I’ll try this one more time using simple sentences. There is no “suspect data.” The article provided no data. The issue is the methodology. Methodology and data are different. The data was compared incorrectly. The race variable was not isolated. Bad methodology = bad conclusion.

So you admit you didn’t read the article. If you had you would know that the issue is not the data but the faulty methodology used by ProPublica, which resulted in an apples to oranges comparison that invalidates their conclusion. Even if there were race-based pricing going on in the industry, the ProPublica study…

I take it from your ad hominem attack that you don’t have a response to their actual argument. Too much math for you?

There is actually a perfectly good explanation - all laid out here: http://www.iii.org/article/why-propublicas-auto-insurance-report-is-inaccurate-unfair-and-irresponsible

Actually they can be explained by math. It is all laid out here: are you willing to read it?

You are a little old to be using gifs as responses, aren’t you?

“Trenga’s ruling focused on how the travel ban is worded and how that aligns with Trump’s presidential power over immigration and national security. In other words, Trenga found the loophole.”

If that is not the case in this instance then I stand corrected. I typically observe that civil disobedience nowadays is followed immediately by demands by fellow activists to drop the charges, and intervention by local leaders/ministers.

Right, hence the quotation marks. You are the one throwing out the term to justify your zealotry and anti-social behavior.

This is what you call “academically desirable minority privilege.” Certainly he has spotless grades and a stellar list extra-curricular activities, but so does everyone else with a realistic shot at admission to one of those schools. Do not try a stunt like this if your last name is Wang or O’Leary.

“Respectability politics” - otherwise known as expressing yourself in a way that may have some chance of persuading someone.

Sounds like good police work to me. If the BLM events didn’t so often involve destruction of property, freeway blocking and other assorted attacks on the transportation system, etc., then the police likely would not be involved at this level. NYC is not Oakland - you don’t get to shut down Grand Central because you…

Ok, that makes some sense.

I agree with several of your points, but I think it also fair to point out that Trump would never have won the Republican nomination in the era before direct voting for party nominees. We would have instead had Jeb Bush or Kaisich - both far better options. A system where the people have no say is a tyranny - but I…

So now an organization that once conspired against MLK is trying to honor MLK, and somehow that is a bad thing to the “professional complainer” crowd of which Monique Judge is a member. No matter that the FBI agents who did the former about 50 years ago are retired from the agency and likely dead - the current…

Where you lost me was equating a vote for Trump with being “comfortably allied with White supremacists.” Trump would not have won if a bunch of people who voted twice for Obama hadn’t voted for him.

Jason Johnson, you really aren’t helping the effort to push back against Trump by getting as crazy and conspiratorial as he does. Statements like this: 

How many politicians, business leaders, and their families, would be much better off if they followed this rule? Add Hillary Clinton to this list, as well.

Actually the more contextually relevant word to replace “government” with is “bureaucracy,” but neat trick.

Given how people have voted recently, I’m not sure that putting more decisions directly in the hands of the populace is the solution. It will make politics resemble social media discussions even more closely. This is the mob rule that our founders so feared. I would actually argue for moving in the opposite direction.