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.
I disagree. The relationship between Democratic mayors and crime is causal rather than coincidental./QUOTE]
Based on what, exactly? What specific, actual (i.e. non anecdotal) evidence do you have to support your assertion?
Then how to explain the fact that Jacksonville, FL has a higher violent crime rate than San Francisco, CA? Maybe its just so simple as D vs. R?
Owen (so you don't have to ask)
I cited the perfect example in Asheville. And after losing almost 100 police officers who cited very specific and actual reasons, and after 6 of 7 recruits quit while also citing specific and actual reasons, the mayor (a genius, this one) has decided that "an increased law enforcement presence may act as a deterrent to the recent increase in crime". D'ya think? And your citing of one city as an example to bolster an already failed argument is almost too stupid to reply to in light of my own, citing 100. I'm not gonna reply to you here anymore, Triangle posters have made it clear that this isn’t a welcome discussion. If you're not through, move it over to the politics forum.
I cited the perfect example in Asheville. And after losing almost 100 police officers who cited very specific and actual reasons, and after 6 of 7 recruits quit while also citing specific and actual reasons, the mayor (a genius, this one) has decided that "an increased law enforcement presence may act as a deterrent to the recent increase in crime". D'ya think? And your citing of one city as an example to bolster an already failed argument is almost too stupid to reply to in light of my own, citing 100. I'm not gonna reply to you here anymore, Triangle posters have made it clear that this isn’t a welcome discussion. If you're not through, move it over to the politics forum.
Thanks for the continued and unwelcome personal attacks. I think that's actually what the Triangle posters(?) have made clear that it isn't welcome.
Again, the problems and the solutions aren't as simple as R vs. D. Your personal interpretations are merely that, your interpretations, and your understanding of "causal" is incomplete.
I disagree. The relationship between Democratic mayors and crime is causal rather than coincidental. Need we look farther than our very own Asheville to understand the pernicious effects on crime of Liberal views toward law enforcement?
A mayor can certainly invest in LE through the budgetary process. And there are certainly ones who approach it in a manner I don’t understand. And they can be judged on the effectiveness of their approach.
However city/local law in many cases gets preempted by State and Federal law. Mayors can’t unilaterally control their city beyond the confines of State/Federal law.
Sure I bet the big cities with Democratic mayors have higher crime rates than Republican ones. But some of the biggest Democratic run cities in the country are in states with lax gun laws.
It’s a bigger equation than just a city’s mayor’s political affiliation. That was my point.
A mayor can certainly invest in LE through the budgetary process. And there are certainly ones who approach it in a manner I don’t understand. And they can be judged on the effectiveness of their approach.
However city/local law in many cases gets preempted by State and Federal law. Mayors can’t unilaterally control their city beyond the confines of State/Federal law.
Sure I bet the big cities with Democratic mayors have higher crime rates than Republican ones. But some of the biggest Democratic run cities in the country are in states with lax gun laws.
It’s a bigger equation than just a city’s mayor’s political affiliation. That was my point.
I've shown causal effects as well as citing a study showing violent crime and homicide rates in Democratically controlled cities of 2 to 3 times that of their Republican counterparts. You're certainly free to draw your own conclusions as is Owen. I'm satisfied with my own.
A mayor can certainly invest in LE through the budgetary process. And there are certainly ones who approach it in a manner I don’t understand. And they can be judged on the effectiveness of their approach.
However city/local law in many cases gets preempted by State and Federal law. Mayors can’t unilaterally control their city beyond the confines of State/Federal law.
Sure I bet the big cities with Democratic mayors have higher crime rates than Republican ones. But some of the biggest Democratic run cities in the country are in states with lax gun laws.
It’s a bigger equation than just a city’s mayor’s political affiliation. That was my point.
If your argument is to blame state and federal law rather than mayoral attitudes and actions, then wouldn't mayors of either political party face these same constraints equally? No, the mayor sits at the top of his or her police department's organizational chart and exerts direct and primary influence toward department policy as well as morale. I'm a Democrat and we do lots of things very well, but controlling crime in our cities simply isn't one of them.
I've shown causal effects as well as citing a study showing violent crime and homicide rates in Democratically controlled cities of 2 to 3 times that of their Republican counterparts. You're certainly free to draw your own conclusions as is Owen. I'm satisfied with my own.
This demonstrates association, which should not be confused with cause and effect.
It COULD BE that it's because of the mayor's affiliation, but it's much more likely (for example) that huge cities are statistically more blue, whereas rural areas are more red. More crime happens in cities, and the main reason is not "because the mayor is D or R". It is historically true that around the world, cities with more and denser population experience more crime.
Just saying, don't confuse correlation with cause, even when it's convenient...
This demonstrates association, which should not be confused with cause and effect.
It COULD BE that it's because of the mayor's affiliation, but it's much more likely (for example) that huge cities are statistically more blue, whereas rural areas are more red. More crime happens in cities, and the main reason is not "because the mayor is D or R". It is historically true that around the world, cities with more and denser population experience more crime.
Just saying, don't confuse correlation with cause, even when it's convenient...
At least we're not debating the fact that cities with Democratic mayors are far more deadly and violent than their Republican counterparts. No small step, though I can't help but wonder if the steadfast refusal to admit it in the face of overwhelming evidence isn't part of the problem. I've demonstrated causal actions in Asheville and to think that this is an isolated case is simply naive. In Greensboro, during the last "demonstrations", Mayor Nancy Vaughn, a Democrat, ordered the chief of police not to make any arrests for vandalism. This is causal. Contrast with New York City in 1994. Then mayor, Republican Rudy Giuliani allowed police commissioner Bill Bratton to institute his broken window initiative. When Bratton resigned in 1996, felonies were down 40 percent and the homicide rate cut in half. Coincidental? Or causal? As you wish though. Of the 100 largest cities in America, those cities with Democratic mayors "coincidentally" boast violent crime and homicide rates of 2 to 3 times that of their Republican counterparts, and some among them the deadliest and most dangerous on the planet, with greater disparity occurring in the 50 LEAST populated rather than the most. Is it because these mayors are Democrats or because they're soft on crime? Is there a difference? Split the hairs if you want. What else do you have left?
No, and I started writing a long response that you could cherry-pick apart but decided to delete it.
Until BOTH SIDES are willing to look at the problems our country faces in a holistic matter, all we'll have is this useless back and forth. BOTH SIDES (but you only see one side at fault).
Immigration
Crime
Drugs
Inflation
Income disparity
...and the list goes on.
There are systemic problems and unfortunately it's easier to get elected by blaming the other side, than actually sticking your neck out there to try to solve the problem.
Anyone (D, R, I or other) that thinks that the party(s) they support is not PART of the problem is either naïve or dishonest. Either way, their opinion is worthless to me. (and that goes both ways)
No, and I started writing a long response that you could cherry-pick apart but decided to delete it.
Until BOTH SIDES are willing to look at the problems our country faces in a holistic matter, all we'll have is this useless back and forth. BOTH SIDES (but you only see one side at fault).
Immigration
Crime
Drugs
Inflation
Income disparity
...and the list goes on.
There are systemic problems and unfortunately it's easier to get elected by blaming the other side, than actually sticking your neck out there to try to solve the problem.
Anyone (D, R, I or other) that thinks that the party(s) they support is not PART of the problem is either naïve or dishonest. Either way, their opinion is worthless to me. (and that goes both ways)
Some nut here likens Republicans to the Taliban and is seconded by yet another nut. This?
Some nut here likens Republicans to the Taliban and is seconded by yet another nut. This?
Because its true.
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.
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.
