ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
You're getting a bit confused. 50 Americans were being stolen from before, 50 are getting stolen from after. There weren't 55 Americans to steal from, only 50. The potential pool of native victims is already exhausted by the native thieves when you have a 50-50 ratio, and you're introducing a new population with a >50% ratio, so you're not introducing any new potential victims. Your percentages add up to >100% and you're then applying them to people and creating people out of thin air.
In the first case, there are 50 victims out of 100.
In the second case, there are 110 victims out of 200. Half of them are Americans.
Of course, since I went with 50 and 60 percent, some of them are both perpetrators and victims. This might have worked better I went with 10 and 20.
I gotta run, but first...
Let's say there are 100 Americans and 10 percent of them steal. This means there are 10 victims.
Let's add in 100 immigrants that steal at a rate of 20 percent.
Now there are 200 people and 30 victims. If half the victims are American, the number just went up from 10 to 15. It doesn't stay the same.
Looking back, I misconstrued Sklansky's comment, said I agreed and then argued the opposite.
Watching this desperate attempt to twist math to justify blatant xenophobia is troubling.
I gotta run, but first...
Let's say there are 100 Americans and 10 percent of them steal. This means there are 10 victims.
Let's add in 100 immigrants that steal at a rate of 20 percent.
Now there are 200 people and 30 victims. If half the victims are American, the number just went up from 10 to 15. It doesn't stay the same.
It doesn't stay the same, of course. It only stayed the same before because the pool of potential victims was already exhausted. Generally, it works as you think it would intuitively - if the incoming population has higher % thieves, the number of native victims goes up, if lower % thieves then it goes down. The edge cases are when one or both of the populations have >=50% thieves or potential thieves which means that their own victim pool is already exhausted.
More like a desperate attempt to do math. Anyway, illegal immigration and crime were the topics of the discussion. I don't dislike Latinos, I promise.
The way I understood it, your original attempt was to show that an incoming population with a higher % of criminals might actually cause the number of native victims to decrease. The reasoning was wrong and the conclusion was wrong, but I didn't take it as an attempt at xenophobia, rather the opposite.
In the first case, there are 50 victims out of 100.
In the second case, there are 110 victims out of 200. Half of them are Americans.
Of course, since I went with 50 and 60 percent, some of them are both perpetrators and victims. This might have worked better I went with 10 and 20.
If perpetrators can also be victims, it becomes a lot more complicated and your maths doesn't work for a bunch of other reasons. The assumption behind the original toy example was that perpetrator and victim status is mutually exclusive.
More like a desperate attempt to do math. Anyway, illegal immigration and crime were the topics of the discussion. I don't dislike Latinos, I promise.
I can see that honestly. Sometimes a problem becomes interesting for its own sake. It's just troubling that the problem was formulated in the first place (which really seems like it could have only been an attempt to justify).
I don't dislike white non college MAGAs but they are flooding our country with crime welfare dependency, and trillions in education spending on people that won't be able to pass jr high level math as adults.
I don't dislike white non college MAGAs but they are flooding our country with crime welfare dependency, and trillions in education spending on people that won't be able to pass jr high level math as adults.
I get the feeling that you're more attached to conflict and division than the issues you pretend to care about.
Nor are increases in crime randomly or evenly distributed by town or neighborhood.
Increases in crime, especially violent crime, are rarely noticeable if you live in a wealthy neighborhood.
ah yes, the classic "if a rape happens in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" argument
I get the feeling that you're more attached to conflict and division than the issues you pretend to care about.
No I support progress for normal educated diverse areas with international immigration as well as the whitest lowest performing rural welfare Trump +60 communities. You don't have to pick one or the other like a zero sum game They've been brainwashed into voting conservative for 100s of years. I grew up (and obviously fled for education) not in a bottom tier but sparse suburban below average income area. These places can do better than the conservative culture wars they're being sold.
ah yes, the classic "if a rape happens in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" argument
I don't know what you mean by this comment, but I certainly wasn't arguing that people should be unconcerned about violent crime unless it is visible in their immediate neighborhood.
Donald Trump worked at McDonalds today. He understands the working class much more than camela ever will.
Lmao^^
He finally found a job he’s qualified for
He did not work at a McDonalds today. jfc.
He did a photo op putting fries in a box.
Also this is nothing new. McDonald's has always used a clown for promotions.
Donald McDonald
The New York Times on Trump's meandering speech.
If I were visiting someone in a home for people with dementia, this still wouldn't seem normal.
