are to kill black
people from among all the people they murder."
It works out to almost precisely the 2.2 times as much (if calculated from the numbers Marcus supplied us) that I mentioned before. (504 ÷ 229 = ~2.2, although, on a closer reading, I noticed that the 504 was from the year before and I shoulda been using the 500 number--still ~2.2 though.) When correcting Marcus' calculations it helps to use the same or about the same numbers he's using so he find where he went wrong. This idea appears to have gone clear over your head; I'd reckon on account of you're having yourself another one of your stupid attacks.
"(Not surprising he can't bring himself to acknowledge that bit :-)."
I have considered the possibility that you go blind instead of going stupid, you suddenly just aren't able to see anymore when things don't go your way. see post @ Fri Oct 06, 11:08:00 pm However, given your usually delayed reaction time, I'm still leaning towards you just having an attack of the stupids.
"He reasons that people are likely to be killed by other
races in proportion to the demographics."
I made no such assumption. I merely noted that the difference between 15.8% and 13% (actually 13.3%) was not a particularly significant difference. I did not speculate as to the likelihood of that concurrence nor the reason for it. You're having some major stupids tonight.
Post a Comment