U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 12:10 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
1,234 posts, read 474,084 times
Reputation: 1169

Advertisements

No different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
21,184 posts, read 10,204,404 times
Reputation: 20458
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
I think the only difference we would see is that Chicago wouldn't be a sanctuary city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Would that make a difference in terms of the homicide rate?

Most homicides are black on black crimes in 5/25 Police Districts.
Most homicides involves at least one person affiliated with a black gang.
Since I didn't post that the only differences we would see is that Chicago wouldn't be a sanctuary city, and the homicide rate would go down, why would you even ask me this question?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:33 PM
 
2,166 posts, read 790,239 times
Reputation: 2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Republicans run most of the rural crap holes around the country. They would be worse off.
Stop with this garbage. 72% of suburbs in America have conservative leadership. The people who vote republican are by and large successful people. Families, home owners, business owners, middle and upper class. If you broke the 2016 vote down by income class the only income bracket Hillary won was the sub 40k poverty vote, she just won it overwhelmingly. Poor people in red states even vote democrat. It’s an absolute lie tbat poor people are voting republican. The democrats overwhelmingly win the poverty vote every election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:36 PM
 
2,166 posts, read 790,239 times
Reputation: 2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpinionExperience View Post
No different.
That’s nonsense there would be a lot less crime(see NYC before and after Giuliani) and more private investment(in part because of the lower crime but also because of more progrowth policy).

But at the end of the day government is somewhat limited. The people need to want change desperately and be very forward thinking themselves. For real lasting change there would need to be a culture shift. Fathers would need to stop abandoning their children, more emphasis would have to be placed on education at home, better role models would need to be picked. Government can’t do any of this needs to come from within.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:07 PM
 
8,816 posts, read 10,907,608 times
Reputation: 12891
People need to take responsibility for their lives, yes, but lawmakers, particularly Republicans have made many laws that favor the rich, the wealthy. When systems are in place that favor, more so, certain groups, how is that exactly not setting up other groups to fail? It's in the system. We accept it and don't see it. We give tax breaks to the wealthiest that don't need a dam* thing, but to pay more. They won't miss it and they used to pay higher amounts and it never broke their hearts. They system is out of whack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:12 PM
 
Location: East Chicago, IN
2,907 posts, read 2,752,161 times
Reputation: 1506
Most of them didn't earn what they got, they inherited it via nepotism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:20 PM
 
2,557 posts, read 1,141,068 times
Reputation: 1470
Well, then it would be filled with Republican people. So there would be less crime and violence, for one thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:22 PM
 
15,669 posts, read 4,157,140 times
Reputation: 11252
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
All you have to do is see how NYC improved under Rudy.

Now, it's slowly returning to pre-Rudy days.
Actually not at all. It BOOMED under the super-liberal Bloomberg....amazingly so. It's not a question of which party he belonged to (went indepedent anyway), but I can assure you he donates 100+ Million to the Sierra Club and to fighting coal and many other such things....

In other words, a liberal.....

Rudy may deserve some credit for clean-up but if you look at nationwide violent crime rates during that period they fell like a rock. It's definitely easier to surf a wave....

More than any pol it's the fact that a new breed of younger and more liberal and progressive people have moved into NYC...that's what is moving the city forward.

Here is the US violent crime rate - look how steep down it went during CLINTON/RUDY.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...sa-since-1990/

Not as steep under GWB, then a little better during Obama, etc....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:27 PM
Status: "but it depends on what the definition of "is" is." (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,494 posts, read 621,798 times
Reputation: 1094
Probably little different. The problem is not D vs. R. The problem is big city machine politics, invented by Van Buren and perfected by 'Boss Tweed' and Tammany Hall.

Look at the national debt issue. W. Bush, Obama, and Trump all decried the debt, and all sent it soaring. Until we address the spending issue, the problem continues. Similarly, until we address the machine politics, big cities will continue to suffer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:13 PM
 
10 posts, read 990 times
Reputation: 34
Different in what way? Clarify your question. If you're referring to the violent crime epidemic in both cities, there would be no significant difference at all. Portland and Pittsburgh are both quite liberal, yet they're relatively safe. How could that be?

It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent individuals can delude themselves into ignoring what is so obvious. Rather than confront the truth, they get tangled up in the false paradigm of Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal. The violent crime rates in our cities are not caused by Democrat/liberal government, "machine politics", or the collapse of a major industry, poor public transit, poverty, etc. The correlation is plainly clear, but it's an uncomfortable truth to accept for those raised on a steady diet of "equality". Examine the racial demographics of virtually every area plagued with violent crime and you'll see a pattern. I regret to tell you, it's not merely coincidental.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top