Trump says 'more white people' than Blacks are killed by U.S. police

[checkered flag]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There is no "whole democrat "defund the police" program" other than in Trump supporters' imagination.

Tell that to the mayors in New York and Seattle among others.

[Logosone]

They should defund BLM. Now that Trump has clarified that far more people are being killed by police that are not white. Now that we know that proportionally unarmed blacks are not killed at exceedingly high rates. 

 

Now that we know that BLM is nothing but a fraud. A deceit. A lie.

 

Not going to happen of course, all major corporations from Apple to Facebook to Google are paying millions to the BLM "cause", celebrities doing the lip service, video game producers (!) indoctrinating the young, football clubs bending the knee.

 

Then again, this latest social media craze may go the same way as Me Too, down the dustbin of history.

[paddypower]

On 7/15/2020 at 8:58 AM, stephenterry said:

In which case he should have responded like any politician by side-tracking the racism card and focusing on what should have been done to prevent violent crime rates. But, in his case, he's a sociopath without any conscience. 

half the country (USA) is sociopathic. to rephrase it (no insult meant) - ''it's the guns, stupid''.

and no need to blame Trump, the following has been going on for years and years:

- The US has 130 guns per 100 people (read it and weep - 1.3 guns for every person) ;

- yearly, there are 12 deaths /100k ; a fact which is only exceeded by Venezuela and Panama (barely);

- add out of control drugs, (brought in by the CIA, on occasion) which is working like prohibition did (not);

- high % of jailing for non-violent drug offences (the best school to learn to be a better criminal)

The Republican Senate has refused to pass any really intelligent gun control laws in 15 years. It's the Benejamins, babe. I'm not sure a Dem Senate would do much, either.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by paddypower

[brianp0803]

Any public figure that does not voice support for the OBLM (Only Black Lives Matter)  movement will be called a racist and blacklisted.

A school principal said that not OBLM but all lives matter and there should not be any racism anywhere,  lost her job for suggesting such nonsense.

A beauty pageant winner suggested something similar and was stripped of her title.

To voice an opinion contrary to the politically correct view will have severe consequences for public figures
 

The first 12 presidents owned slaves. The founders of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence likely on slaves. Should all paintings and statues and documents about/from these people be destroyed? BLM

[Morch]

49 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

Tell that to the mayors in New York and Seattle among others.

 

There is no "whole democrat "defund the police" program" other than in Trump supporters' imagination.

[Berkshire]

4 minutes ago, paddypower said:

The Republican Senate has refused to pass any really intelligent gun control laws in 15 years. It's the Benejamins, babe. I'm not sure a Dem Senate would do much, either.

 

I'm cautiously optimistic that this may change.  When Biden becomes POTUS and the Dems take the Senate, there might actually be some meaningful gun laws enacted.  Four years of Trump will have decimated the GOP and the NRA with it.  There won't be much resistance.  Then we can look back and say "That disaster of a Presidency actually resulted in something good happening to the USA." 

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, Logosone said:

They should defund BLM. Now that Trump has clarified that far more people are being killed by police that are not white. Now that we know that proportionally unarmed blacks are not killed at exceedingly high rates. 

 

Now that we know that BLM is nothing but a fraud. A deceit. A lie.

 

Not going to happen of course, all major corporations from Apple to Facebook to Google are paying millions to the BLM "cause", celebrities doing the lip service, video game producers (!) indoctrinating the young, football clubs bending the knee.

 

Then again, this latest social media craze may go the same way as Me Too, down the dustbin of history.

 

Oh, "They"....who?

"Defund BLM"? How?

"We"...? You're not talking for any "we".

The rest of your conspiracy theory nonsense is on par with the above.

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Oh, "They"....who?

"Defund BLM"? How?

"We"...? You're not talking for any "we".

The rest of your conspiracy theory nonsense is on par with the above.

What "conspiracy theory nonsense"? Are you denying that Apple, Google and Facebook and lots of other companies pay millions to the BLM cause? Look it up, you might learn something.

 

Or are you denying that video game producers are putting out "BLM" messages in video games? Well, they are.

 

Or perhaps you are denying that footballers are made to "bend the knee" in a pathetic commercial PR exercise? Watch some games.

 

And for what? To humour an organisation of nutcases peddling the conspiracy theory that the police are out to get blacks. When police shoot 0.1% of all black people shot in the US, and 70% of all blacks are shot by blacks.

 

Maybe look  in the mirror for your "conspiracy theory". 

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, Logosone said:

What "conspiracy theory nonsense"? Are you denying that Apple, Google and Facebook and lots of other companies pay millions to the BLM cause? Look it up, you might learn something.

 

Or are you denying that video game producers are putting out "BLM" messages in video games? Well, they are.

 

Or perhaps you are denying that footballers are made to "bend the knee" in a pathetic commercial PR exercise? Watch some games.

 

And for what? To humour an organisation of nutcases peddling the conspiracy theory that the police are out to get blacks. When police shoot 0.1% of all black people shot in the US, and 70% of all blacks are shot by blacks.

 

Maybe look  in the mirror for your "conspiracy theory". 

 

I'm not the one trying to paint the BLM as some nefarious well supported organization. I'm not the one insisting on erasing all issues raised by the BLM owing to this or that interpretation of statistics. That the BLM garners some public support, and that some firms heed what customers go for is not exactly sinister.

 

Once more, there is no "they", you do not speak for any "we", and playing around with statistics isn't going to make issues go away.

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not the one trying to paint the BLM as some nefarious well supported organization. I'm not the one insisting on erasing all issues raised by the BLM owing to this or that interpretation of statistics. That the BLM garners some public support, and that some firms heed what customers go for is not exactly sinister.

 

Once more, there is no "they", you do not speak for any "we", and playing around with statistics isn't going to make issues go away.

I'm not "trying to paint the BLM as some nefarious well supported organization", the BLM is a nefarious well supported organziation. 

 

BLM ignited on the back of the nefarious claim that police officers disproportionately kill blacks. Which, thanks to looking at the statistics, we now know is a lie. A fraud. A deceit. A misrepresentation and an untruth.

 

There never was an issue to start with. Police officers do not kill blacks disproportionately. Blacks however do.

 

Blacks kill blacks in far greater numbers than police ever did. Funny you don't hear BLM telling you that, do you?

 

I'm not "playing around" with statistics, BLM are when they claim blacks are shot disproportionately. They neglect to mention that blacks committ 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies, so of course there are more police encounters with armed and dangerous black criminals, which naturally results in greater shootings.

 

Only BLM are fudging the statistics. I've given nothing but the hard numbers, nothing but the truth. Nor have I mentioned any conspiracy theory.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I'm not "trying to paint the BLM as some nefarious well supported organization", the BLM is a nefarious well supported organziation. 

 

BLM ignited on the back of the nefarious claim that police officers disproportionately kill blacks. Which, thanks to looking at the statistics, we now know is a lie. A fraud. A deceit. A misrepresentation and an untruth.

 

There never was an issue to start with. Police officers do not kill blacks disproportionately. Blacks however do.

 

Blacks kill blacks in far greater numbers than police ever did. Funny you don't hear BLM telling you that, do you?

 

I'm not "playing around" with statistics, BLM are when they claim blacks are shot disproportionately. They neglect to mention that blacks committ 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies, so of course there are more police encounters with armed and dangerous black criminals, which naturally results in greater shootings.

 

Only BLM are fudging the statistics. I've given nothing but the hard numbers, nothing but the truth. Nor have I mentioned any conspiracy theory.

 

Nah, you're just repeating the same on a loop, nothing more. The BLM, for all it's (many) faults, would not have gained any traction if there weren't any real issues. It can be argued that the BLM's version on causes for these issues is biased or even incorrect. Claiming, as you do that it's essentially a hoax, or a non-issue is neither credible, nor reasonable. There's no need to embrace all of the BLM's claims and positions, and in the same way, no reason to adopt your wholesale dismissive attitude.

 

What you continue to claim some imaginary "we" know about BLM claims is not true. Or rather, a partial version of the truth. Because, pretty much like the BLM, you strong commentary is based on highlighting the bits of statistics supporting your case.

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Nah, you're just repeating the same on a loop, nothing more. The BLM, for all it's (many) faults, would not have gained any traction if there weren't any real issues. It can be argued that the BLM's version on causes for these issues is biased or even incorrect. Claiming, as you do that it's essentially a hoax, or a non-issue is neither credible, nor reasonable. There's no need to embrace all of the BLM's claims and positions, and in the same way, no reason to adopt your wholesale dismissive attitude.

 

What you continue to claim some imaginary "we" know about BLM claims is not true. Or rather, a partial version of the truth. Because, pretty much like the BLM, you strong commentary is based on highlighting the bits of statistics supporting your case.

BLM is racist through and through. All Lives Matter and no cheap minority spin is going to change that.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

BLM is racist through and through. All Lives Matter and no cheap minority spin is going to change that.

 

Well, that's as may be, but it doesn't directly relate to either my comment or the OP. Not much of a BLM supporter, even before what was a half-worthy cause (apparently) got hijacked.

 

[BobBKK]

4 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Can you say that these days? Some snowflakes might say it racist. 

 

Trump is the man and should easily win a second term, despite the witch hunt by the anti-trump supremacists.

I know they seek to shut down truth and dialogue with their 'cancer cancel culture'. Humans are the same no matter what skin, gender or religion. This REVISIONIST nonsense won't work long term.

As for Trump winning I thought easily before January but Covid has saved Biden's bacon. He could win by doing NOTHING just keeping quiet.

[BobBKK]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, that's as may be, but it doesn't directly relate to either my comment or the OP. Not much of a BLM supporter, even before what was a half-worthy cause (apparently) got hijacked.

 

fair response - thank you.

[Logosone]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nah, you're just repeating the same on a loop, nothing more. The BLM, for all it's (many) faults, would not have gained any traction if there weren't any real issues. It can be argued that the BLM's version on causes for these issues is biased or even incorrect. Claiming, as you do that it's essentially a hoax, or a non-issue is neither credible, nor reasonable. There's no need to embrace all of the BLM's claims and positions, and in the same way, no reason to adopt your wholesale dismissive attitude.

 

What you continue to claim some imaginary "we" know about BLM claims is not true. Or rather, a partial version of the truth. Because, pretty much like the BLM, you strong commentary is based on highlighting the bits of statistics supporting your case.

No, it's very simple. BLM claim blacks are shot 2 times in proportion to their population segment. They say "blacks are only 13% of the population but when you look at shootings they are more than twice that proportion of shooting victims."

 

However, BLM neglect to mention that blacks commit 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies, and since police are therefore more likely to encounter an armed dangerous black criminal by a factor of 4 shootings will be higher. However they are not four times the 13% population figure, as one would expect, since blacks, with 13% of the population commit 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies.

 

So the central BLM claim that blacks are shot in greater numbers in proportion to their population is not true, if you look at all the facts.

 

So there is no real issue that Blacks are shot in crazy numbers. None. At. All. Unless you mean blacks shot by blacks, which of course BLM do not highlight.

 

The only reason BLM gained traction is because some stupid girl made a phone video which showed only the portion of George Floyd being subdued. It did not show that Floyd paid with a fake dollar bill, resisted police and refused to hand back an item gained by fraud, it did not show that Floyd had previous convictions and was a criminal.

 

That video showed something most people were outraged by, a killing of a subdued man. That is why BLM gained traction. Mobile phones. Not because there is any issue.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Logosone

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, it's very simple. BLM claim blacks are shot 2 times in proportion to their population segment. They say "blacks are only 13% of the population but when you look at shootings they are more than twice that proportion of shooting victims."

 

However, BLM neglect to mention that blacks commit 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies, and since police are therefore more likely to encounter an armed dangerous black criminal by a factor of 4 shootings will be higher. However they are not four times the 13% population figure, as one would expect, since blacks, with 13% of the population commit 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies.

 

So the central BLM claim that blacks are shot in greater numbers in proportion to their population is not true, if you look at all the facts.

 

So there is no real issue that Blacks are shot in crazy numbers. None. At. All. Unless you mean blacks shot by blacks, which of course BLM do not highlight.

 

The only reason BLM gained traction is because some stupid girl made a phone video which showed only the portion of George Floyd being subdued. It did not show that Floyd paid with a fake dollar bill, resisted police and refused to hand back an item gained by fraud, it did not show that Floyd had previous convictions and was a criminal.

 

That video showed something most people were outraged by, a killing of a subdued man. That is why BLM gained traction. Mobile phones. Not because there is any issue.

 

 

 

Again. You think that demonstrating a specific point statistically, does away (or will do away) with a bunch of issues raised by an (admittedly controversial) organization you're politically opposed to. That's nice, but not very realistic. Not in terms of expecting the issues to go away, or the movement to lose traction, and the same goes for the wholesale attempt to do away with said issues.

 

Like yourself, BLM got an agenda. So yes, they present and highlight whatever supports their cause, while downplaying or ignoring other stuff. You do the exact same on any given related post.

 

BLM had significant traction prior to Floyd's death. And I do not subscribe to the alternative facts narrative you push regarding the circumstances of his arrest, death and related details.

 

That you insist that there's no issue. That there are no issues save those you define as such, is cute.

 

 

[BobBKK]

9 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, it's very simple. BLM claim blacks are shot 2 times in proportion to their population segment. They say "blacks are only 13% of the population but when you look at shootings they are more than twice that proportion of shooting victims."

 

However, BLM neglect to mention that blacks commit 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies, and since police are therefore more likely to encounter an armed dangerous black criminal by a factor of 4 shootings will be higher. However they are not four times the 13% population figure, as one would expect, since blacks, with 13% of the population commit 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies.

 

So the central BLM claim that blacks are shot in greater numbers in proportion to their population is not true, if you look at all the facts.

 

So there is no real issue that Blacks are shot in crazy numbers. None. At. All. Unless you mean blacks shot by blacks, which of course BLM do not highlight.

 

The only reason BLM gained traction is because some stupid girl made a phone video which showed only the portion of George Floyd being subdued. It did not show that Floyd paid with a fake dollar bill, resisted police and refused to hand back an item gained by fraud, it did not show that Floyd had previous convictions and was a criminal.

 

That video showed something most people were outraged by, a killing of a subdued man. That is why BLM gained traction. Mobile phones. Not because there is any issue.

 

 

Lots of sense here and honesty. It might not sound 'nice' but blacks do the most crime, kill the most people and also whine the most. Having said that it is obvious that kneeling on someone for 8 minutes, no matter what a scumbag they may be, is OTT and, obviously, dangerous as in Floyds case. NOW it's being made into a huge drama for political purposes. I agree with MLK - be colour blind.

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Again. You think that demonstrating a specific point statistically, does away (or will do away) with a bunch of issues raised by an (admittedly controversial) organization you're politically opposed to. That's nice, but not very realistic. Not in terms of expecting the issues to go away, or the movement to lose traction, and the same goes for the wholesale attempt to do away with said issues.

 

Like yourself, BLM got an agenda. So yes, they present and highlight whatever supports their cause, while downplaying or ignoring other stuff. You do the exact same on any given related post.

 

BLM had significant traction prior to Floyd's death. And I do not subscribe to the alternative facts narrative you push regarding the circumstances of his arrest, death and related details.

 

That you insist that there's no issue. That there are no issues save those you define as such, is cute.

 

 

Well, firstly thank you for admitting that the specific point that blacks are not shot in disproportionate numbers has been demonstrated statistically. Indeed it has.

 

And BLM made that allegation that blacks are targeted disproportionately by the police and shot in disproportionate numbers. Which is not the case. 

 

So once this issue is demonstrated as being false it completely removes the central thrust of the BLM campaign. It shows BLM up as frauds, liars and peddlers of deceit. They claimed there was an issue that never was, blacks are not shot in disproportionate numbers.

 

Obviously this will mean that BLM will lose traction. Who, that is not completely braindead, could possibly fall for the BLM propaganda now?

 

Of course the issue of race relations will never go away in the US. Even in 1910, over 100 years ago, there were race riots. This will happen again and again. 

 

However the Marxist BLM's lies that police shoot blacks in disproportionate numbers will never again stand up to scrutiny, because it is so obviously a lie.

 

I have in no way provided an "alternative" fact narrative for the George Floyd saga. He paid with a fake dollar bill, was violent and disruptive and resisted arrest, plus he had previous convictions for robbery. He was a criminal. Look it up.

 

Nevertheless what happened to him is very regrettable of course. But as for BLM claiming that police kill blacks in disproportionate numbers, that is simple a lie, a misrepresentation and an untruth. 

[Logosone]

Though bad, and regrettable, the real scandal is not that police account for 0.1% of unarmed black homicide victims.

 

The real scandal is that every year from 1929 onwards blacks have committed 53% of homicides in the US and close to 60% of robberies, whilst they only represent 13% of the population.

 

Similarly, in drug crimes blacks are greatly over-represented.

 

The reason why US jails are so full of black inmates is not some hideous racist conspiracy by police and the justice system in the US, it is because blacks, historically committed four times the violent crimes one would expect from 13% of the population, no less than 53% of homicides.

 

That is the real scandal. Indeed 70% of the 7300 black homicide victims are killed by blacks. 

 

That is the real scandal, the disproportionate violent crime committed by blacks. Yet no demonstrations to mourn the thousands killed by black criminals, no mention of black perpetrators.

 

BLM is a travesty of the truth.

[rvaviator]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

Well we do know that of all violent incidents reported 70% of all crime on black victims was perpetrated by blacks. See p.14 below.

 

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

 

Nobody knows this better than blacks who have a long history of protesting the killings in their own community.

 

I have a problem in terms viewing all violent crime as a result of poverty. The reason is that the vast majority of poor people are not violent killers. Poverty does not automatically equals crime.

 

Again, past US administrations have taken great steps to reduce inequality for blacks and lower income people generally. This was a factor in causing the 2008 financial crisis.

 

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was originally enacted under President Jimmy Carter in 1977 in an effort to encourage banks to halt the practice of lending discrimination. In 1995 the Clinton Administration issued regulations that added numerical guidelines, urged lending flexibility, and instructed bank examiners to evaluate a bank's responsiveness to community activists (such as ACORN) when deciding whether to approve bank merger or expansion requests. Critics claim that the 1995 changes to CRA signaled to banks that relaxed lending standards were appropriate and could minimize potential risk of governmental sanctions.

 

Conservatives and libertarians have debated the possible effects of the CRA, with detractors claiming that the Act encouraged lending to uncreditworthy borrowers... Detractors also claim that amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s raised the number of mortgages issued to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers, and allowed the securitization of CRA-regulated mortgages, even though a fair number of them were subprime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

 

In a way US administrations have bent over backwards to placate the poorer segments of society and indeed almost forced the banks to relax lending criteria for mortgages, thereby precipitating the financial crisis of 2008.

 

Maybe less violent crime, less smashing up cars and shops would make society a better place? Just saying.

 

I think its very true that poverty does not = crime.  But I think one could make a very good case that poverty will make it morel likely. 

 

Simply put - Poverty will make violent crime in and close to that locality more likely.

 

So the difficult part is figuring out how to change it.

 

If we agree that poverty is a 'contributing factor' ... Would it then not make some sense to try and come up with ideas on how to solve that problem?

 

I also wonder - Them who loot and burn.. does that happen in the poor section of town ?  And if so ... is that done by the people who live there ?  Or is it down by outside people - Who has an agenda? 

[Sujo]

It seems some on here are distracting. The issue is police and blacks.

[Logosone]

23 minutes ago, rvaviator said:

I think its very true that poverty does not = crime.  But I think one could make a very good case that poverty will make it morel likely. 

 

Simply put - Poverty will make violent crime in and close to that locality more likely.

 

So the difficult part is figuring out how to change it.

 

If we agree that poverty is a 'contributing factor' ... Would it then not make some sense to try and come up with ideas on how to solve that problem?

 

I also wonder - Them who loot and burn.. does that happen in the poor section of town ?  And if so ... is that done by the people who live there ?  Or is it down by outside people - Who has an agenda? 

Well, low IQ is also a problem in causing crime, as the Bell curve showed. We're not going to be able to abolish stupid people. Nor are we going to be able to eliminate poverty. Even if it is a contributing factor.

 

Do you have any idea how many poor people there are? All the billionaires in the US wouldn't be able to fix it. Poor people are not the problem. Violent criminals are the problem.

 

The thing is the state has intervened, and by trying to enable blacks to get mortgages by hook or by crook caused a financial crisis.

 

How would you solve the problem of poverty? A lot easier to target the 8000 or so perpetrators of violent crime.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Logosone

[rvaviator]

11 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well, low IQ is also a problem in causing crime, as the Bell curve showed. We're not going to be able to abolish stupid people. Nor are we going to be able to eliminate poverty. Even if it is a contributing factor.

 

Do you have any idea how many poor people there are? All the billionaires in the US wouldn't be able to fix it.

 

The thing is the state has intervened, and by trying to enable blacks to get mortgages by hook or by crook caused a financial crisis.

 

How would you solve the problem of poverty? A lot easier to target the 8000 or so perpetrators of violent crime.

Haha ... very true .. low IQ caused by all sorts of reasons .. some genetic some due to poor diet and poor education etc ...

 

Yes its naive to think we can eradicate poverty .. but no reason to stop trying to reduce it,is it ? ... I know I will never be a world champion cyclist .. but I I still keep cycling ! ????

 

Yes the poverty gap in the land of the free is indeed large .. and yes its in the millions .. But you know ... Here is a thought ... I think a poor man will say .. its 'ok to be poor', as long as I have hope and can see a way to get out of poverty ...   And is that not what America is suppose to be all about?  The idea of  'working hard and everyone can make it' ...

 

Yes the easy short therm fix is to deal with the 8000 (not the 800, Spartans ..) .. But brush to much s**t under the carpet and eventually you can not walk on it anymore ...

 

Once you have dealt with the 8000 .... next week .. any more ? and after that ?  Then eventually the 8000 will get out .. what is re-offending rate in US  (I bet its around 50%) ...

 

But to Sujo point ... Best to stay on topic ... Whatever it was again ????

 

 

[EVENKEEL]

Maybe the black community can take some of that police defunded money and figure out how to keep fathers in the lives of the kids. Redirect the goals of the young. Education, work hard, don't fight the police.

Every other minority have figured out how to succeed but it seems the blacks haven't got the hang of it yet, even with the affirmative action help the blacks get.

[Logosone]

4 minutes ago, rvaviator said:

Haha ... very true .. low IQ caused by all sorts of reasons .. some genetic some due to poor diet and poor education etc ...

 

Yes its naive to think we can eradicate poverty .. but no reason to stop trying to reduce it,is it ? ... I know I will never be a world champion cyclist .. but I I still keep cycling ! ????

 

Yes the poverty gap in the land of the free is indeed large .. and yes its in the millions .. But you know ... Here is a thought ... I think a poor man will say .. its 'ok to be poor', as long as I have hope and can see a way to get out of poverty ...   And is that not what America is suppose to be all about?  The idea of  'working hard and everyone can make it' ...

 

Yes the easy short therm fix is to deal with the 8000 (not the 800, Spartans ..) .. But brush to much s**t under the carpet and eventually you can not walk on it anymore ...

 

Once you have dealt with the 8000 .... next week .. any more ? and after that ?  Then eventually the 8000 will get out .. what is re-offending rate in US  (I bet its around 50%) ...

 

But to Sujo point ... Best to stay on topic ... Whatever it was again ????

 

 

Thing is....poverty has been reducing.

 

The percentage of blacks who commit homicide in the US, 53%, has been remarkably constant however, even though poverty has been reducing every decade.

 

 

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

Maybe the black community can take some of that police defunded money and figure out how to keep fathers in the lives of the kids. Redirect the goals of the young. Education, work hard, don't fight the police.

Every other minority have figured out how to succeed but it seems the blacks haven't got the hang of it yet, even with the affirmative action help the blacks get.

Many blacks have succeeded spectacularly in the US.

 

Jay Z is worth billions, he has more money than most white people will ever see. There are black professors, economists, doctors, lawyers, not just singers and sportsmen.

 

It's just that very small violent minority that is causing the issues, and even Chris Rock doesn't like them.

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Maybe the black community can take some of that police defunded money and figure out how to keep fathers in the lives of the kids. Redirect the goals of the young. Education, work hard, don't fight the police.

Every other minority have figured out how to succeed but it seems the blacks haven't got the hang of it yet, even with the affirmative action help the blacks get.

Do you know what defunding the police is?

[rvaviator]

19 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Thing is....poverty has been reducing.

 

The percentage of blacks who commit homicide in the US, 53%, has been remarkably constant however, even though poverty has been reducing every decade.

 

 

But do we know if that 53% is gang on gang crime ?

 

Maybe time to invest in 'poverty' ... Looks like a classic time to buy ....

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/

 

 

Now maybe the 'bottom feeders' ... are the 'harden' ... 5% ... and the 'low hanging fruit' of getting out of poverty are the first to leave the stats ... ?

 

Looks like interesting times ahead .....

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, rvaviator said:

But do we know if that 53% is gang on gang crime ?

 

Maybe time to invest in 'poverty' ... Looks like a classic time to buy ....

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/

 

 

Now maybe the 'bottom feeders' ... are the 'harden' ... 5% ... and the 'low hanging fruit' of getting out of poverty are the first to leave the stats ... ?

 

Looks like interesting times ahead .....

 

The 53% refers to all homicides committed in the US in 2018, so including but not limited to gang killings.

 

But the really weird thing is that if you look at the average from 1929 to 2005, blacks committ 52% of homicides on AVERAGE during that time period. That's the period I referred to in terms of reducing poverty btw.

 

Of course you're right, alleviating poverty is almost always a good thing, but I have doubts it would eradicate violent crime or reduce it greatly. That average has been so constant over the decades.

 

I understand where you're coming from though, sometimes when I can't get Waitrose croissants I could kill any number of people in a violent way.