Trump falsely claims US murder rate is 'highest' in 47 years

[fskimospy]

As Chicago Murder Rate Spikes, Many Fear Violence Has Become Normalized

"It's terrible, let's fix it"
"!@#$ you"​

That pretty much sums up the topic.

Nope, it's:
'It's the worst ever, let's do unconstitutional things to fix it!'
'Crime is near historic lows, doing extreme things like that makes no sense. Stop lying.'

Stop and frisk, "send in the feds"? You know... Trump should be challenged on the issues, and that's the whole point. Posters have gone so far as to dismiss the subject just because Trump spoke of it. Instead of discussing Chicago (inner cities) and solutions it's just more noise, more personalizing and calling him a lair. Pretty much the continuation of the 2016 !@#$show we called an election where the issues were set aside for attacking Trump.

Wait, what? You think random ranting on twitter is a proposed solution? That's a standard I wouldn't accept from an eighth grader.

It is really telling that your answer to Trump lying is not that people should make it costly for him to lie, but that people should stop pointing it out. This is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. Lies are lies, and they always need to be called out.

If Trump's policy is a dumpster fire, and yours is sound and reasoned... why wouldn't you want to press him on policy?

He IS being pressed on policy. The basis for his policy are numbers that are demonstrably untrue. Therefore the basis for his 'policy' is unsound. Done.

I'll repeat what I said on that.

You can energize the nation towards solutions, or towards tearing each other apart in ever escalating rhetoric and use of force. If 2016 placed a child in office, where are the adults to hold America on a steady course? You stoop to his level and you'll be no better. And you'll do more damage by turning the Trump era a permanent era, where such consequences last far beyond his four years.

Think long and hard of the future you want, and make your campaign against Trump reflect that.​

I really think you would benefit from some self reflection. What you're describing is a fantasy, and the idea that criticizing Trump for being a liar is a problem rather than a solution is what would really cause long term damage. If people can egregiously lie and face no consequences then there's no reason for anyone to tell the truth ever again.

Think long and hard about that and then ask yourself if you want to join us in calling out his lies. I imagine you will.

 

[Jaskalas]

Trump & Sessions merely pander to fear in their base. They sensationalize a blip in crime stats for political purposes.

They have no intention of addressing problem areas at all simply because having them is necessary to making their bullshit fly & because that's not where their voters live.

An interesting perspective and one that the media should press them on. They speak crime, call them out for solutions.
Although we would need our own ideas for what to do about it. Though I guess ignoring it "it's no big deal" can be your position.

 

[dank69]

An interesting perspective and one that the media should press them on. They speak crime, call them out for solutions.
Although we would need our own ideas for what to do about it. Though I guess ignoring it "it's no big deal" can be your position.

You already pointed out they have solutions. They just happen to be unconstitutional solutions. Next step is to call everyone out that doesn't support these necessary unconstitutional solutions as unpatriotic.

 

[Jaskalas]

I really think you would benefit from some self reflection. What you're describing is a fantasy, and the idea that criticizing Trump for being a liar is a problem rather than a solution is what would really cause long term damage. If people can egregiously lie and face no consequences then there's no reason for anyone to tell the truth ever again.

Think long and hard about that and then ask yourself if you want to join us in calling out his lies. I imagine you will.

I'm sorry you can't comprehend signal to noise ratio. Or that simply existing to attack Trump is not enough to positively win voters.
The lesson of 2016 should be to appeal to those voters who feel hopeless, who need you to change their lives for the better.
Obama had that energy in 2008. Sanders in the 2016 primary. Trump partially in the 2016 general. You still don't want it.

Other posters are flat out calling for vengeance against Republicans as standard modus operandi.
I do not think that gets you as far as you want to go in the future, but maybe that's just me.

You already know Trump is terrible at speaking, and cannot tell it straight. The world had one and a half years of campaigning to learn that. Picking and choosing your battles, having a positive message, that will be important in the years ahead. Trump is an opportunity to seize the moment from Republicans and enable progressives like Sanders. I would not see that opportunity squandered by rolling around in the mud with pigs.

I would see the American people delivered a clear and decisive change in policy. Not simply shrieking at Trump's latest tweets. Tackle his actions and inaction, not his blithering mess of a word salad. The less the future is "about" Trump, and the more it is about how we are going to change it, the better.

 

[Jhhnn]

An interesting perspective and one that the media should press them on. They speak crime, call them out for solutions.
Although we would need our own ideas for what to do about it. Though I guess ignoring it "it's no big deal" can be your position.

I don't live there so I obviously have no idea. People who do probably understand it a helluva lot better than I ever will so I'd start by asking them. They'd probably say less guns are part of the answer, blasphemy in Trumpistan. They'd probably say jobs & schools would help, too, but the Job Creators got nuthin' for 'em & DeVos intends to rip the guts out of their schools.

Meanwhile, Trump gets a lot of mileage out of demonizing them & their neighborhoods. The worse it gets for them the more he can make out of it so I wouldn't expect him to do anything constructive.

Hell- they claim a crisis when there isn't one, something closely akin to creating one to serve your purposes.

 

[Homerboy]

Actually I live in Glendale. I am a few blocks from Milwaukee. I am in a safe neighborhood but am EXTREMELY close to a very dangerous neighborhood. For whatever reason the violence never bleeds into my neighborhood.

I'm in Tosa -- we're RIGHT on the border. It's slowly been creeping in.

 

[bshole]

I'm in Tosa -- we're RIGHT on the border. It's slowly been creeping in.

Damn dude. used to live near Mt Mary 1/2 block from Tosa. Moved 2.5 years ago to send my kids to Nicolet. Totally regret the move. Tosa is fantastic.

 

[brandonbull]

You already pointed out they have solutions. They just happen to be unconstitutional solutions. Next step is to call everyone out that doesn't support these necessary unconstitutional solutions as unpatriotic.

What unconstitutional solutions?

 

[dank69]

What unconstitutional solutions?

Stop & Frisk, "Send in the feds", etc.

 

[momeNt]

Why should it have been? Sanders used a much narrower demographic of 17-20 which is including school aged teens. Trump used a broader definition of youths which traditionally is defined as 16-24 when looking at unemployment figures. (The UN uses 15 to 24, the US doesn't count anyone below 16).

Unsurprisingly apples and oranges aren't the same.

They are likely quoting the same statistic.

Besides, the offered Trump zero leeway in the unemployment statistic he gave, and with this statistic, they perform backflips to make it mostly true.

My guess it is is anti 2A agenda at politifact wanting to cause alarm at the murder rate.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They are likely quoting the same statistic.

Besides, the offered Trump zero leeway in the unemployment statistic he gave, and with this statistic, they perform backflips to make it mostly true.

My guess it is is anti 2A agenda at politifact wanting to cause alarm at the murder rate.

That doesn't make Politifact bias in your example. They evaluate off of what someone says. There is a very standard definition of "youths" when discussing unemployment which is what they used to measure Trump's statement. Sanders was far more precise in his wording.

 

[momeNt]

That doesn't make Politifact bias in your example. They evaluate off of what someone says. There is a very standard definition of "youths" when discussing unemployment which is what they used to measure Trump's statement. Sanders was far more precise in his wording.

Then how is his current statement of 47% evaluated as true, when it clearly was a wrong statistic given his wording? That is my point, they clearly don't have a bias towards Trump given my earlier link with youth unemployment, so why go out of their way to make this statement correct?

 

[fskimospy]

Then how is his current statement of 47% evaluated as true, when it clearly was a wrong statistic given his wording? That is my point, they clearly don't have a bias towards Trump given my earlier link with youth unemployment, so why go out of their way to make this statement correct?

My first thought would be that since the pieces were written by two different people they came to two different editorial judgments on how to grade it. If you look at the material of the piece and not the 'rating' they both basically say the same thing and I can see how I would agree with both ratings (although I would come down in the end on the side of it being a false statement for both). Isn't editorial incompetence a more likely answer than an anti-gun agenda?

 

[momeNt]

My first thought would be that since the pieces were written by two different people they came to two different editorial judgments on how to grade it. If you look at the material of the piece and not the 'rating' they both basically say the same thing and I can see how I would agree with both ratings (although I would come down in the end on the side of it being a false statement for both). Isn't editorial incompetence a more likely answer than an anti-gun agenda?

I'd almost hope that that wasn't the case (incompetence). I've seen them quoted fairly often here, so I'd rather they have a consistent methodology with a little wiggle-room for agenda, than to just be incompetent or scattered in their approach and verdicts.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd almost hope that that wasn't the case (incompetence). I've seen them quoted fairly often here, so I'd rather they have a consistent methodology with a little wiggle-room for agenda, than to just be incompetent or scattered in their approach and verdicts.

I feel like the ratings are pretty subjective and are basically a dumb/fun shortcut. I mean they have a rating called 'pants on fire', which doesn't exactly scream that the ratings are subject to a profound level of scrutiny. I think their articles are very useful reading, but the part of them that is useful isn't the rating, it's the reasoning contained within. In that respect the Trump and Sanders articles are pretty close to one another.

 

[brandonbull]

Stop & Frisk, "Send in the feds", etc.

And again those are not unconstitutional.

 

[agent00f]

Nostradamus over here:

This is how it always goes. People progressively harden their positions when they feel attacked. Just watch the conservatives here go from 'this guy is horrible' to 'I mean I hate the guy too but I think he is okay on this one thing' to 'the real problem here is people on the left' in record time.

Later in the day:

A real opposition to Trump would be speaking of solutions. Then you have something to campaign for, and voters have something to vote for. Simply being the party that attacks Republicans, going so far as to make fake headlines yourselves... I tell you that is a dark path. You can energize the nation towards solutions, or towards tearing each other apart in ever escalating rhetoric and use of force. If 2016 placed a child in office, where are the adults to hold America on a steady course? You stoop to his level and you'll be no better. And you'll do more damage by turning the Trump era a permanent era, where such consequences last far beyond his four years.

Think long and hard of the future you want, and make your campaign against Trump reflect that.

I think this new record might be pretty safe.

 

[agent00f]

I'm sorry you can't comprehend signal to noise ratio. Or that simply existing to attack Trump is not enough to positively win voters.
The lesson of 2016 should be to appeal to those voters who feel hopeless, who need you to change their lives for the better.
Obama had that energy in 2008. Sanders in the 2016 primary. Trump partially in the 2016 general. You still don't want it.

Other posters are flat out calling for vengeance against Republicans as standard modus operandi.
I do not think that gets you as far as you want to go in the future, but maybe that's just me.

You already know Trump is terrible at speaking, and cannot tell it straight. The world had one and a half years of campaigning to learn that. Picking and choosing your battles, having a positive message, that will be important in the years ahead. Trump is an opportunity to seize the moment from Republicans and enable progressives like Sanders. I would not see that opportunity squandered by rolling around in the mud with pigs.

I would see the American people delivered a clear and decisive change in policy. Not simply shrieking at Trump's latest tweets. Tackle his actions and inaction, not his blithering mess of a word salad. The less the future is "about" Trump, and the more it is about how we are going to change it, the better.

I think you're aware that those inclined to vote for people like trump aren't exactly the well-reasoned rational solution sort. The practical issue at hand is that your peer are the problem, and any practical solution is predicated on dealing with them effectively. Not unlike some dipshits screwing up a study group. This has almost nothing to do with actual issues, any more that the study group dipshit problem has to do with the topic being studied.

 

[dank69]

And again those are not unconstitutional.

Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in NYC and it depends on what send in the feds actually means.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think you're aware that those inclined to vote for people like trump aren't exactly the well-reasoned rational solution sort. The practical issue at hand is that your peer are the problem, and any practical solution is predicated on dealing with them effectively. Not unlike some dipshits screwing up a study group. This has almost nothing to do with actual issues, any more that the study group dipshit problem has to do with the topic being studied.

Your reaction to the election was that the voters are racist.
My reaction to the election was that the voters need economic hope.

Your hatred for people continues to shine through in every post you give. You exemplify the very meaning of my warning that stooping to Trump's level means there's no end to the madness of 2016. It's quite telling you want to fixate on "dealing with" your enemies while ignoring policy issues. Yours is a future where it simply comes down to the use of force.

You would hurl America over the edge of an abyss so long as you could continue to scream and rage all the way down to hell.

 

[agent00f]

Your reaction to the election was that the voters are racist.
My reaction to the election was that the voters need economic hope.

Your hatred for people continues to shine through in every post you give. You exemplify the very meaning of my warning that stooping to Trump's level means there's no end to the madness of 2016. It's quite telling you want to fixate on "dealing with" your enemies while ignoring policy issues. Yours is a future where it simply comes down to the use of force.

You would hurl America over the edge of an abyss so long as you could continue to scream and rage all the way down to hell.

There's simply a reality of how things are, reflected by empirical observation of the world. This form of reasoning is fundamental to enlightenment thinking, which is what divides liberalism from conservatism. I've pointed you to the studies of that reality, which you've predictably refused to either read or accept because, well, that's just how the world is.

Instead you embrace nothing but a bunch of empty rhetoric based on wishful thinking. Somehow you & peer are still "good guys", despite all evidence to the contrary. For example that they're in any way interested in the rational thinking necessary for successful problem solving, which you readily demonstrate as totally untrue right here and now without much help from me.

No, the only thing they're ever interested in by definition is perpetuating backwardness, or at least preventing progress, protecting their own and of course blaming everyone else for the completely expected negative consequences of their actions. We see this daily, and you certain prove it beyond much doubt. If this is in any way wrong, surely there would be plenty of evidence for conservatives coming up with future facing plans, doing the right thing, or taking responsibility. But you know there isn't, so you just continue to bluster like the rest.

 

[ivwshane]

Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in NYC and it depends on what send in the feds actually means.

Actually, stop and frisk itself wasn't ruled unconstitutional but rather how it was implemented was. The issue was that the police targeted minorities as opposed to everyone equally.

Everything I've read has said the policy had little to do with the drop in crime anyway, considering the crime rate fell by a similar rate across the country during the same time frame.

This is the problem with a president who gets his information from headlines and actual fake news websites, he creates and pushes policies that aren't based in reality.

 

[ivwshane]

Your reaction to the election was that the voters are racist.
My reaction to the election was that the voters need economic hope.

Your hatred for people continues to shine through in every post you give. You exemplify the very meaning of my warning that stooping to Trump's level means there's no end to the madness of 2016. It's quite telling you want to fixate on "dealing with" your enemies while ignoring policy issues. Yours is a future where it simply comes down to the use of force.

You would hurl America over the edge of an abyss so long as you could continue to scream and rage all the way down to hell.

Actually the evidence points to the less educated white voters as being the reason trump won the election. There is a clear correlation with the education level of a populace and the candidate that won in that particular area. Its why trump won Pennsylvania while Clinton won Colorado despite trump campaigning more in Colorado and Hillary campaigning more in Penn. The difference was that Colorado has fewer white voters without college degrees.

So I don't know if its true that the less educated tend to be racist but it's most likely true that the less educated tend to respond to messages of racial anxiety (this forum is a perfect example of that).

But continue on ranting about stooping to trumps level while you ignored such stooping while Obama was in office. Fucking hypocrite.

 

[zinfamous]

ITT: republicans continue to swallow the fear medicine that their elected betters feed them to maintain their safe level of constant fear. Keep voting, republicans! fear really is in your blood. Too bad you've no room left for rational and educated discourse involving facts and real solutions to deal with real problems.