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'm not familiar with the report but would be interested in reading it at some point. Your argument may be true for Ferguson, I don't know, but the locals in Chicago are already Democrat and have been for decades. They're not coming to Chicago to replace people who helped put him in the White House.
The police department in Chicago is a mess and something needs to be done. You can't just let cops kill innocent people without taking some action. They covered the whole thing up and took a year to release the video people were demanding to see. Since they protect their own, someone had to come in and take action. If not the DOJ, then who?
If you're unfamiliar with the case I'm referencing, google Laquan McDonald.
I'm saying Obama is selective, political and divisive. He'll go after small towns and conservatives who done little to no wrong, but not his party members who are doing wrong. The way he goes about "fixing" things are no fix.
Chicago corrruption goes back to Al Capones empty vault......................lol.
PS there was a African(always are...lol) that said Obama was gonna pay her mortgage, gas, etc. Not to mention Obamaphones. Everthing is corrupt bout current administration.
What are some of you elites looking at, it s like you are blind or unintelligent! or worse case- BOTH.
Some of us elites just aren't racist, so we're not likely to judge an entire group based on one person.
I'm saying Obama is selective, political and divisive. He'll go after small towns and conservatives who done little to no wrong, but not his party members who are doing wrong. The way he goes about "fixing" things are no fix.
I don't know if he goes after small towns. I know he's been punitive with conservatives, journalists, etc., so you'll get no argument from me on that point.
I don't know if he goes after small towns. I know he's been punitive with conservatives, journalists, etc., so you'll get no argument from me on that point.
Well I'll concede not so much small towns but easier targets. The Obama administration has been very aggressive and I think selctive with "consent decrees" actions against police departments.
I believe one thing Obama is trying to do is take more Section 8 to the suburbs (nationwide, including Chicago). Thus far in Chicago this really hasn't solved the problems, it just has spread them around. Daley basically did this in Chicago and ultimately it did REALLY help certain areas of Chicago (for example there is no more Cabrini Green) but in the end it basically allowed rich people to get back the good dirt near downtown and the poor people got pushed out farther and brought the crime with them.
If my understanding is correct, Obama wants to give more money (higher subsidy) to section 8 residents if they live in higher income areas (thereby encouraging a push out of lower-income inner city areas). Of course, this would never impact the elite or anyone that lived in one of the homogenously rich areas b/c even with a higher subsidy, a section 8 recipient wouldn't be able to swing their portion. But it could and most likely will have an impact on those more middle-of-the-road suburbs if passed. And when I mean impact I mean race to the bottom. There are many suburban areas outside the city limits of Chicago that have witnessed this. Again, spreading a problem around doesn't solve it but it may make a politician look like a winner b/c it's NIMBY anymore...
I've tried to google for an update on this proposal over the last few months but it is hard to get any concrete info on when it will be passed or probability it will be passed. There was a hearing about it in August and apparently it is still alive as some in NYC are against it.
I believe one thing Obama is trying to do is take more Section 8 to the suburbs (nationwide, including Chicago). Thus far in Chicago this really hasn't solved the problems, it just has spread them around.
Heck yes he has, in just over a few months the government moved 10s of thousands of people into my section of town. I personally experience crime instance I never had before. I don't know exactly how it was done. I don't know if HUD basically owned all the house that got reprocessed in the housing collapse or what.
I think the government is subsidizing and buying residents for diversity Democrats and placing them in "non-diverse", Republican neighborhoods. Then the liberals move into the urban areas without the diversity for their "walkability" and "bike riding" they never do.
It's not the president's job to fix crime in any city. The last thing I want is the feds more involved in local policing.
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.
