What's behind the violent crime spike across the country?

[Jeff]

Why is this even a question, when the president gives you a pass to do as you please, than the thugs do. Obama has done exactly what he wanted to, he has turned the country into a war zone ( at least it is heading that way ) with all his talk about the racist police ( even though how many where black or looked different as Obama says, where charged in the gray killing ) Thugs always have and always will look for any reason for unrest and Obama is giving them all the ammo they need.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4271952121001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

[Gunny]

Why is this even a question, when the president gives you a pass to do as you please, than the thugs do. Obama has done exactly what he wanted to, he has turned the country into a war zone ( at least it is heading that way ) with all his talk about the racist police ( even though how many where black or looked different as Obama says, where charged in the gray killing ) Thugs always have and always will look for any reason for unrest and Obama is giving them all the ammo they need.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4271952121001&w=466&h=263"></script><iframe src="//video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4271952121001&loc=debatepolicy.com&ref=about%3A%2F%2F" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="263" width="466"></iframe><noscript>Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com (http://video.foxnews.com)</noscript>

He's on my last nerve.

[Jeff]

He's on my last nerve.

He was on mine 61/2 years ago, all that does is give ya heartburn.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He's on my last nerve.
He got on nine the week his sorry ass was sworn in. Thats because I knew what was coming(and still is coming now).-Tyr

[Max R.]

Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but while amusing, two thoughts come to mind. First, FBI stats show crime is going down: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31

Second, awareness or more focus on an issue makes it seem like more is happening, but that's a false perception. While there's a possibility some of the actions by the Obama administration exacerbated some issues, it more about what people see on the news that gives the impression things are more common than they really are.

[grannyhawkins]

Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but while amusing, two thoughts come to mind. First, FBI stats show crime is going down: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31

Second, awareness or more focus on an issue makes it seem like more is happening, but that's a false perception. While there's a possibility some of the actions by the Obama administration exacerbated some issues, it more about what people see on the news that gives the impression things are more common than they really are.

When my boy's got to the age of wantin ta drive all over hails half acre, caws they had their drivers licenses, I tole em, they could go anywhere they wanted as long as they read the city section of the paper every mornin. That's where they show the body count from the day before. I wanted them ta see what happens when you act a fool behind the wheel, them papers was full of fools!!! It was also full a criminals committin all sorts of despicable acts!!! Now this was the 90's mind ya an the boys are now men an still readin the city section, but what stands out, are the quantity of an the heinousness of the acts bein committed on a day ta day basis!!!

So, I respectfully disagree that, crime is actually down, them numbers is nuthin but propaganda as far as I'm concerned!!!

[fj1200]

So, I respectfully disagree that, crime is actually down, them numbers is nuthin but propaganda as far as I'm concerned!!!

But don't you accept that very same data that suggests that blacks commit more crimes relative to their population?

[Gunny]

But don't you accept that very same data that suggests that blacks commit more crimes relative to their population?

Per capita, they do.

[grannyhawkins]

But don't you accept that very same data that suggests that blacks commit more crimes relative to their population?

All I know is what I see!!! The whole of society is completely out of control!!! But, first hand??? What I see is that, blacks are more outta control than whites or even little brown people!!!

[Jen]

Why is this even a question, when the president gives you a pass to do as you please, than the thugs do. Obama has done exactly what he wanted to, he has turned the country into a war zone ( at least it is heading that way ) with all his talk about the racist police ( even though how many where black or looked different as Obama says, where charged in the gray killing ) Thugs always have and always will look for any reason for unrest and Obama is giving them all the ammo they need.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4271952121001&w=466&h=263"></script><iframe src="//video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4271952121001&loc=debatepolicy.com&ref=about%3A%2F%2F" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="263" width="466"></iframe><noscript>Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com (http://video.foxnews.com)</noscript>


There is a good chance all of the unrest is by design, not by accident.
Obama started heading things in this direction when he said "the police acted stupidly".
He said he wanted some sort of federal police force. He may actually get it and people over the country might actually beg him to give it to us.

[aboutime]

Why is this even a question, when the president gives you a pass to do as you please, than the thugs do. Obama has done exactly what he wanted to, he has turned the country into a war zone ( at least it is heading that way ) with all his talk about the racist police ( even though how many where black or looked different as Obama says, where charged in the gray killing ) Thugs always have and always will look for any reason for unrest and Obama is giving them all the ammo they need.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4271952121001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

Obama's personal demonstration to his SHEEP, that breaking the law, and demanding to be paid off with othe people's stuff...they steal. Makes his SHEEP follow him everywhere. Look at how they followed him to the Polls TWICE. And Obama convinced them..IT WAS ALL BUSH'S FAULT.

[grannyhawkins]

Obama's personal demonstration to his SHEEP, that breaking the law, and demanding to be paid off with othe people's stuff...they steal. Makes his SHEEP follow him everywhere. Look at how they followed him to the Polls TWICE. And Obama convinced them..IT WAS ALL BUSH'S FAULT.

While I'm probably one of the few that actually like dubya, HW, billy boy, dubya as well as the usurpin moozlum, all share some of the blame!!! Just goes ta show ya that it's two sides of the same coin an policy really hadn't changed all that much, no matter who's in charge.

[Max R.]

When my boy's got to the age of wantin ta drive all over hails half acre, caws they had their drivers licenses, I tole em, they could go anywhere they wanted as long as they read the city section of the paper every mornin. That's where they show the body count from the day before. I wanted them ta see what happens when you act a fool behind the wheel, them papers was full of fools!!! It was also full a criminals committin all sorts of despicable acts!!! Now this was the 90's mind ya an the boys are now men an still readin the city section, but what stands out, are the quantity of an the heinousness of the acts bein committed on a day ta day basis!!!

So, I respectfully disagree that, crime is actually down, them numbers is nuthin but propaganda as far as I'm concerned!!!The anti-gun Left is always screaming about how the number of gun deaths is going up. That's true, but what they fail to mention is that the rate of gun deaths is going down. As the population grows, even if the death rate stayed the same, obviously to actual numbers of death would go up.

So, if the number of deaths go up but the rate goes down, are gun deaths really increasing or decreasing?

If the population is increasing, is it possible for the number of violent crimes to go up but the actual violent crime rate go down?

[fj1200]

All I know is what I see!!! The whole of society is completely out of control!!! But, first hand??? What I see is that, blacks are more outta control than whites or even little brown people!!!

So you like stats that reinforce your viewpoint but don't like the very same ones that don't. :unsure: Besides, it's the MSM that shows you what you see and they's a bunch of lefties.


The anti-gun Left is always screaming about how the number of gun deaths is going up. That's true, but what they fail to mention is that the rate of gun deaths is going down. As the population grows, even if the death rate stayed the same, obviously to actual numbers of death would go up.

So, if the number of deaths go up but the rate goes down, are gun deaths really increasing or decreasing?

If the population is increasing, is it possible for the number of violent crimes to go up but the actual violent crime rate go down?

I don't think that's true. Also, I don't think our population is increasing enough to offset the effect.


In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2013: 11,20818
2012: 11,62218 20
2011: 11,06818 19 28 20
2010: 11,07818 28 20 21 29
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,79118 21 29
2005: 12,35218 20 21 29
2004: 11,62418 21 29
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,82918 30 29
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,80118
1999: 10,82818 25
1998: 9,25725

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2013: 3.5518
2012: 3.7018 3
2011: 3.5518 19
2010: 3.5918 21 29
2009: 3.7518 24 21 29
2008: 4.01
2007: 4.19
2006: 4.29
2005: 4.18
2004: 3.97
2003: 4.11
2002: 4.1118 30 29
2001: 3.98
2000: 3.8418
1999: 3.8818 25
1998: 3.3725
1993: 7.0731
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

[Jeff]

Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but while amusing, two thoughts come to mind. First, FBI stats show crime is going down: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31

Second, awareness or more focus on an issue makes it seem like more is happening, but that's a false perception. While there's a possibility some of the actions by the Obama administration exacerbated some issues, it more about what people see on the news that gives the impression things are more common than they really are.


Yes Sir I agree, been watching it do to Obama wanting to take guns, but studies have come out and May was the most violent month in many years according to it, personally I think this all plays into Obama's game,

1) keep America divided
2) As long as we are fighting each other no one pays attention to what he is doing
3) Gun crime is on the rise, that report broke it down in the inner cities anyway and it showed it way up, riots will do that.

[Little-Acorn]

Why is this even a question, when the president gives you a pass to do as you please, than the thugs do. Obama has done exactly what he wanted to, he has turned the country into a war zone ( at least it is heading that way ) with all his talk about the racist police ( even though how many where black or looked different as Obama says, where charged in the gray killing ) Thugs always have and always will look for any reason for unrest and Obama is giving them all the ammo they need.


Plus, mayors who tell their police to not arrest perpetrators, but to back off, stand down, do nothing, retreat.

That's just what the thugs have always wanted, and they are reacting predictably.

[grannyhawkins]

So you like stats that reinforce your viewpoint but don't like the very same ones that don't. :unsure: Besides, it's the MSM that shows you what you see and they's a bunch of lefties.



I don't think that's true. Also, I don't think our population is increasing enough to offset the effect.


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

I was tryin ta make a point with my boys about the responsibility of operatin a motor vehicle onna public higway, because you can end up dead purdy durn quick, by bein stupid. This section of our paper also highlights the crimes, like robberies an such.

Statistics are only a part of the equation and statistics can be anything, so I typically take them with a grain of salt. I do know from my own personal observations locally and nationally, crimes like home invasions that were rare in the 90's are quite common today, an up until OJ, I never really saw or heard of too many police chases, but now it's nearly every day, bank robberies, rapes, killins, people commitin fraud, like bankers and investment advisors, people you would normally trust not so awful long ago are criminals!!! Bodies showin up here an there, drive by's, by perps of all flavors, but the deadliest crimes committed against average citizens seems to be, at least to me, committed by black peoples and that's the only statistic I need!!!

[Voted4Reagan]

There is a good chance all of the unrest is by design, not by accident.
Obama started heading things in this direction when he said "the police acted stupidly".
He said he wanted some sort of federal police force. He may actually get it and people over the country might actually beg him to give it to us.

Federal Police Force....

They tried that back in 1933 in Europe...

The group was called

Schutzstaffel (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSchutzs taffel&ei=NJpvVcfXF9fbsASH7ZD4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFUnCIdw_v9VHI8Tm1zw-8FucctfQ&sig2=iN1Evh6r3Htqd-nZ6dT3Lg&bvm=bv.94911696,d.cWc)
Better known as the SS

[Max R.]

Yes Sir I agree, been watching it do to Obama wanting to take guns, but studies have come out and May was the most violent month in many years according to it, personally I think this all plays into Obama's game,

1) keep America divided
2) As long as we are fighting each other no one pays attention to what he is doing
3) Gun crime is on the rise, that report broke it down in the inner cities anyway and it showed it way up, riots will do that.

In my humble opinion, Barack Obama is an excellent example of the difference between malice and naive. I don't think he's malicious, even though some Democrats are so. I think President Obama is the protypical democrat who believes in rainbows and unicorns then stumbles all over the place like a blind man trying to climb a mountain because democrats are more idealistic than realistic.

1. He divides America because he's so anxious to right a wrong he unintentionally creates another wrong.

2. I think he really doesn't get the harm he's inadvertently caused. Part of this is believing the hype about him. After nearly two terms, I think he's beginning to realize he has fallen well short of what he could have done and how much harm his naïveté has caused Americans.

3. What is the rate of gun crime as opposed to the number of events? In 2008 the population of the US was 304.1 million. Today the population is over 321 million. For Marines, that's a difference of almost 17 million.

Using an estimated rate of 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000, that would be 1,118,783.9 violent crimes in 2008 and 1,180,959 in 2015. So yes, crime can have increased by 62,175.1, but the rate stayed the same. From the statistics I've read, it's actually gone down a few percent. Even if it dropped an entire 10% (NOT!), that'd still leave an increase of 55,958.1 violent crimes in 2015.

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final

Corrections my math are appreciated. It's been a long day.

[Max R.]

So you like stats that reinforce your viewpoint but don't like the very same ones that don't. :unsure: Besides, it's the MSM that shows you what you see and they's a bunch of lefties.



I don't think that's true. Also, I don't think our population is increasing enough to offset the effect.


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
The only way to know for sure is to do the math on that and I've already stressed my brain enough today with the calculator. :)


However, the rates have been going down for years and that's the real truth-teller.

[Max R.]

There is a good chance all of the unrest is by design, not by accident.
Obama started heading things in this direction when he said "the police acted stupidly".
He said he wanted some sort of federal police force. He may actually get it and people over the country might actually beg him to give it to us.Hi Jen!

Agreed the President bears responsibility, but like his "Trayvon could have been my son" statement, I think it's more of a screw-up than a malicious act. His heart is in the right place, meaning he means well, but his actions are ignorant and are causing more harm than good. Taking sides, be it with Martin over Zimmerman, Brown over Wilson or against the police all before investigations are completed is idiotic but not necessarily malicious.

[Kathianne]

The FBI stats are correct, as correct as stats are. The 'spike' though is for the period between the Ferguson protests and those increasing since Baltimore.

I don't know if the spikes in major cities will be enough to move the trend, but it's likely.

[Jeff]

In my humble opinion, Barack Obama is an excellent example of the difference between malice and naive. I don't think he's malicious, even though some Democrats are so. I think President Obama is the protypical democrat who believes in rainbows and unicorns then stumbles all over the place like a blind man trying to climb a mountain because democrats are more idealistic than realistic.

1. He divides America because he's so anxious to right a wrong he unintentionally creates another wrong.

2. I think he really doesn't get the harm he's inadvertently caused. Part of this is believing the hype about him. After nearly two terms, I think he's beginning to realize he has fallen well short of what he could have done and how much harm his naïveté has caused Americans.

3. What is the rate of gun crime as opposed to the number of events? In 2008 the population of the US was 304.1 million. Today the population is over 321 million. For Marines, that's a difference of almost 17 million.

Using an estimated rate of 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000, that would be 1,118,783.9 violent crimes in 2008 and 1,180,959 in 2015. So yes, crime can have increased by 62,175.1, but the rate stayed the same. From the statistics I've read, it's actually gone down a few percent. Even if it dropped an entire 10% (NOT!), that'd still leave an increase of 55,958.1 violent crimes in 2015.

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final

Corrections my math are appreciated. It's been a long day.

Your Math looked fine with me, and you may be correct, I personally don't think anyone is that naive, I have said from the beginning he was doing these things purposely, but honestly you laid out a good argument and I won't say you are wrong, it sure enough is going to make me watch a bit closer.

[Jeff]

Hi Jen!

Agreed the President bears responsibility, but like his "Trayvon could have been my son" statement, I think it's more of a screw-up than a malicious act. His heart is in the right place, meaning he means well, but his actions are ignorant and are causing more harm than good. Taking sides, be it with Martin over Zimmerman, Brown over Wilson or against the police all before investigations are completed is idiotic but not necessarily malicious.

Agreed Max, but how many times do we allow him to take the same side against so many different opponents before we say yes, it is malicious, like I explained earlier I have believed all along that it was malicious but again you make a lot of sense, but some where we have to draw the line and say no, nobody makes the same mistake favoring the same side against so many so many different times.


And then you have the Mooch crying racism to any audience that will listen, that in itself does tell where their hearts are at.

[Max R.]

The FBI stats are correct, as correct as stats are. The 'spike' though is for the period between the Ferguson protests and those increasing since Baltimore.

I don't know if the spikes in major cities will be enough to move the trend, but it's likely.

Certainly a spike in those cities due to arson, robbery and assault, but even if there was an increase of 1000 events, it's a small percentage compared to annual increase of 55,000+ events. Without seeing any actual numbers, I doubt it affected the rate of violent crime.

[Max R.]

Your Math looked fine with me, and you may be correct, I personally don't think anyone is that naive, I have said from the beginning he was doing these things purposely, but honestly you laid out a good argument and I won't say you are wrong, it sure enough is going to make me watch a bit closer.
Thanks.

It's amusing, but also sad, to me how President Obama has come from being a low-experience Senator and community organizer to becoming the mastermind of a plot to turn the planet Earth into a Caliphate. For those who remember his first term, it was so full of gaffs it was embarrassing.

IMHO, he's the essence of a La-La Land Liberal; full of good intentions, but so naive it's hurting us all. I think he's learned. To a large degree he, lacking experience himself, listened to his military advisors on Afghanistan. The Abbottabad raid was ballsy and risky. The safer option (for us) was a cruise missile or a stealth fighter dropped 500lb bomb. Sending in the SEALs, even at the cost of letting the Russians and Chinese go over the wreckage of a top secret stealth helo, had the best outcome since it both assured us he was dead and we gathered a lot of intel.

Still, in the end, I think President Obama will go down in history as a mediocre President. One notch or two above Carter and mostly known for being the first Black President, not so much for anything he did.

[Gunny]

Thanks.

It's amusing, but also sad, to me how President Obama has come from being a low-experience Senator and community organizer to becoming the mastermind of a plot to turn the planet Earth into a Caliphate. For those who remember his first term, it was so full of gaffs it was embarrassing.

IMHO, he's the essence of a La-La Land Liberal; full of good intentions, but so naive it's hurting us all. I think he's learned. To a large degree he, lacking experience himself, listened to his military advisors on Afghanistan. The Abbottabad raid was ballsy and risky. The safer option (for us) was a cruise missile or a stealth fighter dropped 500lb bomb. Sending in the SEALs, even at the cost of letting the Russians and Chinese go over the wreckage of a top secret stealth helo, had the best outcome since it both assured us he was dead and we gathered a lot of intel.

Still, in the end, I think President Obama will go down in history as a mediocre President. One notch or two above Carter and mostly known for being the first Black President, not so much for anything he did.

Have to disagree. Carter LOVES Obama. He sits around at night and says "Yes, I'm not the worst anymore." :laugh:

[Jeff]

Thanks.

It's amusing, but also sad, to me how President Obama has come from being a low-experience Senator and community organizer to becoming the mastermind of a plot to turn the planet Earth into a Caliphate. For those who remember his first term, it was so full of gaffs it was embarrassing.

IMHO, he's the essence of a La-La Land Liberal; full of good intentions, but so naive it's hurting us all. I think he's learned. To a large degree he, lacking experience himself, listened to his military advisors on Afghanistan. The Abbottabad raid was ballsy and risky. The safer option (for us) was a cruise missile or a stealth fighter dropped 500lb bomb. Sending in the SEALs, even at the cost of letting the Russians and Chinese go over the wreckage of a top secret stealth helo, had the best outcome since it both assured us he was dead and we gathered a lot of intel.

Still, in the end, I think President Obama will go down in history as a mediocre President. One notch or two above Carter and mostly known for being the first Black President, not so much for anything he did.

Again this is where we differ ( and as I said you make a great point so I am not debating it, just pointing out where we differ ) I also feel the first term there where a lot of gaffs, and yes to some degree he was righting a wrong that happened years ago, but while doing this I also feel he had a vendetta against white people, he has taken the side of the black thug in every episode, now as far as him bringing the country down, yes I believe it is in his plans, not the way it sounds but more so he wished to punish white folks, and then as you say a lot of his liberal idea's just happen to fall in there as well ( this is why I won't debate you on it, :laugh: )

As for the second paragraph I have always believed Obama refuses to take advise from his military leaders, at least that is what I have seen, I remember when in his first term he was asked for more troops and all those in charge stated we where losing men everyday because we didn't have enough on the ground, he took like 6 weeks ( meanwhile we where losing troops daily ) to make his decision, I think a lot ( if not all ) president are guilty of this, let the military run our military, they are trained they are there and they know exactly what we need to win.

As for where he will fall in history, I always felt it would be the worst president of all times, just a little lower than Jimmy Carter, but I believe you are correct, just the fact that he was the first black President will give him a few extra points and have him on top of old JC. :laugh:

[Max R.]

Again this is where we differ ( and as I said you make a great point so I am not debating it, just pointing out where we differ ) I also feel the first term there where a lot of gaffs, and yes to some degree he was righting a wrong that happened years ago, but while doing this I also feel he had a vendetta against white people, he has taken the side of the black thug in every episode, now as far as him bringing the country down, yes I believe it is in his plans, not the way it sounds but more so he wished to punish white folks, and then as you say a lot of his liberal idea's just happen to fall in there as well ( this is why I won't debate you on it, :laugh: )

As for the second paragraph I have always believed Obama refuses to take advise from his military leaders, at least that is what I have seen, I remember when in his first term he was asked for more troops and all those in charge stated we where losing men everyday because we didn't have enough on the ground, he took like 6 weeks ( meanwhile we where losing troops daily ) to make his decision, I think a lot ( if not all ) president are guilty of this, let the military run our military, they are trained they are there and they know exactly what we need to win.

As for where he will fall in history, I always felt it would be the worst president of all times, just a little lower than Jimmy Carter, but I believe you are correct, just the fact that he was the first black President will give him a few extra points and have him on top of old JC. :laugh:

Agreed he's sided with blacks simply because they were black. That blew up in his face since it's obviously both racist and divisive.

My point is that he's doing it out of naivete, not maliciousness.

[jimnyc]

What's behind the crime? Criminals!

As a country, we spend FAR too much time, IMO, on seeking excuses for criminals and why they commit crimes. Sure enough, it's not a bad idea to know why people commit crimes, in the hope of keeping it from repeating itself. But too many times we are forgetting about the actual criminal themselves. No excuses or explanations should ever get a criminal a pass. I read a VERY long article yesterday about crime in the USA, and why there were so many black folks in prison compared to other races. Don't get me wrong, it was a decent article and had a few decent points. But NOT ONCE in the article did it touch upon the crimes.

Say someone murders, commits arson or assault or robbery... We can have discussions within the community on how to keep this from happening. Someone can do some research on how things went wrong. But the person who committed the crime? STILL a criminal. I don't care how bad your life was or where you live, that NEVER excuses criminal activities. An explanation, yes, but not an excuse. There are many, many explanations as to why people are on death row as well.

Seems like a lot of people went from acknowledging criminal activity and trying to look for change - to making excuses for criminal behavior and getting pissed because people are getting arrested or ending up in prison.

[Kathianne]

Certainly a spike in those cities due to arson, robbery and assault, but even if there was an increase of 1000 events, it's a small percentage compared to annual increase of 55,000+ events. Without seeing any actual numbers, I doubt it affected the rate of violent crime.

It's not just those two cities or even just the East. Now what the cause is and just how large the change is, that remains to be seen:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/violence-spikes-some-cities-ferguson-effect-blame-n368526

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0604/Why-you-shouldn-t-be-worried-about-the-2015-crime-spike

[fj1200]

I was tryin ta make a point with my boys about the responsibility of operatin a motor vehicle onna public higway, because you can end up dead purdy durn quick, by bein stupid. This section of our paper also highlights the crimes, like robberies an such.

Statistics are only a part of the equation and statistics can be anything, so I typically take them with a grain of salt. I do know from my own personal observations locally and nationally, crimes like home invasions that were rare in the 90's are quite common today, an up until OJ, I never really saw or heard of too many police chases, but now it's nearly every day, bank robberies, rapes, killins, people commitin fraud, like bankers and investment advisors, people you would normally trust not so awful long ago are criminals!!! Bodies showin up here an there, drive by's, by perps of all flavors, but the deadliest crimes committed against average citizens seems to be, at least to me, committed by black peoples and that's the only statistic I need!!!

My mistake, I didn't know this thread was about operating a motor vehicle on a public highway.

And there is a difference between statistics and anecdotes.

[Gunny]

Your Math looked fine with me, and you may be correct, I personally don't think anyone is that naive, I have said from the beginning he was doing these things purposely, but honestly you laid out a good argument and I won't say you are wrong, it sure enough is going to make me watch a bit closer.

We'll just have to disagree. I believe he's JUST THIS naive. Or stupid. He's a typical product of the leftwing "America is the bad guys" machine.

[DLT]

Why is this even a question, when the president gives you a pass to do as you please, than the thugs do. Obama has done exactly what he wanted to, he has turned the country into a war zone ( at least it is heading that way ) with all his talk about the racist police ( even though how many where black or looked different as Obama says, where charged in the gray killing ) Thugs always have and always will look for any reason for unrest and Obama is giving them all the ammo they need.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4271952121001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

Barry will ramp up his racist (anti-whitey) rhetoric to whip up even more black against white hatred. He knows his time in office, and ergo his opportunity to destroy, is coming to an end soon. Count on it.

Are you prepared for the Perpetual Obama Martial Law edict that's probably coming?

You know the banking rule/regulation that is supposed to be so that the authorities can identify drug dealers if/when they draw out more than $5,000 from their bank accounts? Well, it's not for what they say it's for. It's so they can track which law-abiding Americans pull out their money to prepare for the coming conflict with the Obama administration. No hoarding cash, guns, ammo, food, etc. will be allowed. It's so they will know where the money is when they want to go get it (along with the guns). Now if you think this sounds paranoid, it probably does and is. But then....what reasons have we been given to NOT be paranoid at this point in our destruction?

[Jeff]

Barry will ramp up his racist (anti-whitey) rhetoric to whip up even more black against white hatred. He knows his time in office, and ergo his opportunity to destroy, is coming to an end soon. Count on it.

Are you prepared for the Perpetual Obama Martial Law edict that's probably coming?

You know the banking rule/regulation that is supposed to be so that the authorities can identify drug dealers if/when they draw out more than $5,000 from their bank accounts? Well, it's not for what they say it's for. It's so they can track which law-abiding Americans pull out their money to prepare for the coming conflict with the Obama administration. No hoarding cash, guns, ammo, food, etc. will be allowed. It's so they will know where the money is when they want to go get it (along with the guns). Now if you think this sounds paranoid, it probably does and is. But then....what reasons have we been given to NOT be paranoid at this point in our destruction?

I have felt all along that this is Obama's plan, yes it is possible he is that stupid, but it's awfully funny his wife is now ramping up her war on terrorism as well now. Hmm makes ya wonder.

[aboutime]

I have felt all along that this is Obama's plan, yes it is possible he is that stupid, but it's awfully funny his wife is now ramping up her war on terrorism as well now. Hmm makes ya wonder.


Jeff. Obama is out to repeat History. I remember the sixties, and seventies when all the riots divided us. Then came the RODNEY KING, L.A. destruction, followed by the STANDARD setting O.J. Trial.

Obama wants this nation to BURN. So, personally. I fear THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG....HOT...SUMMER.

Ferguson, and Baltimore are just the TEST BEDS for the Muslim Brotherhood members in Government. The faces say it all.

[grannyhawkins]

My mistake, I didn't know this thread was about operating a motor vehicle on a public highway.

And there is a difference between statistics and anecdotes.

My little anecdote about makin my teenage boys aware of the dangers of cruisin the country, by subtly pointin them to the city section of the regional newspapers, opened their eyes to how rough the real world can be!!! It went from bein momma's anecdotes to published fact!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My little anecdote about makin my teenage boys aware of the dangers of cruisin the country, by subtly pointin them to the city section of the regional newspapers, opened their eyes to how rough the real world can be!!! It went from bein momma's anecdotes to published fact!!!

Do not mind fj Granny. He is contrary by nature and silly disposition based upon a false sense of superiority.
He saddles up to make SNIDE remarks like most people do to eat.. Remember God wants us to look over fools as best as we can..;)-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My mistake, I didn't know this thread was about operating a motor vehicle on a public highway.

And there is a difference between statistics and anecdotes.
Sure is, anecdotes are real experiences based upon the speakers actual knowledge while statistics--"these days"-- so often are rigged results based upon questions designed to get said desired results... A cryin' shame you do not know that methinks.- :laugh:-Tyr

[grannyhawkins]

I just now stumbled upon this hare an thought y'all might enjoy it!!! I also started a thread awhile back called the "jungle book" onna nuther forum, where I just posted the headlines an the perps pictures, from google, for just one day. Needless ta say, it didn't set to well with the progressives worldly view.


Murders in Houston up 46 percent from 2014
http://www.click2houston.com/news/murders-in-houston-up-46-percent-from-2014/33386800

HOUSTON -
If you think there are more homicides in the city of Houston now compared to last year, you're right.

The number is skyrocketing.

"When we first see those numbers, we want to look at them in more detail," said University of Houston professor, Luis Salinas.

[fj1200]

My little anecdote about makin my teenage boys aware of the dangers of cruisin the country, by subtly pointin them to the city section of the regional newspapers, opened their eyes to how rough the real world can be!!! It went from bein momma's anecdotes to published fact!!!

Ayup, those are anecdotes. I didn't say that they weren't facts.


Do not mind fj Granny. He is contrary by nature and silly disposition based upon a false sense of superiority.
He saddles up to make SNIDE remarks like most people do to eat.. Remember God wants us to look over fools as best as we can..;)-Tyr

Being contrary is where all the fun is. Being led around like a bull with a nose ring makes you look silly.


Sure is, anecdotes are real experiences based upon the speakers actual knowledge while statistics--"these days"-- so often are rigged results based upon questions designed to get said desired results... A cryin' shame you do not know that methinks.- :laugh:-Tyr

Uh huh. So the FBI is rigging statistics?

[Max R.]

Sure is, anecdotes are real experiences based upon the speakers actual knowledge while statistics--"these days"-- so often are rigged results based upon questions designed to get said desired results... A cryin' shame you do not know that methinks.- :laugh:-TyrPolitical organizations often do publish rigged results, but a look at their methodology or simply the wording of their questions reveals the deception.

Reputable groups like the FBI and national pollsters like Gallup and Pew use well-established methodology. Even so, it's important to read what is being measured. It's one thing to measure what people think, such as their opinions, but another to measure what they do, such as who they voted for in the last election....if they voted at all.

[Gunny]

Political organizations often do publish rigged results, but a look at their methodology or simply the wording of their questions reveals the deception.

Reputable groups like the FBI and national pollsters like Gallup and Pew use well-established methodology. Even so, it's important to read what is being measured. It's one thing to measure what people think, such as their opinions, but another to measure what they do, such as who they voted for in the last election....if they voted at all.

If they voted at all. Yep.

[Max R.]

I just now stumbled upon this hare an thought y'all might enjoy it!!! I also started a thread awhile back called the "jungle book" onna nuther forum, where I just posted the headlines an the perps pictures, from google, for just one day. Needless ta say, it didn't set to well with the progressives worldly view.
Thanks for the link, Granny. It's an excellent example of how to better understand statistics.

Houston has a population of over two million people (https://suburbanstats.org/population/texas/how-many-people-live-in-houston). While the murders of 95 people in a year is, and should be, shocking, relative to the entire population of the city, it's a very small percentage. Especially when compared to bastions of Liberalism like Chicago (407 homicides) , Los Angeles (259 homicides) and New York (328 homicides) in 2014. For an apples-to-apples comparison, we'd have to look at the murder rate, the ratio of homicides to population for a better understanding of the problem. For most cities, the rates are down and have been going down for years: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/03/america-s-2014-murder-capital.html

The Houston link states the police don't break down the types of homicides, but it's a pretty easy guess that it's not soccer moms being murdered. Most likely it's gang-bangers killing each other over drug territories and, on occasion, innocents caught in the crossfire.


From the link:
According to the Houston Police Department, from January to April in 2014, there were 65 reported homicides. During that same period this year, the number jumped to 95. That is a 46 percent increase year-to-date.
"Anytime there is an increase in violent crime, you want to drill down and try and figure out what the cause is," said Mayor Annise Parker.
Houston police’s homicide division does not release the breakdown of homicides as they relate to drug-related deaths, domestic murders and random killings.
However, experts KPRC 2 spoke with caution residents who think the city is becoming more violent.
"Houston is quite safe and actually becoming safer,” said Salinas. “All the other crimes except murder are down and again for the eighth year in a row. So again, murder is the only one that is up."

[Max R.]

If they voted at all. Yep.
Agreed. A sad reality of the world's greatest democracy is only 2/3's give a rat's patootie enough to get off their duffs and vote. (<---- waiting for someone to say "we're not a democracy, we're a Constitutional Federal Republic!")

[grannyhawkins]

Ayup, those are anecdotes. I didn't say that they weren't facts.



Being contrary is where all the fun is. Being led around like a bull with a nose ring makes you look silly.



Uh huh. So the FBI is rigging statistics?

Seems like thar's some agencies that do an that it could be metastasizin, much like global warmin evolved to anthropogenic global climate change!!!


Law Enforcement Today
http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2012/08/25/accurate-crime-statistics/
Accurate Crime Statistics

An article in the August 13, 2012 Huffington Post discusses the New York City Police Department’s problems with their priorities regarding crime statistic analysis. [i] According to the article’s authors, NYPD had a practice of manufacturing artificially low crime rates and it increased substantially after 2002 under Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his police commissioner Raymond Kelly. This research suggested that concern with the department’s reputation for reducing crime, much more than with public safety, drives police policy.

Essentially the problem was there was such great pressure on supervisors to reduce crime statistics that it led to a systemic practice of the intentional misclassification of serious crimes as petty offenses and deliberate pressure to change reports to represent a less serious offense. Officers reported being pressured to change report classifications so as to under report serious crime. A typical example would be changing a report to reflect a theft from building rather then a burglary or a theft from person rather than robbery.

[fj1200]

Seems like thar's some agencies that do an that it could be metastasizin, much like global warmin evolved to anthropogenic global climate change!!!

Since 2002, interesting. I would expect NYC would be an outlier then and show a larger drop than expected. I would also imagine that there are some stats that can't be massaged.

[red states rule]

Why should the Police go the extra mile to keep the criminals in check? Right now they have a bulls eye painted on their back. You have the left ready to pounce on any mistake they make. The liberal media ready to "report" on the racist cops violating the civil rights of blacks. The race baiters Al Sharpton and Rev Jackson are ready to stir up the crowd and pour gasoline on the fires they start. The Police are rightly stepping back and showing these idiots they are the only thing between them and the thugs. I for on would love to have the NY Times call 911 to report thugs and rioters are breaking into their building. And get hung up on

[Gunny]

Agreed. A sad reality of the world's greatest democracy is only 2/3's give a rat's patootie enough to get off their duffs and vote. (<---- waiting for someone to say "we're not a democracy, we're a Constitutional Federal Republic!")

We ARE a Constitutional Federal Republic. That's how the minority gets their wins. If we were an actual democracy where one vote counted as one vote, we'd have a WAY different life.

The electoral college screws any notion of "democracy."

[jimnyc]

Why should the Police go the extra mile to keep the criminals in check? Right now they have a bulls eye painted on their back. You have the left ready to pounce on any mistake they make. The liberal media ready to "report" on the racist cops violating the civil rights of blacks. The race baiters Al Sharpton and Rev Jackson are ready to stir up the crowd and pour gasoline on the fires they start. The Police are rightly stepping back and showing these idiots they are the only thing between them and the thugs. I for on would love to have the NY Times call 911 to report thugs and rioters are breaking into their building. And get hung up on

Look at how the communities have reacted to the race baiting from Obama, Sharpton, Mosby and the lack of waiting for facts. The police are literally targets in some communities out there, whether for violence or other kinds of unsavory things.

I would literally just step back and don't "police" unless a call for help was placed. And even then, be cautious when responding. Let these areas bring in reinforcements and hire all black officers. I would perhaps trade with other precincts. If this is really what the neighborhoods want, and they believe whitey cops are the problem, then give them what they want.

If you were to truly give these towns what they want, don't police as much, don't enforce as much, and don't protect as much - the violence and deaths will skyrocket. And that's EXACTLY what we're seeing in Baltimore. The crime and THUGS are there and always were. Take away the very people that they condemn, that they consider the problem and give all the blame - and now what was ALWAYS there is simply killing more. The REAL problem? Was. Always. There.

[Gunny]

Look at how the communities have reacted to the race baiting from Obama, Sharpton, Mosby and the lack of waiting for facts. The police are literally targets in some communities out there, whether for violence or other kinds of unsavory things.

I would literally just step back and don't "police" unless a call for help was placed. And even then, be cautious when responding. Let these areas bring in reinforcements and hire all black officers. I would perhaps trade with other precincts. If this is really what the neighborhoods want, and they believe whitey cops are the problem, then give them what they want.

If you were to truly give these towns what they want, don't police as much, don't enforce as much, and don't protect as much - the violence and deaths will skyrocket. And that's EXACTLY what we're seeing in Baltimore. The crime and THUGS are there and always were. Take away the very people that they condemn, that they consider the problem and give all the blame - and now what was ALWAYS there is simply killing more. The REAL problem? Was. Always. There.

Mosby needs to be fired. There's no place for activists in the law. I would go after a US Court to get a change of venue. I'd get my a$$ out of her hands as fast as I could.

[Max R.]

We ARE a Constitutional Federal Republic. That's how the minority gets their wins. If we were an actual democracy where one vote counted as one vote, we'd have a WAY different life.

The electoral college screws any notion of "democracy."
While I think our nation could use a little election reform such as updating the winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral College, I'm less certain about the benefits of a pure democracy vs. a republic.

Too many uninformed voters out there already who are voting. A pure democracy would remove all filters for such voters.

[aboutime]

While I think our nation could use a little election reform such as updating the winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral College, I'm less certain about the benefits of a pure democracy vs. a republic.

Too many uninformed voters out there already who are voting. A pure democracy would remove all filters for such voters.


Max. In theory. What you say can make some sense until...the people from the smallest states end up having NO SAY whatsoever in national elections WITHOUT the Electoral College in place.

Take the E.C. away and the biggest states like N.Y. CA. TX, PA, and FL become the MOB RULE VOTE for an entire nation that returns to the SILENT MAJORITY being without a voice.

[red states rule]

While I think our nation could use a little election reform such as updating the winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral College, I'm less certain about the benefits of a pure democracy vs. a republic.

Too many uninformed voters out there already who are voting. A pure democracy would remove all filters for such voters.

So lets allow states like CA, NY, WI, NJ, MA, IL, and other liberal meccas decide who the next President will be

Libs already hate the "fly over" country as they feel they must ,lower themselves to campaign there sometimes. Under your plan, libs can then openly tell them to go to Hell

[Kathianne]

The electoral college actually provides a very important function in a country as populated and spread out as ours.

1. It forces candidates to pay attention to issues that face different areas and economies within the country. They cannot just focus on the cities and most populous states. They have to win the cities and 'all of the state, including rural areas' and they need to win lots of these.

2. It gives more power to the individual voter, especially in closely divided elections.

3. It gives a clear winner in very close elections. Electoral votes turn an unwieldly sized country into 50 individualized contests when under pressure. There's only a few states, sometimes only one, that needs to be scrutinized, reducing the opportunity for fraud. All eyes are on the contests of these states.

4. Even in elections not in question, the electoral vote nearly always is greater for the winner than the popular vote. For most states the winner must get a supermajority of voters for the state electoral win. For the most part, the questioning of our election process has followed the 'reforms' some states have implemented to make their electoral votes 'more democratic.'

5. Over time most states have been 'swing states' at one time or another. While big cities always have been and always will be the focus of candidates, the 'swing' can focus attention on other regions of the country.

6. The electoral college system protects minorities more effectively than all the redistricting plans have. By forcing candidates to compete for states rather than for individual votes, the Electoral College system gives minorities a stronger voice.

7. The electoral college has caused a two party system, thus this point may be seen as a negative or positive depending upon what one is looking for. Unlike most 'democratic countries' the US doesn't have tens or dozens of parties making it much more difficult in the US for fringe groups to garner a win.

[Gunny]

While I think our nation could use a little election reform such as updating the winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral College, I'm less certain about the benefits of a pure democracy vs. a republic.

Too many uninformed voters out there already who are voting. A pure democracy would remove all filters for such voters.

It's a double-edged sword --- cuts BOTH ways.

Where I draw issue is the same place I have since 2007. Two democrat superdelegates voted against their constituencies and put "If my lips are moving I'm Lying" Obama in office when Hillary actually won the Democratic Primary. While she's no prize by any stretch, I'd take her over Obama. He's making enemies of our allies and trying to make allies of our enemies. He is a perfect example of everything wrong with this country. When people like Obama and Mosby can actually be elected by backwards-assed thinkers, that tells me not everyone should have the right the vote.

The electoral college is a filter only if one agrees with it. To me, it denies one of the basic tenets this nation was founded on -- taxation without representation. If the constituents vote for A and you vote for B, you just denied them their Constitutional Right to be represented in Government.

[red states rule]

Yes Sir I agree, been watching it do to Obama wanting to take guns, but studies have come out and May was the most violent month in many years according to it, personally I think this all plays into Obama's game,

1) keep America divided
2) As long as we are fighting each other no one pays attention to what he is doing
3) Gun crime is on the rise, that report broke it down in the inner cities anyway and it showed it way up, riots will do that.

One must remember who Obama turns to for advice on race

https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/founding-members-race-baiters-and-haters-club.jpg (http://www.debatepolicy.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fabagond.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F0 7%2F30%2Fthe-race-baiter-argument%2F&ei=uHZ0VZuIMtWOsQTz66noBg&bvm=bv.95039771,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNHpKF7w4k32fYuQ94dfXesZbWlK0w&ust=1433782311706005)

[Max R.]

One must remember who Obama turns to for advice on race

https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/founding-members-race-baiters-and-haters-club.jpg (http://www.debatepolicy.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fabagond.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F0 7%2F30%2Fthe-race-baiter-argument%2F&ei=uHZ0VZuIMtWOsQTz66noBg&bvm=bv.95039771,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNHpKF7w4k32fYuQ94dfXesZbWlK0w&ust=1433782311706005)Funny! :laugh:

[Max R.]

It's a double-edged sword --- cuts BOTH ways.

Where I draw issue is the same place I have since 2007. Two democrat superdelegates voted against their constituencies and put "If my lips are moving I'm Lying" Obama in office when Hillary actually won the Democratic Primary. While she's no prize by any stretch, I'd take her over Obama. He's making enemies of our allies and trying to make allies of our enemies. He is a perfect example of everything wrong with this country. When people like Obama and Mosby can actually be elected by backwards-assed thinkers, that tells me not everyone should have the right the vote.

The electoral college is a filter only if one agrees with it. To me, it denies one of the basic tenets this nation was founded on -- taxation without representation. If the constituents vote for A and you vote for B, you just denied them their Constitutional Right to be represented in Government.
I'm reluctant to have the Federal government dictate to political parties on whom they can elect. No doubt there were some machinations behind the scenes of the DNC in 2008, but that should be up to the DNC members to resolve, not anyone outside of it. Same goes for the RNC, the Libertarians or any other political party.

There are a variety of voting systems besides the one we have and a simply majority vote. I agree it needs modernizing, but am not completely sure which way to go.

[fj1200]

There are a variety of voting systems besides the one we have and a simply majority vote. I agree it needs modernizing, but am not completely sure which way to go.

I don't think it needs modernizing, I think it needs to revert to its original intent; that states elect the POTUS, not individuals. We also need to go back to having the states be represented in Congress by repealing the 18th and having the states, via their legislatures, decide who their senators will be. The people are already represented in the House.

[Gunny]

I'm reluctant to have the Federal government dictate to political parties on whom they can elect. No doubt there were some machinations behind the scenes of the DNC in 2008, but that should be up to the DNC members to resolve, not anyone outside of it. Same goes for the RNC, the Libertarians or any other political party.

There are a variety of voting systems besides the one we have and a simply majority vote. I agree it needs modernizing, but am not completely sure which way to go.

Thus my statement. When the DNC proves itself incompetent AND unconstitutional, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Look at the mess we have because of it. Obama. There is nothing Constitutional nor America about him. Krushchev was a kinder enemy.

I'll try to make this short. Greece, Rome and now the US all fell because the people who had to fight to earn the right to live were all put out of power by wimps who huddled in cities thinking they were safe while forgetting who gave them that safety. The warriors.

No we have a country of people that is based on divisiveness that use the illusion of cohesion when they want no such thing. All they want is the money they make off of keeping us divided. Face it, divisiveness is an industry and it suits the bureaucrats just fine. We're some busy piddly over dumb stuff no one looks at what the bureaucrats are doing to us.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

[Max R.]

I don't think it needs modernizing, I think it needs to revert to its original intent; that states elect the POTUS, not individuals. We also need to go back to having the states be represented in Congress by repealing the 18th and having the states, via their legislatures, decide who their senators will be. The people are already represented in the House.

That might work too, but I'd like to see the ramifications fleshed out. This isn't the 1800s nor even pre-WW1 isolationist America anymore.
I'm guessing you meant the 17th Amendment. I'm glad the 18th Amendment was repealed. First round's on me! :beer:

[Max R.]

Thus my statement. When the DNC proves itself incompetent AND unconstitutional, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Look at the mess we have because of it. Obama. There is nothing Constitutional nor America about him. Krushchev was a kinder enemy.

I'll try to make this short. Greece, Rome and now the US all fell because the people who had to fight to earn the right to live were all put out of power by wimps who huddled in cities thinking they were safe while forgetting who gave them that safety. The warriors.

No we have a country of people that is based on divisiveness that use the illusion of cohesion when they want no such thing. All they want is the money they make off of keeping us divided. Face it, divisiveness is an industry and it suits the bureaucrats just fine. We're some busy piddly over dumb stuff no one looks at what the bureaucrats are doing to us.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.Who determines if a party is competent? Not sure what you mean that the DNC is unconstitutional.

While the US hasn't fallen, I do think your analogy is a good reason not to have a direct democracy. Remember, it'd be those same idiots voting en masse. The majority of US citizens live in cities. Not me, of course. I'm a country boy who hates crowds.

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ams-usa-population.png

[fj1200]

That might work too, but I'd like to see the ramifications fleshed out. This isn't the 1800s nor even pre-WW1 isolationist America anymore.
I'm guessing you meant the 17th Amendment. I'm glad the 18th Amendment was repealed. First round's on me! :beer:

Yup, the 17th. Don't know where my head was. But the point with the EC was distinctly different states IMO coming together to decide the POTUS. I still think that's mostly true although the Fed level, read Dems, is insistent on identical rules for all states. I still think it's true that differences at the state level are important and should remain in place so the EC is still valid. Of course a weaker Federal government would make the point moot.

[Max R.]

Yup, the 17th. Don't know where my head was. But the point with the EC was distinctly different states IMO coming together to decide the POTUS. I still think that's mostly true although the Fed level, read Dems, is insistent on identical rules for all states. I still think it's true that differences at the state level are important and should remain in place so the EC is still valid. Of course a weaker Federal government would make the point moot.
Agreed, but I think the Civil War capped the argument between Federalists and Jeffersonian Democrats. While we can strive to limit Federal government, I doubt those who seek to dissolve the Department of Education and the EPA will ever see it happen.

[fj1200]

^Well, not with that attitude. :poke:

[Max R.]

^Well, not with that attitude. :poke:


:p As much as I support the South's right to secede in 1861 and that President Lincoln was wrong to invade the South and drag them back into the Union, as future events played out, I'm glad he did. I strongly believe our world would be a lot different and far worse if the present day US was actually 3-4 different smaller nations.

Since the world is still a dangerous place, we need a united government to coordinate our resources in combating foreign threats. That doesn't mean we can't resolve some issues of Federal overreach domestically, but it certainly means we can't revert to a pre-Civil War version of the Federal government.

[fj1200]

... but it certainly means we can't revert to a pre-Civil War version of the Federal government.

Well that will certainly never happen but it also doesn't require a return to that reality to retain the validity of the Electoral College.

[Max R.]

Well that will certainly never happen but it also doesn't require a return to that reality to retain the validity of the Electoral College.
Again, I'm mixed on the Electoral College idea. Times have changed. While I'm leery of a pure democracy, a better Republic seems the best option.

One major problem we have today is a do-nothing Congress. They're so worried about being reelected, they are afraid to take a stand on fixing the major problems facing our nation. It's gridlock. Not always a bad idea, but there are some things that need to be fixed; our budget and foreign affairs are two important ones.

[fj1200]

Again, I'm mixed on the Electoral College idea. Times have changed. While I'm leery of a pure democracy, a better Republic seems the best option.

One major problem we have today is a do-nothing Congress. They're so worried about being reelected, they are afraid to take a stand on fixing the major problems facing our nation. It's gridlock. Not always a bad idea, but there are some things that need to be fixed; our budget and foreign affairs are two important ones.

Well, I am generally in favor of a do-nothing Congress until we get a do-everything POTUS. Then of course they need to actually perform their oversight and third-branch-of-government thing.

I've been thinking for awhile about moving away from our unitary executive and creating another executive solely for foreign affairs to include Defense, Commerce, State, etc. Which I do think was more the original intent of the Founders by having stronger States and a weaker Federal. I think it's pretty unfortunate to think that one individual is going to have the best ideas for every issue, foreign and domestic.

[Max R.]

Well, I am generally in favor of a do-nothing Congress until we get a do-everything POTUS. Then of course they need to actually perform their oversight and third-branch-of-government thing.

I've been thinking for awhile about moving away from our unitary executive and creating another executive solely for foreign affairs to include Defense, Commerce, State, etc. Which I do think was more the original intent of the Founders by having stronger States and a weaker Federal. I think it's pretty unfortunate to think that one individual is going to have the best ideas for every issue, foreign and domestic.

The original purpose of the Federal government was exactly that, being a single point of coordination for foreign affairs and national defense. I think we can push it back toward that direction even if we can't put the genie fully back in the bottle.