Is Donald Trump's Campaign A Spoof?

[Ally Bongo]

 

[phart]

Now Black people were statistically significantly more likely to commit a crime against all races as pointed out in the report, but again this is a sham argument as it's police violence , violence from authority that is the actual original argument and all these side points are just the great whataboutery to silence this, and the stats are in on that 2.5-3 times more likely for blacks to be targetted.

Based on victims’ perceptions of the offenders, the offender-to-population ratio shows that the percentage of violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was 1.8 times the percentage of black persons (12%) in the population

[phart]

11 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

Can't blame the far right, probably reading the same nonsense as is being copy/pasted on here and lacking the training to interpet it properly have been brainwashed into making this partisan, so instead of joining up to sort out the authority in charge everyone infights again. Divide and conquer.

[thplinth]

16 minutes ago, phart said:

That's the thing i can work it out, it's you who can't.

Remember I spent years in tertiary education studying various branches of mathmatics as part of a Physics degree. Then taught maths and physics. You're the one being duped cause your maths is shite. So less of the bluffing you can work it out but i'll just try and put the onus on the other guy as a rhetorical trick cause i'm swimming way out my depth here"

It's even stated in black and white in the report. S what's the actual significance of those number? Where does the percentages come from and what's their significance? Copy and pasting from twitter is really your ceiling in this debate? No original thought?

The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The percentage of violent incidents involving white (66%) or black (11%) victims was similar to the population percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons

100 quid to the sunshine appeal says I can show you how he gets those numbers?

You're just making it up as you go along. Now its another bunch of questions. Who appointed you board cross examiner anyway. That absurd post about PewDiePie and the Christchurch murders was enough for me. Sadly discussing this with you is a complete waste of time. I'm out.

Edited June 13, 2020 by thplinth

[phart]

6 minutes ago, thplinth said:

100 quid to the sunshine appeal says I can show you how he gets those numbers?

You're just make it up as you go along. Now its another bunch of questions. Who appointed board cross examiner anyway? That absurd post about PewDiePie and the Christchurch murders was enough for me. Sadly discussing this with you is a complete waste of time. I'm out.

 

Anyone who completed primary school can show the numbers, it's their statistical significance that requires explanation, you're basically saying i bet £100 given a number i can figure out 15% of that number. Really you can do that wow you might get the fields medal... EDIT: Actually tha's for under 40's so probably not in fact.

However as stated 3 times now and in the body of the report you quoted. It isn't statistically significant those numbers, cause when you harmonise for populations you find (see below), the money is in understanding the nuance of the stats.

The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The percentage of violent incidents involving white (66%) or black (11%) victims was similar to the population percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons

Edited June 13, 2020 by phart

[thplinth]

Blah blah blah... knew you would crap out. 

"Please can you show me the numbers?"

"Oh I know the numbers it is you who does not know the numbers."

"Anyone who completed primary school can show you the numbers."

Aye whatever man.

[phart]

There's the stats sheet from the report.

EDIT: Crap out of what? you're now trying to make this into some weird playground oh you're scared thing, rather than just try and explain the statistical significance. While simultaneously trying to use your assessment of other posts i've made to again avoid trying to explain the stats. You're copy/pasting stuff you obviously cannot interpet properly and then going naa naa naa when asked to.

I asked you the same thing simply first then when i saw you interpeted it to mean i was asking you basically what 15.3% of 3,581,360 is i realised oh he doesn't even know what i'm talking about i then became more specific, cause in my mind it was so obvious, the clue is when i kept posting the line

The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The percentage of violent incidents involving white (66%) or black (11%) victims was similar to the population percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons

 

My second post on the subject

"The percentages though 90 and 10. I'm not understand those. All what's been done is take total victims of whites and take 15% of that (as the report states 15% of crimes against whites are doe by blacks) what's the significance? Stats have to be harmonised the calculator stuff we all learned as children, how to interpet stats properly is tertiary education though."

Cleared up immediately after i realised i had been misinterpeted.

Edited June 13, 2020 by phart

[thplinth]

Knew you'd get there in the end bud. 

Not wishing to be rude but I don't think this type of back and forth is adding much to the thread or the board. Rightly or wrongly it is not me following you about starting an argument over every other post. I can easily do without all this grief. I really don't want to be rude and just not reply but it is getting to that point. 

It is also becomes quite tedious replying so God only knows what it is like to read. It is a bit of a cringe and I don't want to be involved in it much more.

Instead we can simply disagree without all this pointless sniping. There is nothing being posted here that people should be falling out over or getting pissed off about. 

[phart]

6 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Knew you'd get there in the end bud. 

Not wishing to be rude but I don't think this type of back and forth is adding much to the thread or the board. Rightly or wrongly it is not me following you about starting an argument over every other post. I can easily do without all this grief. I really don't want to be rude and just not reply but it is getting to that point. 

It is also becomes quite tedious replying so God only knows what it is like to read. It is a bit of a cringe and I don't want to be involved in it much more.

Instead we can simply disagree without all this pointless sniping. There is nothing being posted here that people should be falling out over or getting pissed off about. 

So you can't explain the statistical significance then? Cause there isn't one as even stated in the report you cited.

If the posts are making you have emotional responses (cringe etc) then that's something you'll have to deal with yourself. I'm just more interested in discussing the details of the information posted. If i think it's wrong i'll say. If you feel you're a victim and being followed etc all I can say is it's a product of the information and not you as a person which is being judged. Hope that makes you feel better about it.

[phart]

2 hours ago, thplinth said:

White Population 171,493,180

Black Population 33,132,390

Not what you would probably expect right listening to the MSM.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

 

here's the actual timeline.

1 hour ago, phart said:

Can you tell me what page in the report linked those numbers are please. This was posted on another forum and despite going through the whole report I couldn't actually find it. It's the reason i said I had it on my bookmarks when we discussed it last week.

I can't see the numbers or how they were arrived at by reading the report, the last person who posted it elsewhere couldn't show me so hoping you could.

This is from the report

"The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The percentage of violent incidents involving white (66%) or black (11%) victims was similar to the population percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons. About 14% of violent incidents involved Hispanic victims, which was about four-fifths (0.8 times) the representation of Hispanics in the population (17%). Similarly, a smaller percentage of violent incidents involved Asian victims (4%) than the representation of Asians in the population (6%)."

Based on victims’ perceptions of the offenders, the offender-to-population ratio shows that the percentage of violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was 1.8 times the percentage of black persons (12%) in the population. In contrast, the percentage of violent incidents involving white (50%) or Hispanic (14%)offenders was about four-fifths (0.8 times) the percentage of whites (62%) or Hispanics (17%) in the population, and the percentage involving Asian offenders (2.5%) was about two-fifths (0.4 times) the percentage of Asians in the population (6%). The percentage of violent incidents involving offenders of other races (Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races) was 3.8 times the percentage of those races in the population.

I ask the question quoting the report to provide context to the question

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

I dont think Larry has his sums quite correct but they are not far away. The guy who replies below him has the correct numbers. edit: or it could be Larry is looking at a smaller data set excluding murders.

You can derive all these numbers from the report with a calculator in about one minute flat. The test begins now!

It's misinterpeted(which is fine it wasn't a super clear question) and told how easy it is to derive and "set a test" to do it.

1 hour ago, phart said:

The percentages though 90 and 10. I'm not understand those. All what's been done is take total victims of whites and take 15% of that (as the report states 15% of crimes against whites are doe by blacks) what's the significance? Stats have to be harmonised the calculator stuff we all learned as children, how to interpet stats properly is tertiary education though.

Also it's police stats this is general population, the police stats have already been demonstrated here and it's 2.5-3 times more likely.

Also as the report states below. What is your implication the media should be running stories that state "victim to population ratio between black and whites are similiar to population percentage between black and whites?

The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The percentage of violent incidents involving white (66%) or black (11%) victims was similar to the population percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons.

I realise it was misinterpeted and adjust my question. Repeating the reports own finding about the significance. Point out the media is talking about police crime and not general crime.

Edited June 13, 2020 by phart

[thplinth]

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

White Population 171,493,180

Black Population 33,132,390

Not what you would probably expect right listening to the MSM.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

 

Blimey if you look at the violent incidents per 1 million of population it is pretty crazy.

318 violent incidents on black victims per 1 million of whites in the USA

versus

16,214 incidents on white victims per 1 million of blacks in the USA.

That is 51 times higher. 

This is not even looking at black on black crime which is horrendous. That is not even on the radar of BLM or the MSM though.

[phart]

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by phart

[aaid]

Of all the various clips and photos of the dumbfuckery from central London today, I think this probably takes the prize.

Keith Palmer, FWIW, was the PC who was on duty and was killed trying to stop an islamist terrorist attack on the Houses of Parliament in 2017.
 

 

[aaid]

Old Statues Matter - say no to picnics.
 

 

[Jim Beem]

Gammon flavoured Pot Noodle munchers all over London today. Total wrong anes. 

 

[Rich NATA]

The gentleman at 2min 21secs is very eloquent in his analysis...

 

[Lairdyfaeinverclyde]

Watching the news and listening to the home secretary and the condemnation of the 'right wing extremists' in London today. Not sure if she realises that most of they 'arseholes' are people who she and most of the tory's want Brexit for because that's what they voted for. Not saying all Brexit voters are' right wing extremists' but I am pretty sure everyone of they arseholes who want to save the statues did vote for it.

[shunkyboy and the fluffer]

12 minutes ago, Lairdyfaeinverclyde said:

Watching the news and listening to the home secretary and the condemnation of the 'right wing extremists' in London today. Not sure if she realises that most of they 'arseholes' are people who she and most of the tory's want Brexit for because that's what they voted for. Not saying all Brexit voters are' right wing extremists' but I am pretty sure everyone of they arseholes who want to save the statues did vote for it.

Yeah there all Dominic's.  Fucking embarrassing the lot of them but sadly they are seen as defenders of the empire by many. Amazing how many people tell you on the quiet Yaxley Lennon has point. In a nutshell I think the BLM has gone slightly too far but this country is full of racist cunts. 

[vanderark14]

9 hours ago, Lairdyfaeinverclyde said:

Watching the news and listening to the home secretary and the condemnation of the 'right wing extremists' in London today. Not sure if she realises that most of they 'arseholes' are people who she and most of the tory's want Brexit for because that's what they voted for. Not saying all Brexit voters are' right wing extremists' but I am pretty sure everyone of they arseholes who want to save the statues did vote for it.

 

Watch the video when a SNP mp talks abour bojos racist comments. The tories dont get mad at the fact their leader is a racist prick, they get angry because someone called him racist. 

 

[Lairdyfaeinverclyde]

1 minute ago, vanderark14 said:

 

Watch the video when a SNP mp talks abour bojos racist comments. The tories dont get mad at the fact their leader is a racist prick, they get angry because someone called him racist. 

 

Will have a look. 👍

[vanderark14]

6 minutes ago, Lairdyfaeinverclyde said:

Will have a look. 👍

This is what they think of scotland and racism

[thplinth]

This was just two weeks ago.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/8/21281998/chicago-deadliest-day-violence-murder-history-police-crime

18 people killed in one weekend. And they all look to be black people.

To put that in context ...

In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase.

So that murder death toll in one day in one city was double the amount of unarmed black people killed by the police during the whole of 2019.

But these lives don't matter because they cannot be exploited. It is ironic that Black Lives Matter but only when they are killed by a cop or a white person. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by thplinth

[ThistleWhistle]

Ding Ding Round 2

https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/what-we-know-so-far-about-the-killing-of-rayshard-brooks/

 

 

[phart]

Saw Trump trying to drink water at a speech last night. Man being in power seems to sap everyone he didn't look too great at all.

[vanderark14]

12 minutes ago, phart said:

Saw Trump trying to drink water at a speech last night. Man being in power seems to sap everyone he didn't look too great at all.

The scariest thing is nobody seems to care in yank land