The Next President is...

[slc]

2 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I share many of those sentiments and would like to see chang

How do we change this? 

[ClearedHot]

38 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Correlation does not equal causation. Crime rates have always been higher in large cities, regardless of who was in charge. Look, I won’t argue with you that some ultra liberal policies have had negative consequences (homeless encampments, open drug use, etc). I share many of those sentiments and would like to see change (and I am seeing some positive movement in certain areas). But your statement above is pure fallacy. 

I know the truth hurts...

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, slc said:

How do we change this? 

Well I don't personally vote for idiots like the SF DA who doesn't want to enforce the law and I don't support defunding the police. That's how I do it when I've voted in local elections in urban places!

I do also advocate for legalizing most drugs because I legitimately think that would help A) end the death-by-fentanyl epidemic, B) allow the police to focus on crimes other than drug use, and C) would give adults more freedom to legally do things they want to do and will do anyways, illegally, if the laws remain the same.

We've already legalized weed in the majority of states without a ton of negative repercussions. Good thing we locked away people for weed-related crimes for decades! /sarcasm Just like the prohibition of alcohol, the War on Drugs has failed and we need different policies.

[GrndPndr]

Hi, Left Field here...

Would a center-left candidate like Robert Kennedy Jr. lure any conservatives to vote for him?  For example, those who think Trump is a little too orange for them (whatever that means).

I don't think I could vote for him, but wondered if Kennedy is traditional democrat enough to bring some republicans?

PS: I'm actually from right-field.

[slc]

40 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

legalized weed in the majority of states without a ton of negative repercussions.

Problem is the weed smoked now is 10x more potent than the dope at Woodstock.  When weed is more readily available, it becomes like any other drug/pharmaceutical around the house, more available to kids.  Genie is out of the bottle on this one.  Will be curious to see any "negative" repercussions on these next gen stoners.....    

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Nashville.gov

That's the same data I'm using, great. And it shows exactly what I said, total crime is down slightly and violent crime is up slightly from 2020 to 2021. The official 2022 data should be out next month...I'm not sure why it takes 7 months to compile & verify, but that's how the TBI works.

When compared to a long historical record though rather than just year-to-year, crime of all types in Nashville is way down from the 90s. So even if there's a 69% surge next year in some category (which we should not accept & work to correct the negative trend!), I am still able to say, "US cities in 2023 aren't shitholes, they're way better & safer than when I was growing up" and be correct.

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Nashville, TN Is Among the Most Dangerous US Metro Areas

247WallStreet.com isn't exactly a credible outlet, and their headline is greatly at odds with what's in the actual story.

Even their actual story, using 2020 FBI UCR data, shows that Nashville is the 41st most dangerous urban area, and OBTW that excludes many major populated areas that don't report their data to the FBI, like NYC, Phoenix, LA, most places in Florida, Illinois, etc. That particular dataset from the FBI represents less than half of the US population, so it's hardly comprehensive. So yea, when you take out a massive number of other urban areas from consideration & comparison, I guess Nashville does seem really dangerous! Probably not the best way to truly understand the reality of the situation though.

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/nashville/violent-crime-rates-nashville-2022-report/

This is a better local news source, reporting on preliminary 2022 data, but it's still got some flaws.

Let's talk murder specifically since you're most concerned with the worst violent crime, which is understandable. Like I linked to before, murders were particularly low in Nashville in 2013 and 2014...let's do whatever we can do repeat that and drive the murder rate even lower! BUT, I'm having a hard time wetting my pants over the 2021 number...it's almost exactly average looking over a nearly 60 year timespan, and again, it's like 25% lower than in the 90s when murder peaked in the city.

From the story, they say the preliminary data shows murders were up 7.1% compared to 2021, which I again will emphasize is bad. That would put murders at ~15.9 per 100K...the highest since...2017. Looking at even a few years of trend, the numbers are:

• 2016: 12.5
• 2017: 16.5
• 2018: 13.1
• 2019: 12.2
• 2020: 16.5
• 2021: 14.8
• 2022 15.9 (preliminary data)

That's just not a super compelling dataset to support the narrative that (sic) "XXX city is a shithole, it's rapidly getting worse, lock your kids away and open-carry an AR-15 to Kroger." I know you haven't said those things, but that's definitely the vibe I get from others on the right, as well the narrative incessantly pushed by Fox News. They tell their views that cities are dangerous, you shouldn't go there, they're burning down, you need a gun to protect yourself on daily errands or tourist visits, etc. and that is just not the case.

The WKRN quote your bolded about how "Murder is up 82.8% in 10 years!" is both correct and misleading of the broader trend. Like I said, 2012 and 2013 were apparently lower years for murder. 2021 was almost exactly average and 2022 preliminary data would show slightly above the 60 year average. I'll say it again, we should work hard to get back to those per capita levels of murder (or go to zero!), but to me it's not house-on-fire news to say "Murder was way down for two years, and now it's back to historical average levels." Ok.

I can tell you from lived experience that the city felt no safer nor more dangerous from year to year in that timespan, all of which I lived in Nashville proper. 2017 didn't feel super dangerous! 2019 didn't feel so much safer! It's noise on a relatively static trend. Heck, even the bar graphs you showed from that WKRN story are honestly pretty damn flat an indistinguishable year-to-year, certainly not showing a dramatic rise. 🤷‍♂️

So maybe by the crime metrics alone I was wrong to say, "Nashville has never been better." I apologize. It was better in 2019. Funny enough, the same mayor that was elected in 2019 is still the Mayor today (John Cooper, a very moderate, pro-business Dem), so IDK exactly how you want to attribute praise & scorn for both the five-year low in murder and the five-year high in murder, because they happened under the same guy's leadership.

As someone else pointed out, citing granular crime data in order to sweepingly indict one political party doesn't work that great...Dems have been mayors of Nashville continuously since like the 1950s ,and crime has waxed, waned, and waxed again. It's almost like specific local policies, state policies, national policies and trends, and the overall mood of the country matters a lot more when it comes to crime than the letter next to a Mayor's name when assessing if a city is "safe" or not at any given time.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by nsplayr

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

We've already legalized weed in the majority of states without a ton of negative repercussions. Good thing we locked away people for weed-related crimes for decades! /sarcasm Just like the prohibition of alcohol, the War on Drugs has failed

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/doj-prosecuting-pot-using-gun-owners-despite-state-legalization/ar-AA1cdb2O?cvid=c14fc05cedda45b8b26765bad115db36&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=11
 

i like you bro, and I think we actually agree on a lot.  You’re just gullible.  Harris imprisoned so many people for weed.  Biden DOJ now prosecuting people who buy firearms and smoke weed in states where pot is legal.  You’ve been duped into voting for a senile totalitarian in sheep’s clothing.
 

FWIW, I’d vote for RFK just to see him destroy big Pharma.  But your DNC won’t even allow debates.  Because you guys value democracy so much, lol.  You’ve been had dude, you just haven’t figured it out,

[nsplayr]

Mmm, we’ll we’re gonna have to disagree on that. Respectfully of course 🥃

I have pretty well developed political views and follow politics extremely closely. I am aware of the candidates and party I support, the policies they enact, and the values underpinning the whole thing, even if you don’t like them or think only misguided, gullible fools could even possibly like them.

Locking people up for weed is & was bad! Biden’s 90s crime bill was bad in some regards! Some of Harris’ actions as DA and AG were also bad! I support drug legalization and my party does not yet top bottom, but I’m hopeful we’ll get there. Still punching my ticket for Biden 2024 eyes wide open. I do think Harris sucks FWIW, I wish we could figure out how to dump her off the ticket…

Of all the criticisms I make, I try not to just disbelieve folks’ stated views and values, even if they are wrong IMHO. Lots of people on here throw around accusations of others being weak, gullible, blind, etc. and A) not everyone knows everyone IRL so how are you even able to make that kind of weighty judgement? and B) life just works better when you take people at their word as being complex yet genuine.

You could say you believe in some absolutely wild, contradictory shit and I will tell you I think you’re wrong, but I will try my best not to call you naive, sheltered, brainwashed, weak, a sheep, or ask about your workout routine 😅

Anyways…RFK Jr. is an unfit crank who would get bitch-slapped by his dad (who I think would have made a fantastic President) if he were alive today.

Remind me, did Trump have primary debates against anyone in 2020? There were 4 candidates who ran against him, including three who had held major elected office before (2x US reps, 1x governor).

No, of course not. Fuuuck no they did not. They dropped those debates faster than a whore’s panties.

There was also no GOP party platform in 2020, not even an attempt to codify guiding values and policies that supported those values.

And I’m not even surprised or mad at the decision to forgo debates against noners! Trump was clearly going to be the nominee as a sitting President.

So yea I’m not gonna really feel bad that fail-son RFK Jr. doesn’t get a party-endorsed stage to spout BS from and I’m also not gonna find criticism of that stance from Republicans credible at all. Maybe you’re not a Republican, and in that case, my argument is the same as the Republicans was in 2020 and I guess you can be mad at both parties then if you want.

Edited June 9, 2023 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

When compared to a long historical record though rather than just year-to-year, crime of all types in Nashville is way down from the 90s. So even if there's a 69% surge next year in some category (which we should not accept & work to correct the negative trend!), I am still able to say, "US cities in 2023 aren't shitholes, they're way better & safer than when I was growing up" and be correct.

I never said Nashville is a shithole, I almost moved there and I happen to love the town.  What I said was your previous statement that Nashville is better than it has ever been is incorrect...For the past few years (mysteriously aligned with the defund the police movement), violent crimes and murder are increasing in Nashville and most other large U.S. cities.

[ClearedHot]

Back to regularly scheduled sport bitching...

Does Trump Multiple Indictments change the race?  Guessing it will harden his base and given he admitted to not declassifying some things, he is in legal peril.  A charge under the Espionage Act seems like a stretch and how do you make that argument when DOJ gave Hillary a pass when she purposely took TS/SCI SAR/SAP off a classified server and transferred them to an open system.

I wonder if the DOJ will given Biden the same Espionage Act charge for taking large amounts of classified and storing them in multiple locations including his SCIF-Garage. 

Maybe we get lucky and neither one of these clowns can run.

[HeloDude]

26 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Back to regularly scheduled sport bitching...

Does Trump Multiple Indictments change the race?  Guessing it will harden his base and given he admitted to not declassifying some things, he is in legal peril.  A charge under the Espionage Act seems like a stretch and how do you make that argument when DOJ gave Hillary a pass when she purposely took TS/SCI SAR/SAP off a classified server and transferred them to an open system.

I wonder if the DOJ will given Biden the same Espionage Act charge for taking large amounts of classified and storing them in multiple locations including his SCIF-Garage. 

Maybe we get lucky and neither one of these clowns can run.

No one above the law (definitely applies to you if your last name is Trump)…doesn’t apply if your last name is Clinton or Biden.

I seriously can’t fathom how leftists (even those on here) can honestly say they’re ok with this happening to Trump and not Clinton, Pence, Biden, etc.  I mean, I get the fact that they hate Trump, but conservatives hated Clinton and never did anything like this when there was plenty of evidence to do so.   

I can’t stand Trump personally, and though I agreed with many (not all) of his policies, I don’t want to see him be the nominee next year…and truth be told, it would probably just be best for the country if he died peacefully in his sleep tonight.  But what’s happening right now can’t be seen as a good thing.

[VMFA187]

15 hours ago, nsplayr said:

…RFK Jr. is an unfit crank

You JUST said you were voting for Biden. He IS fit?

[nsplayr]

38 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

You JUST said you were voting for Biden. He IS fit?

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Does Trump Multiple Indictments change the race? 

There is no race for the GOP nomination save for Trump’s serious legal peril. Either he wipes the floor with everyone else (already polling > 50% among primary voters), or he DNF’s the race and now it’s actually a competition between DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Pence, et. al.

If there was maybe one serious challenger or two and some of the usual cranks, ok, normal race probably, Trump isn’t truly an incumbent although he kind of is as far as the GOP base is concerned.

But to have MANY serious challengers get in the race, your own former VP, large state sitting governor, former governor and ambassador, sitting senator, plus former governor Christie just got in and so did the sitting governor of ND Burgum, to me that indicates they all think there’s a fairly high chance Trump will be unable to be the nominee regardless of his level of support, and therefore it’s worthwhile to give it a shot.

Edited June 9, 2023 by nsplayr

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

No one above the law (definitely applies to you if your last name is Trump)…doesn’t apply if your last name is Clinton or Biden.

I seriously can’t fathom how leftists (even those on here) can honestly say they’re ok with this happening to Trump and not Clinton, Pence, Biden, etc.  I mean, I get the fact that they hate Trump, but conservatives hated Clinton and never did anything like this when there was plenty of evidence to do so.   

I can’t stand Trump personally, and though I agreed with many (not all) of his policies, I don’t want to see him be the nominee next year…and truth be told, it would probably just be best for the country if he died peacefully in his sleep tonight.  But what’s happening right now can’t be seen as a good thing.

Not defending mishandling classified but in the others’ cases, they at least went through the motions of cooperating with investigators. In Pence and Biden’s cases there is a plausible explanation that the mishandling was accidental; the documents were swept up with unclassified docs when moving out of their respective offices. Again, not saying it’s ok, but there is a significant difference in that Trump was literally waiving classified documents in people’s faces and refusing to cooperate when investigators tell him to return said material. If he had been cooperative and made a statement to the effect of “we made a mistake. We are cooperating with investigators and will return all classified material in a timely manner” I’d agree with you. But he didn’t. When you see police lights in your rear view mirror, if you promptly pull over and speak to the officer politely, you at least have a chance of being let off with a warning. If you floor it, give the cop the bird, and tell him where he can shove it when he finally catches you, guess what? You’re gonna get that ticket & a whole lot more. 

[HeloDude]

6 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Not defending mishandling classified but in the others’ cases, they at least went through the motions of cooperating with investigators. In Pence and Biden’s cases there is a plausible explanation that the mishandling was accidental; the documents were swept up with unclassified docs when moving out of their respective offices. Again, not saying it’s ok, but there is a significant difference in that Trump was literally waiving classified documents in people’s faces and refusing to cooperate when investigators tell him to return said material. If he had been cooperative and made a statement to the effect of “we made a mistake. We are cooperating with investigators and will return all classified material in a timely manner” I’d agree with you. But he didn’t. When you see police lights in your rear view mirror, if you promptly pull over and speak to the officer politely, you at least have a chance of being let off with a warning. If you floor it, give the cop the bird, and tell him where he can shove it when he finally catches you, guess what? You’re gonna get that ticket & a whole lot more. 

You’re only helping to further my point—it’s very selective when saying “no one is above the law”.  Either what you did is an alleged crime, or it’s not.  Sure Trump is a jerk, but that should not determine whether or not he is tried for a crime and someone else (ie Hillary Clinton) isn’t.  You’re not saying it’s ok, but yet you’re giving reasons why you think it’s ok for one person to charged and not another.  

[VMFA187]

36 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Well played, but that dude is definitely conservative!

Liberal TikToker goes viral after complaining the only masculine men she can find are conservative | Daily Mail Online

[Prozac]

27 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

You’re only helping to further my point—it’s very selective when saying “no one is above the law”.  Either what you did is an alleged crime, or it’s not.  Sure Trump is a jerk, but that should not determine whether or not he is tried for a crime and someone else (ie Hillary Clinton) isn’t.  You’re not saying it’s ok, but yet you’re giving reasons why you think it’s ok for one person to charged and not another.  

I disagree. I think most of us have had the experience in life that most things we do, good or bad, along with their consequences, are proportional. Maybe you haven’t? Do really bad things, expect really bad consequences. Do less bad things, expect less severe repercussions. Stumble onto an active runway with out clearance? Bad. Expect a long conversation with the FAA and some extra sim time. Willfully disregard ATC, enter an active runway & do donuts while taking selfies, then tell tower to go fuck themselves?  That’s willful disregard and will get you arrested and grounded for life. That kind of activity will rightly make people question whether you should be anywhere near an airport or aircraft. So many of Trump’s actions have been absolutely full of willful disregard for the rule of law and are objectively worse than the others’ in this case. No, this does not appear unfair at all to me. 

[HeloDude]

57 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I disagree. I think most of us have had the experience in life that most things we do, good or bad, along with their consequences, are proportional. Maybe you haven’t? Do really bad things, expect really bad consequences. Do less bad things, expect less severe repercussions. Stumble onto an active runway with out clearance? Bad. Expect a long conversation with the FAA and some extra sim time. Willfully disregard ATC, enter an active runway & do donuts while taking selfies, then tell tower to go fuck themselves?  That’s willful disregard and will get you arrested and grounded for life. That kind of activity will rightly make people question whether you should be anywhere near an airport or aircraft. So many of Trump’s actions have been absolutely full of willful disregard for the rule of law and are objectively worse than the others’ in this case. No, this does not appear unfair at all to me. 

Just so I understand what you’re saying…are you suggesting what Hillary did was not willful disregard for the law?  Why wasn’t she also indicted?

[Prozac]

32 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Just so I understand what you’re saying…are you suggesting what Hillary did was not willful disregard for the law?  Why wasn’t she also indicted?

I don’t know. Maybe she should’ve been. Maybe she played the game and cooperated just enough with investigators to avoid prosecution. Maybe she cooperated fully and was truly repentant. Are you suggesting that everyone who breaks the law from here on out should be given a pass because Hillary was let go with a slap on the wrist? 

[Sim]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

 

This article perfectly sums up why the case against Trump is weak at best.

[HeloDude]

42 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I don’t know. Maybe she should’ve been. Maybe she played the game and cooperated just enough with investigators to avoid prosecution. Maybe she cooperated fully and was truly repentant. Are you suggesting that everyone who breaks the law from here on out should be given a pass because Hillary was let go with a slap on the wrist? 

Wait, you’re ok with Trump being indicted and saying “maybe” Hillary should have been indicted?  I’m suggesting that if you go after one of the top politicians from one party and not one from another party, then the appearance for favoritism, corruption, etc is strong.  And I’m sorry, “truly repentant” shouldn’t matter when breaking the law.  Because who gets determine if someone is “truly repentant” and not someone else?

[Prozac]

51 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Wait, you’re ok with Trump being indicted and saying “maybe” Hillary should have been indicted?  I’m suggesting that if you go after one of the top politicians from one party and not one from another party, then the appearance for favoritism, corruption, etc is strong.  And I’m sorry, “truly repentant” shouldn’t matter when breaking the law.  Because who gets determine if someone is “truly repentant” and not someone else?

I understand your concern. What I’m confused about is the course of action you’re advocating for right now, today. Was the ball dropped with Hillary? Maybe. I don’t know. Does that mean DJT should not be prosecuted or held accountable? Do we give him a pass too in the interest of fairness? Or do we go back and re-litigate Hillary’s emails? 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

I understand your concern. What I’m confused about is the course of action you’re advocating for right now, today. Was the ball dropped with Hillary? Maybe. I don’t know. Does that mean DJT should not be prosecuted or held accountable? Do we give him a pass too in the interest of fairness? Or do we go back and re-litigate Hillary’s emails? 

So it’s a “maybe” for Hillary and her crimes…but not a “maybe” for Trump and his?  What I’m saying is that when it comes to charging the leader of each majority political party, you apply the laws in the same way.  It’s scary that you and nearly half the country don’t share this same desire.  And then you’re surprised when nearly half the country doesn’t believe we have a non-political DOJ/FBI.

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

What I’m saying is that when it comes to charging the leader of each majority political party, you apply the laws in the same way.

I agree 100%. When do we start?