Indian software engineer gets killed in CA, his parents blame Trump

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

That's so shameless. It was probably some career criminal, who was fleeing robbing someone else, and kills this guy, and the parents try to say it was a hate crime and due to Trump? How shameless. I'm sorry your kid is dead, but blame the liberals and their pro criminal policies that allows people like that to be on the streets.

Kin allege killing of Warangal boy in US a hate crime

Right...because anytime a Republican is in office all crime magically stops.

Oh wait...a Republican is in office now and crime is, mysteriously, still occurring.

It is almost like crime is a cultural issue and not a political one.

We should bring back fire hoses and attack dogs for those protesting without a permit. The public has rights too. It is no coincidence that the most violent areas in the United States are run by Democrats where the political will to crack down on crime is subdued by the criminality of the voters they pander to. The democrat dellima is simple. Do they crack down on crime, risking that they would fail at reelection, or maintain the status quo, and get elected again? They choose the latter every time.

In case you lack a basic education in the manner (who are we pretending, we all know you don't have one).

Cities, in general, are shown to have increasing levels of crime as the size of the city increases. Now, perhaps I am the uneducated one, but if you want to show data showing that cities of similar size, but under different partisan leadership, has significantly different crime rates...please, show me and I'd be the first one to admit that I have been mistaken. However, with you seemingly lack the basic knowledge that larger cities populations = larger crime rates...your opinion seems to be one of ignorance rather than enlightenment.

"Rudy Juliani" drop the mic, walk away.

 

[Never3ndr]

That's so shameless. It was probably some career criminal, who was fleeing robbing someone else, and kills this guy, and the parents try to say it was a hate crime and due to Trump? How shameless. I'm sorry your kid is dead, but blame the liberals and their pro criminal policies that allows people like that to be on the streets.

Kin allege killing of Warangal boy in US a hate crime

Right...because anytime a Republican is in office all crime magically stops.

Oh wait...a Republican is in office now and crime is, mysteriously, still occurring.

It is almost like crime is a cultural issue and not a political one.

We should bring back fire hoses and attack dogs for those protesting without a permit. The public has rights too. It is no coincidence that the most violent areas in the United States are run by Democrats where the political will to crack down on crime is subdued by the criminality of the voters they pander to. The democrat dellima is simple. Do they crack down on crime, risking that they would fail at reelection, or maintain the status quo, and get elected again? They choose the latter every time.

In case you lack a basic education in the manner (who are we pretending, we all know you don't have one).

Cities, in general, are shown to have increasing levels of crime as the size of the city increases. Now, perhaps I am the uneducated one, but if you want to show data showing that cities of similar size, but under different partisan leadership, has significantly different crime rates...please, show me and I'd be the first one to admit that I have been mistaken. However, with you seemingly lack the basic knowledge that larger cities populations = larger crime rates...your opinion seems to be one of ignorance rather than enlightenment.

"Rudy Gulliani" drop the mic, walk away.

Is not in charge of a city. Okay, so take Rudy...please show the data that New York had lesser crime rates to other cities of similar size that were under democratic leadership at that time. I, personally, don't really have the data from those cities in the 90's.

If you are going to make a historical argument (this would be comparing NY now to then for the uneducated) then you are going to need to compare now New York rates compared to other cities to show that, independently, it was different leadership that had an effect and not other, larger, more cultural issues.

Again, the proof of evidence lies in your court, not mine, since you are trying to assert something that is not well-cited nor founded in known academia.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

That's so shameless. It was probably some career criminal, who was fleeing robbing someone else, and kills this guy, and the parents try to say it was a hate crime and due to Trump? How shameless. I'm sorry your kid is dead, but blame the liberals and their pro criminal policies that allows people like that to be on the streets.

Kin allege killing of Warangal boy in US a hate crime

Right...because anytime a Republican is in office all crime magically stops.

Oh wait...a Republican is in office now and crime is, mysteriously, still occurring.

It is almost like crime is a cultural issue and not a political one.

We should bring back fire hoses and attack dogs for those protesting without a permit. The public has rights too. It is no coincidence that the most violent areas in the United States are run by Democrats where the political will to crack down on crime is subdued by the criminality of the voters they pander to. The democrat dellima is simple. Do they crack down on crime, risking that they would fail at reelection, or maintain the status quo, and get elected again? They choose the latter every time.

In case you lack a basic education in the manner (who are we pretending, we all know you don't have one).

Cities, in general, are shown to have increasing levels of crime as the size of the city increases. Now, perhaps I am the uneducated one, but if you want to show data showing that cities of similar size, but under different partisan leadership, has significantly different crime rates...please, show me and I'd be the first one to admit that I have been mistaken. However, with you seemingly lack the basic knowledge that larger cities populations = larger crime rates...your opinion seems to be one of ignorance rather than enlightenment.

"Rudy Gulliani" drop the mic, walk away.

Is not in charge of a city. Okay, so take Rudy...please show the data that New York had lesser crime rates to other cities of similar size that were under democratic leadership at that time. I, personally, don't really have the data from those cities in the 90's.

If you are going to make a historical argument (this would be comparing NY now to then for the uneducated) then you are going to need to compare now New York rates compared to other cities to show that, independently, it was different leadership that had an effect and not other, larger, more cultural issues.

Again, the proof of evidence lies in your court, not mine, since you are trying to assert something that is not well-cited nor founded in known academia.

Crime went down under Rudys leadership despite an expanding and increasing city population. End of story. End debate. You asked for an example and you got one. I'm done here.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Does anyone else smell desperation?

Yes, but it is overwhelmed by the strong odor of complete Bullshit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Tough shit for yet another monkey replacing an American in the US work force.
I blame Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.

I think it is highly unlikely that some JAVA nerd went and executed that poor fellow due to a feeling of anxiety over an anticipated salary increase.

 

[novasteve]

Suspect has been arrested. Police providing no information. IF this had been a trump supporter, this would be breaking on CNN

Suspect arrested in fatal Milpitas shooting

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Suspect has been arrested. Police providing no information. IF this had been a trump supporter, this would be breaking on CNN

Suspect arrested in fatal Milpitas shooting

They only describe him as "a man."

That's code for "black."

 

[Never3ndr]

Right...because anytime a Republican is in office all crime magically stops.

Oh wait...a Republican is in office now and crime is, mysteriously, still occurring.

It is almost like crime is a cultural issue and not a political one.

We should bring back fire hoses and attack dogs for those protesting without a permit. The public has rights too. It is no coincidence that the most violent areas in the United States are run by Democrats where the political will to crack down on crime is subdued by the criminality of the voters they pander to. The democrat dellima is simple. Do they crack down on crime, risking that they would fail at reelection, or maintain the status quo, and get elected again? They choose the latter every time.

In case you lack a basic education in the manner (who are we pretending, we all know you don't have one).

Cities, in general, are shown to have increasing levels of crime as the size of the city increases. Now, perhaps I am the uneducated one, but if you want to show data showing that cities of similar size, but under different partisan leadership, has significantly different crime rates...please, show me and I'd be the first one to admit that I have been mistaken. However, with you seemingly lack the basic knowledge that larger cities populations = larger crime rates...your opinion seems to be one of ignorance rather than enlightenment.

"Rudy Gulliani" drop the mic, walk away.

Is not in charge of a city. Okay, so take Rudy...please show the data that New York had lesser crime rates to other cities of similar size that were under democratic leadership at that time. I, personally, don't really have the data from those cities in the 90's.

If you are going to make a historical argument (this would be comparing NY now to then for the uneducated) then you are going to need to compare now New York rates compared to other cities to show that, independently, it was different leadership that had an effect and not other, larger, more cultural issues.

Again, the proof of evidence lies in your court, not mine, since you are trying to assert something that is not well-cited nor founded in known academia.

Crime went down under Rudys leadership despite an expanding and increasing city population. End of story. End debate. You asked for an example and you got one. I'm done here.

Again, you are going to have to show that Rudy did this independent of the larger picture. Crime rates across the US declined during the period. You still have failed to provide any evidence that reductions in crime rates were special to Republican versus Democratic rule.

Edit: I get the feeling that I'm debating somebody with zero ground in academics. I don't think you actually know the logical fallacies you are committing here.

Table 1

 

[aris2chat]

That's so shameless. It was probably some career criminal, who was fleeing robbing someone else, and kills this guy, and the parents try to say it was a hate crime and due to Trump? How shameless. I'm sorry your kid is dead, but blame the liberals and their pro criminal policies that allows people like that to be on the streets.

Kin allege killing of Warangal boy in US a hate crime

road rage over the accident

 

[peabody]

That's so shameless. It was probably some career criminal, who was fleeing robbing someone else, and kills this guy, and the parents try to say it was a hate crime and due to Trump? How shameless. I'm sorry your kid is dead, but blame the liberals and their pro criminal policies that allows people like that to be on the streets.

Kin allege killing of Warangal boy in US a hate crime

Trump supporters are emboldened by his racist campaign rhetoric and now they feel justified in committing violence against people because of their race/religion

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

We should bring back fire hoses and attack dogs for those protesting without a permit. The public has rights too. It is no coincidence that the most violent areas in the United States are run by Democrats where the political will to crack down on crime is subdued by the criminality of the voters they pander to. The democrat dellima is simple. Do they crack down on crime, risking that they would fail at reelection, or maintain the status quo, and get elected again? They choose the latter every time.

In case you lack a basic education in the manner (who are we pretending, we all know you don't have one).

Cities, in general, are shown to have increasing levels of crime as the size of the city increases. Now, perhaps I am the uneducated one, but if you want to show data showing that cities of similar size, but under different partisan leadership, has significantly different crime rates...please, show me and I'd be the first one to admit that I have been mistaken. However, with you seemingly lack the basic knowledge that larger cities populations = larger crime rates...your opinion seems to be one of ignorance rather than enlightenment.

"Rudy Gulliani" drop the mic, walk away.

Is not in charge of a city. Okay, so take Rudy...please show the data that New York had lesser crime rates to other cities of similar size that were under democratic leadership at that time. I, personally, don't really have the data from those cities in the 90's.

If you are going to make a historical argument (this would be comparing NY now to then for the uneducated) then you are going to need to compare now New York rates compared to other cities to show that, independently, it was different leadership that had an effect and not other, larger, more cultural issues.

Again, the proof of evidence lies in your court, not mine, since you are trying to assert something that is not well-cited nor founded in known academia.

Crime went down under Rudys leadership despite an expanding and increasing city population. End of story. End debate. You asked for an example and you got one. I'm done here.

Again, you are going to have to show that Rudy did this independent of the larger picture. Crime rates across the US declined during the period. You still have failed to provide any evidence that reductions in crime rates were special to Republican versus Democratic rule.

Edit: I get the feeling that I'm debating somebody with zero ground in academics. I don't think you actually know the logical fallacies you are committing here.

Table 1

The opportunity cost of the time it takes to convince someone of something that what is widely accepted but they refuse to beleive is greater than the cost of spending my time elsewhere. If you would have conceded the fact that Rudy Juliani reduced crime in NY then there would be an honest atmosphere to continue with other disagreements on the issue. Adding the additional insult to the academic qualifications of a fella with a MA in Military History only demonstrates an urge to drive the conversation out of the academic realm and in to the trash heap. That aside, I've learned to take those without my level of education seriously and wouldn't dare dismiss them as "oh, well they have no academic background so their opinions don't count." Perhaps you do so in an attempt to hurt my pride in order to control my behavior into eliciting what you consider an academically minded response? Well then watch me let the merits stand and walk away.

 

[Indeependent]

We should bring back fire hoses and attack dogs for those protesting without a permit. The public has rights too. It is no coincidence that the most violent areas in the United States are run by Democrats where the political will to crack down on crime is subdued by the criminality of the voters they pander to. The democrat dellima is simple. Do they crack down on crime, risking that they would fail at reelection, or maintain the status quo, and get elected again? They choose the latter every time.

In case you lack a basic education in the manner (who are we pretending, we all know you don't have one).

Cities, in general, are shown to have increasing levels of crime as the size of the city increases. Now, perhaps I am the uneducated one, but if you want to show data showing that cities of similar size, but under different partisan leadership, has significantly different crime rates...please, show me and I'd be the first one to admit that I have been mistaken. However, with you seemingly lack the basic knowledge that larger cities populations = larger crime rates...your opinion seems to be one of ignorance rather than enlightenment.

"Rudy Gulliani" drop the mic, walk away.

Is not in charge of a city. Okay, so take Rudy...please show the data that New York had lesser crime rates to other cities of similar size that were under democratic leadership at that time. I, personally, don't really have the data from those cities in the 90's.

If you are going to make a historical argument (this would be comparing NY now to then for the uneducated) then you are going to need to compare now New York rates compared to other cities to show that, independently, it was different leadership that had an effect and not other, larger, more cultural issues.

Again, the proof of evidence lies in your court, not mine, since you are trying to assert something that is not well-cited nor founded in known academia.

Crime went down under Rudys leadership despite an expanding and increasing city population. End of story. End debate. You asked for an example and you got one. I'm done here.

Again, you are going to have to show that Rudy did this independent of the larger picture. Crime rates across the US declined during the period. You still have failed to provide any evidence that reductions in crime rates were special to Republican versus Democratic rule.

Edit: I get the feeling that I'm debating somebody with zero ground in academics. I don't think you actually know the logical fallacies you are committing here.

Table 1

Rudy showed other mayors that you can tell Black activists to shut the fuck up and get away with it.

 

[Never3ndr]

In case you lack a basic education in the manner (who are we pretending, we all know you don't have one).

Cities, in general, are shown to have increasing levels of crime as the size of the city increases. Now, perhaps I am the uneducated one, but if you want to show data showing that cities of similar size, but under different partisan leadership, has significantly different crime rates...please, show me and I'd be the first one to admit that I have been mistaken. However, with you seemingly lack the basic knowledge that larger cities populations = larger crime rates...your opinion seems to be one of ignorance rather than enlightenment.

"Rudy Gulliani" drop the mic, walk away.

Is not in charge of a city. Okay, so take Rudy...please show the data that New York had lesser crime rates to other cities of similar size that were under democratic leadership at that time. I, personally, don't really have the data from those cities in the 90's.

If you are going to make a historical argument (this would be comparing NY now to then for the uneducated) then you are going to need to compare now New York rates compared to other cities to show that, independently, it was different leadership that had an effect and not other, larger, more cultural issues.

Again, the proof of evidence lies in your court, not mine, since you are trying to assert something that is not well-cited nor founded in known academia.

Crime went down under Rudys leadership despite an expanding and increasing city population. End of story. End debate. You asked for an example and you got one. I'm done here.

Again, you are going to have to show that Rudy did this independent of the larger picture. Crime rates across the US declined during the period. You still have failed to provide any evidence that reductions in crime rates were special to Republican versus Democratic rule.

Edit: I get the feeling that I'm debating somebody with zero ground in academics. I don't think you actually know the logical fallacies you are committing here.

Table 1

The opportunity cost of the time it takes to convince someone of something that what is widely accepted but they refuse to beleive is greater than the cost of spending my time elsewhere. If you would have conceded the fact that Rudy Juliani reduced crime in NY then there would be an honest atmosphere to continue with other disagreements on the issue. Adding the additional insult to the academic qualifications of a fella with a MA in Military History only demonstrates an urge to drive the conversation out of the academic realm and in to the trash heap. That aside, I've learned to take those without my level of education seriously and wouldn't dare dismiss them as "oh, well they have no academic background so their opinions don't count." Perhaps you do so in an attempt to hurt my pride in order to control my behavior into eliciting what you consider an academically minded response? Well then watch me let the merits stand and walk away.

I agree with the fact that crime decreased in NY. I agree with the fact that Rudy was in charge during that period. I question why you are drawing a correlation between these two things when I provided evidence that the nation, at large, showed reductions in crime rate.

Thus the burden of proof remains on you to show that Republican rule has a noted effect on crime rates in comparison to democratic rule.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So-called President Trump has certainly been incendiary, stoking hate against non-white Americans and immigrants.

That's a false narrative generated by partisan lefties.
You're duped by left wing propaganda. Change the channel and make the effort to vet your info and stop embarrassing yourself.

The truth is that so-called President Trump appeals to racists and right-wing nationalists. He and his followers are embarrassing the United States before the civilized world.




.

I'm a non-left-winger who lives among exclusively left wingers and blacks and I support Trump.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

"Rudy Gulliani" drop the mic, walk away.

Is not in charge of a city. Okay, so take Rudy...please show the data that New York had lesser crime rates to other cities of similar size that were under democratic leadership at that time. I, personally, don't really have the data from those cities in the 90's.

If you are going to make a historical argument (this would be comparing NY now to then for the uneducated) then you are going to need to compare now New York rates compared to other cities to show that, independently, it was different leadership that had an effect and not other, larger, more cultural issues.

Again, the proof of evidence lies in your court, not mine, since you are trying to assert something that is not well-cited nor founded in known academia.

Crime went down under Rudys leadership despite an expanding and increasing city population. End of story. End debate. You asked for an example and you got one. I'm done here.

Again, you are going to have to show that Rudy did this independent of the larger picture. Crime rates across the US declined during the period. You still have failed to provide any evidence that reductions in crime rates were special to Republican versus Democratic rule.

Edit: I get the feeling that I'm debating somebody with zero ground in academics. I don't think you actually know the logical fallacies you are committing here.

Table 1

The opportunity cost of the time it takes to convince someone of something that what is widely accepted but they refuse to beleive is greater than the cost of spending my time elsewhere. If you would have conceded the fact that Rudy Juliani reduced crime in NY then there would be an honest atmosphere to continue with other disagreements on the issue. Adding the additional insult to the academic qualifications of a fella with a MA in Military History only demonstrates an urge to drive the conversation out of the academic realm and in to the trash heap. That aside, I've learned to take those without my level of education seriously and wouldn't dare dismiss them as "oh, well they have no academic background so their opinions don't count." Perhaps you do so in an attempt to hurt my pride in order to control my behavior into eliciting what you consider an academically minded response? Well then watch me let the merits stand and walk away.

I agree with the fact that crime decreased in NY. I agree with the fact that Rudy was in charge during that period. I question why you are drawing a correlation between these two things when I provided evidence that the nation, at large, showed reductions in crime rate.

Thus the burden of proof remains on you to show that Republican rule has a noted effect on crime rates in comparison to democratic rule.

The only folks to question Rudy in modern times are those with a political axe to grind. Of course, the burden on you is to prove that the reduction of crime in one city is for the same reasons for the reduction of crimes in others. After all it was you who accused me of academic dishonesty for not providing proof that Rudy is the cause. Now you assert that there was some other magical factor in which you have provided no proof. A simple google search of crime reduction in NY under Rudy will demonstrate that even those on the left begrudgingly give him credit. Now you want me to relitigate accepted facts? Indeed, the ball is in your court to tear down the common consensus, not mine to prove the common consensus is true. After all, there's not many I need to convince on something so widely accepted. And you expect me to attempt to convince you? No need. As this is common consensus the debate has been won already to all that matters. No need to waste my time with you. Your credibility on acceptance of facts and honesty went out the window when the personal insults entered into the conversation.

 

[Never3ndr]

Is not in charge of a city. Okay, so take Rudy...please show the data that New York had lesser crime rates to other cities of similar size that were under democratic leadership at that time. I, personally, don't really have the data from those cities in the 90's.

If you are going to make a historical argument (this would be comparing NY now to then for the uneducated) then you are going to need to compare now New York rates compared to other cities to show that, independently, it was different leadership that had an effect and not other, larger, more cultural issues.

Again, the proof of evidence lies in your court, not mine, since you are trying to assert something that is not well-cited nor founded in known academia.

Crime went down under Rudys leadership despite an expanding and increasing city population. End of story. End debate. You asked for an example and you got one. I'm done here.

Again, you are going to have to show that Rudy did this independent of the larger picture. Crime rates across the US declined during the period. You still have failed to provide any evidence that reductions in crime rates were special to Republican versus Democratic rule.

Edit: I get the feeling that I'm debating somebody with zero ground in academics. I don't think you actually know the logical fallacies you are committing here.

Table 1

The opportunity cost of the time it takes to convince someone of something that what is widely accepted but they refuse to beleive is greater than the cost of spending my time elsewhere. If you would have conceded the fact that Rudy Juliani reduced crime in NY then there would be an honest atmosphere to continue with other disagreements on the issue. Adding the additional insult to the academic qualifications of a fella with a MA in Military History only demonstrates an urge to drive the conversation out of the academic realm and in to the trash heap. That aside, I've learned to take those without my level of education seriously and wouldn't dare dismiss them as "oh, well they have no academic background so their opinions don't count." Perhaps you do so in an attempt to hurt my pride in order to control my behavior into eliciting what you consider an academically minded response? Well then watch me let the merits stand and walk away.

I agree with the fact that crime decreased in NY. I agree with the fact that Rudy was in charge during that period. I question why you are drawing a correlation between these two things when I provided evidence that the nation, at large, showed reductions in crime rate.

Thus the burden of proof remains on you to show that Republican rule has a noted effect on crime rates in comparison to democratic rule.

The only folks to question Rudy in modern times are those with a political axe to grind. Of course, the burden on you is to prove that the reduction of crime in one city is for the same reasons for the reduction of crimes in others. After all it was you who accused me of academic dishonesty for not providing proof that Rudy is the cause. Now you assert that there was some other magical factor in which you have provided no proof. A simple google search of crime reduction in NY under Rudy will demonstrate that even those on the left begrudgingly give him credit. Now you want me to relitigate accepted facts? Indeed, the ball is in your court to tear down the common consensus, not mine to prove the common consensus is true. After all, there's not many I need to convince on something so widely accepted. And you expect me to attempt to convince you? No need. As this is common consensus the debate has been won already to all that matters. No need to waste my time with you. Your credibility on acceptance of facts and honesty went out the window when the personal insults entered into the conversation.

I don't have to tear down common consensus...I provided evidence to back my claim that crime rates decreased in general in the US. NYC is part of the US. The burden remains upon you to prove that the results in NYC are special to Republican rather than democratic rule. You have provided this much evidence: ZERO to support your claims. If it is so easy for you to Google results that show that Republican rule is superior to Democratic rule, then it remains a mystery why you have stubbornly refused to provide such evidence to back your claims.

Table 1

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Crime went down under Rudys leadership despite an expanding and increasing city population. End of story. End debate. You asked for an example and you got one. I'm done here.

Again, you are going to have to show that Rudy did this independent of the larger picture. Crime rates across the US declined during the period. You still have failed to provide any evidence that reductions in crime rates were special to Republican versus Democratic rule.

Edit: I get the feeling that I'm debating somebody with zero ground in academics. I don't think you actually know the logical fallacies you are committing here.

Table 1

The opportunity cost of the time it takes to convince someone of something that what is widely accepted but they refuse to beleive is greater than the cost of spending my time elsewhere. If you would have conceded the fact that Rudy Juliani reduced crime in NY then there would be an honest atmosphere to continue with other disagreements on the issue. Adding the additional insult to the academic qualifications of a fella with a MA in Military History only demonstrates an urge to drive the conversation out of the academic realm and in to the trash heap. That aside, I've learned to take those without my level of education seriously and wouldn't dare dismiss them as "oh, well they have no academic background so their opinions don't count." Perhaps you do so in an attempt to hurt my pride in order to control my behavior into eliciting what you consider an academically minded response? Well then watch me let the merits stand and walk away.

I agree with the fact that crime decreased in NY. I agree with the fact that Rudy was in charge during that period. I question why you are drawing a correlation between these two things when I provided evidence that the nation, at large, showed reductions in crime rate.

Thus the burden of proof remains on you to show that Republican rule has a noted effect on crime rates in comparison to democratic rule.

The only folks to question Rudy in modern times are those with a political axe to grind. Of course, the burden on you is to prove that the reduction of crime in one city is for the same reasons for the reduction of crimes in others. After all it was you who accused me of academic dishonesty for not providing proof that Rudy is the cause. Now you assert that there was some other magical factor in which you have provided no proof. A simple google search of crime reduction in NY under Rudy will demonstrate that even those on the left begrudgingly give him credit. Now you want me to relitigate accepted facts? Indeed, the ball is in your court to tear down the common consensus, not mine to prove the common consensus is true. After all, there's not many I need to convince on something so widely accepted. And you expect me to attempt to convince you? No need. As this is common consensus the debate has been won already to all that matters. No need to waste my time with you. Your credibility on acceptance of facts and honesty went out the window when the personal insults entered into the conversation.

I don't have to tear down common consensus...I provided evidence to back my claim that crime rates decreased in general in the US. NYC is part of the US. The burden remains upon you to prove that the results in NYC are special to Republican rather than democratic rule. You have provided this much evidence: ZERO to support your claims. If it is so easy for you to Google results that show that Republican rule is superior to Democratic rule, then it remains a mystery why you have stubbornly refused to provide such evidence to back your claims.

Table 1

Assuming your assessment to be correct, you have yet to prove that the reduction in crime in NY is for the same reason for the reduction in crime in sayyyy... LA. You made the claim that Rudy is not to credit for reduction in crime in NY. Exactly what magical phonomina was then? People suddenly matured all of a sudden nation wide?

I don't know what your counter argument is so therefore I cannot address it. Now if you said that Rudy Juliani did not reduce crime in NY but "X" is the reason then we would have equal propositions. In reality you shouldn't be arguing that Rudy Juliani reduced crime, he did. We should be arguing to what extent can he take credit for it and to what extent he cannot. That's an honest debate. To disarm Rudy of all credit is simply disingenuous and more political than factual.

 

[Eloy]

So-called President Trump has certainly been incendiary, stoking hate against non-white Americans and immigrants.

As your boy Obama stoked racial hatred against whites and caused that negro to rape and murder that white college girl in Ohio.

Only a white racist would use the word "negro" these days.




.

 

[Eloy]

There is no Left in America only so-called President Trump supporters and more rational Americans.




.

no left in America?....what happened to them?.....they were there yesterday.....

The United States has no real politics as the whole society there has bought-into Capitalism. There are only two political parties in a country that sees itself as a democracy. Not much of a choice; capitalist right-wing and very capitalist even more right-wing.




.

how the fuck do you know?....you live in Europe.....did you read that somewhere?...

Us Europeans are educated and well-informed.




.

well you are wrong about what you think you believe....there are more than 2 political parties here and this statement you made is bullshit..."capitalist right-wing and very capitalist even more right-wing".....i know lots of people who are no were near that description ....there are a lot of capitalist left wingers and very capitalistic even more left wing.....and be brave and tell us what country you reside in...

Everyone knows Americans have little choice with only two political parties. If you suggest that there are more then you will not be believed.




.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's so shameless. It was probably some career criminal, who was fleeing robbing someone else, and kills this guy, and the parents try to say it was a hate crime and due to Trump? How shameless. I'm sorry your kid is dead, but blame the liberals and their pro criminal policies that allows people like that to be on the streets.

Kin allege killing of Warangal boy in US a hate crime

The shooter robbed a woman then killed this guy in an escape, it sounds like it could have been Obama or one of his kids