I don't engage in political partisanship in news stories, the story stands on its own evidence.
Furthermore it was already made clear in this thread not to do so which people disregard because they prefer certain channels that cater to their interests.
I liberally post from all the mainstream news sources, so in fact if there is a person here that should complain about others, It would be me.
Most people just use that as an excuse when they don't like a story, If people want to live in their safe space thats their problem.
Personally, I find statistics more convincing than anecdotal evidence. A statistic is worth a thousand anecdotes.
Because a statistic literally is a thousand anecdotes.
That requires statistics to be accurate in the first place. However if statistics is important to you, then yes immigrants and illegal immigrants can often be over-represented in crime and in jail, and the breakdown more accurately shows it is due to cultural, environment and socio-economics.
Sweden jails have vast over-representation by immigrants, because the general population is homogenous in culture and generally socio-economically ok.
America is a mixed bag, primarily because of african-american weight in prison and in crime, as well as Hispanics recently, and more varying socio-economic levels all over the place.
If I wanted or needed a "safe space", I can think of about a dozen other places I could post before this one, where most of my posts are almost guaranteed to be rebutted.
That's the fun of this thread and why I keep coming back to check on it. Where else can you get all sides of a story without tempers flaring?
I find that I've agreed with nearly every poster on some topics and disagreed with nearly everyone on other topics. It's interesting seeing things from multiple points of view...
This thread is becoming *post random news articles without contributing to discussion* rather than *a discussion about politics*.
Yep. It's like anytime anyone posts something about what's going on with Trump someone posts a random article about a powerless group of people.
As if powerless immigrants or a politician that lost an election were doing more harm to the country than a powerful and corrupt president plagued by scandal who is under investigation by the FBI.
Just girl was raped *alleged*, illegal immigrants to blame.
Ahh i see it is 'alleged' because it happens to be illegal immigrants and the issue for you is purely political.
Usually society is supposed to care about victims, like the one who was raped.
Interesting how politics discards the victim when convenient and they become quite secondary.
First off, it is alleged because it is alleged. Nothing has been proven in court. You are not allowed to say, this person committed a crime until that person is found guilty. It is slander/libel to do otherwise. That is why every news article about this topic uses the word alleged in it.
Secondly, pollution to immigration is apples to oranges when it comes to biases. There are no positives that come out of pollution (Please correct me here if I am wrong and state one if you know one). There are positives that come out of immigration however. For a organization to focus solely on the consequences of immigration, is fine, however, anything that they state regarding immigration is considered biased as they never focus on the positive.
An educated, biased opinion is good, however, from a journalism perspective, it needs to be countered with an educated biased opinion from the other side. That keeps the article neutral. Without it, it gives a biased bent to the story.
And as I stated, that biased bent isn't the story people should be focusing on. It is a scape goat tactic. If the allegations are true, it doesn't matter who committed the crime, it is important to know how are the school board/ law enforcement/ politicians/ whoever going to prevent a crime like this happening again.
As stated in my above post, this already happened in the same state, in 2014. Obviously no one took the safety of the children seriously after that incident.
Secondly, pollution to immigration is apples to oranges when it comes to biases. There are no positives that come out of pollution (Please correct me here if I am wrong and state one if you know one). There are positives that come out of immigration however. For a organization to focus solely on the consequences of immigration, is fine, however, anything that they state regarding immigration is considered biased as they never focus on the positive.
Pollution comes from industry.
So by your own argument your wrong.
An organization looking into the cost of immigration is no more biased on that description then an environmental agency looking into the cost of pollution.
This organization could remark that an industry practice has led to pollution increasing, that is literally no different.
You arbitrarily consider one more biased because to you one issue is political, and the other you simply accept.
Which doesn't at all validate or invalidate their findings.
And as I stated, that biased bent isn't the story people should be focusing on. It is a scape goat tactic. If the allegations are true, it doesn't matter who committed the crime, it is important to know how are the school board/ law enforcement/ politicians/ whoever going to prevent a crime like this happening again.
The citizens of maryland are completely correct to be concerned about sanctuary cities, illegal immigration policies and school intake as to whether it affects their childrens safety.
The flaw in your argumentation is, as is evident, you attempt to claim they are biased then dismiss their conclusion.
So there's been a terrorism incident in the UK where a man with a knife injured several people.
Horrible crime but like to point out again how much worse it would have been worse if this terrorist or person with mental i will write it BBC style: ssues had a gun.
Let me write it in CNN/BBC style:
"British citizen was shot and killed by the police after 'allegedly' killed 3 people"
Seriously?? Now you're taking umbrage with the use of "alleged" in news stories concerning a just committed crime?? Prophetic my ass....EVERY SINGLE newspaper story going back a century or more would have this caveat in this situation. That's like proclaiming someone is "prophetic" for correctly predicting the sun will rise in the morning.
"DM: so you learned that most of these attacks on the city are caused by Drow
Drow actually generally follow evil Gods such as Llolth and the female priestesses undergo a ritual that essentially makes them evil, so thats probably not an apt comparison.
The information you leave out of this post could fill the Grand Canyon. First off, the transition officials were incidentally caught in an ongoing investigation of Russians they happend to end up having conversations with. Isn't that interesting?? Second, Nunes is briefing possible targets of an FBI probe with classified info on that probe, which is obstruction of justice. And 3rd, Nunes himself was PART OF THE TRANSITION. Thanks for playing.
Again, "alleged" is the standard terminology before conviction, regardless of how obviously innocent or guilty the suspect is, or even if the suspect was caught on tape. That's been the universal standard among journalists for decades. This way, journalists don't get accused of bias when they say one person did something, but another person allegedly did something.
My mom heard about the news from Nunes. She thought it would hurt Trump, but I pointed out that it would actually help him: even though Obama wasn't involved (which was the whole point of the accusation to begin with, that Obama had wiretapped Trump), Trump can still claim that he is a victim of government surveillance. Sure enough, a couple hours later, she told me folks on the news were also saying that the news was good for Trump.
Again, "alleged" is the standard terminology before conviction, regardless of how obviously innocent or guilty the suspect is, or even if the suspect was caught on tape. That's been the universal standard among journalists for decades. This way, journalists don't get accused of bias when they say one person did something, but another person allegedly did something.
My mom heard about the news from Nunes. She thought it would hurt Trump, but I pointed out that it would actually help him: even though Obama wasn't involved (which was the whole point of the accusation to begin with, that Obama had wiretapped Trump), Trump can still claim that he is a victim of government surveillance. Sure enough, a couple hours later, she told me folks on the news were also saying that the news was good for Trump.
The truth is that the intelligence agencies, CIA, NSA etc have been acting as semi-rogue agencies for a very long time.
Hell JFK wanted to go after the CIA (not incidentally many people therefore think the CIA had a hand in his assassination).
Could Obama be personally responsible? offhandedly? possibly.
The more likely explanation is that with the agencies long abusing their powers with little restriction or oversight, many individual actors or small groups of actors just use the power of the intelligence agencies for their own benefit or causes.
I remember reading how many NSA agents just use the intelligence tools to spy on their partners rather then actually trying to track terrorists.
The Intelligence agencies need to be broadly curtailed, the 'results' from their near unlimited power of surveillance is incredibly questionable and doesn't seem to justify the proportion of power they wield.
Seriously, what is with this apparent attack on the word "alleged"?? This is journalism 101 stuff. Bringing up this point of view with a professor would get you laughed out of class. It shows such a stunning ignorance of the basic parameters of reporting on crimes that it almost belies belief.
Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.
The CrowdStrike report, released in December, asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists.
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.
“The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong solely to the report's authors,” the IISS said. “The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate.” http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html
How complicated the entire issue is.
I've worked with business cyber-security forms daily and their expertise was even lower then mine.
Today we learned for certain that members of Donald Trump's campaign and/or transition teams, possibly including Donald Trump himself, had some of their own conversations incidentally recorded due to the other, foreign party on those conversations being the subject of U.S. intelligence investigations. Rep. Nunes (R), the House chair of the committee investigating those intelligence concerns, upon hearing of this immediately set out to make sure Trump's team knew just what the intelligence community had recorded despite the ongoing nature of the investigations and they themselves being involved. He cut the rest of the committee out of the loop, only briefing them after returning from the White House.
Clear violation and conflict of interest. We need a special prosecutor. If Bill Clinton can get impeached for lying or affairing with Monica Lewinsky, there is way more serious violations of the law going on here with this Russia stuff NOT to mention the serious nature of the constant lying that Trump does such as accusing the former President of a felony and accusing our closest ally of wiretapping him allegedly because some dumbass said so on faux news. But he said it so it doesn't really matter where he heard it, it was another false statement from the President.
What Nunes did today is bringing this country closer to the precipice of a Constitutional crisis. There needs to be a Select Committe or Special Prosecutor NOW.
There is no point in asking the FBI to investigate the alleged spying if we're just going to disregard the FBI's findings when they say there's no proof. Why ask a question if we don't plan on listening to the answer?
So there's been a terrorism incident in the UK where a man with a knife injured several people.
Horrible crime but like to point out again how much worse it would have been worse if this terrorist or person with mental issues had a gun.
If only the victims had a way to protect themselves.
That's nonsense it's like saying only if the victims of 9/11 had a way to protect themselves a terrorist attack hugely relies on the element of surprise. A tragedy yes without a doubt. But at least it wasn't some nutcase with easy access to more dangerous weaponary.
Waiting for Donald Trump to declare what happened in London is a valid reason for the travel ban. Pretty sure he watched London has fallen and thinks it's a documentary about every day life in London.
There is no point in asking the FBI to investigate the alleged spying if we're just going to disregard the FBI's findings when they say there's no proof. Why ask a question if we don't plan on listening to the answer?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here at all....could you give a little more info what this is in response to??
Comments
I find that I've agreed with nearly every poster on some topics and disagreed with nearly everyone on other topics. It's interesting seeing things from multiple points of view...
As if powerless immigrants or a politician that lost an election were doing more harm to the country than a powerful and corrupt president plagued by scandal who is under investigation by the FBI.
Secondly, pollution to immigration is apples to oranges when it comes to biases. There are no positives that come out of pollution (Please correct me here if I am wrong and state one if you know one). There are positives that come out of immigration however. For a organization to focus solely on the consequences of immigration, is fine, however, anything that they state regarding immigration is considered biased as they never focus on the positive.
An educated, biased opinion is good, however, from a journalism perspective, it needs to be countered with an educated biased opinion from the other side. That keeps the article neutral. Without it, it gives a biased bent to the story.
And as I stated, that biased bent isn't the story people should be focusing on. It is a scape goat tactic. If the allegations are true, it doesn't matter who committed the crime, it is important to know how are the school board/ law enforcement/ politicians/ whoever going to prevent a crime like this happening again.
As stated in my above post, this already happened in the same state, in 2014. Obviously no one took the safety of the children seriously after that incident.
Horrible crime but like to point out again how much worse it would have been worse if this terrorist or person with mental issues had a gun.
So by your own argument your wrong.
An organization looking into the cost of immigration is no more biased on that description then an environmental agency looking into the cost of pollution.
This organization could remark that an industry practice has led to pollution increasing, that is literally no different.
You arbitrarily consider one more biased because to you one issue is political, and the other you simply accept.
Which doesn't at all validate or invalidate their findings. The citizens of maryland are completely correct to be concerned about sanctuary cities, illegal immigration policies and school intake as to whether it affects their childrens safety.
The flaw in your argumentation is, as is evident, you attempt to claim they are biased then dismiss their conclusion.
But you haven't demonstrated it.
"British citizen was shot and killed by the police after 'allegedly' killed 3 people"
The alleged assailant drove a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge before crashing it and then trying to enter the complex, armed with a knife.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/22/attack-houses-parliament-london-what-we-know-so-far
'Alleged' suspect
http://news.sky.com/story/westminster-attack-first-picture-of-suspect-10810877
https://twitter.com/hashtag/GOPdnd?src=hash
"DM: so you learned that most of these attacks on the city are caused by Drow
GOP: I ban the wood elves from the city "
Drow are generally banned on the surface world.
Four people, including a London police officer who was stabbed and the alleged assailant, were killed after a terror attack that saw more than 20 people injured outside the Parliament building on Wednesday.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/03/22/uk-parliament-terror-attack-4-people-killed-including-cop-and-alleged-assailant-20-injured.html
'Alleged' Assailant seems to have injured many people with his/her vehicle.
My mom heard about the news from Nunes. She thought it would hurt Trump, but I pointed out that it would actually help him: even though Obama wasn't involved (which was the whole point of the accusation to begin with, that Obama had wiretapped Trump), Trump can still claim that he is a victim of government surveillance. Sure enough, a couple hours later, she told me folks on the news were also saying that the news was good for Trump.
Hell JFK wanted to go after the CIA (not incidentally many people therefore think the CIA had a hand in his assassination).
Could Obama be personally responsible? offhandedly? possibly.
The more likely explanation is that with the agencies long abusing their powers with little restriction or oversight, many individual actors or small groups of actors just use the power of the intelligence agencies for their own benefit or causes.
I remember reading how many NSA agents just use the intelligence tools to spy on their partners rather then actually trying to track terrorists.
The Intelligence agencies need to be broadly curtailed, the 'results' from their near unlimited power of surveillance is incredibly questionable and doesn't seem to justify the proportion of power they wield.
An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.
The CrowdStrike report, released in December, asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists.
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.
“The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong solely to the report's authors,” the IISS said. “The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate.”
http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html
How complicated the entire issue is.
I've worked with business cyber-security forms daily and their expertise was even lower then mine.
Today we learned for certain that members of Donald Trump's campaign and/or transition teams, possibly including Donald Trump himself, had some of their own conversations incidentally recorded due to the other, foreign party on those conversations being the subject of U.S. intelligence investigations. Rep. Nunes (R), the House chair of the committee investigating those intelligence concerns, upon hearing of this immediately set out to make sure Trump's team knew just what the intelligence community had recorded despite the ongoing nature of the investigations and they themselves being involved. He cut the rest of the committee out of the loop, only briefing them after returning from the White House.
Clear violation and conflict of interest. We need a special prosecutor. If Bill Clinton can get impeached for lying or affairing with Monica Lewinsky, there is way more serious violations of the law going on here with this Russia stuff NOT to mention the serious nature of the constant lying that Trump does such as accusing the former President of a felony and accusing our closest ally of wiretapping him allegedly because some dumbass said so on faux news. But he said it so it doesn't really matter where he heard it, it was another false statement from the President.
There is no point in asking the FBI to investigate the alleged spying if we're just going to disregard the FBI's findings when they say there's no proof. Why ask a question if we don't plan on listening to the answer?
Unless it's not legal to carry a knife in the UK.
Where's the Republican outrage, hypocrites. Where's Senator Gowdy complaining about Nunes' leak?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/22/donald-trump-jr-tweet-london-mayor-sadiq-khan