NM11046

I think we get him and Calvin, and not Tyjon or Holmes. I think you have to put a lot of stock into how much time Gebbia spent w/him one on one during FNL, and also watching the videos - body language and buy in seemed very high. Honestly, I know everybody's high on TJ and DH, and I'd never turn down 5* talent, but give me hardworking, out to prove something 4*s any day of the week.

One of the Trump talking heads on CNN just said the whole convention is about building confidence behind Trump, and the variety of personalities helps acheive that.

 

You're right, nutball blonde lady. Chachi and the dude from Duck Dynasty make me feel a lot better about national security.

And 5 family members - as many Trumps speaking as there are sitting senators.

100?

I thought the same thing.

 

 

 

 

Some stuff buzzing with this guy

I like the rumbles I'm hearing - I think Calvin's been in his ear. If we could just get both of them - imagine?

Where you guys seeing this?

 

Lots of things alluded to on Twitter by him and Calvin. Certainly nothing substantial, but my guess is that he'll be decimating soon (I don't think he has officially yet) and opening his recruitment back up. Thus the scheduled trip to Lincoln. Jamie put up and then quickly took down a tweet last week saying that NE was at the top of Echols list.

 

Wow! Keep him away from Lincoln, unless you are talking about his on-field performance.

 

HA! Thats a great auto correct huh? I try to double check before hitting "post" but missed this one. That will keep me laughing all night!

 

Can we please talk about the fact that Scott Baio is speaking for Trump at the RNC? Please?

 

As himself or as legal expert Bob Loblaw?

 

Not sure - rumbles are that he may take charge as "Charles".

 

Can we please talk about the fact that Scott Baio is speaking for Trump at the RNC? Please?

I read that and was amused to say the least. Some real heavy weights there. Don't want to overshadow The Donald

 

AND Lifetime heartthrob Antonio Sabato Jr. It would be funny except its for real - ok, it's still pretty f'ing funny. BTW I heard that Ralph Malph was endorsing Hillary. I also heard that Fonzi told Trump to "Sit On It".

I can't wait to see The Late Show's coverage with Jon Stewart and Stephen on the floor of the RNC.

Can we please talk about the fact that Scott Baio is speaking for Trump at the RNC? Please?

He just tweeted not too long ago saying hes no longer officialing us wonder what changed that dramatically

Yeah, and then I swear he tweeted in the last few days that he was taking an official ... not there now though so who knows.

Naturally, right after I post, this pops up on Twitter:

 

 

He's been doing this so egregiously for so long, I don't know why the media lets it slide. They need to hold him accountable.

 

He didn't oppose it until at least 2004.

Anderson Cooper tried to call him out on it numerous times in the debates, and Megyn Kelly kinda tried - you're right though, they need to not let him off the hook. I'd love to see another Katie Couric/Sarah Palin like interview. That really opened up some eyes about her lack of knowledge I think. Trump just won't allow himself to be put in a situation like that .. .that is why he bans certain reporters or papers in his pressers. Which in and of itself should be something of note.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

NM, I think we should refrain from accusing police officers of mischaracterizing the accounts of the events of a situation in their police reports. In fact, if you look at it from the view that these reports describe a thread of biased use of force toward African Americans by police officers in these 10 precincts, I would argue there is no need to assume inaccurate reporting.

 

Also, thank you for bringing some balance to this discussion, BRI. Would should be reserved in our indictment of all members of our law enforcement community based on this singular study. We should also thank you and all other members of this community for your sacrifices and service. I think the root of this discussion, or more so the national discussion, is to identify a situation in which a group within our society feel disenfranchised and experience intolerance by individuals in positions of power based on their race. I think there are specific individuals that propagate this bias, and are the root of the issue, rather than a systemic bias.

I have no idea how you took away that I was accusing police officers of misconstruing anything. Farthest from the truth and honestly I take offense to your suggesting that I felt that way. All I said was that looking at a police report after the fact is subjective, and without objective measurements and criteria (in place in advance) the data would vary from person to person and from station to station. What one cop might include in a report is different than what another might include. Different local requirements, different training - there are a zillion things that would make what you write up and what I write up different. We don't know how they defined use of force for instance - that too would be subjective unless there was uniformity as to defining what that means. At NO time did I incenuate that are officers are misreporting or misconstruing anything, and I didn't need a call out from you.

 

I read the bolded statement to be that officers have the opportunity to bias the reports rather than the inherent flaw in human memory and perception in recounting an event. I get what you meant, my bad.

 

Thanks and sorry for the dramatic response - just don't want there to be any doubt that my feeling is we don't have the right kind of data to make any kind of statement (or rather that study doesn't provide it).

As far as inherent bias, I understand why you might have read it that way. It's a tough concept to admit to, but we all have it. That's why there's placebo controlled drug trials, they don't want doctors seeing something (efficacy or side effect) that isn't truly there and the tendency is to judge based on past experiences and knowledge about the patient, the disease etc.

 

 

Some stuff buzzing with this guy

I like the rumbles I'm hearing - I think Calvin's been in his ear. If we could just get both of them - imagine?

Where you guys seeing this?

 

Lots of things alluded to on Twitter by him and Calvin. Certainly nothing substantial, but my guess is that he'll be decimating soon (I don't think he has officially yet) and opening his recruitment back up. Thus the scheduled trip to Lincoln. Jamie put up and then quickly took down a tweet last week saying that NE was at the top of Echols list.

 

 

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

 

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

NM, I think we should refrain from accusing police officers of mischaracterizing the accounts of the events of a situation in their police reports. In fact, if you look at it from the view that these reports describe a thread of biased use of force toward African Americans by police officers in these 10 precincts, I would argue there is no need to assume inaccurate reporting.

 

Also, thank you for bringing some balance to this discussion, BRI. Would should be reserved in our indictment of all members of our law enforcement community based on this singular study. We should also thank you and all other members of this community for your sacrifices and service. I think the root of this discussion, or more so the national discussion, is to identify a situation in which a group within our society feel disenfranchised and experience intolerance by individuals in positions of power based on their race. I think there are specific individuals that propagate this bias, and are the root of the issue, rather than a systemic bias.

I have no idea how you took away that I was accusing police officers of misconstruing anything. Farthest from the truth and honestly I take offense to your suggesting that I felt that way. All I said was that looking at a police report after the fact is subjective, and without objective measurements and criteria (in place in advance) the data would vary from person to person and from station to station. What one cop might include in a report is different than what another might include. Different local requirements, different training - there are a zillion things that would make what you write up and what I write up different. We don't know how they defined use of force for instance - that too would be subjective unless there was uniformity as to defining what that means. At NO time did I incenuate that are officers are misreporting or misconstruing anything, and I didn't need a call out from you.

Some stuff buzzing with this guy

I like the rumbles I'm hearing - I think Calvin's been in his ear. If we could just get both of them - imagine?

Boy, if you had ever told me that at any point in my lifetime someone would think there were too many liberals on a Nebraska chat board I'd have told you it was impossible.

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

 

Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

I wouldn't be totally surprised if after this "tour" he's on in the SouthEast he potentially back off on making his decision in August.

 

 

 

 

This also shares some thought behind Fryers study, compared to a study that (edit: finishing sentence) was released last year by a PhD student.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/roland_fryer_s_new_paper_came_to_the_opposite_conclusion_as_a_paper_last.html

Snopes is saying that it isn't a "Harvard" study because it's not "vetted." Doesn't mean that the statistics and research isn't accurate. Also, as the Slate article mentions, Fryers subset was from Houston, and a different county could turn up different results.

I think you misunderstood - indeed it's been written by a Harvard Econ professor but the reason it's not valid yet is it is a "Working Paper" and because it's only a working paper (meaning he's penned it but there's been no peer review or analysis of his data) makes it not yet valuable to those who want clean data or who truly want to statistically see a trend. Might prove to be totally on point, but honestly I can't imagine a peer review wouldn't ask for a larger dataset reflective of the real population at a minimum.

seriously...did you read my post and the article provided or did you see something and just post to post? You reiterated nearly the same verbiage that I typed.

My bad - obviously I misunderstood your post. Seriously.

sorry, I came off like an ass. World events are pretty effed and sad, plus idiots running a golf course this morning have me a little on edge.

 

No sweat - I find that in the Politics forum I tend to read everything as if it's written sarcastically and sometimes I miss the mark. I agree with you that the world is F'd up. I haven't had the tv on in a week - I just can't handle 24/7 negativity and depressing events. I check in on occasion so that I'm aware but all that's going on drains me.

 

 

This also shares some thought behind Fryers study, compared to a study that (edit: finishing sentence) was released last year by a PhD student.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/roland_fryer_s_new_paper_came_to_the_opposite_conclusion_as_a_paper_last.html

Snopes is saying that it isn't a "Harvard" study because it's not "vetted." Doesn't mean that the statistics and research isn't accurate. Also, as the Slate article mentions, Fryers subset was from Houston, and a different county could turn up different results.

I think you misunderstood - indeed it's been written by a Harvard Econ professor but the reason it's not valid yet is it is a "Working Paper" and because it's only a working paper (meaning he's penned it but there's been no peer review or analysis of his data) makes it not yet valuable to those who want clean data or who truly want to statistically see a trend. Might prove to be totally on point, but honestly I can't imagine a peer review wouldn't ask for a larger dataset reflective of the real population at a minimum.

seriously...did you read my post and the article provided or did you see something and just post to post? You reiterated nearly the same verbiage that I typed.

 

My bad - obviously I misunderstood your post. Seriously.

This also shares some thought behind Fryers study, compared to a study that (edit: finishing sentence) was released last year by a PhD student.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/roland_fryer_s_new_paper_came_to_the_opposite_conclusion_as_a_paper_last.html

 

Snopes is saying that it isn't a "Harvard" study because it's not "vetted." Doesn't mean that the statistics and research isn't accurate. Also, as the Slate article mentions, Fryers subset was from Houston, and a different county could turn up different results.

I think you misunderstood - indeed it's been written by a Harvard Econ professor but the reason it's not valid yet is it is a "Working Paper" and because it's only a working paper (meaning he's penned it but there's been no peer review or analysis of his data) makes it not yet valuable to those who want clean data or who truly want to statistically see a trend. Might prove to be totally on point, but honestly I can't imagine a peer review wouldn't ask for a larger dataset reflective of the real population at a minimum.

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/harvard-study-officer-involved-shootings/

 

The New York Times inaccurately reported an unvetted working paper as a Harvard study that disproved the claim black people are shot by police at a higher rate than whites.

There you go. Snopes does a pretty thorough job here in its coverage.

 

 

 

Well, that settles it.. snopes says it is false. Snopes, one of the more liberal sites, quickly tries to disprove this study by saying it was unvetted.. Not the least bit surprised

 

Any truly scientific information has to be vetted and peer reviewed. Otherwise anybody can create numbers that prove what they want to show. So it may not be false, but it takes more than a week to do a proper trial and get it reviewed and published. The fact that this guy started the paper in the last few weeks is itself telling.

Here is perhaps a more fair look at a dataset - 18 different sources, academic studies, legal rulings and in depth reporting. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

edited by me - dupe.

You guys are ridiculous. Why wouldn't this matter or not matter to "some" people? Did you ever think that perhaps the way you communicate your ideas and comments is what turns people off, not the actual content? You're both combative.

Now, regarding the "study" it was 10 departments looked at in only 3 states. In the medical/scientific world we'd say that the study wasn't powered to show a statistically significant outcome. The numbers are just too small. How many actual incidents did they analyze? Was it taken from police reports alone? Wouldn't that make the data less than objective? If it's a good dataset that information should be readily available.

I'd be interested in the data being compiled on a larger scale across the US. I think the information that would come out of that would be important. It would also uncover if there are states or cities in particular that perform better than or worse than the national average and that too would be important to know as we look to identify how to go about solving this issue, if indeed it's determined by the data that there is one. Looking at information like this takes the emotion out of it, and allows conclusions to be made based on fact alone. It's why allowing the CDC or another entity to collect and analyze shooting information is so very important.

 

Let me dumb this down - if you are a practicing muslim and a US Citizen, you will be tested according to Newt's proposal ... how does that trump (or does it) your 1st Amendment Rights as a US Citizen?

 

Oh, so now constitutional rights matter to you?

 

 

but yes, if you are part of the group that is in favor of Sharia law, then yes, your citizenship will be revoked.

 

They absolutely matter - you weren't understanding that this was a hypothetical question posed to you. And that your irrational blanket statements don't hold up when you take away the "brown people from another country" factor.

When you feel overwhelmed by facts and pertinent data that disagrees with your opinion you seem to strike out at people. I won't take it personally, but I won't play your game either.

 

 

 

 

 

Your proud Republican statesman, convention speaker, and 2016 VP finalist Newt Gingrich, in his own words:http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/14/fox-newt-gingrich-calls-muslims-be-deported-if-they-believe-sharia/211594

 

We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. (...)

Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. (...)

Look, the first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they're doing on the internet. The third step is -- let me be very clear. You have to monitor the mosques. (...)

Great, great guy.

#BOTHSIDES

 

Funny, you want to deeper gun laws, even banning them, to stop the deaths but yet you have no problem letting these people into this country without being checked out? lol, gotta love this mindset.

 

 

Think about this for a minute.. further restrict law abiding citizens, but give free access for those who have potential to kill massive groups of Americans...

Anyone has the potential to massive groups of Americans. That's not exclusive to Muslims. So do we have to test everyone?

For a country so averse to government surveillance, a lot of us sure don't seem to mind if it's done to the scary brown people...

 

What other groups are killing people like Muslims? none!!

 

EDIT: haha, no you're are just for limiting Americans rights..

 

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

 

 

According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, of those polled a significant minority embraces the supremacist notions that could pose a threat to Americas security and its constitutional form of government.*

 

The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called countering violent extremism initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.

 

Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall. The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.

What other groups kill like muslims (so much ignorance in that statement, but I'll bite again)? Brazilians kill far more people than terrorists, some 50k, where's your outrage for them? Mexicans kill more than ISIS did in two years in Iraq (almost 20k per year). Americans kill more Americans than ISIS does in a year (about 12k). Where's your outrage for these groups? They're are vile, barbaric people. Can we ban Americans from America?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

 

 

so much ignorance in this statement..

 

Pot - kettle.