Coreece

If you really want to know where you are most at risk of violence in the USA, here is a handy map: https://www.santarosa-lawyer.com/united-states-crime-map-2017/ That's not really helpful tho in a practical sense, because while some states might appear lower on the list, they are home to some of the most dangerous areas in the country. If you are moving or traveling, you might want to look at crime within a specific county, zip code or neighborhood to more accurately gauge your level of risk. Nice Interactive map: https://www.adt.com/crime?41.93388291368289,-87.44632778807924,10 https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods-2017

In Poland, each EV is incentivized with it's own windmill. So I looked up this concept just for shits and giggles and here's the first article I found: https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/01/strap-this-wind-turbine-to-your-electric-car-and-you-can-drive-forever/ Turns out it was written by a guy named Liszewski.

In Poland, each EV is incentivized with it's own windmill.

Couldn't this, along with the whole thing about immigrant crime being rare be applied to almost any special group/cause seeking to end or at least draw attention to some type of victimization/injustice?

Didn't that rocket quote come from The New York Times? Just as we would've without those same people, and their inventions.

It was a fun little trick, but I think you're taking it a bit too seriously. The analogy might be slightly broken, but you could just as easily produce the same effect by asking if the public should allow orphaned children into their houses and homes? "Well of course, don't be ridiculous!" "Ok, Great! Meet little Allie Olsen here. Would you mind taking her home with you? Her parents were killed by illegal aliens." "oh. . .Oh. Well, um, you know, with work, and um, I haven't had the apartment checked for lead yet, and um. . ." "Gotcha! fuckin' hypocrite. . ." Also, what's the takeaway from this, that if you can't personally provide shelter for a refugee that you should be against immigration?

I think the main difference/problem with today is that "They" represents a large portion of people that also "have no idea what it's like to live as a minority," and thus have a problem identifying and resolving issues facing the black community. Here's a pretty decent article from The Atlantic that does just that. What African Americans lost by aligning with the Democratic Party "Northern liberals pioneered what scholars now call “colorblind racism.” That’s when racially neutral language makes extreme racial inequalities appear to be the natural outcome of innocent private choices or free-market forces rather than intentional public policies like housing covenants, federal mortgage redlining, public housing segregation, and school zoning. "Democratic lawmakers drafted civil-rights legislation that would challenge Jim Crow laws in the South while leaving de facto segregation in the North intact." “People have to understand that although the civil-rights bill was good and something for which I worked arduously, there was nothing in it that had any effect whatsoever on the three major problems Negroes face in the North: housing, jobs, and integrated schools…the civil-rights bill, because of this failure, has caused an even deeper frustration in the North.” Today’s protest movements against second-class citizenship in Baltimore, Ferguson, Oakland, and elsewhere are in part a legacy of the unresolved failures of civil-rights legislation." "This poses the biggest problem for black voters today, which is that Democrats running for state or national office aspire to win black votes without appearing to be beholden to black voters. This is especially true of the three Democratic presidents since Kennedy and Johnson. " I've been saying similar things for the past several years with the hope of finally addressing the issue, but I didn't really have a full understanding, nor the words to explain it so eloquently. I think addressing this is going to be a very important issue for Democrats moving forward into 2020, and I'm glad more people are starting to recognize it.

Good post overall, and very well put. I'd also add that it's critical in identifying/addressing implicit bias that's supposedly within all of us - even well raised, well trained, and well intentioned individuals. Having said that, I can see how being falsely accused of racism based merely on the perception/exploitation of racism can be rather frustrating. In such cases, I'd say any ensuing anger is justified. Unfortunately tho, such anger will be perceived as racist, leading to even more frustration and exacerbating the situation.

The Mueller Report isn't text searchable so I converted it and attached it below if anyone is interested. I find searchable text just makes it easier to confirm one's bias. Searchable Mueller Report.pdf

Wake up. He jumped bail because Uk was going to extradict him to Sweden who was going to extradite him to the US. Why would he have been extradited to the U.S if there weren't even any U.S charges against him at that time? And even if there were, why would he have to go to back to Sweden to be extradited to the U.S? And if he was so afraid of Sweden, why did he seek to live there indefinitely to expand Wikileaks because of their "laws protecting whistle blowers?"

There are a lot of posts here that are really just people reacting because they feel they need to. A lot of people feel it's important to say something when really it just seems to be an attempt to get the last word in. Sometimes I'm guilty as well but I am trying to do it less. We are all here for different reasons I suppose. It's all good. I'm probably coming off a bit more irritated than I actually am anyway.

If I really didn't have anything relevant to say, I'd probably just keep my mouth shut rather than ask them some type of snide-ass loaded question that really had nothing to do with what we were actually talking about. This is a thread called The Wall, and among a slew of other problems related to the border crisis, we are discussing how better border security might affect the level of crime committed by undocumented immigrants. If there was a thread about domestic violence and we were discussing how to reduce spousal murder rates, I might talk about some reasonable gun restrictions that would apply to domestic violence situations only. That doesn't mean that I don't care about other types of murders, or that spousal murders are less significant because they're not as common and therefore not worthy of any exclusive mitigation effort, especially if it's not applicable to all types of murder.

dumbest fucking post you ever made.

I'd agree that a full 1200 mile wall would be impractical and a bit of overkill. I'm not even sure if the full 500 miles of additional barriers in "accessible" areas are really that necessary. But if you think partial walls are effective, how can you honestly say that Trump's full wall wouldn't be at least as effective? So what are the numbers any way? How many are arrested? How many are arrested for trafficking/smuggling or some other illegal activity like that? How many are arrested for trying to sneak through? How many are simply surrendering to apply for asylum? If the estimates of 20,000 women and children being trafficked every year across an unsecured border are considered unreliable, how are estimates of those that sneak through secured border crossings more reliable? Also according to the IOM, "cases of sexual exploitation were more likely to travel through unofficial routes." Sexual exploitation accounts for 22% of nonofficial border crossings as apposed to 15% of official border crossings. Many children unaccompanied by adults also tend to journey toward unsecured points of entry which leaves them more susceptible to those trying to exploit them.

Careful there. "Fuck it, just confiscate their guns already" is an even easier leap, given that no right winger is willing to engage in meaningful discourse on that. (And the next time we have a democratic president, he/she can just 'declare a crime emergency' and do just that, with the precedents being set now.) Interesting, because every time the subject comes up, you guys are always quick to assure everyone that "nobody wants to take your guns!" Besides, democrats don't have the balls to raid inner cities, nor start a war with the militia. But I'm glad you brought it up. Maybe you can apply your gun control strategy to border control as well: "If a new treatment saved "only" 8% more pancreatic cancer patients - it would be seen as a pretty good thing. Do that year after year, and pretty soon you have a dramatic reduction in deaths. Even if they come 8% (or even 4%) at a time." That was most likely due to the poor economy and the subsequent Home Depot parking lot hiring freeze.

Tell that to the 200,000-450,000+ victims of criminal illegal aliens in Texas alone. It was a snide post in response to another snide post. I just thought Jakee's reply was unwarranted. It's not like Bigun came in here ragging on "foreigners from shithole mexican countries stinking the place up!"

So what's your solution to American on American crime? It wasn't my solution, but apparently better parenting, more cops and more abortions has cut the crime rate in half of the past 25 years or so. What does that have to do with border security? I'm going to dismiss it because that's not what I'm talking about.

That's even worse. If you want to call the victims and their family/friends a bunch of bleeding heart snowflakes that should just deal with it, that's fine. Just don't be surprised when they deal with it by building a fucking wall.

Lol, so that's the solution? "Oh, you or your family were victims of the 500-1000+ murders and 6000-1200+ sex crimes in Texas? Meh, big deal - you're still more likely to be a victim of a U.S citizen, so stop being such a bleeding heart snowflake and just deal with it." No wonder there's no meaningful discourse on the subject and people get all pissed off and say "fuck it, just build the damn wall already," especially if that's the only thing they feel they have the control to do.

I guess I have more to learn on this. Thanks for the correction. It's just what I've been reading from the BBC. Here's a decent timeline: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341

My point is that his removal from the embassy and arrest in recent days was due to a conspiracy to hack charge, not the rape charge. No, he was arrested for jumping bail in the UK on the Sweden warrant and faces up to a year on that charge. Now that he's out, the US wants him and quite possibly Sweden as well.

He was arrested for jumping bail after he found out that the UK was going to comply with Sweden's warrant and have him extradited back in 2012 to face the rape charges. That's why he was holed up for 7 years in the embassy to begin with.

The Swedes said they dropped the case because he was granted asylum. Now that that protection is gone, the victim's lawyer is doing everything she can to get the prosecutor to reopen the case before times runs out again, just like it did for his other sexual assault charges. Now apparently 70 parliamentarians just sent a letter to Home Security urging them to "stand with the victims of sexual violence" and ensure the rape claim against the Wikileaks founder could be "properly investigated" "We do not presume guilt, of course, but we believe due process should be followed and the complainant should see justice be done" "the letter was intended "to underline the point that first and foremost Mr Assange is accused of rape and sexual violence in Sweden". https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47910820

you have a good point there I can't see him doing much time if any looks like he overstayed his welcome there and pissed off his hosts Right, it seems more like he was evicted for having a dirty bathroom and not taking care of his cat. I think the U.S hacking charge carries a max of 5 years, but Sweden apparently still has till 2020 to reopen the rape case. Not sure why the statute of limitations should even matter here since the alleged victim already came forward and is still actively seeking justice. As of 2018, new laws in Sweden make it easier to prosecute rape cases that carry a penalty of 4-10 years.

So we might be attacking Allah's Army that extends all the way to South America? Holy Shit, no wonder Trump wants a wall.