I think Bernie's ideas insane and will lead the US into a steep economic and social decline. Mike, make big soda illegal, Bloomberg an insufferable monster. Sigh. Darwin was wrong.
So, under "Total Violent Victimization" does your chart purport to tell us that, in 2018, Blacks are "2.49", Hispanics are "2.1", Asians are "2.64", and that "White" is "1.76"...? But it tells us nothing about race-upon-race violent crime -- which was the entire purpose of the chart that I posted in the first place! Oh, I know -- you don't like the chart I presented, even though it is based on DATA (i.e., FACTS) as accumulated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, natinoal Crime Victimization Survey, 2018 (see the source notation at the bottom of the chart.... P. S. never tell people how they should present factual information until you assemble a coherent, responsive rebuttal.... (You know... "apples-to-apples...?) Hint: If Bloomberg would run on the values, attitudes, and methodologies he had in the FIRST place, he'd strike a responsive chord in many, many "rational Middle-Class" people that poor, old Bernie could never reach -- or even HOPE to reach today, in 2020, because Bernie's lost in the vast, idiotic, unsupportable ambiguity of "political correctness" and race-shaming... along with all the other clucks trying to get the radical Democrat nomination....
Now that Democrats have voted out all the minorities and women they can focus on the which of the two rich white guys they want.
What I'm saying is that your chart is made up. Look at the bottom of it and where it claims to be sourced from. I found the actual Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018, table 14 and that chart that you posted isn't it. I gave you a link to it. Yours is totally fabricated. Which should be obvious cause it has graphics like a 3rd grader would make. Check your sources next time
Not Hardly Merkel puts the costs of humanitarian welfare on Working Germans.Just as ObamaCare, and Wall St. Democrats do to . Get It?
I asked you for your LINK, since what you had provided an abstruse table of 'stuff' that didn't have anything to do with Bloomberg's supposed rationale for "stop-and-frisk" (i.e., minority-area crime). You didn't provide your link, but here is a link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics page: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245 . In it, we find the section for "Violent Crime": https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31 . Then that goes to a CSV file that tells us nothing useful about who commits how much crime, and that is surely your "table 14". Back on topic -- Bloomberg is/was (before he became 'woke'...?) aware of who commits the most crime, on a per capita basis, in which localities, and with what density. Bernie? Poor, trusting soul... he wouldn't have any idea, and would think it too indelicate even to ask.
I'm not so sure, Biden has made a resurgence in South Carolina over the last couple of days. Biden saw an 13 lead on 1 Feb fall to just 2 points over Sanders on 22 Feb. But since then Biden has upped his lead to 5. The reason is black primary voters who had dropped their support for Biden on 1 Feb from 55% down to 37% on 22 Feb. Since then a lot of blacks has returned to Biden upping his black support to 50%. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...ina_democratic_presidential_primary-6824.html The black primary vote in South Carolina is very important as in 2016 blacks made up 57% of the Democratic Primary vote there. If Biden can retain that 50% black support come South Carolina primary time, he'll probably win. That could change the dynamics in several very close Super Tuesday states. especially in Texas, North Carolina and Colorado which Biden trails Sanders by just 2 points give or take a tenth or two of a single point. Alabama, and Tennessee which I have no polling on with a huge number of black Democratic primary voters should go to Biden. In Arkansas, Biden trails Bloomberg by one and leads Sanders by two, which is another state a good South Carolina showing could swing Biden's way. But we'll see. I'm not going to write Biden off until after South Carolina at the earliest and once Super Tuesday results are in, then we'll see.
I did give the link. Then in case you were too lazy I also screenshoted it. You have to download the report and go to the table, but I gave clear instructions on how to do it. I suspected you'd be a little lazy for that, so I also screenshoted it for you. Just go back and read my posts and you'll find your way. Honestly, anyone with a remote amount of knowledge about government charts know they don't use graphics like that. Its not 'my table 14' its the bjs table 14. Which is what your graphic CLAIMS TO BE. The only source I found for your graphic is from a racist blog. So it seems like racists made up your chart, attached a fake citation to it and your bought it. But of course that's true. No mention of asians on your chart, no mention of intra-racial violence, raw numbers rather than per capita. It's so obviously phoney. Its just not how these studies are done. But you bought it cause you like the story it tells, which fits your narrative. Next time learn FACTS as they actually are, not made up nonsense cause thats how you think the world is. If you can find chart 14 in that report and it matches your chart, I'll donate 1000 dollars to Trump.
OK, Capn, now we know we are on the 'same page'. Now, out of curiosity, what percentage do you glean from the data that violent Black crime is on a racial sub-group basis...? Please remember that Blacks make up ~14% of the population of the U. S., but they do commit the most violent crimes of any racial group, and, while we're at it, they get the most welfare from the government, too -- as a racial sub-group. Did you ever ask yourself WHY Bloomberg found it advisable -- even in a lib-infested place like New York City, to begin processes of "stop-and-frisk"...? And Bernie? I like the old guy... he's an old fart, like me, but under him I can only imagine what crime stats would be like -- especially after he completely throws the southern border wide open, perhaps even more than Comrade Obama did....
I must say, I liked a lot of what Bloomberg USED to be... the question is -- what is he now? "Stop-and-frisk" was (and remains) and EXCELLENT idea (put the police where the crime is!), but telling people what kind of soda pop they should and shouldn't drink is nothing but typical, invasive, hyperliberal, "Nanny-State" bullshit! So, will the REAL Mike Bloomberg please stand up! If you turn out to be nothing but another schlub who promises to give free medical care to illegal aliens, along with lots of other handout welfare, you aren't going to attract any votes from the "Rational Middle-Class"... even though you will get the approximately 25% of American voters who confess to being consistently "Liberal". Lots of luck winning any election with nobody but that faction as your largest constituency....
Bloomberg? Who has yet to participate in a primary. Who was Republican way way way longer than tRUMP will ever be.
no link to data. Source says it's some survery? And a racist photo to top it all off? You surprise me.
You present an interesting challenge, and I don't want to disappoint you. So, do you disapprove of the information concerning "Neighborhoods and Violent Crime" found here? It goes back further than 2018, but the societal dynamics haven't changed much, if any. Link: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/summer16/highlight2.html From the article at the link: Source: Jennifer L. Truman and Lynn Langton. 2015. “Criminal Victimization, 2014,” Bureau of Justice Statistics. Again -- please keep in mind the fact the racial breakout of the United States population: Link: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218 Again, I'm not (NOT) a Democrat -- but, if we're exploring why Bloomberg used "Stop-and-Frisk", what was his thinking before he decided to disavow it...? Is he simply yet another Democrat hypocrit?
The source for the graph information (shown at the bottom) is "Bureau of Justice Statistics, national Crime Victimization Survey, 2018". Another poster has challenged that as being inaccurate, and I'm still trying to make sense of his counter-position, which says the graph is wrong, but his "Table 14" doesn't speak to the issue of which races commit the most violent crimes in the United States. The correct perspective for this information must also reflect what percentage of the total population each race-segment actually is. Every time this comes up, the Left says, correctly, "Whites commit the most crime!" With well over 70% of the U. S. population being White, this is really not surprising. But, Blacks, who comprise only about 14% of the total population, commit the most violent crime as a racial segment within the population -- thus, Bloomberg's past emphasis on a program like "Stop-and-frisk"... he put the police where the most violent crime actually was -- in minority sectors of the metro areas.
How about income level? How does that affect crime? By race, you saying skin color makes one more susceptible to crime? Or is it more the culture? Education? Poverty level. I doubt you think the color of skin makes one more criminal. Correct?
Bloomberg hasn't even won a single contest yet. You folks had a lot of faith in him before the first debate. How'd that work out? Money can't buy back a first impression, and Bloomberg hasn't proven a thing yet...
Honestly, Dairy, I'm not trying to "do" anything with this information but analyze what Mike Bloomberg was trying to accomplish with NYC's "Stop-and-Frisk" initiative. He has disavowed it now because it has become a political hot potato... he says that it 'got out of hand'. But I can't fault what was probably his original idea -- that you should have your police forces move proactively in the parts of a city that HAVE the most crime! And, it just so happened that those parts of town were (and are) the ones that are populated predominately by minorities! Instead of confronting this reality honestly, the liberal Democrat Left always wants to deflect away from it, rationalize it, obscure it, deny it, and then, finally, run away from it altogether. It's probably a moot point now, because after last night's 'street brawl' in South Carolina, it looks like all his multi-millions spent on advertising notwithstanding, Mike is not going to be nominated for anything. So, he can go back to New York and continue making billions of dollars, because he has been (and remains) the only Democrat of any prominence who understands what an economy actually IS, and, how to run a successful business.... The only exception to that might be Joe Biden, who figured out how to become a multi-millionaire simply by using 'quid-pro-quo' corruption, extortion, and raw political power to increase one's net-worth (and that of his kid, too)... but he's a 'piker' compared to a real businessperson like Mike. Forbes puts Mike's wealth at $50 billion dollars....
On CBS today John Dickerson said of last night, "It was messy," and Joel Payne said, "It was like a rugby scrum." That's all I know.
I'm confused how it can be Bloomberg when so far he has no delegates?? I'm a little unsure about this process. But I didnt realize til now that this thread was a little dated.
The non-Bernie candidates are a bunch of wet noodles that can't stop ineffectually slapping each other. Bloomberg has put in too much money to drop out now and Biden has too much on the line in other ways, so I'm guessing they'll both be in it until the bitter end.
