In The News Today...

Quote: AZDuffman

You are just upset that some of us see the results of Democrats in uncontested power. It is total disaster.

I'm not upset at all. Nothing to be upset about.

And the Democratic Mayors don't have uncontested power.

They share power with the States and have much less power than the States.




New York City - just 5.5 homicides per 100,000 people -

Los Angeles - just 5 homicides per 100,000 people - data from 2019 - the latest I could find

San Francisco - just 6.9 homicides per 100,000 people


All three cities are way, way, down low close to the bottom of the list re cities


.

Quote: PotPie

I'm not upset at all. Nothing to be upset about.

And the Democratic Mayors don't have uncontested power.

They share power with the States and have much less power than the States.

Sure you are. That is why you posted whining that there is a governor and we should not be blaming the Democrat mayors. That is why you keep up your rant. You cannot handle the results of Democrats in power in these places.

Quote:

New York City - just 5.5 homicides per 100,000 people -

Los Angeles - just 5 homicides per 100,000 people - data from 2019 - the latest I could find

San Francisco - just 6.9 homicides per 100,000 people


All three cities are way, way, down low close to the bottom of the list re cities


.

And all three have a bunch of other problems. The average person cares more about the huge homeless problem in all three places. The lower level crimes that keep happening because bail has been eliminated. This is what they care about. What does the store owner in San Francisco care more about? A low homicide rate or the organized shoplifting gangs now terrorizing stores?

But hey hey at least they don't have dem wascally wepublicans in power in their city!

Quote: Tanko

Quote: Mission146

Interestingly, if you look both at violent crime rates and property crime rates, per capita, the majority of the Top Ten cities, in each case, are in red states.

Specifically, democrat run cities in red states. '27 of Top 30 Crime-Ridden Cities Run by Democrats'




Most gun deaths are suicides. That CDC list include suicides. Wyoming for example, has a gun suicide rate of about 21 per 100K, but about 4 per 100K firearm homicide deaths.

I looks like a dangerous place to live with 26 deaths per 100K by firearms, but it is the third lowest state for deaths by homicide.

The CDC gun violence list includes the top four highest suicide rate states, Wyoming, New Mexico, Montana and Alaska.

The list for firearm mortality which includes accidental deaths and suicides, is different than the list for homicide mortality rates.

75% of homicides are by firearms

States with highest homicide rates:

Wyoming, Alaska and Montana, numbers 5,6 and 7 on the rate of mortality list, are not in the top ten on the homicide rate list.

Mississippi
Lousiana
Alabama
New Mexico
South Carolina
Missouri
Illinois
Tennessee
Maryland
Arkansas

States with Lowest homicide rates:

New Hampshire
Vermont
Wyoming
Maine
Idaho
Massashusetts
Hawaii
Utah
Iowa
North Dakota

Seriously. If you want to kill someone, buy a gun in a red state and take them to Manhattan. Then blow their brains out in the middle of Times Square on camera. DA Bragg will either drop the case entirely, or let you plea down to Manslaughter 1, for a 12 year sentence - max.

This is Madeline Brame. Her son was murdered and her husband stabbed twelve times, on camera. Bragg dropped the charges against two of the killers, despite the camera evidence, and gave a sweetheart deal to the other two.


This poor kid was hunted down and killed by a gang in a pre-meditated murder. Despite witness and camera evidence, Bragg gave the eight killers a deal for sentences ranging from 4-12 years.

Soros backed Bragg, who promised to be soft on criminals, won election with 83% of the vote. If the election was held today, he would win with 83% of the vote.

That's a great defense! "It's not that we have a ton of murders; it's just that people hate living in this state so much that they are killing themselves, en masse." What a ringing endorsement that is!

It would appear that four of your top five states for homicides are still red states. In fact, seven of the top ten are, so I argue that my point stands.

The states with the lowest homicide rates appear to be a mix.

As far as your, "Democrat-run cities," point---I conditionally grant that. The condition is the fact that you have to acknowledge that most big cities are, in fact, run by Democrats and tend to vote Democrat in Presidential Elections in higher numbers. Even conceding your sort of non-point; that doesn't change that the red states are leading in homicide rate in a big way.

It's always, "Oh, these Democrat-run cities." Compared to what? The Republican-run major cities that don't actually exist, for the most part?

Quote: AZDuffman

“Any” fact a lie? No.

Entire government corrupt with lies? Yes.

It definitely eliminates the need for any critical thinking, doesn't it?

"I like what they're saying here, so that one is true. I don't like what they're saying there, so that one is a lie."

Quote: Mission146

snipped…

It's always, "Oh, these Democrat-run cities." Compared to what? The Republican-run major cities that don't actually exist, for the most part?

My theory is Republican rural and small communities don’t need many laws. But the more compressed together populations can’t function without a ton of rules with everyone potentially intruding on everyone else, shared resources and spaces.

It’s literally not voting purposely, more like becomes a necessity, The wrong principles for the area probably fails worse in each community after awhile. Like the difference if you live in one house with 10 roommates vs 1 or none. If a Republican can last in a city or a Democrat in the country it’s because they actually are embracing more of the other parties traits.

Whatever chaos NYC suffers would eventually be utter chaos with small government republican with enough time. And rural communities would revolt with too many Regs and rules run by a Democrat. The fact that a republican or democrat sometimes have success in either is more an aberration than proof I believe.

,,, just a theory.

Quote: Mission146

It definitely eliminates the need for any critical thinking, doesn't it?

"I like what they're saying here, so that one is true. I don't like what they're saying there, so that one is a lie."

Actually when you take the position that your government lies constantly you learn to think critically.

Quote: rxwine

My theory is Republican rural and small communities don’t need many laws. But the more compressed together populations can’t function without a ton of rules with everyone potentially intruding on everyone else, shared resources and spaces.

It’s literally not voting purposely, more like becomes a necessity, The wrong principles for the area probably fails worse in each community after awhile. Like the difference if you live in one house with 10 roommates vs 1 or none. If a Republican can last in a city or a Democrat in the country it’s because they actually are embracing more of the other parties traits.

Whatever chaos NYC suffers would eventually be utter chaos with small government republican with enough time. And rural communities would revolt with too many Regs and rules run by a Democrat. The fact that a republican or democrat sometimes have success in either is more an aberration than proof I believe.

,,, just a theory.

I agree with your theory and would like to add some of my own theories to it.

For one thing, younger people are more likely to be Democrats and cities have a lower median average age of population than do rural areas. Because of that, you're immediately starting with a demographic inclined towards voting left.

Additionally, many of the academic institutions are either in bigger cities...and when they are big enough, also become cities unto themselves. One example of that is State College, PA, which, it should come as no surprise, has a Democratic Mayor.

Another aspect that leads to crime in big cities is the fact that big cities simply have more of everything. Potential job opportunities, restaurants, shopping, nightlife, drugs, hookers...you name it, big cities, by definition, will have more of that. I guess perhaps not stalks of corn.

Rural communities and smaller towns and villages also tend to be more insulated. Everybody knows everybody, so of any employment opportunities that do exist, potential employers are going to be more inclined to hire people that they have known rather than taking a chance on some unknown outsider. In addition to that, I think rural communities are going to tend to have lower, per capita (on average) violent crime rates for the same reason; because everybody knows everybody, and violent crime that does take place is going to tend to be either domestic, or otherwise personal, in nature.

And, again, they're going to tend not to attract unsavory characters who are not already there because there is nothing there for those characters. If I moved to a deserted island, the crime rate on my island would be zero.

The fact of the matter is that many Republican positions would simply not be helpful to big cities. When you look at trying to pull back on social safety nets, for instance, that's only going to exacerbate the homeless problem in major cities that Republicans like to point to and say, "Look at how badly the Democrats are mismanaging things!"

Okay, so short of imprisoning them all, what would Republicans do about them? Pulling back on social safety nets and enacting policies that would make it more difficult for women to work would only add to the number of homeless people. Restricting abortion access adds to the number of people, in general, which, to a large extent, is going to consist of people who really can't afford to have a child and give them a good upbringing anyway.

Democratic views are largely incompatible with these people due to their paranoia---particularly, the Evangelical Right. Even if people with alternative sexualities posed an actual existential threat, which they don't, those people largely aren't going to go try to live in rural communities anyway, and even if they did, they wouldn't be making a huge production about it. That's especially true when it comes to single individuals to whom that would apply who, if nothing else, would be more likely to want to escape a rural area (if from one) in favor of a big city, anyway.

On these sort of social issues, the Evangelicals tend to stand rigorously opposed to policies that largely wouldn't directly concern them even if they were the law of the land. They want to restrict abortion access not only because of their religious beliefs, which not everyone shares, but also because they NEED the government to do it because, often, they can't make a compelling enough argument to someone who wants to have an abortion not to do that.

If God is your main selling point, but the person you're trying to sell to is not religious, then they simply aren't going to buy.

I also don't understand why, if one of your main concerns is too much spending on social safety nets and the like, why they would want more kids to be born. Adoption is cited as an alternative, but there is still exposure to the system associated with that. Besides, a child being born (and the medical treatment associated with a full-term pregnancy), on its own, costs more than an abortion.

Even when the system doesn't get directly involved, you have the question of public school costs. A person could have ten abortions, essentially, for the cost of one year of public school.

Speaking of public school, a new thing some conservatives seem opposed to is, you know, having those. There are a few countries with no public education system, such as Bhutan, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands...anyone want to look up and tell me how those places are doing?

Of course, it is often the belief of these rural communities that lean Republican that the community can solve everything. The community largely can, but that's only by virtue of the fact that there's nothing needing solved and any people who might pose an actual problem either end up in prison or move elsewhere.

Whether the, 'Opportunities,' or what might be perceived as opportunities, are positive or negative, there are simply going to be more opportunities...to do anything...in big cities than in smaller communities. There are also more services and charitable organizations to help disadvantaged people in the big cities, and being personally disadvantaged, those people are going to tend to favor economic policies more in line with Democrats...as those policies being implemented, they perceive, would be helpful to them and the people they know.

The two types of places are politically incompatible with one another and barely have any real similarities to each other in any other way. Of course, also for that reason, the Federal Government shouldn't really try to do too much in terms of national policy.

The, "Fight for $15," for example, makes a lot more sense to people when the average rent of a studio apartment is well over $1,000 in the city, compared to some rural states wherein the average monthly rent on a studio is barely over $600. Of course, the rent costs are a function of demand, and more people simply live in big cities.

So, when people in rural areas, or largely rural states, say, "There's no way that two people working can't afford a one bedroom apartment," for them, the statement is true. They're either not cognizant of, or willfully disregard, the locales wherein that statement would be completely false.

And, when the statement is true for them, that's simply because not that many people want to live there, so there is not high demand. A $15/hour minimum wage also wouldn't make sense for them simply because it would cause them to endure hyperinflation on a microeconomic scale. Quite frankly, it would be an economic disaster for those communities.

Of course, most politicians don't actually care about the Federal Minimum Wage. If they did, then they would have indexed it to inflation by now and the matter would be settled once and for all. Obama could have done it, in fact. Trump also could have done it.

Problem is, politicians would lose a talking point that both parties think helps with their bases. They definitely don't want that.

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually when you take the position that your government lies constantly you learn to think critically.

In theory.

Quote: Mission146

The fact of the matter is that many Republican positions would simply not be helpful to big cities. When you look at trying to pull back on social safety nets, for instance, that's only going to exacerbate the homeless problem in major cities that Republicans like to point to and say, "Look at how badly the Democrats are mismanaging things!"

Quote:

Speaking of public school, a new thing some conservatives seem opposed to is, you know, having those. There are a few countries with no public education system, such as Bhutan, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands...anyone want to look up and tell me how those places are doing?

I have not heard conservatives calling to get rid of schools. But rather to rid us of the bad system we have now. Just have the money be a grant to the parents to choose the school they want instead of the system we have today where the kids are locked into the local and often bad school.

Quote:

The, "Fight for $15," for example, makes a lot more sense to people when the average rent of a studio apartment is well over $1,000 in the city, compared to some rural states wherein the average monthly rent on a studio is barely over $600. Of course, the rent costs are a function of demand, and more people simply live in big cities.

So, when people in rural areas, or largely rural states, say, "There's no way that two people working can't afford a one bedroom apartment," for them, the statement is true. They're either not cognizant of, or willfully disregard, the locales wherein that statement would be completely false.

Here is the thing on affording an apartment. When you make minimum wage you do not get to live in your own apartment. You either live with families, get roommates, or rent a boarding room. The same people say things like "living wage" when reality is not every job is a "living job." Lots of jobs are for teenagers or people looking for a few extra bucks.

Quote: PotPie

The post about crime in Democratic cities assumes that all the blame for crime there falls on the Democratic Mayor of the city

"States have the power to decide what localities can or can't do. State lawmakers have blocked city action on a range of issues. In the United States all power originates from the States".

It is when the democrat Mayors refuse to enforce existing laws meant to prevent crime and punish criminals.

A good example is stop-question-frisk, which is legal, according to the Supreme Court, but not used in democrat controlled cities.

In NYC, SQF reduced the number of arrests by 50% under Guiliani and Bloomberg.

Democrat Mayors in Republican led states can use SQF for law enforcement, but they never do. Why is that?

Do you think Republican leaders in those states are passing laws to prevent Democrat Mayors from fighting crime?

Between 1978 and 1993 under two consecutive democrat Mayors, NYC was averaging more than 2,000 homicides annually.

Fed up New Yorkers kicked Mayor Dinkins and Governor Mario Cuomo out of office.

Rudy Guiliani became Mayor in 1994, and Mike Bloomberg in 2001. Republican George Pataki became Governor in 1995. During those years, the number of homicides in the city fell 67%, to an average of around 600 murders per year, and the overall crime rate fell 50%.

Then the idiots elected a Democrat Governor and a Democrat NYC Mayor, and it all went down hill.

At first, the homicide rate continued to fall, but then, the Democrat Mayor discontinued stop-question-frisk all together, and Cuomo reduced the state prison population by 40,000 inmates, and signed the no-bail no-jail ‘bail reform’ law, to make sure they never went back.

Thanks to the Democrat leaders in Albany and NYC, since 2018, overall crime in NYC is up 22% and homicides are up 50% so far.