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 that really the subject, because arent the richest cities also Democratic ?
Arent all the cities with the least amount of crime Democratic as well ???
No because most of the 20% off American designated rural areas have elected republicans. If your implying that all large cities led by democrats that have massive violent crimes is an anomaly then you'd be incorrect.
No because most of the 20% off American designated rural areas have elected republicans. If your implying that all large cities led by democrats that have massive violent crimes is an anomaly then you'd be incorrect.
We arent talking about rural areas, we are talking about cities.
I also never implied an anomaly, only that correlation is not causation.
We arent talking about rural areas, we are talking about cities.
I also never implied an anomaly, only that correlation is not causation.
The majority of low crime areas are the rural areas. The original focus was on large cities, which are almost all run by democrats, and have high crime rates.
We could find a medium sized city, that had low crime, that was run by a democrat, but we would see unicorns running through the streets.
The majority of low crime areas are the rural areas. The original focus was on large cities, which are almost all run by democrats, and have high crime rates.
major cities have have crime because there are more people and more opportunity for it. it has nothing to do with who runs it.
But again, the discussion is about cities, not rural areas. You can not argue that it is Democrats' fault the cities with the highest crime are ruled by them, but then ignore the fact that the safest large cities are also ruled by Democrats.
And again, we arent comparing cities to rural areas. But im sure I could find some safest towns in america list that would include some hamlet in Vermont that has never elected a single Republican to public office.
Quote:
We could find a medium sized city, that had low crime, that was run by a democrat, but we would see unicorns running through the streets.
Bill Clinton was certainly a supporter of NAFTA who pushed approval through Congress. But it was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush. (Here’s a photo.) Moreover, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the deal, as the trade pact was vehemently opposed by labor unions. One key ally for Clinton was then-House Minority Whip (and later House speaker) Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who is said to be on Trump’s list of possible running mates.
NAFTA was a successor to a free-trade pact with Canada. Bush had viewed NAFTA as a political opportunity, an achievement for his reelection campaign. He initialed the deal on Aug. 12, 1992, before the GOP convention, and then formally signed it in December 1992, after he had lost the election to Clinton.
Clinton had supported the pact during the presidential campaign but said he wanted to negotiate side agreements with Mexico concerning enforcement of labor and environmental laws. He didn’t pursue ratification in Congress till after those agreements were reached in August 1993 — but the deals were denounced by labor and environmental groups as too weak.
So Clinton did not negotiate NAFTA, nor did he sign it. But he did put his political prestige on the line to get it approved by Congress — even as two top Democrats, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.) and House Majority Whip David Bonior (Mich.), opposed it. In the House, NAFTA passed 234-200; 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted in favor of it. The Senate approved NAFTA 61-38, with the backing of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
In both the House and the Senate, more Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it — a signal that the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party was strong even then. Clinton held a signing ceremony for the implementing legislation on Dec. 3, 1993, flanked by former presidents and congressional leaders of both parties. But that’s not the same as negotiating and signing the treaty with Mexico and Canada. The trade agreement went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.
major cities have have crime because there are more people and more opportunity for it. it has nothing to do with who runs it.
But again, the discussion is about cities, not rural areas. You can not argue that it is Democrats' fault the cities with the highest crime are ruled by them, but then ignore the fact that the safest large cities are also ruled by Democrats.
And again, we arent comparing cities to rural areas. But im sure I could find some safest towns in america list that would include some hamlet in Vermont that has never elected a single Republican to public office.
Again, that isnt hard to do.
Here is a list of the 100 most dangerous cities that is listed PER CAPITA. So scroll through starting at #1 and let us know which is the first one run by a republican.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not ok
The OVERWHELMING number on this list are run by democrats. Casual relationship between democrats and heavy crime cities is more than casual causation.
In my humble opinion you're confounding correlation and causation.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like your premise is something like: "These cities have been Democratic strongholds for sometime and are sh*tholes, therefore commonly held Democratic policies/ideologies create sh*tholes".
Let's start by assuming your premise is correct. What about Seattle, Denver, Boston, New York, San Francisco, Portland, Austin, San Diego etc.? You completely ignore Democratic/liberal cities that are thriving.
Second of all I don't think you have a firm grasp on the concept of correlation. Just because two events occur at the same time (in this case, Democratic rule and the decline of urban areas) you cannot say that one caused the other unless you eliminate every other possible cause.
I.e. redlining, National Highway act, restrictive racial covenants, the G.I. bill/rise of the suburbs, the proliferation of the automobile, the rise of technology, decline of manufacturing in the U.S./NAFTA (which was a bipartisan effort although signed off by Bill Clinton), globalization, racial tension etc. are all reasons why most of our urban areas declined from the 60's to the 90's.
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.
Democrats prevent crime!?!??
