Trump's Miracle Economy

Post Reply New Topic

In related news that the left-wing media is eager to cover up:


VIOLENT CRIME DROPS, TRUMP GETS NO CREDIT

The FBI’s good news about crime got very little publicity, and I can’t find a single publication that gave the Trump administration any credit for the trend. Why should they, you might ask, since homicide and other violent crimes have been declining since the 1990s?

Because that decline was interrupted by a two-year upward spike in 2015 and 2016, the last two years of the Obama administration. The homicide rate then fell in 2017, and more steeply in 2018. Last December, as I noted here, the New York Times reported that the murder rate for 2018 was “on track for a big drop.” It gave us this useful chart, with the 2018 rate projected (the actual rate came in slightly lower). . . .

I conservatively estimated that the 2015-2016 increase in homicides under Obama cost more than 5,000 lives (most of them black). Conversely, thousands of lives are now being saved, as the homicide rate declines. You might consider this newsworthy, but our newspapers don’t. Anything that reflects negatively on the Obama administration or positively on the Trump administration–this is a twofer–is best left unmentioned.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... credit.php

Since people claim I don't criticize you enough. Violent crime has been on a decades long down turn. From Bush Sr. -> Clinton -> Bush Jr. -> Obama -> Trump.

Violent crime was at its peak in the US in the late 80s-early 90s.

New York City topped 2,000 murders sometime in the early 90s. We might not even get up to 400 this year. Still 400 too many, though!

Darmok's source is obviously right wing....and designed to hide another statistic

Scientific/social research supports well known assertion that hate crimes have increased under Trump
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3102652

Here's a hypothetical (and I'm not saying Trump has reduced crime as its a continuation of a decades long trend), if you could reduce the overall violent crime rate by 50%, but all the remaining crimes were hate crimes, would you?

No, I wouldn't.

Especially since the "hypothetical" will never happen----unless one is in an Hitlerian-type state.

Yes, in a heartbeat. Since the only difference between a violent hate crime and a regular violent crime is the motivation while the action taken remains unchanged, your hypothetical cuts violent crime in half essentially for free. A person being assaulted for their wallet is no more and no less assaulted than the person who gets assaulted for their skin colour.

And I assume you mean that all the remaining violent crimes would be hate crimes. If not, all the better; we could cut violent crime in half in exchange for an increase in a**holes drawing swastikas in random places.

We have to get rid of the hate crimes, too....

And you can wallow in impotent utopianism if you like, I'd certainly choose a 50% decrease in violent crime over doing nothing because it's not 100%.

Why can't we reduce violent crime by 50%----and include "hate crimes" within this?

What's so "utopian" about that?

Because you are talking about a Utopia society built by people who have the belief that hating certain groups is a good thing.

Violent hate crimes are a subset of violent crimes, so they would be included. But not all hate-crimes are violent crimes. The question was whether or not it would be an acceptable trade-off that all violent crime be reduced by 50% (this including hate crime), but all remaining violent crime are now hate crimes in some form. And I explained why "yes" should be the obvious answer above.


What you did was reject a reduction in violent crime by 50% on the basis that it wasn't a reduction by 100%. That's textbook utopianism.

Yeah. I want as close to 100% as possible.

No qualifiers.

...and yet you picked 0% reduction over a 50% reduction on the basis that 50% isn't 100%.

I think his rejection was more because he assumed hate crime was not included in the figure.

This sort of hypothetical situation doesn't exist in real life. There's no possible way this could exist. I only deal with "hypotheticals" which are possible.

I wouldn't sacrifice "hate crimes" for "other types" of crimes.

I would prefer putting "all crime" together in any reduction.