# Rising crime will hurt Democrats



## Chew Toy McCoy

Republicans will make it 100% about defund the police even though that largely hasn’t happened and Democrats will make it about access to guns even though gun violence isn’t the only crime that is up. They are both lazy arguments that solve nothing, but most voters are also lazy on this issue and that means they think incarceration solves everything and that’s the flag the Republican party proudly waves.

The fact is crime goes down when there is a healthy middle class and the middle class has been on decline even before Trump, and existing on a mountain of debt isn’t “healthy”. Neither party will address this fact though because Democrats won’t acknowledge there is an economic problem on their watch or will blame it all on covid and Republicans would rather turn the entire country into a prison yard than entertain the possibility there is anything wrong with our current iteration of capitalism.

Since Republicans have largely controlled the narrative since Obama took office I’m curious what people on here think Democrats can do to change the perception that they are weak on crime or that they have solutions that don’t revolve around throwing everybody in prison.


----------



## SuperMatt

Republicans have an outrage machine. They just need to pick good things to put in it. The machine is Fox News for TV, The Daily Wire for Facebook (it gets more “engagement” than anything else on Facebook), and a handful of highly-followed Twitter accounts. They work together to decide what they want to push in hopes of swaying the electorate.

CRT - This is a complete nothing-burger, but Fox News mentioned it 1300 times in 3 weeks:








						Fox News' obsession with critical race theory, by the numbers
					






					www.mediamatters.org
				




Defund - This became a slogan in 2020, and hasn’t been implemented anywhere yet. However, the Republicans are already blaming it for a rise in crime. Talking to some right-wingers, the response to telling them it hasn’t been implemented is “The criminals HEARD the police will be defunded so they started criming more!” Which is magical thinking: “Saying “defund” 3 times makes people start murdering each other!"

Is it worth fighting against this baloney? Who knows. People in that echo chamber will never hear anybody outside of it, so until we can fix that problem, what’s the point? My tiny protest of posting on a right-wing dominated forum to hopefully open an eye or two isn’t even a drop in the bucket, especially with my abrasive personality - I probably make them clutch their pearls even tighter.


----------



## thekev

SuperMatt said:


> Defund - This became a slogan in 2020, and hasn’t been implemented anywhere yet. However, the Republicans are already blaming it for a rise in crime. Talking to some right-wingers, the response to telling them it hasn’t been implemented is “The criminals HEARD the police will be defunded so they started criming more!” Which is magical thinking: “Saying “defund” 3 times makes people start murdering each other!"




They'll argue that the movement emboldened criminals and killed morale among police. If it isn't this or CRT, they'll find something else to be angry about. The people yelling about "defund the police" are the same ones who claimed Biden and Harris would usher in a police state. At one point they were running with both messages simultaneously.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Republicans have an outrage machine. They just need to pick good things to put in it. The machine is Fox News for TV, The Daily Wire for Facebook (it gets more “engagement” than anything else on Facebook), and a handful of highly-followed Twitter accounts. They work together to decide what they want to push in hopes of swaying the electorate.
> 
> CRT - This is a complete nothing-burger, but Fox News mentioned it 1300 times in 3 weeks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News' obsession with critical race theory, by the numbers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediamatters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defund - This became a slogan in 2020, and hasn’t been implemented anywhere yet. However, the Republicans are already blaming it for a rise in crime. Talking to some right-wingers, the response to telling them it hasn’t been implemented is “The criminals HEARD the police will be defunded so they started criming more!” Which is magical thinking: “Saying “defund” 3 times makes people start murdering each other!"
> 
> Is it worth fighting against this baloney? Who knows. People in that echo chamber will never hear anybody outside of it, so until we can fix that problem, what’s the point? My tiny protest of posting on a right-wing dominated forum to hopefully open an eye or two isn’t even a drop in the bucket, especially with my abrasive personality - I probably make them clutch their pearls even tighter.




Democrats kind of painted themselves into a corner with letting "defund the police" stick.  While it may not have actually happened, they certainly can't now run on increasing police funds due to increased crime.  So that's why I'm asking what they could possibly say as an alternative.

I know certain groups of people won't change their mind, but there are still plenty of moderates who might vote on this one issue and the perception of who will handle it better.


----------



## User.45

thekev said:


> They'll argue that the movement emboldened criminals and killed morale among police. If it isn't this or CRT, they'll find something else to be angry about. The people yelling about "defund the police" are the same ones who claimed Biden and Harris would usher in a police state. At one point they were running with both messages simultaneously.



Truth is, Democrats are harder on crime than republicans if they are in tight competition with republicans. (I can dig up the study if anybody's interested). 



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Republicans will make it 100% about defund the police even though that largely hasn’t happened and Democrats will make it about access to guns even though gun violence isn’t the only crime that is up. They are both lazy arguments that solve nothing, but most voters are also lazy on this issue and that means they think incarceration solves everything and that’s the flag the Republican party proudly waves.
> 
> The fact is crime goes down when there is a healthy middle class and the middle class has been on decline even before Trump, and existing on a mountain of debt isn’t “healthy”. Neither party will address this fact though because Democrats won’t acknowledge there is an economic problem on their watch or will blame it all on covid and Republicans would rather turn the entire country into a prison yard than entertain the possibility there is anything wrong with our current iteration of capitalism.
> 
> Since Republicans have largely controlled the narrative since Obama took office I’m curious what people on here think Democrats can do to change the perception that they are weak on crime or that they have solutions that don’t revolve around throwing everybody in prison.




Democrats achieve this task without crime with the help of Sinema and Manchin.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> Democrats achieve this task without crime with the help of Sinema and Manchin.




Off the top of my head there was "super predators" and 3 strikes law.

But I also don't recall a time when Democrats also seemed to be anti-police while crime was on the rise.


----------



## Joe

Crime is up in Houston and I already see people blaming it on the whole "defund" the police thing. People are frustrated and want answers. 

A few weeks ago a friend's brother was murdered in a home invasion.


----------



## thekev

P_X said:


> Truth is, Democrats are harder on crime than republicans if they are in tight competition with republicans. (I can dig up the study if anybody's interested).




That is a dangerous thing for me. I end up reading these, then marking citations from it that I want to read, then checking who cited the original one in case of interesting responses.... It is bad on a work day, as I end up working later to compensate.



JagRunner said:


> Crime is up in Houston and I already see people blaming it on the whole "defund" the police thing. People are frustrated and want answers.
> 
> A few weeks ago a friend's brother was murdered in a home invasion.




Even if it was an issue of cultural attitude, it's quite a reach to attribute problems in Texas to that.


----------



## SuperMatt

JagRunner said:


> Crime is up in Houston and I already see people blaming it on the whole "defund" the police thing. People are frustrated and want answers.
> 
> A few weeks ago a friend's brother was murdered in a home invasion.



"Thanks, Obama...."


----------



## User.45

JagRunner said:


> Crime is up in Houston and I already see people blaming it on the whole "defund" the police thing. People are frustrated and want answers.



More guns didn't fix this issue?! Whodathunk!



JagRunner said:


> A few weeks ago a friend's brother was murdered in a home invasion.\



Sorry about your friend's brother 



thekev said:


> That is a dangerous thing for me. I end up reading these, then marking citations from it that I want to read, then checking who cited the original one in case of interesting responses.... It is bad on a work day, as I end up working later to compensate.



Ditto, LOL. 



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Off the top of my head there was "super predators" and 3 strikes law.
> 
> But I also don't recall a time when Democrats also seemed to be anti-police while crime was on the rise.



But are they anti police? I'll say this though, Bill Clinton is responsible for the largest mass police recruitment ever. This came with a sharp drop in crime...did more cops reduce crime? Unlikely, as Canada without such reforms experienced the same trends. So either Canada's crime is driven by the crime in the USA, or better social net and understanding of drivers of an addiction epidemic is just better ways to deal with issues.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Democrats kind of painted themselves into a corner with letting "defund the police" stick.  While it may not have actually happened, they certainly can't now run on increasing police funds due to increased crime.  So that's why I'm asking what they could possibly say as an alternative.
> 
> I know certain groups of people won't change their mind, but there are still plenty of moderates who might vote on this one issue and the perception of who will handle it better.




The Dems need to focus on the appeal of alternatives to the risks of juvenile criminal activities, for one thing. Crime prevention starts with jobs and structured options for leisure activities for middle school and teens.  It's a bit late to start trying to "fix" home-invading 20-30yo gun-toting criminals when a kid has been unsupervised outside school hours except by peers or gang groomers since the age of 7 or 8...   and how long is it now that in the USA at least,  two incomes are typically needed, yet still we somehow expect good parenting even from one-parent households and so don't bother funding daycare or after-school programs.

Stop buying surplus military gear and start sending out more mental health counselors along with police on domestic violence calls.

And you know, quit serving drugs-trade warrants with SWAT teams...  focus on proportionate response to perceived lack of public safety.   Keep working to increase awareness of addiction as a chronic illness, and back it up with appropriately overseen funding for treatment and related facilities including halfway houses and apprenticeship / job-retraining options.  

Get private enterprise involved with more than making a buck off shoddy facsimiles of actual treatment and job assistance.  For all the GOP yelling about socialism,  Democrats in DC and state capitols are just as wedded to assorted industry sectors as are the Republicans.  Time to quit denying that and start turning it to better purpose than, uh...  insider trading with cronies.  And say so.  On television.

None of this stuff is rocket science..  not even as complicated as tearing down a stack of subprime mortgages and slicing them up into something looks like a decent investment.  One mostly just has to give a good god damn about people who didn't win the zip code lottery at birth.  Sure there are nogoodniks across all walks of life but most juvie crime is about neglect, poverty,  lack of opportunity and nowadays a lack of adult role models in civic life:   actual leadership includes ability to expand the next generation's view of an attractive future.  

What's needed is no mystery, either:  a mix of better education, more jobs, more counseling, more opportunity to discover that accomplishing something constructive and fun with leisure time sure beats getting dead before the age of majority out of sheer despair --and taking innocents and ordinary people in their prime of productivity along for the ride at random.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> More guns didn't fix this issue?! Whodathunk!
> 
> 
> Sorry about your friend's brother
> 
> 
> Ditto, LOL.
> 
> 
> But are they anti police? I'll say this though, Bill Clinton is responsible for the largest mass police recruitment ever. This came with a sharp drop in crime...did more cops reduce crime? Unlikely, as Canada without such reforms experienced the same trends. So either Canada's crime is driven by the crime in the USA, or better social net and understanding of drivers of an addiction epidemic is just better ways to deal with issues.




I’d say at least over the past year the perception that’s been fed by the media has been that the Democrats are anti police, or at least that they are more interested in cleaning house with no concern about crime levels during that period. Doesn’t help that police reform is either at a standstill or moving at a snails pace.

From the right this also seems to be tied to their weird obsession with “wealth redistribution”. They are perfectly fine with the vast amount of the wealth of this country being distributed to the top because it was done by legal (some questionably) means and therefore shouldn’t be taken away from those people by the government. Similarly, they don’t think funds should be taken from the police and given to things like mental health services even though doing so would reduce the burden on cops who aren’t properly equipped to handle those situations. They just see redistributing those funds as meaning cops won’t have the man and firepower to fight crime period.


----------



## User.45

lizkat said:


> None of this stuff is rocket science..  not even as complicated as tearing down a stack of subprime mortgages and slicing them up into something looks like a decent investment.  One mostly just has to give a good god damn about people who didn't win the zip code lottery at birth.  Sure there are nogoodniks across all walks of life but most juvie crime is about neglect, poverty,  lack of opportunity and nowadays a lack of adult role models in civic life:   actual leadership includes ability to expand the next generation's view of an attractive future.



I'll say that since I've learned about redlining I no longer consider it a lottery. I think our zip code driven disparities are really driven by redlining which was driven by racism.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I’d say at least over the past year the perception that’s been fed by the media has been that the Democrats are anti police, or at least that they are more interested in cleaning house with no concern about crime levels during that period. Doesn’t help that police reform is either at a standstill or moving at a snails pace.
> 
> From the right this also seems to be tied to their weird obsession with “wealth redistribution”. They are perfectly fine with the vast amount of the wealth of this country being distributed to the top because it was done by legal (some questionably) means and therefore shouldn’t be taken away from those people by the government. Similarly, they don’t think funds should be taken from the police and given to things like mental health services even though doing so would reduce the burden on cops who aren’t properly equipped to handle those situations. They just see redistributing those funds as meaning cops won’t have the man and firepower to fight crime period.



Yeah but public perception is meaningless really. I mean the GOP managed to sell themselves as the party that is the right choice for the economy despite 40+ years of trends suggesting otherwise, LOL. Or party of personal responsibility. Party of anti elitism. Party for mothers. And it goes on and on.


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Democrats kind of painted themselves into a corner with letting "defund the police" stick.  While it may not have actually happened, they certainly can't now run on increasing police funds due to increased crime.  So that's why I'm asking what they could possibly say as an alternative.
> 
> I know certain groups of people won't change their mind, but there are still plenty of moderates who might vote on this one issue and the perception of who will handle it better.



Every major Democrat has clearly stated they don't want to defund the police, especially Biden. It comes from the Liberal crowds/rallies, not those in office. Most are aware of this, the only ones pinning this on the entire party are extremists on the right. You like to tout these talking points, you should watch less Fox News, seriously you'll be better off in general.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> Every major Democrat has clearly stated they don't want to defund the police, especially Biden. It comes from the Liberal crowds/rallies, not those in office. Most are aware of this, the only ones pinning this on the entire party are extremists on the right. You like to tout these talking points, you should watch less Fox News, seriously you'll be better off in general.




I don't watch Fox News (or any news channel for that matter), but there's no shortage of being exposed to what is being said on there via the internet.  I don't usually quote or site more liberal news sources because there are already plenty of people on here doing it and it would be redundant.  Let's not forgot it was Fox News viewers who put Trump in office and continue to support him.  So I think just ignoring what Fox News or similar are putting out there isn't going to solve anything and they've only gotten more extreme.  Trump won because many on the right thought we were already putting our heads in the sand when it came to their concerns and needs and it seems like some are doing that again comforted by Biden currently in office.

If Democrats get crushed in 2022 you can pretty much guarantee that it happened as a result of what you think we should just ignore or blow off.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> Yeah but public perception is meaningless really. I mean the GOP managed to sell themselves as the party that is the right choice for the economy despite 40+ years of trends suggesting otherwise, LOL. Or party of personal responsibility. Party of anti elitism. Party for mothers. And it goes on and on.




It is kind of ironic that to some degree Rupublcan voters finally woke up to their party's decades of lies and then replaced their leadership with an even bigger liar.  It's like the addicts who replaced their prescription pain pills with street heroin and then don't see the addiction as the problem.  It's everything else.  Feeding the addiction makes them feel better while solving nothing.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> It is kind of ironic that to some degree Rupublcan voters finally woke up to their party's decades of lies and then replaced their leadership with an even bigger liar.  It's like the addicts who replaced their prescription pain pills with street heroin and then don't see the addiction as the problem.  It's everything else.  Feeding the addiction makes them feel better while solving nothing.



Yup, they've been in a positive feedback loop and I have a difficult time seeing those switches flip back. They too have a difficult time seeing that...


----------



## Thomas Veil

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Republicans will make it 100% about defund the police even though that largely hasn’t happened and Democrats will make it about access to guns even though gun violence isn’t the only crime that is up....



Democrats do need to make it clear as glass that they are not going to defund the police. They need to hit this point over and over, because you know the Republicans will try to hang it on us. 

Access to guns will not be the only issue, but I think it's going to become an important one...maybe not in the next four years, but in the near future. It has become obvious that guns-for-everybody is not a policy that works. If it did work, all these stories would not be about mass shootings, they would be about shootings that were stopped by the imaginary "good guy with a gun". Notice you don't see any Republicans pushing the good guy with a gun narrative anymore. They'd look like idiots if they did.

So I may be naive, but I think the tide is slowly, slowly turning against guns. People don't want to read about mass shootings virtually every single day. More cops *with better training* is a part of the solution. And as I've suggested before, recruiting as many black (and other minority) cops as possible will go a long way toward making us safer and alleviating BLM concerns at the same time. (Sorry, white cops, but I come down strongly on the side of affirmative action on this one.)

Now, what people "turning against guns" looks like, that's up in the air. I'd love to see us try a gun buy-back program, or limit the number (so you can't own an arsenal), or even just tax the living shit out of gun purchases (I'm talking minimally a 100% tax). Anything to discourage people from buying more. 

A publicity campaign against guns, one that emulates the anti-smoking campaign, would be a big help. We spent decades telling people cigarettes kill, even though cigarettes are still legal. You telling me we can't do the exact same thing with guns?

Virtually all of this depends on defeating powerful gun-loving Republicans, or as Bill Maher refers to them, ammosexuals. 



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> The fact is crime goes down when there is a healthy middle class and the middle class has been on decline even before Trump, and existing on a mountain of debt isn’t “healthy”. Neither party will address this fact though because Democrats won’t acknowledge there is an economic problem on their watch or will blame it all on covid and Republicans would rather turn the entire country into a prison yard than entertain the possibility there is anything wrong with our current iteration of capitalism.
> 
> Since Republicans have largely controlled the narrative since Obama took office I’m curious what people on here think Democrats can do to change the perception that they are weak on crime or that they have solutions that don’t revolve around throwing everybody in prison.



Getting wealth to re-distribute back down to the middle and lower classes is an even tougher nut to crack. On the positive side, there's never been as much good will among the uber-rich as there is right now. More than a few of them are saying yes, tax me more. 

Again, no programs will work unless Republican roadblocks can be torn down. _They_ are very good at messaging, or what the rest of us refer to as lying. We don't need to lie, just to point out theirs. Now, Trump's going around the country again spreading his lies. Why don't _we_ have someone out there spreading the truth, and getting TV coverage? Why isn't somebody like, for example, Bill Clinton, a guy who comes from the "great American heartland", out on the speech trail _between_ elections, evangelizing the Democratic cause but also talking to Republicans too, telling them how they're being lied to? How come the Democratic party (or a PAC) isn't making TV commercials saying, "You're being used. They said Obamacare meant they'd come to kill your grandmother. They said global warming was fake. There's no shame in admitting you got taken. The shame is staying with them. Come home to the party that stands up for the middle class."

If you can get people to buy that message, the rest will be easier. Not guaranteed, just easier.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> Yup, they've been in a positive feedback loop and I have a difficult time seeing those switches flip back. They too have a difficult time seeing that...




It started when they got labeled deplorables and then Trump instead of telling them they aren’t deplorable he told them to embrace being deplorable and they went all in, what a relief that they didn’t need to do some soul searching.  They get to just amplify what was already there.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Thomas Veil said:


> Getting wealth to re-distribute back down to the middle and lower classes is an even tougher nut to crack. On the positive side, there's never been as much good will among the uber-rich as there is right now. More than a few of them are saying yes, tax me more.




I wish taxing the shit out of the rich wasn’t the only solution we are considering. The main reason trickle down economics doesn’t work is because it allows for and encourages personal greed to run rampant and has in fact become the main result of this belief system. More tax revenue will help fund more programs but it won’t put more money in the pockets of the middle class, or would be middle class. What would do that is sizable wage increases and profit sharing. I think the tax relationship should be rewarding employers for increasing wages and profit sharing and dinging them for not doing it and putting share holders above all else. Throw executive compensation in there as well. This is way above my accounting skills but I don’t think it would be all that difficult to look at a company’s financials and see who benefitted from the success…and who didn’t.

It’s nice that we have some tax concerned and philanthropic billionaires now, but how much of that wealth they “earned” could have been distributed to their employees over the past decades who would have helped drive a healthy economy? Do they think handing out buckets of billions now will have a better overall impact than if they just shared the wealth before it got siphoned into their bank accounts for decades? Just as importantly, if not more importantly, nothing they are doing is fixing any systemic problems. Like the major flaw of trickle down economics, it’s relying on somebody to be personally generous and there aren’t enough of those people to fix major problems. They’re just applying bigger band-aids with their logo on them.


----------



## ronntaylor

Thomas Veil said:


> Why don't _we_ have someone out there spreading the truth, and getting TV coverage? Why isn't somebody like, for example, Bill Clinton, a guy who comes from the "great American heartland", out on the speech trail _between_ elections, evangelizing the Democratic cause but also talking to Republicans too, telling them how they're being lied to?



Bill & Hillary Clinton need to disappear. They are a big part of the problem with the Democratic Party. Their best days are well behind them and they would just add fuel to Rethugican fire.

The Dems just need to work on legislation and getting the 2/3 Senate knuckleheads in their party to stop their foolishness. The GOP/right-wingers will always find something to yell about. The Dems can't waste time with endless, pointless debates. The current GOP outrage, CRT, illustrates that the other side just wants distractions to sap Dem energy. Dems need to ensure voting rights and make sure that their voters are registered and voting at all costs. Local Dems need to get out the message and show what they are doing and will do for voters and citizens. They shouldn't be afraid to call out GOP lies. They shouldn't back down on any issue.

It's really not rocket science.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I seem to recall a time when Democrats were the ones who were better at messaging and controlling the narrative. Now it seems the bulk of their strategy is to look on in horror or disapproval at whatever the Republicans are selling. It reminds me of the SNL Clinton vs Trump debate sketches where Hillary spent most of the time smiling at Trump as he seemed to bury himself with every word that came out of his mouth.

And why isn’t “Top Republican lies on…..” the top permanent story on liberal news? Occasionally I’ll see a story about that but it’s way buried. It should be the top story, not just because it needs to be told, but also because Republican politicians and conservative news are well aware of what liberal news is reporting. They’ll have no choice but to respond if this is the top daily story. If they want to volley back with similar stories about Democrat lies I say have at it. I think it’s equally important that be reported but will come nowhere near the mountain of insane lies coming from Republicans.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> And why isn’t “Top Republican lies on…..” the top permanent story on liberal news? Occasionally I’ll see a story about that but it’s way buried. It should be the top story, not just because it needs to be told, but also because Republican politicians and conservative news are well aware of what liberal news is reporting. They’ll have no choice but to respond if this is the top daily story. If they want to volley back with similar stories about Democrat lies I say have at it. I think it’s equally important that be reported but will come nowhere near the mountain of insane lies coming from Republicans.



Because liberal news actually has issues they want to discuss. Whereas the GOP only has outrage at the libz.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Because liberal news actually has issues they want to discuss. Whereas the GOP only has outrage at the libz.




I can't think of a more important issue than the destruction of our democracy or a civil war as a result of Republican lies.  What issues do you think are more important than that?

I didn't say they can't report on other issues.  I'm saying their priorities are fucked up.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I can't think of a more important issue than the destruction of our democracy or a civil war as a result of Republican lies.  What issues do you think are more important than that?
> 
> I didn't say they can't report on other issues.  I'm saying their priorities are fucked up.



Climate change


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> Climate change




And what do you think our new fascist dictator is going to do about that once our "just ignore them" strategy fails?


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> And what do you think our new fascist dictator is going to do about that once our "just ignore them" strategy fails?



They won't because the can't forever.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> They won't because the can't forever.




Climate change was a good response, but even that isn't the top story every day on liberal media.  

Conservative media is getting their base all fired up and I don't feel liberal media is adequately covering or countering it.  These people already stormed the capital once and according to their media it was no big deal, and frankly, a commission report isn't going to change those minds.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Climate change was a good response, but even that isn't the top story every day on liberal media.
> 
> Conservative media is getting their base all fired up and I don't feel liberal media is adequately covering or countering it.  These people already stormed the capital once and according to their media it was no big deal, and frankly, a commission report isn't going to change those minds.



Desensitization. Just look at this forum. Politically more opinionated than the average, yet significantly less activated by political scandals than 6 mo ago.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I can't think of a more important issue than the destruction of our democracy or a civil war as a result of Republican lies.  What issues do you think are more important than that?
> 
> I didn't say they can't report on other issues.  I'm saying their priorities are fucked up.



I don’t like the right-wing outrage machine. I don’t think most liberals want to be part of that from the other side. If both sides are just raging at each other, what is the point?


----------



## ronntaylor

I would get into heated debates with my journalism professors decades ago. I never tolerated the "objectivity" BS they pushed. Not every issue or story can be boiled down to a both-sides*** bucket of piss, in my humble opinion. @Chew Toy McCoy is absolutely correct, we need liberals/progressives/The Left™ to be more vocal about the repugnant actions and words of the other side. Fuck civility when they're aiming to harm your side. One of the reasons that HC lost was her too civil tone with the Mango Motherfucker. He actually stalked her on live TV. I know the optics wouldn't have looked good for too many, but I think it hurt her image and emboldened his crazy ass.

I need a dedicated channel to focus on nothing but the lies, racism and destruction coming from the Koch+Murdoch machine. And no prisoners. Manchin, Sinema and Kelly need to feel the fire whenever necessary.

The only times Dems appear strong is when they are fighting each other and/or mimicking the worst of right-wing actions. See Bill Clinton and almost any issue, but especially his pushback against African Americans from his 1st run and throughout both of his terms. See Obama and protecting Wall Street Fat Cats at the start of his 1st term.

_* "If someone says it's raining, and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the fucking window and find out which is true." -- __Jonathan Foster__, Sheffield Journalism Lecturer_


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> I don’t like the right-wing outrage machine. I don’t think most liberals want to be part of that from the other side. If both sides are just raging at each other, what is the point?




General outrage machine is what we already have from both sides.  I'm talking about loudly exposing specific lies.

Easy example, Republicans were going all over the media about a month ago saying Biden's green new deal will have everybody cutting back their meat consumption by 90%.  Blatant lie.  He never said that and it was based on some study article written in the UK years ago and no US politician was endorsing it.  There's your article right there/news story, and make that the entire article, not a couple of lines buried in a marginally related story.  

If nobody is loudly correcting these lies then a good percentage of voters are going to believe them and then we end up with Trump or his ideological twin as our next president, and then once again liberals are going to go "Huh?  How did that happen?"


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ronntaylor said:


> The only times Dems appear strong is when they are fighting each other and/or mimicking the worst of right-wing actions. See Bill Clinton and almost any issue, but especially his pushback against African Americans from his 1st run and throughout both of his terms. See Obama and protecting Wall Street Fat Cats at the start of his 1st term.




Democrats largely snooze right through a Democrat presidency and think all is well in the world just because there’s a Democrat as president. They will ignore the Democrat president passing the Republican agenda while Republicans are also sharpening their spears.

Also you can thank Clinton for why news is so polarizing now.  When he deregulated the telecom industry (a Republican agenda move) the news industry went from hundreds of owners down to just a handful.  This even affects your local news due to the parent company deciding what gets covered, what doesn't get covered, and how it gets covered.


----------



## Huntn

What are we to do with a party where Facism is in vogue where it is vital your party is calling the shots to benefit you specifically?


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Since Republicans have largely controlled the narrative since Obama took office I’m curious what people on here think Democrats can do to change the perception that they are weak on crime or that they have solutions that don’t revolve around throwing everybody in prison.




There is a huge difference between locking someone up because they had a dime bag of weed or even something harder (for personal use) vs locking them up because they caused harm to another person.   Republicans have an issue with the former, the Democrats have an issue with not doing the latter.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> There is a huge difference between locking someone up because they had a dime bag of weed or even something harder (for personal use) vs locking them up because they caused harm to another person.   Republicans have an issue with the former, the Democrats have an issue with not doing the latter.



I know most Democrats are against the death penalty, but so are Catholics. I am trying to recall any Democrat advocating against putting criminals who have harmed other people into jail. Maybe you can refresh my memory?


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> I know most Democrats are against the death penalty, but so are Catholics. I am trying to recall any Democrat advocating against putting criminals who have harmed other people into jail. Maybe you can refresh my memory?



I'm also pro death penalty, the only real issue I have with it is how long it takes with all the appeals. Once it's established beyond a reasonable doubt it should be carried out and that's that IMO. When you see the horrific and gruesome acts of murder some of these people have committed it's baffling that their granted such leniency.


----------



## ronntaylor

Eric said:


> I'm also pro death penalty, the only real issue I have with it is how long it takes with all the appeals. Once it's established beyond a reasonable doubt it should be carried out and that's that IMO. When you see the horrific and gruesome acts of murder some of these people have committed it's baffling that their granted such leniency.



And what about all the people killed by the state that were discovered to be innocent? After being found guilty by a "reasonable" doubt? The death penalty will always target certain communities and can never be 100% given human involvement.


----------



## Eric

ronntaylor said:


> And what about all the people killed by the state that were discovered to be innocent? After being found guilty by a "reasonable" doubt? The death penalty will always target certain communities and can never be 100% given human involvement.



There will always be that exception and a system of appeals to address it, I'm not fully against that. But by and large most are found guilty with overwhelming evidence and in those cases I fully support the death penalty.


----------



## ronntaylor

Eric said:


> There will always be that exception and a system of appeals to address it, I'm not fully against that. But by and large *most* are found guilty with overwhelming evidence and in those cases I fully support the death penalty.



Plenty are found guilty with supposedly "overwhelming evidence" (e.g. The Exonerated Five here in NYC, The Trenton 6, The West Memphis 3) that comes up later to be either wishy-washy at best, or outright fabricated. The Innocents Project+ has uncovered more than 350 cases of wrongfully convicted citizens, nearly 200 death row convictions amongst them. That is probably a fraction of those that have been wrongfully convicted. We may as well just flip a coin in many death penalty cases.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> I know most Democrats are against the death penalty, but so are Catholics. I am trying to recall any Democrat advocating against putting criminals who have harmed other people into jail. Maybe you can refresh my memory?




Here is an example.  In Houston which is a Democrat run city where no-cash bail is an option, a person out on a $100 bond for felony weapons possession shot and kill a police officer.









						Suspected Houston Cop Killer Was Out On Low Bond. But Is It A Systemic Problem? | Houston Public Media
					

The man accused of killing a Houston police sergeant this week was out on a $100 bond for a weapons violation.




					www.houstonpublicmedia.org
				




Do you think someone should be out on $100 bond for a felony weapons possession arrest?


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Here is an example.  In Houston which is a Democrat run city where no-cash bail is an option, a person out on a $100 bond for felony weapons possession shot and kill a police officer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suspected Houston Cop Killer Was Out On Low Bond. But Is It A Systemic Problem? | Houston Public Media
> 
> 
> The man accused of killing a Houston police sergeant this week was out on a $100 bond for a weapons violation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.houstonpublicmedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think someone should be out on $100 bond for a felony weapons possession arrest?



Just curious, did you read the article? 
If not, please read it and revise your comment.
If you did, do you need me to point out the inaccuracies/misinformation here?


----------



## SuperMatt

See P_X’s post… I was saying the same thing; no need to repeat.


----------



## JayMysteri0

P_X said:


> Just curious, did you read the article?
> If not, please read it and revise your comment.
> If you did, do you need me to point out the inaccuracies/misinformation here?





SuperMatt said:


> See P_X’s post… I was saying the same thing; no need to repeat.









> Criminal justice professor Kevin Buckler at the University of Houston-Downtown said it appears that $100 bail was set automatically – something Harris County bail reform established in certain misdemeanor cases.
> 
> But he cautioned against using that to make generalizations about reform.
> 
> "In the system, the misdemeanor system, where we do have comprehensive bail reform, we haven't seen the extent of the problem compared to the state district courts in terms of people being released and committing violent offenses," he said.
> 
> A September report from the federal monitor overseeing Harris County's bail practices found it did not lead to an increase in reoffenses.
> 
> The lawsuit, filed by civil rights groups, accused the county of violating due process and equal protection measures of the U.S. Constitution, arguing that two people charged with the same misdemeanor offense could be treated differently based on their ability to afford bail. Indigent defendants were more likely to spend time in jail pretrial than people who could afford bail.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


>



DC got rid of cash bail decades ago. About 90% of people attend all court appearances, and less than 2% commit a violent offense.









						What Changed After D.C. Ended Cash Bail
					

California recently ended its current money bail system. Washington, D.C. largely did away with cash bail back in the 1990s. NPR's Melissa Block speaks with D.C. Judge Truman Morrison.




					www.npr.org


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> There is a huge difference between locking someone up because they had a dime bag of weed or even something harder (for personal use) vs locking them up because they caused harm to another person.   Republicans have an issue with the former, the Democrats have an issue with not doing the latter.




I think the problem is that Democrats seem to largely be pandering to the problems with the police and justice system crowd and aren't really making a crime distinction or drawing a line as if every time they speak in public somebody in the audience is going to mention some special circumstances case that's going to cause them to contradict what they just said.  So they put the focus on reforms so they don't have to weigh in on something like a potential justified homicide case.  In a way I don't blame them since the left is so fired up about injustice right now but it also opens the door for the right to call them weak on crime.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I think the problem is that Democrats seem to largely be pandering to the problems with the police and justice system crowd and aren't really making a crime distinction or drawing a line as if every time they speak in public somebody in the audience is going to mention some special circumstances case that's going to cause them to contradict what they just said.  So they put the focus on reforms so they don't have to weigh in on something like a potential justified homicide case.  In a way I don't blame them since the left is so fired up about injustice right now but it also opens the door for the right to call them weak on crime.



The Democrats are well aware of this. Why do you think they put forward the two people most associated with being “tough on crime” as President and VP? I know progressives were quite upset with Biden for the crime bill and for Harris for her actions in California. But having them as candidates completely invalidated any argument that the Dem presidential nominees were ”soft” on crime.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> There will always be that exception and a system of appeals to address it, I'm not fully against that. But by and large most are found guilty with overwhelming evidence and in those cases I fully support the death penalty.




I could be wrong, but wouldn't you also be fine if they just banned the death penalty across the board?  I understand what you are saying by connecting it with the severity of some crimes and while you may support it in that context I don't picture you being quite vocal or joining rallies to reinstitute it if its banned.  Here in a lot of cases life in prison means life and in some cases they even hand out sentences that are hundreds of years. (comedian joke...that means when that guy dies and gets reincarnated then that guy is going straight to prison).  In a lot of other western countries they top it off at 20 years with a review to release except for the most extreme cases.  Definitively proven killing your spouse isn't extreme.  Here that's death penalty or life without parole worthy.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> The Democrats are well aware of this. Why do you think they put forward the two people most associated with being “tough on crime” as President and VP? I know progressives were quite upset with Biden for the crime bill and for Harris for her actions in California. But having them as candidates completely invalidated any argument that the Dem presidential nominees were ”soft” on crime.




The left may be upset about it, but that perception isn't breaking through to the right.  All they see is crime going up while the left is focusing on police and sentencing reform.  Nobody in the right's echo chamber is going "actually they have a past track record of being tough on crime".


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> The left may be upset about it, but that perception isn't breaking through to the right.  All they see is crime going up while the left is focusing on police and sentencing reform.  Nobody in the right's echo chamber is going "actually they have a past track record of being tough on crime".



Other than nuking Fox News and the Daily Wire from orbit, what can Dems do to change perceptions of things in that echo chamber?

Fewer people every year associate themselves with the GOP. Something good is happening for the Dems as seen in the last election… is it even worth worrying about when right-wingers believe nonsense?


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> is it even worth worrying about when right-wingers believe nonsense?




May depend in future how many of them end up on the federal bench or SCOTUS.

Speaking of the latter court,  I thought Breyer was going to retire as of end of term in 2021.  Doesn't look that way.

So is he reluctant to do that because he thinks Biden can't bring a nominee the Senate won't try to block,  or because he doesn't think Biden will nominate a justice enough to the left of the majority now on the right, or just because he'd like to retire on his own terms?   He's hired a full complement of clerks for the fall term so it sure doesn't look like he's going anywhere but back to work then...


----------



## SuperMatt

lizkat said:


> May depend in future how many of them end up on the federal bench or SCOTUS.
> 
> Speaking of the latter court,  I thought Breyer was going to retire as of end of term in 2021.  Doesn't look that way.
> 
> So is he reluctant to do that because he thinks Biden can't bring a nominee the Senate won't try to block,  or because he doesn't think Biden will nominate a justice enough to the left of the majority now on the right, or just because he'd like to retire on his own terms?   He's hired a full complement of clerks for the fall term so it sure doesn't look like he's going anywhere but back to work then...



My point is: what is the suggested solution to changing perceptions of people who assume liberals are liars and only Trump is telling the truth?


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> Just curious, did you read the article?
> If not, please read it and revise your comment.
> If you did, do you need me to point out the inaccuracies/misinformation here?





SuperMatt said:


> See P_X’s post… I was saying the same thing; no need to repeat.





SuperMatt said:


> DC got rid of cash bail decades ago. About 90% of people attend all court appearances, and less than 2% commit a violent offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Changed After D.C. Ended Cash Bail
> 
> 
> California recently ended its current money bail system. Washington, D.C. largely did away with cash bail back in the 1990s. NPR's Melissa Block speaks with D.C. Judge Truman Morrison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org




I did notice that not a one of you answered my question about whether $100 Bond was sufficient for a Felon in Possession Charge.

I say it is not even close.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> The Democrats are well aware of this. Why do you think they put forward the two people most associated with being “tough on crime” as President and VP? I know progressives were quite upset with Biden for the crime bill and for Harris for her actions in California. But having them as candidates completely invalidated any argument that the Dem presidential nominees were ”soft” on crime.



At the Presidential Level, sure.  But people vote crime issues locally and at the state level more than the national level.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Other than nuking Fox News and the Daily Wire from orbit, what can Dems do to change perceptions of things in that echo chamber?
> 
> Fewer people every year associate themselves with the GOP. Something good is happening for the Dems as seen in the last election… is it even worth worrying about when right-wingers believe nonsense?




Perhaps tell the people to stop watching/reading CNN as well:









						Concerns rising inside White House over surge in violent crime
					

A nationwide surge in violent crime has emerged as a growing area of concern inside the White House, where President Joe Biden and his aides have listened with alarm as local authorities warn a brutal summer of killing lies ahead.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## JayMysteri0

Herdfan said:


> I did notice that not a one of you answered my question about whether $100 Bond was sufficient for a Felon in Possession Charge.
> 
> I say it is not even close.



There isn't a need to answer the question because the bond is set automatically.  It's policy.

Also feelings tend to be less relevant compared to actual statistics.

Now if your argument is over 'feelings' about concerns about a surge in violent crime, you might want to open that door wide enough to include what drives those feelings.



> How bad is the rise in US homicides? Factchecking the ‘crime wave’ narrative police are pushing
> 
> 
> Homicides were up across the US in 2020 and appeared to be primarily driven by rising gun violence, but other crimes fell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com




Which includes a certain source of often faux news and some police wanting to fight back against the criticisms they continually earn.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I did notice that not a one of you answered my question about whether $100 Bond was sufficient for a Felon in Possession Charge.
> 
> I say it is not even close.



You’ve got your facts wrong. Where you say felony, the article you linked says misdemeanor. So your question is invalid. That is what P_X was trying to tell you when he indicated you should read the article.

What is felony weapons possession in Texas anyway? Haven’t they eliminated basically every gun restriction there? I cannot imagine how owning a gun could possibly be a felony in Texas.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> I did notice that not a one of you answered my question about whether $100 Bond was sufficient for a Felon in Possession Charge.
> 
> I say it is not even close.



Because the guy in your story wasn't a felon, LOL. Next question?


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> What is felony weapons possession in Texas anyway? Haven’t they eliminated basically every gun restriction there? I cannot imagine how owning a gun could possibly be a felony in Texas.



Yup, this is what cracked me up in this article. Like Texas' prime swagger is that they provide illegal guns to the whole country (southern, rural white gun owners "lose" >100K guns a year in the USA), if they are supposed to punish people for having a gun they aren't very good at it, LOL. 



JayMysteri0 said:


> There isn't a need to answer the question because the bond is set automatically.  It's policy.
> 
> Also feelings tend to be less relevant compared to actual statistics.
> 
> Now if your argument is over 'feelings' about concerns about a surge in violent crime, you might want to open that door wide enough to include what drives those feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> Which includes a certain source of often faux news and some police wanting to fight back against the criticisms they continually earn.



I've lived in 3 "murder capitals" in the USA. My wife and I regularly walked to work/took public transport in all of these cities. If the perceptions were true of people who only experience these places from the news, we'd have been murdered to death on a weekly basis. There's an interesting thing in America:

1) There is a very high rate of preventable gun violence
2) Yet people still manage to overestimate the danger/violence in the cities.


----------



## SuperMatt

Found another development in this case:









						Man accused of killing HPD sergeant released on $750K bond
					

Records show the man accused of Sgt. Sean Rios' death is no stranger to police and has a history of arrests dating back to 2014.




					abc13.com
				




So with the murder charge, they upped the bail to $750K. He paid it and is out.

In areas with no cash bail like DC, they either remand you to custody or let you go home depending on the risk of flight and risk to the community. When you put a dollar amount on it, dangerous criminals with a lot of cash can be out pre-trial anyway.

So cash bail did nothing to keep an accused murderer from going home. He came up with the goods. Cash bail making you feel safer now?

Interesting note about this case too: the cop apparently has a pretty bad service record, and it seems possible that the defendant will be using self-defense - basically claiming Sgt. Rios was not in uniform and was the aggressor in a road-rage incident and fired first?



> Attorneys for Soliz have outlined their defense, saying Rios was the aggressor in a road rage incident last November that led to a shootout along the North Freeway feeder road and the officer's death. Soliz claims he did not know Rios was a police officer and that he shot him in self-defense.












						'He was committing gross misconduct,' Attorneys for HPD sergeant's accused killer want officer's records
					

Robert Soliz's defense said he was protecting himself from a "drugged and violent armed aggressor." They're calling for Sgt. Rios' records to be released.




					abc13.com


----------



## GermanSuplex

The challenge is to get people to not think defunding police means just starving departments of funds. Conservatives, as usual, are not going to look beneath the surface and take the phrase and run. Much like immigration, CRT and race issues, they boil it down to simple, easy to digest and spread ideas. And it works. “Defund the police” as a slogan is not a winner, but the ideas behind it are absolutely necessary. If we spent money on better social services instead of tanks for the police department, maybe we’d avoid killing unarmed mentally disturbed people. If we have bonuses to cops to live in the neighborhoods they police, it would maybe result in more money being saved than fighting costly lawsuits when the cops kill unarmed people.

Of course, COVID is partially to blame for the rise in crime, and republicans are using that to their advantage, but they forget a lot of this was taking place under Trump. But they just shift the goal posts to the first democrat can they can, be it mayor, governor or president so they can pin it in “democratic-run” cities or states.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> Yup, this is what cracked me up in this article. Like Texas' prime swagger is that they provide illegal guns to the whole country (southern, rural white gun owners "lose" >100K guns a year in the USA), if they are supposed to punish people for having a gun they aren't very good at it, LOL.
> 
> 
> I've lived in 3 "murder capitals" in the USA. My wife and I regularly walked to work/took public transport in all of these cities. If the perceptions were true of people who only experience these places from the news, we'd have been murdered to death on a weekly basis. There's an interesting thing in America:
> 
> 1) There is a very high rate of preventable gun violence
> 2) Yet people still manage to overestimate the danger/violence in the cities.



I read the gun law… it appears to be written in such a way as to be something they can “pile on” when pulling somebody over or arresting them for something else:









						Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 46.02 | FindLaw
					

Texas Penal Code PENAL TX PENAL  Section 46.02. Read the code on FindLaw




					codes.findlaw.com
				




Note it also targets only handguns. I assume (but not sure) that means if you are carrying an AR-15 in the same manner, you are not liable? And it’s also interesting to me that while most guns are legal, these items are not:



> One crime unique to Texas is that of illegally carrying a weapon other than a firearm. Unless you have a state handgun concealed carry license, it is illegal to carry around or transport any kind of weapon in Texas. Illegally carrying is usually a Class A misdemeanor unless it is carried to special places. It is then a third degree felony.
> 
> In Texas, a weapon is a *club, nightstick, blackjack, knife whose blade is greater than 5 ½ inches in length, spears, and swords* except at your place of business or if being transported for a legitimate reason.











						What Weapons Are Illegal in Texas? - The Law Office of Greg Tsioros
					

While many Texans enjoy owning weapons and firearms, Texas laws are fairly strict about who can own certain weapons.




					www.txcrimdefense.com
				




This dude is in serious trouble if he ever visits Texas:


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> I read the gun law… it appears to be written in such a way as to be something they can “pile on” when pulling somebody over or arresting them for something else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 46.02 | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Texas Penal Code PENAL TX PENAL  Section 46.02. Read the code on FindLaw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> codes.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note it also targets only handguns. I assume (but not sure) that means if you are carrying an AR-15 in the same manner, you are not liable? And it’s also interesting to me that while most guns are legal, these items are not:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Weapons Are Illegal in Texas? - The Law Office of Greg Tsioros
> 
> 
> While many Texans enjoy owning weapons and firearms, Texas laws are fairly strict about who can own certain weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.txcrimdefense.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This dude is in serious trouble if he ever visits Texas:
> 
> View attachment 6977




@Herdfan, do you sense the irony here? This is an example. In Texas, which is a Republican run state what you are referring to is a misdemeanor and not a felony. The result of the misdemeanor classification was a police officer being shot and killed.
Do you think some of these misdemeanors should be felonies?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Other than nuking Fox News and the Daily Wire from orbit, what can Dems do to change perceptions of things in that echo chamber?
> 
> Fewer people every year associate themselves with the GOP. Something good is happening for the Dems as seen in the last election… is it even worth worrying about when right-wingers believe nonsense?




Barrowing from a Joe Walsh podcast episode, historically speaking when there’s a Democrat in the white house they lose control of congress in the mid term and vice versa. Right now Democrats need Trump even more than Republicans do because him and his boot lickers in congress are the only thing that will fire up Democrats to show up to vote in the midterms to fight Trumpism.

So I’d be careful what you wish for if it’s hoping Trump or coverage of him will just go away. That will be the quickest path to Democrats falling asleep for the mid terms and McConnell controlling the country again.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> My point is: what is the suggested solution to changing perceptions of people who assume liberals are liars and only Trump is telling the truth?




Like I mentioned in another thread (or possibly this one), top Republican lies need to be a near daily loud top news story. I realize that will only happen on liberal news sources but it will also force the right to respond to it if it’s always present. There’s a lot of “This is what they are saying on [insert news source here]” battles going on right now.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## SuperMatt

GermanSuplex said:


> The challenge is to get people to not think defunding police means just starving departments of funds. Conservatives, as usual, are not going to look beneath the surface and take the phrase and run. Much like immigration, CRT and race issues, they boil it down to simple, easy to digest and spread ideas. And it works. “Defund the police” as a slogan is not a winner, but the ideas behind it are absolutely necessary. If we spent money on better social services instead of tanks for the police department, maybe we’d avoid killing unarmed mentally disturbed people. If we have bonuses to cops to live in the neighborhoods they police, it would maybe result in more money being saved than fighting costly lawsuits when the cops kill unarmed people.
> 
> Of course, COVID is partially to blame for the rise in crime, and republicans are using that to their advantage, but they forget a lot of this was taking place under Trump. But they just shift the goal posts to the first democrat can they can, be it mayor, governor or president so they can pin it in “democratic-run” cities or states.



The right is losing their minds over CRT and anti-racism. I was talking to some (very) conservative types and asked them what they meant by anti-racism… so they posted the definition from some dictionary site. After discussing the fact that nobody should be angry at that definition, they then expand the definition to basically anything they are upset about… affirmative action, the book “White Fragility,” etc, etc. They think anti-racism is part of some left-wing conspiracy... 


Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Like I mentioned in another thread (or possibly this one), top Republican lies need to be a near daily loud top news story. I realize that will only happen on liberal news sources but it will also force the right to respond to it if it’s always present. There’s a lot of “This is what they are saying on [insert news source here]” battles going on right now.



This happens constantly on Twitter. As for the “liberal” news sites, they are actually not as liberal as right-wingers claim, and they are focused on the news, not on Tucker Carlson’s latest ramblings. It’s quite convenient for the GOP that Fox is popular and has zero scruples when it comes to its “journalism.” As I said before, gotta put them out of business along with Daily Wire.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> The right is losing their minds over CRT and anti-racism. I was talking to some (very) conservative types and asked them what they meant by anti-racism… so they posted the definition from some dictionary site. After discussing the fact that nobody should be angry at that definition, they then expand the definition to basically anything they are upset about… affirmative action, the book “White Fragility,” etc, etc. They think anti-racism is part of some left-wing conspiracy...



Welp, maybe because they are....well....racist? The fact that a zip code is a stronger determinant of life expectancy, academic achievements than race, and how certain zip codes got populated and funded is a very very good measure of segregation. Conservatives do know that segregation works...because it has to.



SuperMatt said:


> This happens constantly on Twitter. As for the “liberal” news sites, they are actually not as liberal as right-wingers claim, and they are focused on the news, not on Tucker Carlson’s latest ramblings. It’s quite convenient for the GOP that Fox is popular and has zero scruples when it comes to its “journalism.” As I said before, gotta put them out of business along with Daily Wire.



Honestly when the level of misinformation is that great, something major is bound to happen. Most of us are shocked that it wasn't the pandemic (though it may still be if the vaccination maps continue correlating with the electoral map), but sooner or later this will backfire.


----------



## SuperMatt

@Chew Toy McCoy - I saw a couple articles and I thought of you and this thread.

(Paywall removed from NY Times article)








						The Big Question of the 2022 Midterms: How Will the Suburbs Swing? (Published 2021)
					

Democrats and Republicans are already jockeying for a crucial voting bloc that soured on Donald Trump, tilted to Joe Biden and now holds the key to the second half of the president’s term.




					www.nytimes.com
				




(This one probably has a paywall)


			https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/12/cpac-culture-war-democrats-strategy/
		




> Here’s another overriding principle that might work: Frame everything around the basic goal of ensuring that _Republicans are the ones on the defensive_.
> 
> This might include asking anti-critical race theory Republicans why they think our cadets are such snowflakesthat they must be shielded from hard truths about their country’s past. Or asking why Republicans are doing far too little to encourage GOP voters to endure a little pinprick to protect their friends, relatives and neighbors from dying of a deadly disease. Or why they’re trying to bury the truth about their own party’s complicity in an effort to sack the U.S. government with mob violence.
> 
> Ask yourself this: Why is it that Democrats spend far more time denying lies — that they want to indoctrinate your children with white shame and send jackbooted government thugs to kick down your doors and force vaccines on you — than Republicans spend denying any of those charges against them, which are true?




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1412785465825058831/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> @Chew Toy McCoy - I saw a couple articles and I thought of you and this thread.
> 
> (Paywall removed from NY Times article)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Question of the 2022 Midterms: How Will the Suburbs Swing? (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> Democrats and Republicans are already jockeying for a crucial voting bloc that soured on Donald Trump, tilted to Joe Biden and now holds the key to the second half of the president’s term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (This one probably has a paywall)
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/12/cpac-culture-war-democrats-strategy/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1412785465825058831/




Like I alluded to, one of those articles mentions all the suburban voters that soured on Trump. That’s why I feel it’s imperative to keep Trump in the spotlight so those voters get a constant reminder of how much he still has control of the party. Failing to cover Trump and his rabid politicians doesn’t mean he doesn’t have control of the party. It means they aren’t being reminded and probably won’t be motivated to vote against Trumpism.

I have my issues with Biden but at the same time, unless something monumentally successful happens, he will probably go down in history as mostly a President that was put there so Trump wouldn't be, forever in his shadow, which is kind of a disappointing endnote to a long political career.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I have my issues with Biden but at the same time, unless something monumentally successful happens, he will probably go down in history as mostly a President that was put there so Trump wouldn't be, forever in his shadow, which is kind of a disappointing endnote to a long political career.




Kind of like Trump was elected so Hillary wouldn't be.

I guess it is going to fall on who the people blame for rising crime.  Are they going to blame national, state or local politicians?  I personally think national politicians have little to do with rising or falling crime.  They may make some policies than can affect the disposition, but when it comes to actual boots on the ground fighting it, they are not to blame nor should they get much credit.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Kind of like Trump was elected so Hillary wouldn't be.
> 
> I guess it is going to fall on who the people blame for rising crime.  Are they going to blame national, state or local politicians?  I personally think national politicians have little to do with rising or falling crime.  They may make some policies than can affect the disposition, but when it comes to actual boots on the ground fighting it, they are not to blame nor should they get much credit.




Agreed about Trump vs Hillary.

What they should be doing is blaming the economy and our brand of capitalism and that goes well past Biden and Trump. Cost of living has gone through the roof while wages have stagnated for decades. We’ve also been brainwashed to believe predictable and cyclical major recessions are completely normal and unavoidable. Those who cause them get rewarded, not punished.

The only thing that has given the illusion of a healthy middle class is massive debt. Crime goes down when there is a healthy middle class and massive debt isn’t healthy…and is barely keeping the declining middle class afloat. Unfortunately in these type of realities where nobody seems to want to truly address the issue with honesty and action politicians like Trump always rise to the top as a possible solution.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Like I alluded to, one of those articles mentions all the suburban voters that soured on Trump. That’s why I feel it’s imperative to keep Trump in the spotlight so those voters get a constant reminder of how much he still has control of the party. Failing to cover Trump and his rabid politicians doesn’t mean he doesn’t have control of the party. It means they aren’t being reminded and probably won’t be motivated to vote against Trumpism.
> 
> I have my issues with Biden but at the same time, unless something monumentally successful happens, he will probably go down in history as mostly a President that was put there so Trump wouldn't be, forever in his shadow, which is kind of a disappointing endnote to a long political career.



I think to the majority of us who voted for Biden, that was the PRIMARY reason to prevent a 2nd 45 administration.  The bulk of us had other choices, but the sad reality was that it was believed Biden was the one MOST would rally behind.  NOT because he was most first choice.  Biden's career will always have the high note of following a president considered one of the worst, for simply NOT wanting to do his job and address a global pandemic.  There's a reason why a meme comparing 45 to Nero resonates.

I think what ultimately shows that Biden was the right choice at that time, is taking a look at how many "crises" we've had according to his critics in the short time he's been in office.  With the 44th president things were occasionally dragged out.  With Biden we are burning thru what, a "crisis" a month?  Anyone still wringing their hands while sporting army surplus fashion on gunboats in faux concern over the border?     At this point we could just make a conservative talking point spinning wheel, by the end of Biden's first year, they will be repeating crises because they've cried so much.  Republicans used to mock a spinning Hilary excuse wheel, now they've ironically come full circle and it's a faux outrage spinning wheel to avoid doing their jobs.

There will always be a new "crisis" now it's crime, next month or so Afghanistan, the one real crisis will be the ever unpredictable economy for the next year as we try to get out of the whole dug by the last administration.  The focus shouldn't be on 45, it should be on a republican party that shows the same absolute lack of desire to handle any true crisis we face.  Too many have hitched their economic & political future to 45 with zero concern for their fellow Americans.  THAT'S what needs to be driven home.  That there are lawyers like the 'kraken' team who are facing their due.  That there are unqualified 'cyberninjas' allowed to carry around the ballots of another state's voters.

You can try to appeal to the 'suburban' vote, but there's only one thing you need to do.  Focus on what's in their best self interest.  Is it their children might learn we had slavery, or is it that they may find themselves catching a variant of covid in school?  Focusing on the party is a distraction.  Focus on what LITTLE 45 & his party actually do for their real well being, is in my opinion the way to go.

Don't like the price of gas now?  Maybe if we didn't have a pandemic rage uncontrollably and it was addressed by the THEN president you wouldn't have that.  Don't like air travel now?  Maybe if a little more oversight went into bailout money, insuring contractors,  people barely making a living wage, weren't the ones thrown to the wayside to save some money.  Those same contractors you need to help airlines handle the crush they are facing.  We all know how we got into the hole we are in now, what's important is to show who's trying to help us get out of it.  As opposed to seeing who's pandering about cherry picked crime stats, culture wars, and CRT.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> I think to the majority of us who voted for Biden, that was the PRIMARY reason to prevent a 2nd 45 administration.  The bulk of us had other choices, but the sad reality was that it was believed Biden was the one MOST would rally behind.  NOT because he was most first choice.  Biden's career will always have the high note of following a president considered one of the worst, for simply NOT wanting to do his job and address a global pandemic.  There's a reason why a meme comparing 45 to Nero resonates.
> 
> I think what ultimately shows that Biden was the right choice at that time, is taking a look at how many "crises" we've had according to his critics in the short time he's been in office.  With the 44th president things were occasionally dragged out.  With Biden we are burning thru what, a "crisis" a month?  Anyone still wringing their hands while sporting army surplus fashion on gunboats in faux concern over the border?     At this point we could just make a conservative talking point spinning wheel, by the end of Biden's first year, they will be repeating crises because they've cried so much.  Republicans used to mock a spinning Hilary excuse wheel, now they've ironically come full circle and it's a faux outrage spinning wheel to avoid doing their jobs.
> 
> There will always be a new "crisis" now it's crime, next month or so Afghanistan, the one real crisis will be the ever unpredictable economy for the next year as we try to get out of the whole dug by the last administration.  The focus shouldn't be on 45, it should be on a republican party that shows the same absolute lack of desire to handle any true crisis we face.  Too many have hitched their economic & political future to 45 with zero concern for their fellow Americans.  THAT'S what needs to be driven home.  That there are lawyers like the 'kraken' team who are facing their due.  That there are unqualified 'cyberninjas' allowed to carry around the ballots of another state's voters.
> 
> You can try to appeal to the 'suburban' vote, but there's only one thing you need to do.  Focus on what's in their best self interest.  Is it their children might learn we had slavery, or is it that they may find themselves catching a variant of covid in school?  Focusing on the party is a distraction.  Focus on what LITTLE 45 & his party actually do for their real well being, is in my opinion the way to go.
> 
> Don't like the price of gas now?  Maybe if we didn't have a pandemic rage uncontrollably and it was addressed by the THEN president you wouldn't have that.  Don't like air travel now?  Maybe if a little more oversight went into bailout money, insuring contractors,  people barely making a living wage, weren't the ones thrown to the wayside to save some money.  Those same contractors you need to help airlines handle the crush they are facing.  We all know how we got into the hole we are in now, what's important is to show who's trying to help us get out of it.  As opposed to seeing who's pandering about cherry picked crime stats, culture wars, and CRT.



You mean focus on real issues instead of outrage over imagined issues? I don’t think you understand the mind of the Republican voter. Luckily, their numbers are shrinking daily.

In the minds of many Trump voters, they will always believe that Mexican or Black people are stealing “their” jobs. As long as you’ve got George Wallace Richard Nixon Ronald Reagan Donald Trump on the ballot playing to that crowd, they will get their votes. That’s what the 24/7 CRT and anti-racism “coverage” is truly about. The whole “well anti-racism is really about (insert conspiracy here)” is them pretending there’s some legitimate reason for them to be mad at anti-racism.


----------



## Herdfan

Not really sure what to make of this, but hey it's not from FoxNews:





__





						INSIGHT-As murders surge, Democrats find a new message: Fund the police
					

USA-POLICE/DEMOCRATS (INSIGHT, PIX):INSIGHT-As murders surge, Democrats find a new message: Fund the police




					news.trust.org
				




I don't know that it will help now as most of them are on video or in print wanting to defund.  That will be hung around their neck at election time no matter what they try to do now.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Not really sure what to make of this, but hey it's not from FoxNews:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> INSIGHT-As murders surge, Democrats find a new message: Fund the police
> 
> 
> USA-POLICE/DEMOCRATS (INSIGHT, PIX):INSIGHT-As murders surge, Democrats find a new message: Fund the police
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.trust.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that it will help now as most of them are on video or in print wanting to defund.  That will be hung around their neck at election time no matter what they try to do now.




I might be kind of lazy not researching this here, but I've heard from multiple sources that not one Democrat who won in 2020 ran on a defund the police platform.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I might be kind of lazy not researching this here, but I've heard from multiple sources that not one Democrat who won in 2020 ran on a defund the police platform.




The "Squad" did, but in those districts like Pelosi said "A glass of water with a D beside its name could win in that district".


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> The "Squad" did, but in those districts like Pelosi said "A glass of water with a D beside its name could win in that district".



People on the right seem VERY concerned about a small group of far left Democrats, all the while ignoring that their party is overrun with extremists, to the point where the more reasonable members are being taken off committees and marginalized.

Let us know when the crazies are no longer running the show in the GOP before you start fretting over the small number of people calling for defund the police on the left.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> People on the right seem VERY concerned about a small group of far left Democrats, all the while ignoring that their party is overrun with extremists, to the point where the more reasonable members are being taken off committees and marginalized.
> 
> Let us know when the crazies are no longer running the show in the GOP before you start fretting over the small number of people calling for defund the police on the left.




Absolutely not fretting.  I want them all to call for it.  It is not an election winning strategy.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> The "Squad" did, but in those districts like Pelosi said "A glass of water with a D beside its name could win in that district".




This probably seems like moving the goal post, but I believe it was referring to newly elected Democrats, not incumbents.  I think the experience of already being in office affords some more bold stances, and like you said, location matters.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Absolutely not fretting.  I want them all to call for it.  It is not an election winning strategy.



It depends quite a bit on the district. In some districts, backing the “defund” movement is definitely a winning strategy.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> It depends quite a bit on the district. In some districts, backing the “defund” movement is definitely a winning strategy.




It is in a few select districts.  But something tells me Cori Bush isn't going to be happy with simply defunding St. Louis.  She wants to defund them all.  And she gets airtime saying it.  

And if you think it won't hurt the Dems, by all means embrace it.  I think it is and it will.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> It is in a few select districts.  But something tells me Cori Bush isn't going to be happy with simply defunding St. Louis.  She wants to defund them all.  And she gets airtime saying it.
> 
> And if you think it won't hurt the Dems, by all means embrace it.  I think it is and it will.



The 2020 election showed otherwise. It showed that: in areas where “defund” was popular, the candidates pushing it won. Elsewhere (like the presidential election) voters believed Biden when he said he doesn’t support “defund” and doesn’t support the “green new deal.” Voters aren’t as dumb as Fox thinks... you can’t show Cori Bush and say she is the same as Joe Biden. Just like you can’t say Liz Cheney and Lauren Boebert are equivalent.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

A story in my news aggregator titled "Oakland has less than 700 officers for the first time in 6 years" popped up.   I didn't even bother reading it.

A).  "6 years" isn't exactly ancient history. 

B).  Oakland is now hugely gentrified.  The most common crime is probably somebody walking into a dog-friendly vegan restaurant with a hamburger.   

B2).  East Palo Alto in the Bay Area is far more dangerous than Oakland and has been for quite some time.  You just don't hear about it because it hasn't been made legendary by social justice riots and rap videos.  It's also the closest scenic view from Facebook HQ.


----------



## SuperMatt

Senator Tom Cotton has been talking about a “crime wave” caused by Democrats. The reality?









						The truth about crime in America
					

Between now and November 2022, you will likely hear a lot about an alleged crime wave that is sweeping the country. Many Republicans are already keying in on the issue, including Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), who authored a piece about crime for Breitbart. The article is accompanied by pictures of...




					popular.info
				






> Cotton posits that "Democrat mayors, progressive prosecutors, and liberal governors are to blame." This claim does not hold up to scrutiny. *Wyoming*, a state with a Republican governor and dominated by Republican officials, had the largest spike in homicides among the 23 states that reported data, 92%. The second-largest spike in murders, 67%, was in *South Dakota*, which also has a Republican governor.
> 
> Cotton highlights that "murder rose 50 percent in Chicago, 44 percent in New York, and 38 percent in Los Angeles" — cities run by Democrats. But he doesn't mention that murder rates rose 62% in Ft. Worth, Texas, which has a Republican mayor. Or that Jacksonville, another city with a Republican mayor, is the "murder capital" of Florida.


----------



## Herdfan

Walgreens closing 5 SF stores due to ‘organized retail crime’
					

These are the stores that are closing.




					www.sfgate.com
				




At what point are people going to get totally fed up with this?


----------



## Hrafn

Herdfan said:


> Walgreens closing 5 SF stores due to ‘organized retail crime’
> 
> 
> These are the stores that are closing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point are people going to get totally fed up with this?



I’m totally fed up.  Now, what’s your solution?


----------



## Herdfan

Hrafn said:


> I’m totally fed up.  Now, what’s your solution?




You probably won't like it, but my solution is to start catching them and putting them in jail. 

This does nothing but hurt those who can't afford to drive several miles to a different location to get needed medicine.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SF has become a neoliberal shit hole of the highest extreme.   I'd say that is hard for me to admit, but I watched it happen over time with not even a minor speedbump preventing it from happening.   Like our federal government, they only seem to be interested in appeasing the affluent and rich.  Everything and everybody else is an acceptable casualty.


----------



## Hrafn

Herdfan said:


> You probably won't like it, but my solution is to start catching them and putting them in jail.
> 
> This does nothing but hurt those who can't afford to drive several miles to a different location to get needed medicine.



I have no problem with this.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> SF has become a neoliberal shit hole of the highest extreme.   I'd say that is hard for me to admit, but I watched it happen over time with not even a minor speedbump preventing it from happening.   Like our federal government, *they only seem to be interested in appeasing the affluent and rich. * Everything and everybody else is an acceptable casualty.




Who are the affluent and rich people who want to step in human feces on the street?  I do get the affluent, especially in that city where there are a lot of them, get preferential treatment, but come on.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Who are the affluent and rich people who want to step in human feces on the street?  I do get the affluent, especially in that city where there are a lot of them, get preferential treatment, but come on.




It's a really sad state of affairs.  And I don't want to attack all tech workers.  They make a lot of money but they also work a lot of hours and the cost of living is astronomical.  You can't really blame them for being mad when they have to navigate all the homeless and drug addicts and their bodily fluids every time they leave work or their housing.  With their long hours soul crushing jobs it might be a bit much to also ask them to solve the vast inequality issues.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> It's a really sad state of affairs.  And I don't want to attack all tech workers.  They make a lot of money but they also work a lot of hours and the cost of living is astronomical.  You can't really blame them for being mad when they have to navigate all the homeless and drug addicts and their bodily fluids every time they leave work or their housing.  With their long hours soul crushing jobs it might be a bit much to also ask them to solve the vast inequality issues.




Which is why Tesla won't have any trouble finding tech workers in Austin.  I know this is the subject of another thread, but in it someone posted something about "good luck finding engineers in TX", but if you can tolerate the heat (it is quite hot and humid), Austin is a great place to live.  The workers will follow.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> It's a really sad state of affairs.  And I don't want to attack all tech workers.  They make a lot of money but they also work a lot of hours and the cost of living is astronomical.  You can't really blame them for being mad when they have to navigate all the homeless and drug addicts and their bodily fluids every time they leave work or their housing.  With their long hours soul crushing jobs it might be a bit much to also ask them to solve the vast inequality issues.



I visited SF when I was 17 and I really loved it. Beautiful city, nice weather. Couldn't get to love SoCal but SF touched me. Then 15 years later I visited again with my wife and boy, used needles, high people drug dealers down the corner. We've been taking public transport and/or walking in America's nominally roughest cities, but SF was the only place where I would not let my wife walk around alone. It was also incredibly dirty. That trip made me realize how amazingly clean Chicago's downtown is.


----------



## Deleted member 215

SF's situation is very depressing. It deserves much of the negative attention it gets. There are many factors contributing to its downfall (and I say "downfall" with some exaggeration; it shows no sign of declining like Detroit or Baltimore any time soon) but I think the biggest factor is cost of living. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out that there would be fewer homeless people if the city were more affordable. Shy of a significant change in the cost of living (which doesn't seem to be coming any time soon), this is just going to be an ongoing problem.


----------



## User.45

TBL said:


> SF's situation is very depressing. It deserves much of the negative attention it gets. There are many factors contributing to its downfall (and I say "downfall" with some exaggeration; it shows no sign of declining like Detroit or Baltimore any time soon) but I think the biggest factor is cost of living. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out that there would be fewer homeless people if the city were more affordable. Shy of a significant change in the cost of living (which doesn't seem to be coming any time soon), this is just going to be an ongoing problem.



Ironically, I felt safer downtown in both cities you mentioned above. 
Another factor is the weather though. Lot's of homeless migrate to Cali because it never freezes there.


----------



## Deleted member 215

That is true. Austin's homelessness problem has gotten worse recently as well. Another place with warm weather and a rising cost of living.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Walgreens closing 5 SF stores due to ‘organized retail crime’
> 
> 
> These are the stores that are closing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point are people going to get totally fed up with this?



I decided to read a bit further. Some interesting tidbits:



> Walgreens disclosed in an August 2019 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it would be closing 200 locations in the United States as part of a cost-savings initiative.




Hmm… maybe they closed because the police refused to arrest the shoplifters? Whoops… maybe not…



> On June 19, the San Francisco Police Department said that it had arrested the man in the shoplifting video that was recorded at the Walgreens location on Gough Street. Investigators said that they connected the man, Jean Lugo-Romero, 40, to a string of thefts from merchants in the Northern and Mission districts.
> 
> Mr. Lugo-Romero faces robbery and burglary charges in connection with five separate occasions in which he targeted the Walgreens store on Gough Street, including on four consecutive days in late May and early June, the authorities said.




Seems possible that losses due to theft are an excuse for closures that were previously planned in order to cut costs. Where I live, some Walgreens closed and were quickly replaced by Wawa stores instead.

But sure, it’s easy to ignore the details and just blame Democrats for supposedly being lax on crime. I’m not saying that is or isn’t a factor, but there’s much more going on here.









						Walgreens to Close 5 Stores in San Francisco, Citing ‘Organized’ Shoplifting (Published 2021)
					

One of the stores was targeted at least five times by the same man, who drew widespread attention for raiding the store on a bike and was later arrested, the authorities said.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> I decided to read a bit further. Some interesting tidbits:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm… maybe they closed because the police refused to arrest the shoplifters? Whoops… maybe not…
> 
> 
> 
> Seems possible that losses due to theft are an excuse for closures that were previously planned in order to cut costs. Where I live, some Walgreens closed and were quickly replaced by Wawa stores instead.
> 
> But sure, it’s easy to ignore the details and just blame Democrats for supposedly being lax on crime. I’m not saying that is or isn’t a factor, but there’s much more going on here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walgreens to Close 5 Stores in San Francisco, Citing ‘Organized’ Shoplifting (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> One of the stores was targeted at least five times by the same man, who drew widespread attention for raiding the store on a bike and was later arrested, the authorities said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com




I originally was going to post something similar but that story was many months ago. The article posted above is from this week. So who knows. Maybe these specific stores weren’t part of the planned closures that had nothing to do with theft.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Yeah, I do think there is more going on here and those with the agenda of "we need more police and incarcerations" are definitely pouncing on these SF stories. That said, I do think there is some laxity in going after property crime in SF and it is contributing to a lower quality of life.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> I decided to read a bit further. Some interesting tidbits:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm… maybe they closed because the police refused to arrest the shoplifters? Whoops… maybe not…
> 
> 
> 
> Seems possible that losses due to theft are an excuse for closures that were previously planned in order to cut costs. Where I live, some Walgreens closed and were quickly replaced by Wawa stores instead.
> 
> But sure, it’s easy to ignore the details and just blame Democrats for supposedly being lax on crime. I’m not saying that is or isn’t a factor, but there’s much more going on here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walgreens to Close 5 Stores in San Francisco, Citing ‘Organized’ Shoplifting (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> One of the stores was targeted at least five times by the same man, who drew widespread attention for raiding the store on a bike and was later arrested, the authorities said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com




All that may be true, but my initial link was from the local paper, not some right-wing source that would be dismissed out of hand.



TBL said:


> SF's situation is very depressing. It deserves much of the negative attention it gets. There are many factors contributing to its downfall (and I say "downfall" with some exaggeration; it shows no sign of declining like Detroit or Baltimore any time soon) *but I think the biggest factor is cost of living.* It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out that there would be fewer homeless people if the city were more affordable. Shy of a significant change in the cost of living (which doesn't seem to be coming any time soon), this is just going to be an ongoing problem.




Not sure how accurate their survey is, but with more and more people being able to work remotely, there will be some who do leave.   Not familiar with the bay area, but are there smaller cities where people can live affordably, yet be close enough to run into the city for a day of shopping or an evening of entertainment.  









						53 percent of Californians want to leave the state, according to new survey
					

Dreaming of greener (read: cheaper) pastures? You're not alone.




					www.sfgate.com


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> All that may be true, but my initial link was from the local paper, not some right-wing source that would be dismissed out of hand.



Some of the quotes I posted from the more in-depth NYT article were also in your article, which I thought was a decent article... but I just wanted something with a bit more context.

1. They arrested the guy who was the biggest problem
2. Walgreens already had a plan in 2019 to shut a couple hundred stores

These seem like very important details to me when considering the reason(s) why the stores are actually closing.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Well, I'm part of that 53% who wants to leave and likely will be leaving next year. 

Yes, there are communities outside of the Bay that are more affordable, like Fairfield, Vacaville, Tracy, Stockton, Hollister...but you're looking at a very long commute if you _do _have to work in the Bay and some of those places are only marginally more affordable and still expensive by nationwide standards.

I'm just tired of living in a place where $100,000 a year is considered "low income". I'm over it. Lol


----------



## Eric

TBL said:


> Well, I'm part of that 53% who wants to leave and likely will be leaving next year.
> 
> Yes, there are communities outside of the Bay that are more affordable, like Fairfield, Vacaville, Tracy, Stockton, Hollister...but you're looking at a very long commute if you _do _have to work in the Bay and some of those places are only marginally more affordable and still expensive by nationwide standards.
> 
> I'm just tired of living in a place where $100,000 a year is considered "low income". I'm over it. Lol



Yeah, if you aren't grandfathered in somehow you'll need a median income of $350K just to afford a basic home anywhere around the city. It's a shame, I love it there, was born and raised and am there all the time but there is no way I could ever afford to live there again, even with (what I consider to be) a great salary.

It would help if they had room to build though, they've taken up every little bit of land in the area and have made building on empty land nearly impossible because of all the regulations. So while I love it there, I get it when I hear people want to leave. 

In fact, we rented there for a year and getting a UHAUL when we bought in the central valley was nearly impossible because there's been a mass exodus from the area and there are so few trucks available. I had to rent one without AC on a 106 degree day when we moved.


----------



## User.45

TBL said:


> Well, I'm part of that 53% who wants to leave and likely will be leaving next year.
> 
> Yes, there are communities outside of the Bay that are more affordable, like Fairfield, Vacaville, Tracy, Stockton, Hollister...but you're looking at a very long commute if you _do _have to work in the Bay and some of those places are only marginally more affordable and still expensive by nationwide standards.
> 
> I'm just tired of living in a place where $100,000 a year is considered "low income". I'm over it. Lol





Eric said:


> Yeah, if you aren't grandfathered in somehow you'll need a median income of $350K just to afford a basic home anywhere around the city. It's a shame, I love it there, was born and raised and am there all the time but there is no way I could ever afford to live there again, even with (what I consider to be) a great salary.
> 
> It would help if they had room to build though, they've taken up every little bit of land in the area and have made building on empty land nearly impossible because of all the regulations. So while I love it there, I get it when I hear people want to leave.
> 
> In fact, we rented there for a year and getting a UHAUL when we bought in the central valley was nearly impossible because there's been a mass exodus from the area and there are so few trucks available. I had to rent one without AC on a 106 degree day when we moved.




I have friends who went to Berkeley and after hearing their stories I quickly crossed UCSF off my list for fellowships. My friends' (semi)joke is that even attending physicians have a roommate in SF. Another friend from residency did go there and they struggled after their child was born. 

So yeah the Bay Area is nice, but there are plenty of nicer places in the world that cost way less.


----------



## Deleted member 215

That, combined with worsening drought and wildfires has just made me want to move to greener pastures. I'm ready for something new.


----------



## Eric

P_X said:


> I have friends who went to Berkeley and after hearing their stories I quickly crossed UCSF off my list for fellowships. My friends' (semi)joke is that even attending physicians have a roommate in SF. Another friend from residency did go there and they struggled after their child was born.
> 
> So yeah the Bay Area is nice, but there are plenty of nicer places in the world that cost way less.



Well, CA does have a lot of other more affordable places to live as well. I don't think it's as black as white as it seems with the article talking about people "leaving the state", people are just leaving the cities to different areas of the state where they allow building of nice, new neighborhoods. 

My area is a good example, they're building 11,000 new homes and nearly everyone here is from the Bay Area. Prices are comparable with other areas in the country and one of the huge benefits of CA is all the infrastructure, so it's a trade off but at least I can still travel to the city any time without too much of a hassle and live like a normal non-kajillionaire.


----------



## User.45

Eric said:


> Well, CA does have a lot of other more affordable places to live as well. I don't think it's as black as white as it seems with the article talking about people "leaving the state", people are just leaving the cities to different areas of the state where they allow building of nice, new neighborhoods.
> 
> My area is a good example, they're building 11,000 new homes and nearly everyone here is from the Bay Area. Prices are comparable with other areas in the country and one of the huge benefits of CA is all the infrastructure, so it's a trade off but at least I can still travel to the city any time without too much of a hassle and live like a normal non-kajillionaire.



I absolutely despise Cali traffic, but then DC traffic is the same without the vistas.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Here's an article from a local news source addressing the controversy re. Walgreens' stated reasons for closing SF stores:









						What's really going on with San Francisco Walgreens closures?
					

Some are questioning the legitimacy of Walgreens' explanation for San Francisco store...




					www.sfgate.com


----------



## Herdfan

Another store cutting hours due to shoplifting.

Ignore it all you want, but at some point retailers will leave if they can't make a profit. 









						Safeway In Castro Cuts Hours Due To 'Off The Charts' Shoplifting; 'It's Sad, Upsetting And Frustrating'
					

Yet another major retailer in San Francisco has made the decision to close earlier due to excessive theft particularly at night. The Castro Safeway on Market and Church Streets has cut back its hours.




					sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com


----------



## Herdfan

Tolerate burglaries?  Is this for real?


https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1456638956204924928/


----------



## Herdfan

Since we have talked about SF several times in this thread, the recall for SF District Attorney was certified by the state.  He will face a recall election during CA's primary in June.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Another store cutting hours due to shoplifting.
> 
> Ignore it all you want, but at some point retailers will leave if they can't make a profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Safeway In Castro Cuts Hours Due To 'Off The Charts' Shoplifting; 'It's Sad, Upsetting And Frustrating'
> 
> 
> Yet another major retailer in San Francisco has made the decision to close earlier due to excessive theft particularly at night. The Castro Safeway on Market and Church Streets has cut back its hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com



Well, well, well:









						The truth about shoplifting in San Francisco
					

Is there an epidemic of shoplifting by "organized gangs'' in San Francisco? And does it prove that the state's efforts at criminal justice reform have failed? Walgreens, one of the nation's largest drugstore chains, claims that retail theft in the city is proliferating. "Organized retail crime...




					popular.info
				






> In 2020, shoplifting in San Francisco reached its lowest level since statistics began being collected 45 years ago.





> By April 2021, shoplifting incidents increased slightly, but remained well below pre-pandemic levels. The latest data from the San Francisco Police Department, which includes incidents through October, shows that there were 24,890 larceny thefts in 2021, which is a 13% increase from the same period last year. But the overall number of thefts remains well below the level of 2019, when there were 35,512 thefts through October.





> The false narrative of out-of-control crime in San Francisco, and California as a whole, is being pushed relentlessly by a far-right website run by a former Republican consultant who received a pardon from Trump.



To quote Paul Harvey: “Now you know the rest of the story.”


----------



## Herdfan

> The false narrative of out-of-control crime in San Francisco, and California as a whole, is being pushed relentlessly by a far-right website run by a former Republican consultant who received a pardon from Trump.




If the local CBS affiliate and the San Francisco Chronical are far-right websites, then you got me.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> If the local CBS affiliate and the San Francisco Chronical are far-right websites, then you got me.



Maybe the link to the article didn’t work? OK I’ll paste it.



> The New York Times piece did not appear in a vacuum. The false narrative of out-of-control crime in San Francisco, and California as a whole, is being pushed relentlessly by a far-right website run by a former Republican consultant who received a pardon from Trump.
> 
> *California's leading source of crime disinformation*​On October 21, the California Globe published a story about a Target store in downtown San Francisco that was closing “amid shoplifting tidal wave.” The story was an exclusive and featured several unnamed San Francisco Police Department officers who claimed that the Mission Street Target will “be closed by the end of the year despite having solid revenue, because they cannot get the shoplifting under control.”




The entire point was that a lot of news organizations have been picking up the stories from this “California Globe” source, which is sketchy… which anybody who read the linked article would have seen. But why read the article? Just make a snarky reply instead.


----------



## SuperMatt

A good story about the problem of organized retail theft and ideas of how to stop it:









						Opinion | Retail Theft Has Gotten Very Organized
					

Fortunately, there’s a solution.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## GermanSuplex

President Biden has a lot on his plate. Unfortunately, the most brain-dead responses resonate the most with the right, and even some independents. “We need more cops! Law and order! 10 year stints automatically for perps!” are simpleton solutions to complicated problems, and it does nothing to combat white collar crime. I have a strong suspicion if you started locking up some of these rich political and business assholes who run around screaming about what street criminals are doing, a lot of street crime would magically vanish as well.

That said, I’d like to see Biden (or any leader, really) take on a two-pronged approach. Stop pitting BLM and cops against each other. Have round table discussions with different leaders and groups. Create funding for community policing. Offer incentives for cops who work where they live. Strict laws for crooked cops and those who cover up their misdeeds, and severe punishments when they break them.

Most people want the same thing, no matter how politically divided they are. Use that to your benefit.


----------



## Herdfan

Everyone has their limits.









						San Francisco's vaunted tolerance dims amid brazen crimes
					

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Caitlin Foster fell in love with San Francisco's people and beauty and moved to the city a dozen years ago. But after repeatedly clearing away used needles, other drug paraphernalia and human feces outside the bar she manages, and too many encounters with armed people in...




					apnews.com


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Everyone has their limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco's vaunted tolerance dims amid brazen crimes
> 
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Caitlin Foster fell in love with San Francisco's people and beauty and moved to the city a dozen years ago. But after repeatedly clearing away used needles, other drug paraphernalia and human feces outside the bar she manages, and too many encounters with armed people in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com



I found the following interesting in that piece.

The piece is mostly interviews with a small number of people, but when they had to actually point to facts about the “crime wave” you get this:



> Reports of larceny theft — shoplifting from a person or business — are up nearly 17% to more than 28,000 from the same time last year. They remain lower than the more than 40,000 larceny theft cases reported in 2019. Requests to clean dirty streets and sidewalks are the majority of calls to 311, the city’s services line.
> 
> Overall, though, crime has been trending down for years. More than 45,000 incidents have been reported so far this year, up from last year when most people were shut indoors, but below the roughly 60,000 complaints in previous years.




Crime is down, but some people are unhappy, or think it’s actually up. No poll results, just interviews with 7 people. It’s possible there is mass discontent among San Fran residents, but this piece indicates no such thing.

The content of the article doesn’t support the headline.


----------



## Hrafn

SuperMatt said:


> I found the following interesting in that piece.
> 
> The piece is mostly interviews with a small number of people, but when they had to actually point to facts about the “crime wave” you get this:
> 
> 
> 
> Crime is down, but some people are unhappy, or think it’s actually up. No poll results, just interviews with 7 people. It’s possible there is mass discontent among San Fran residents, but this piece indicates no such thing.
> 
> The content of the article doesn’t support the headline.



OMG.  Are you suggesting Herdfan's posts don't represent reality?  Always and every time?

For the record, my panties are fully in a bunch again.


----------



## SuperMatt

Hrafn said:


> OMG.  Are you suggesting Herdfan's posts don't represent reality?  Always and every time?
> 
> For the record, my panties are fully in a bunch again.



I think the article itself is misleading. Just the kind of thing to grab the attention of those accustomed to the “San Francisco is a hellhole” narrative constantly pushed by right-wing media.


----------



## Yoused

SuperMatt said:


> The content of the article doesn’t support the headline.



Curiously, while one of the authors is an AP regular, it looks like the other one (Olga Rodriguez) is a member of the SWP. It is a bit troubling, that an obvious leftist would contribute to a report that will be seized upon by RWers, who will shout _More (of what is already not working)!_


----------



## SuperMatt

Yoused said:


> Curiously, while one of the authors is an AP regular, it looks like the other one (Olga Rodriguez) is a member of the SWP. It is a bit troubling, that an obvious leftist would contribute to a report that will be seized upon by RWers, who will shout _More (of what is already not working)!_



It does seem that the entire point of the report was to take the most negative view possible and get quotes from people that are unhappy there.

We’ve always gotta read between the lines, regardless of the source, regardless of whether we agree with the headline or not. Otherwise, we’re all just sheep.


----------



## Herdfan

I don't care if you take the article seriously or not.  Stick your head in the sand for all I care.



SuperMatt said:


> I think the article itself is misleading. Just the kind of thing to grab the attention of those accustomed to the “San Francisco is a hellhole” narrative constantly pushed by right-wing media.




The problem with this is the right-wing doesn't really want it to be true.  Because if it is, there will be some who do move away to places where crime is lower.  And then they will bring their voting history with them and elect the same type of people that created the problems they left in the first place.


----------



## Joe

Herdfan said:


> Everyone has their limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco's vaunted tolerance dims amid brazen crimes
> 
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Caitlin Foster fell in love with San Francisco's people and beauty and moved to the city a dozen years ago. But after repeatedly clearing away used needles, other drug paraphernalia and human feces outside the bar she manages, and too many encounters with armed people in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com




What sane person moves to California 

There needs to be stricter punishments for these crimes. Stop letting people out on bail that keep offending. I keep seeing stories of criminals out on bail committing more crimes, even killing others.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I don't care if you take the article seriously or not. Stick your head in the sand for all I care.




The rude comment above is totally unnecessary, just like the previous baseball analogy. It adds nothing to the discussion. 

It’s also a completely inaccurate comment. I read the entire article and commented extensively upon it.

As for this comment:



Herdfan said:


> The problem with this is the right-wing doesn't really want it to be true. Because if it is, there will be some who do move away to places where crime is lower. And then they will bring their voting history with them and elect the same type of people that created the problems they left in the first place.



The basis of this statement is flawed. You are basing it on the idea that the headline of the article you posted is accurate. If you read my analysis, you should know that crime has gotten lower, and the article’s negative news came from interviews with a group of people so small you can count them on your fingers. That’s just the most obvious flaw in the argument.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> The rude comment above is totally unnecessary, just like the previous baseball analogy. It adds nothing to the discussion.
> 
> It’s also a completely inaccurate comment. I read the entire article and commented extensively upon it.
> 
> As for this comment:
> 
> 
> The basis of this statement is flawed. You are basing it on the idea that the headline of the article you posted is accurate. If you read my analysis, you should know that crime has gotten lower, and the article’s negative news came from interviews with a group of people so small you can count them on your fingers. That’s just the most obvious flaw in the argument.




I apologize.

But my point is still the same.  The last time this issue came up, and it might have been in this thread a few pages back, there were the naysayers and then there were a couple of posters who live it.  I will tend to take their evaluations and experiences over any article or poster who is looking at raw crime numbers.

But I guess all these businesses boarded up their stores for no good reason:





__





						boarded up SF stores - Google Search
					





					www.google.com


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I apologize.
> 
> But my point is still the same.  The last time this issue came up, and it might have been in this thread a few pages back, there were the naysayers and then there were a couple of posters who live it.  I will tend to take their evaluations and experiences over any article or poster who is looking at raw crime numbers.



This is ilogical. Personal opinions from a small handful of people are not a reliable source of data. Why choose to believe that instead of the data? I bet I could find at least 10 people who don’t like coffee or chocolate ice cream or even sex. Can I use that as sufficient data to claim that nobody likes those things?

What makes the opinions from that article more or less valuable than those of people who love living in San Francisco?

And you can find un-dated pictures of boarded up buildings anywhere in the world. That’s not data.


----------



## Yoused

SuperMatt said:


> This is ilogical. Personal opinions from a small handful of people are not a reliable source of data.



Most people are more driven by feelings than data. If you look at raw data, the incidence of genuine accidental and deliberate gun violence in the US, on a per capita basis, is barely a rounding error. But it does feel like a real concern.

The local Fox TV station tends to focus on individual crime-related stories, much more than I think is warranted. One event may get coverage over the course of several days, which makes it possible for them to amplify the overall situation. This strategy appears to be fairly common in the general media, the issues they want emphasized getting greater coverage. For instance, why do you think the average person thinks a rising DJIA is a good thing?


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> I don't care if you take the article seriously or not.  Stick your head in the sand for all I care.



"Resident redneck" explains city life According to the type of media you consume, I've been murdered and raped every other year in the "infested cities" I lived in, LOL.



Herdfan said:


> The problem with this is the right-wing doesn't really want it to be true.  Because if it is, there will be some who do move away to places where crime is lower.  And then they will bring their voting history with them and elect the same type of people that created the problems they left in the first place.



Hahahaha. This came to my mind yesterday. The GOP painting big city issues as "Democrat/Blue problems" is as serious as a varsity  basketball player's criticism of Shaq's free throw skills. You may get a kick out of it, but in reality they can't play in the same league because a platform of White Supremacy isn't viable in a diverse big city environment. Stupid (and racist) people might eat this shit up, but it's a hilarious spin on the GOP's greatest weakness that is completely offset by US electoral system favoring rural voters.

People moving to red states bringing their voting history? LOL.  Have you ever thought about the GDP differentials* too You're on a roll again.

*Just look at the economy trends of Atlanta and North Virginia with the influx of these highly skilled left leaning professionals….


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> And you can find un-dated pictures of boarded up buildings anywhere in the world. That’s not data.




They're not un-dated.  The vast majority of them link to news stories from local sources which are dated.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> They're not un-dated.  The vast majority of them link to news stories from local sources which are dated.



More worthless nit-picking that distracts from the actual discussion.

Want to play a nitpicking game? *Some* are un-dated. I never said *all* were.

If you want to discuss issues and present some actual data, feel free. Otherwise, what’s the point? You ignored all the actual points in the discussion, again.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

For what it's worth



			http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/californias_republican_counties_have_worse_crime_trends.pdf
		


I don't know if we've already gone over this, but I find it hard to believe that Democrat run areas are crime filled cesspools while Republican run areas are crime free utopias but that seems to be the impression.  I wouldn't be surprised though to find out that right wing media goes out of their way to report crime in Democrat strongholds while left wing media largely ignores crime in Republican strongholds.  

The right seems to want to cast their blame net even wider until it lands on a Democrat.  Republican sheriff can't control the crime?  Blame the Democrat mayor.  Republican mayor can't control the crime?  Blame the Democrat governor?  Republican governor can't control the crime?  Blame the Democrat president.  Republican president can't control crime?  Either stop talking about crime or work your way back down the ladder until you land on a Democrat.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> More worthless nit-picking that distracts from the actual discussion.
> 
> Want to play a nitpicking game? *Some* are un-dated. I never said *all* were.
> 
> If you want to discuss issues and present some actual data, feel free. Otherwise, what’s the point? You ignored all the actual points in the discussion, again.




Hence the word "vast".

I don't think you want to discuss the actual issue.  Instead you find any reason you can to deflect from the simple fact that some cities are becoming cesspools.



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> while left wing media largely ignores crime in Republican strongholds.




Do you mean the left-wing media ignores crime in Democratic strongholds?

I don't care if crime in Republican areas is reported.  It seems I am the outlier.


----------



## Yoused

Herdfan said:


> … the simple fact that some cities are becoming cesspools



Where ever it is a "fact", there is nothing simple about it.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> I don't think you want to discuss the actual issue.  Instead you find any reason you can to deflect from the simple fact that some cities are becoming cesspools.



The thing is, even your questions are disingenuous. Unless you show me a good set of republican led Major cities we can match Democrat-led cities for a comparison, what you’re insinuating is As serious as stating that ice cream causes drownings. Your argument is confounded by the unelectability of Republicans to lead major cities. 

You also have to define cesspool if you Really want to convey factuality in your statement. You generally don’t, so I don’t expect that.

Then the next thing you need to show me, is an objective rise in violent crime stats, and then you will have to compare that to similar recessions and inflation rates. once you have all that, there’s something that we can actually discuss. Until then this is just your reverberating fox news talking points that really lack substance.

any time you are asked to do a little more work to support your statements, you just disappear, or try to change the topic. I’m expecting nothing different this time as well.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Hence the word "vast".
> 
> I don't think you want to discuss the actual issue.  Instead you find any reason you can to deflect from the simple fact that some cities are becoming cesspools.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the left-wing media ignores crime in Democratic strongholds?
> 
> I don't care if crime in Republican areas is reported.  It seems I am the outlier.




No that's not what I meant and that's your spin.  The local news which you would be safe to assume is left leaning reports crime all the time.  

I'm saying the left wing news on a slow day doesn't go out its way to find the most opioid crime infested Republican stronghold and go on to paint it as entirely the Republicans' fault.  If you went to the south and midwest you probably couldn't throw a rock without hitting some small Republican dead or dying industry hamlet all boarded up and rotting, but the left wing news isn't going "This is what life looks like under Republicans!" as a daily news segment.


----------



## Joe

I live in Houston and I feel relatively safe, but last summer during the protests everyone said we were burning to the ground lol.  Fox News and Republicans just want to scare you. I have lived in major cities the last 17 years since moving from my small hometown and I have always felt safe. I take precautions like I would in my small hometown. I watch for strange people anywhere I go no matter if I'm in Houston or my hometown. 

Unless you live in the cities you really don't know. It's like those people that think we are all running around with guns in Texas but have never been here. lol


----------



## Yoused

Bow-tie-guy goes on a rant over the ashes of their half-million-dollar tree, telling us that our streets are being made dangerous by drug-addicted homeless lunatics who are still out there roaming the streets because they are a protected class.

a *protected* class

And while you let that sink in, give some thought to Saint Ronnie, who repeated pushed people out of mental health care facilities, onto the streets, and his R acolytes steadfastly resist any efforts to get these people help. It is almost like they seek to create a problem so that they can complain about it.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I don't think you want to discuss the actual issue.  Instead you find any reason you can to deflect from the simple fact that some cities are becoming cesspools.



Where is the evidence?

You keeping making this unsupported claim and get angry that I don’t agree with it.

You are asking people to accept an unproven assertion of yours and then, what... discuss solutions to your imaginary problem? You haven’t even TRIED to prove that it’s a problem. Fox News spams that cities are cesspools, so you believe it, and get mad that others don’t automatically agree with the propaganda spewed by proven liars (just look at all the Fox-ers who were begging Trump to tell his cult members to stop attacking the Capitol, who later on claimed that it was just a tourist visit and/or that Trump had nothing to do with it.). If you want to believe people who have been caught in lies many times instead of the actual data from sociologists and other scientists... well then what is there even to discuss?

A google image search and an interview with 7-8 people in San Francisco is NOT evidence that “cities are cesspools."

If you prefer the rural life, fine. But cities are not cesspools. If you actually lived in one instead of believing what you see on Fox, you might realize that.


----------



## Herdfan

JagRunner said:


> I live in Houston and I feel relatively safe, but last summer during the protests everyone said we were burning to the ground lol.




I don't think safety is the main issue with what is going on now.  More about theft and burglary.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> If you prefer the rural life, fine. But cities are not cesspools. If you actually lived in one instead of believing what you see on Fox, you might realize that.




I actually have.  I lived in Charlotte for 3 years after college.  Crime didn't chase me out, traffic did.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

JagRunner said:


> I live in Houston and I feel relatively safe, but last summer during the protests everyone said we were burning to the ground lol.  Fox News and Republicans just want to scare you. I have lived in major cities the last 17 years since moving from my small hometown and I have always felt safe. I take precautions like I would in my small hometown. I watch for strange people anywhere I go no matter if I'm in Houston or my hometown.
> 
> Unless you live in the cities you really don't know. It's like those people that think we are all running around with guns in Texas but have never been here. lol




I think before Trump liberals mostly ignored conservatives, and I don’t mean in a harsh way. I mean “I live in my liberal city with liberal problems and they live in their conservative world with their conservative problems.” Live and let live for the most part. But according to right wing media that’s not what is happening. Liberals are actively coming for their guns, forcing them to pick an alternative gender, get an abortion, give their job and house to an illegal or refugee, and deny the existence of God. That sounds like a pretty exhausting schedule right there and I don’t recall doing any of that or know anybody who has. Not to mention the regions that probably believe this the most probably aren’t worth visiting, much less sending in a Seal-like team of Liberal activists to impose their will. But their media is telling them it's happening. So it must be.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Yoused said:


> Bow-tie-guy goes on a rant over the ashes of their half-million-dollar tree, telling us that our streets are being made dangerous by drug-addicted homeless lunatics who are still out there roaming the streets because they are a protected class.
> 
> a *protected* class
> 
> And while you let that sink in, give some thought to Saint Ronnie, who repeated pushed people out of mental health care facilities, onto the streets, and his R acolytes steadfastly resist any efforts to get these people help. It is almost like they seek to create a problem so that they can complain about it.




The nice thing about the protected class of homeless is anybody can join. It’s a very inclusive community. If you really want to stick it to the system you can join and get some of those sweet, sweet homeless benefits your tax dollars are paying for. In fact it might be the best way to get something directly back from your tax dollars and it's quickly going to become the country’s most common retirement plan. Housing is for earners.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> No that's not what I meant and that's your spin.  The local news which you would be safe to assume is left leaning reports crime all the time.
> 
> I'm saying the left wing news on a slow day doesn't go out its way to find the most opioid crime infested Republican stronghold and go on to paint it as entirely the Republicans' fault.  If you went to the south and midwest you probably couldn't throw a rock without hitting some small Republican dead or dying industry hamlet all boarded up and rotting, but the left wing news isn't going "This is what life looks like under Republicans!" as a daily news segment.



Exactly. Although i add that The best thing you can learn about the handling of the opioid epidemic, is once perceivable urban issues start plaguing the town folk, a sudden bipartisan interest to fix the problems emerges. So making urban issues rural is generally an excellent way to solve said issues. 


SuperMatt said:


> Where is the evidence?
> 
> You keeping making this unsupported claim and get angry that I don’t agree with it.
> 
> You are asking people to accept an unproven assertion of yours and then, what... discuss solutions to your imaginary problem? You haven’t even TRIED to prove that it’s a problem. Fox News spams that cities are cesspools, so you believe it, and get mad that others don’t automatically agree with the propaganda spewed by proven liars (just look at all the Fox-ers who were begging Trump to tell his cult members to stop attacking the Capitol, who later on claimed that it was just a tourist visit and/or that Trump had nothing to do with it.). If you want to believe people who have been caught in lies many times instead of the actual data from sociologists and other scientists... well then what is there even to discuss?



I guess the only thing we can do is appreciate his consistent under delivery. The irony about this thread is AFAIR it was about the perception of rising crime mainly. The issue with the US populace is they have no grasp of actual crime rates and risk. I usually look at crime maps before moving somewhere new and I can consistently tell which places to avoid and which are safe. About rising crime, we could have an honest and discussion even with opposing opinion. What I am tired of is actually doing the critical thinking and research part to evaluate the truthfulness of right wing talking points. This usually turns out this way: invest time, find out that 80% of the said talking points is total bullshit. Angrily confront the bullshitter, bullshitter plays victim because of my rude response.


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> What I am tired of is actually doing the critical thinking and research part to evaluate the truthfulness of right wing talking points.




I guess the mayor of SF is spewing RW talking points:









						San Francisco mayor pledges more police, safety measures
					

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The mayor of San Francisco on Tuesday announced even more initiatives aimed at curbing open drug use, brazen home break-ins and other criminal behavior that she says have made a mockery of the city's famed tolerance and compassion.




					apnews.com
				




And Nancy Pelosi is as well:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-san-francisco-crime-attitude-of-lawlessness  (yeah I know Fox, but her quotes are in there)

But you all are right, nothing to see here.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> I guess the mayor of SF is spewing RW talking points:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco mayor pledges more police, safety measures
> 
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The mayor of San Francisco on Tuesday announced even more initiatives aimed at curbing open drug use, brazen home break-ins and other criminal behavior that she says have made a mockery of the city's famed tolerance and compassion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Nancy Pelosi is as well:
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-san-francisco-crime-attitude-of-lawlessness  (yeah I know Fox, but her quotes are in there)
> 
> But you all are right, nothing to see here.



Thanks! After I've insulted you the 25th time for your laziness, you post 2 articles that I suspect you didn't read again beyond the headline. I *actually* read them and these generate a more complex picture than what you've been implying. Even the Fox News article has more fair representation of what is said than yours.

It's pretty funny. I visited SF as a kid in the late 90s and all I remembered is the beauty of the city and the memory of hordes of drug addicted homeless had faded for some reason. Well, until we visited in 2017 with my wife and remembered that part too, LOL. We concluded that Chicago is much prettier and cleaner, despite the condescending concerns about our wellbeing by Foxsumers. 

If you *actually *read the AP article, the debate is how to better utilize budgets that actually eliminates the prime motors of crime, addiction, lack of mental health services, and lack of education. The other thing you have to show me is whether the Mayor of SF or Pelosi wanted to defund the police...

The Fox News article after the OmHyGoSH PELOSI Wants to REFUND THE POPO part, they actually write about a proposal to curtail online sale of stolen goods. It was actually a decent read, thanks.


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> Thanks! After I've insulted you the 25th time for your laziness, you post 2 articles that I suspect you didn't read again beyond the headline. I *actually* read them and these generate a more complex picture than what you've been implying. Even the Fox News article has more fair representation of what is said than yours.




Perhaps.  But she (and Pelosi which is why I linked her quotes) also acknowledges there is a problem, something some posters on here simply refuse to do.  Instead they quote statistics.  But you know what, I don't know many people who vote based on statistics.  

I guess I am unblocked.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Perhaps.  But she (and Pelosi which is why I linked her quotes) also acknowledges there is a problem, something some posters on here simply refuse to do.



It's super funny that I can refer to a the content of a FoxNews article, but again even that emphasizes that Pelosi's concern is the organized  systematic crime to sell stuff with an online markup.



Herdfan said:


> Instead they quote statistics.



In my world where people actually want to fix problems the first thing we do is first define the problem and then evaluate its extent and how it correlates with other variables. And then use this to develop strategies to solve or at least mitigate the problem. 




Herdfan said:


> But you know what, I don't know many people who vote based on statistics.




One thing, this is recession #2 in 15 years, and changing trends in crimes always come with recessions, so the first question is whether the patterns deviate from recession-associated changes or not. Without this you can't really say what's due to political intervention and what is due to global economy trends. 




Herdfan said:


> I guess I am unblocked.



Let's not pretend that I can't see your posts when I feel like it. I get saturated quickly.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Perhaps.  But she (and Pelosi which is why I linked her quotes) also acknowledges there is a problem, something *some posters on here simply refuse to do*.  Instead they quote statistics.



You are making false accusations and should stop.

Some people are refusing to see things YOUR way. And when asked for evidence, you point to sound bites and people’s feelings.

If you want to believe in feelings over facts, that is your business. But repeatedly attacking others for not choosing that way of thinking…? If it’s just about feelings, then what makes your feelings more important than anybody else’s?


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> And when asked for evidence, you point to sound bites and people’s feelings.
> 
> If you want to believe in feelings over facts, that is your business. But repeatedly attacking others for not choosing that way of thinking…? If it’s just about feelings, then what makes your feelings more important than anybody else’s?




People vote based on feelings.  They probably shouldn't but they do.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> People vote based on feelings.  They probably shouldn't but they do.



Definitely true. If people voted based on stats and not feelings, they wouldn't vote to ban abortion, or back corporate funded non-interventionalism.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> Definitely true. If people voted based on stats and not feelings, they wouldn't vote to ban abortion, or back corporate funded non-interventionalism.



Wait, I thought the right-wing motto was “fuck your feelings” - not “vote based on your feelings.”

Nice to see Republicans admit they vote based on hurt feelings instead of a more reality-based point of view. It certainly explains why they bought the fantastical thinking of Trump’s wall, China tariffs, and Muslim ban as some magic formula to bring back manufacturing jobs.


----------



## Joe

Republicans know how to play the game.

Yall wanna sit here playing nice and going high when they go low with statistics. Lazy Americans arent going to sit down and read stats but they will read BS on a facebook meme. Republicans know this. That is why they share so much fake shit on facebook memes. That's why they hate social media "fact checking" them and putting "false" on their memes.

Democrats better learn how to play the game before everyone is saying "under his eye" lol


----------



## SuperMatt

JagRunner said:


> Republicans know how to play the game.
> 
> Yall wanna sit here playing nice and going high when they go low with statistics. Lazy Americans arent going to sit down and read stats but they will read BS on a facebook meme. Republicans know this. That is why they share so much fake shit on facebook memes. That's why they hate social media "fact checking" them and putting "false" on their memes.
> 
> Democrats better learn how to play the game before everyone is saying "under his eye" lol



It starts with calling out Republican bomb-throwers on their lies.

Those texts from Fox News talking heads that clearly contradict what they said on TV afterwards need to be hammered home over and over. Fox News is lying about everything. Interesting that Cheney was the one to read the texts. She knows how to play that game.

I still think Democrats should focus on accomplishments. Unfortunately, Manchin and Sinema are making that nearly impossible. So I guess muckraking it is…


----------



## User.45

JagRunner said:


> Republicans know how to play the game.
> 
> Yall wanna sit here playing nice and going high when they go low with statistics. Lazy Americans arent going to sit down and read stats but they will read BS on a facebook meme. Republicans know this. That is why they share so much fake shit on facebook memes. That's why they hate social media "fact checking" them and putting "false" on their memes.
> 
> Democrats better learn how to play the game before everyone is saying "under his eye" lol



I can't see your point. 
Should we ignore stats? You think those ivy league educated GOP talking heads do that? They probably know the stats more than anyone...
Should we start outlying republicans?


----------



## ronntaylor

SuperMatt said:


> It starts with calling out Republican bomb-throwers on their lies.
> 
> Those texts from Fox News talking heads that clearly contradict what they said on TV afterwards need to be hammered home over and over. Fox News is lying about everything. Interesting that Cheney was the one to read the texts. She knows how to play that game.
> 
> I still think Democrats should focus on accomplishments. Unfortunately, Manchin and Sinema are making that nearly impossible. So I guess muckraking it is…



Call them out loudly and often. Make it a mantra if you have to. But no way should they emulate them by spreading lies and BS. Dem voters won't go for that. Neither will so-called independents. Many GOP voters know they're being fed lies. They simply vote for the GOP across the board.

You have to respond to lies strongly. You have to respond without bullshit. Once Cheney, a republican, read those messages Dems should have named names. If they don't want to do it in the Chamber with those trifling "colleagues" present, do it at a press conference before or after the next session. Put that shit out there for all to see. And to hell with the Faux bullshit spreaders. Call them out loud and often. Make their lives as miserable as possible.


----------



## User.45

ronntaylor said:


> Call them out loudly and often. Make it a mantra if you have to. But no way should they emulate them by spreading lies and BS. Dem voters won't go for that. Neither will so-called independents. Many GOP voters know they're being fed lies. They simply vote for the GOP across the board.
> 
> You have to respond to lies strongly. You have to respond without bullshit. Once Cheney, a republican, read those messages Dems should have named names. If they don't want to do it in the Chamber with those trifling "colleagues" present, do it at a press conference before or after the next session. Put that shit out there for all to see. And to hell with the Faux bullshit spreaders. Call them out loud and often. Make their lives as miserable as possible.



The issue with the Democrat position is that, Dems already have a consistent plurality, just not enough to offset gerrymandering. 
So if Dems want to get those swing independent votes, there's a risk of alienating their base. There's also a known Dem tendency to out-do the republicans in law-and-order stuff when margins are narrow.


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> I can't see your point.
> Should we ignore stats?




Stats don't have context.  

Don't know if you have ever heard the phrase" There are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Stats don't have context.



Not like we don’t have enough context in our universe and human existence to make sense of data


Herdfan said:


> Don't know if you have ever heard the phrase" There are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.



Yes, i’ve heard it from many people who don’t understand what statistics are. The rest look at the raw data and able to make their own interpretation.


----------



## SuperMatt

People relying solely on feelings and ignoring facts = a huge problem. Let’s take the voting fraud thing as an example. Republicans are making state electoral commissions into partisan enterprises, and making it harder to vote in urban areas, all in the name of preventing voter fraud. If one actually looked at the FACTS on voter fraud, they’d realize that it’s a big lie.









						Opinion | Surprise! There’s No Voter Fraud. Again.
					

New data proves what we’ve long known: Claims of widespread voter fraud are a lie.




					www.nytimes.com
				




In regards to a detailed AP report showing how rare and non-impactful voter fraud is, Jesse Wegman points this out:



> I hold no illusions that any of these truths will matter to those who have invested themselves in tales of widespread fraud. After all, they weren’t moved when both Republican and Democratic officials in states around the country reaffirmed, in some cases multiple times, the accuracy and integrity of their vote counts. Even Bill Barr, the former attorney general and one of Mr. Trump’s most reliable bootlickers, could not bring himself to repeat the lie that there was any meaningful fraud in 2020.
> 
> Alas, Republican voters don’t listen to Bill Barr. They listen to Donald Trump, who dismissed the A.P.’s report by doing his standard Mafia don impression. “I just don’t think you should make a fool out of yourself by saying 400 votes,” the former president told the news organization, insisting that the true number of fraudulent votes in 2020 was in the “hundreds of thousands.” His evidence? An unreleased report by a source he refused to name.
> 
> This is how it goes with the vote-fraud fraudsters. The damning evidence is always right around the next corner, or the one after that.




The problem is, so many people are proudly ignorant. If you tell them the truth, they ignore it and say “well voters vote based on feelings so NYAH!”

Those who are proud of being ignorant are a detriment to society. Unfortunately, we have millions of them in America. The people who actually BUY Trump’s nonsense are the ones I feel bad for; they are brainwashed by propaganda. But there are MANY millions more who know it’s all a bunch of lies, and they use those lies as an excuse to vote for an authoritarian who is sticking it to the “others” - as in non-white, non-straight, non-cisgender humans... plus the evil LIBERALS who are a bunch of Muslim sympathizers anyway.

Back to the original topic of crime rates: they are generally going down, and are drastically lower than 30 years ago. *Perception* might be that things are getting worse, but that perception is partially based on a steady stream of right-wing propaganda.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Back to the original topic of crime rates: they are generally going down, and are drastically lower than 30 years ago. *Perception* might be that things are getting worse, but that perception is partially based on a steady stream of right-wing propaganda.




Hence the new $300M Newson is proposing for CA to combat crime.  If it is going down, why do they need extra money?

Or the 16 cities with record homicides in 2021, which has another almost 2 weeks.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Stats don't have context.
> 
> Don't know if you have ever heard the phrase" There are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.



Now I get it! You were talking about yourself:


Herdfan said:


> Or the 16 cities with record homicides in 2021, which has another almost 2 weeks.




And this is why I have you on ignore. The "statistics" you've just posted meet your own misunderstanding of what stats are. 
You have here an unsourced statement, with zero context. Record as in all time, past decade? The USA has ~5,000 cities (defined as population 5000 and above). On that scale this means no  "record homicide" in 99.7% of cities.  

I can't fix your lack of self-respect, but you should respect your forum partners to make the minimum research for your statements, so others don't have to do it for you.


----------



## Herdfan

You really can't make this stuff up.  Sure, let's defund the police.  What could go wrong?









						White House blames 'underfunding of some police departments' for violent crime spike
					

During the White House press briefing on Monday, Psaki was asked by Fox News’ Peter Doocy on what she attributed to the crime surge that saw several cops gunned down in major cities and have stunned Americans.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Yoused

Herdfan said:


> You really can't make this stuff up.  Sure, let's defund the police.  What could go wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White House blames 'underfunding of some police departments' for violent crime spike
> 
> 
> During the White House press briefing on Monday, Psaki was asked by Fox News’ Peter Doocy on what she attributed to the crime surge that saw several cops gunned down in major cities and have stunned Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com



Can you cite where any PD in the country has actually had their funding cut significantly?


----------



## Herdfan

Yoused said:


> Can you cite where any PD in the country has actually had their funding cut significantly?












						At Least 13 Cities Are Defunding Their Police Departments
					

Austin joined a growing list of U.S. cities cutting funding or personnel from their police departments.




					www.forbes.com
				




Some of the cuts are substantial, some are not.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> You really can't make this stuff up.  Sure, let's defund the police.  What could go wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White House blames 'underfunding of some police departments' for violent crime spike
> 
> 
> During the White House press briefing on Monday, Psaki was asked by Fox News’ Peter Doocy on what she attributed to the crime surge that saw several cops gunned down in major cities and have stunned Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com




Not saying this is you, but why do people on the right think there’s a lot of bloat, corruption, wasted tax dollars, and fucked up priorities in every government agency except the police? It really defies logic and probability. Do they also think we can solve all the problems at the post office and DMV by giving them more money? What if the post office and DMV also paid out hundreds of millions of tax dollars in civil suits annually?   Should we not touch their funding or demand changes?


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> You really can't make this stuff up.  Sure, let's defund the police.  What could go wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White House blames 'underfunding of some police departments' for violent crime spike
> 
> 
> During the White House press briefing on Monday, Psaki was asked by Fox News’ Peter Doocy on what she attributed to the crime surge that saw several cops gunned down in major cities and have stunned Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com



Fewer unarmed black people getting murdered, or getting disproportionately pulled over and told to "comply or face the consequences" from angry white Fox News viewers?

Besides, we mostly hear about how unsatisfied cops are that their "hands are tied" and they refuse to do their job anyway. Would LOVE a job where I could show up and tell them "you know what, I'm not doing my job for this shift" and let the tax payer flip the bill for their salary. Sorry but I have no sympathy for these people, get a job you can handle or GTFO.


----------



## Yoused

Herdfan said:


> At Least 13 Cities Are Defunding Their Police Departments
> 
> 
> Austin joined a growing list of U.S. cities cutting funding or personnel from their police departments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the cuts are substantial, some are not.



I did not see anything that looked "substantial". Most of it was in the <2% range. Any PD should be able to manage on 98% of what they were getting.


----------



## ronntaylor

Herdfan said:


> At Least 13 Cities Are Defunding Their Police Departments
> 
> 
> Austin joined a growing list of U.S. cities cutting funding or personnel from their police departments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the cuts are substantial, some are not.



This is some complete and utter bullshit! The cuts are generally minuscule, and at the time this was written in *August 2020* was mostly proposed cuts. Most of those proposals were scaled back or even forgotten. I'm from NYC. There was never $1B cut from the NYPD. There could have been. The department wastes so much money. Between the $100M+ a year in judgements against the NYPD, the tens of millions in salaries of active officers in desk jobs that was promised to be filled by civilians for the last few decades. The astronomical waste on pretentious bullshit like mounted police, scuba police, new age robot dogs, etc. Not to mention the wasteful, fraudulent overtime scams cooked up by the NYPD. The NYPD's budget alone is larger that some cities and even states. No police department needs ~$5-6B annually. Not a one.


----------



## lizkat

ronntaylor said:


> This is some complete and utter bullshit! The cuts are generally minuscule, and at the time this was written in *August 2020* was mostly proposed cuts. Most of those proposals were scaled back or even forgotten. I'm from NYC. There was never $1B cut from the NYPD. There could have been. The department wastes so much money. Between the $100M+ a year in judgements against the NYPD, the tens of millions in salaries of active officers in desk jobs that was promised to be filled by civilians for the last few decades. The astronomical waste on pretentious bullshit like mounted police, scuba police, new age robot dogs, etc. Not to mention the wasteful, fraudulent overtime scams cooked up by the NYPD. The NYPD's budget alone is larger that some cities and even states. No police department needs ~$5-6B annually. Not a one.




I lived in the north end of the 24th precinct in NYC.  A bank I used was just across 110th Street into the 26th.  One night I was returning from an abandoned effort to use its ATM,  and as I was crossing the street again I saw a patrol car stopped at the light on Broadway.  I greeted the officers, then attempted to interest them in doing something about the person who was then apparently sleeping (or, passed out, or maybe just faking it) inside the lobby of that bank.  The guy stretched out on the heating/cooling ductwork along the window had made me uneasy enough to decide to skip going in to make a cash withdrawal.

"Sorry darlin' that bank's in the 26th, but if you want to report it, you could just phone it in when you get home."​
LOL..  talk about _phoning it in_.


----------



## ronntaylor

lizkat said:


> "Sorry darlin' that bank's in the 26th, but if you want to report it, you could just phone it in when you get home."
> LOL.. talk about _phoning it in_.



That's SOP for "law enforcement" in many instances. Police don't police as they should. Not because their hands are tied. Not because of revolving door justice. Because they don't want to do shit. Unless it makes their numbers look good and/or increases their chances for promotion. Then they'll over-police. Often law-abiding, uninvolved citizens are victimized by the police as a result. Stop and Frisk is just the most blatant, recent manifestation of such shoddy, shitty policing.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ronntaylor said:


> That's SOP for "law enforcement" in many instances. Police don't police as they should. Not because their hands are tied. Not because of revolving door justice. Because they don't want to do shit. Unless it makes their numbers look good and/or increases their chances for promotion. Then they'll over-police. Often law-abiding, uninvolved citizens are victimized by the police as a result. Stop and Frisk is just the most blatant, recent manifestation of such shoddy, shitty policing.




I believe there are more good cops than bad cops and within bad cops I believe there are few itchy trigger finger cops, but to suggest there's less dead weight than any other profession is absurd.  The difference with police is when you have slackers or cops that are only driven by "company" initiates it can have major life changing or ending circumstances for those they interact with, not just be their direct actions but also by not taking something seriously.  In some cases there's almost a comical level of apathy from the police.


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I believe there are more good cops than bad cops and within bad cops I believe there are few itchy trigger finger cops, but to suggest there's less dead weight than any other profession is absurd.



Again, using just NYPD: FY2020 saw claims paid out to the tune of $205M. Which is a drop of $20M from FY2019 (probably because of less interactions due to COVID19). The payout was nearly $2 of every $5 paid out by NYC, ~38%. If your head is bashed in, or you're choked or slammed up against a wall and bruised you don't give a damn if 99.99% are "good" cops. You know you're hurt, bruised and likely falsely arrested. At the very least, you'll be taken to the precinct, booked and if lucky, released or given a desk appearance ticket. One of the reasons for bail reform. Especially when the vast majority of arrests are tossed out by the DA offices and/or judges. Police shootings get an outsized amount of attention, but are guns not the most used tool. Batons and fists are. If the few bad apples are allowed to operate with impunity. If they rack up millions in payouts and are allowed to get promoted. If the so-called brass simply pays lip service to investigating and improving standards citizens don't give a shit about a few bad apples when the entire barrel is rotten.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I believe there are more good cops than bad cops and within bad cops I believe there are few itchy trigger finger cops, but to suggest there's less dead weight than any other profession is absurd.  The difference with police is when you have slackers or cops that are only driven by "company" initiates it can have major life changing or ending circumstances for those they interact with, not just be their direct actions but also by not taking something seriously.  In some cases there's almost a comical level of apathy from the police.





Some things changed for the better but a lot of other things changed for the worse when the old style psych hospitals warehouses were emptied out onto city streets in the late  1960s and early 70s, due to court rulings about the constitutionality of various forms of psychiatric inpatient commitments. 

There were no outpatient clinics or group homes immediately available to provide structure (and medications)...  nor to help developmentally disabled or emotionally / mentally impaired former patients cope with the byzantine public benefits appliclation process. 

 As a result, at least in my observation in NYC back then,  the challenges to ordinary beat patrols for cops in the large cities went up astronomically.    What used to be  an occasional need to deal with an obstreperous drunk or a decompensating bipolar person became the chance of meeting dozens and more of those and people in even worse shape --some clearly a hazard to self or others--  on any beat on any evening.

 It didn't help that at the same time,  the Vietnam War was turning people's lives upside down, sucking young boys and people in the early prime of their careers into the maw of the war and spitting them back out later (if they didn't come home in a box) without enough help from the VA to readjust to civilian life,  find housing and jobs.   The mix of turned-out psych patients and returning military veterans who were just living in the streets could get pretty volatile sometimes.

 So... it didn't take long for the friendly beat cop to become wary of "getting involved".  

That was really the point at which it would have been great to start having social workers along on patrols, but there weren't even enough to handle regular city caseloads never mind expand their outreach to the community in some sort of coordinated program with the NYPD.


----------



## Herdfan

Yoused said:


> I did not see anything that looked "substantial". Most of it was in the <2% range. Any PD should be able to manage on 98% of what they were getting.




Literally the first example:


> Austin, Texas, is the latest city to announce a police defunding effort, with the City Council on Thursday voting unanimously to cut $150 million *(roughly one third)* from the police budget, reinvesting much of that sum in social programs, including food access, violence prevention and abortion access.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Not saying this is you, but why do people on the right think there’s a lot of bloat, corruption, wasted tax dollars, and fucked up priorities in every government agency except the police? It really defies logic and probability. Do they also think we can solve all the problems at the post office and DMV by giving them more money? What if the post office and DMV also paid out hundreds of millions of tax dollars in civil suits annually?   Should we not touch their funding or demand changes?




Absolutely there is waste.  

Demanding changes and cutting budgets/officers are two completely different things.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Absolutely there is waste.
> 
> Demanding changes and cutting budgets/officers are two completely different things.




This could be the media's fault, but I don't hear about any changes being made or even talked about, not just within police departments but also in regards to money being diverted to or increased to departments that are better equipped to handle situations that the police aren't.

edit:  Except for the post you made just above the one I responded to.


----------



## ronntaylor

Herdfan said:


> Literally the first example:



"Austin, Texas, is the latest city to *announce* a police defunding effort,"

And the Texas legislature, dominated by the extreme right-wing GQP, passed H.B. 1900 that would penalize police departments that cut police funding. As a result, budgets have actually increased as a result, with Austin's Police specifically back to its bloated status despite reforms that channeled funds to more appropriate avenues.


----------



## ronntaylor

Cities vowed in 2020 to cut police funding — but budgets expanded in 2021
					

Some local politicians said they would cut funds allocated to policing to boost social services. But a year later, those budgets have been restored or are even bigger.




					www.nbcnews.com
				




Some local politicians said they would cut funds allocated to policing to boost social services. But a year later, *those budgets have been restored or are even bigger*.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> At Least 13 Cities Are Defunding Their Police Departments
> 
> 
> Austin joined a growing list of U.S. cities cutting funding or personnel from their police departments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the cuts are substantial, some are not.



Is it that simple in your mind, just ramp up police spending until we are a police state? In contrast I’d argue it’s long past due that we make some changes that make the police more effective. I know it’s difficult, but in many cases police are dealing with mentally ill people, and they appear to be totally inept (based on reports) at anything expect gunning these people down especially when they are black.

There is also a distinct change in police behavior over the last 60 years, where this business of _I feared for my  life so I shot the black man because he reached for his wallet, _was not standard procedure. At least my impression was that it wasn’t.

Although racism has been as issue all along, my perception Is that today if you run and are black, you more likely to be shot in the back,  than you were in the 1970 time frame. Ill acknowledge this is a generalization, but for many of the reported incidents it’s as if police are no longer willing to physically apprehend a suspect, just shoot them for convenience instead, something that has developed along with US based gun culture over the last 60 years.

There were/are actually laws written (Stand Your  Ground) where the _Get out of Jail Free Card _is: _I feared for my life,_ an individual statement of feeling. Now I believe that is changing to some degree to return to the older idea that a third party should judge each case as being a reasonable action or not, not just the individual  saying it.

And I am completely against the idea that just because you brought a gun to a protest it’s your right to shoot anyone who tries to take your gun because they fear for their lives. Actually because of the Wisconsin ruling, today under the interpretation of the law  from an individual rights standpoint, everyone would be better off bringing a gun to the protest, and be sure you are the first to shoot with the _I feared for my life _standard to buoy you. Unfortunately this is where we have ended up today.


----------



## Herdfan

ronntaylor said:


> Cities vowed in 2020 to cut police funding — but budgets expanded in 2021
> 
> 
> Some local politicians said they would cut funds allocated to policing to boost social services. But a year later, those budgets have been restored or are even bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some local politicians said they would cut funds allocated to policing to boost social services. But a year later, *those budgets have been restored or are even bigger*.




Wonder why?  Was it because it was a bad idea?


----------



## Herdfan

Huntn said:


> Is it that simple in your mind, just ramp up police spending until we are a police state? In contrast I’d argue it’s long past due that we make some changes that make the police more effective. I know it’s difficult, but in many cases police are dealing with mentally ill people, and they appear to be totally inept (based on reports) at anything expect gunning these people down especially when they are black.




No.  But defunding them isn't a solution either.

Just this past week 2 NYC cops were shot (1 died) responding to a domestic violence call.  Do you think social workers are going to be willing go to these calls?   I seriously doubt it.

In large cities this can be fixed with an officer AND a social worker/mental health professional responding together.  They have the resources to do that.  In smaller cities, probably not.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> No.  But defunding them isn't a solution either.
> 
> Just this past week 2 NYC cops were shot (1 died) responding to a domestic violence call.  Do you think social workers are going to be willing go to these calls?   I seriously doubt it.
> 
> In large cities this can be fixed with an officer AND a social worker/mental health professional responding together.  They have the resources to do that.  In smaller cities, probably not.



I don’t know if the shootings referenced involved mental illness, just mentioned that as an aside to defunding the police as diverting some of the bullet funding to including trained mental illness personnel. But my guess is you’ll agree that mentally ill people with guns is bad, but that the gun lobby wants no part of dealing with that if it means inconvienence for them, such as mental illness screening.


----------



## Herdfan

Huntn said:


> I don’t know if the shootings referenced involved mental illness, just mentioned that as an aside to defunding the police as diverting some of the bullet funding to including trained mental illness personnel. But my guess is you’ll agree that mentally ill people with guns is bad, but that the gun lobby wants no part of dealing with that if it means inconvienence for them, such as mental illness screening.




A diagnosed mental illness?  No idea.  But if you hit your wife/GF/child, you have a mental illness.

Mentally ill people with guns?  Absolutely not.  But in many cases it is easier to blame the guns instead of the side effects of anti-psychotics.


----------



## Yoused

Herdfan said:


> Just this past week 2 NYC cops were shot (1 died) responding to a domestic violence call. Do you think social workers are going to be willing go to these calls? I seriously doubt it.



The difference is that people perceive police as arriving with a “_Ima finda way to bust yer ass_" attitude. Police have a rep for being rough (especially of late), so people are more likely to respond to them in bad ways. Send in someone who has a rep for being a proper non-authoritarian mediator/conflict-resolver and you will be much less likely to see violence.


----------



## Yoused

Herdfan said:


> Literally the first example:
> 
> 
> 
> Austin, Texas, is the latest city to announce a police defunding effort, with the City Council on Thursday voting unanimously to cut $150 million *(roughly one third)* from the police budget, reinvesting much of that sum in social programs, including food access, violence prevention and abortion access.
Click to expand...


Apart from what others have said about this, one thing jumps out at me there


> … reinvesting much of that sum in social programs, including food access, *violence prevention* and abortion access.



Please, ‘splain me about how that would not be taking up the slack for the money that would have been taken away from APD. I mean, that is _supposed to be their fucking job_ (well, apart from busting negro heads).

I do understand that you have doubts and misgivings about what a "violence prevention" program would look like, how it would work and how it could be protected from corruption. But, in terms of what the police _are_ doing, it seems unlikely that doing some different thing could possibly be worse.


----------



## hulugu

Herdfan said:


> No.  But defunding them isn't a solution either.
> 
> Just this past week 2 NYC cops were shot (1 died) responding to a domestic violence call.  Do you think social workers are going to be willing go to these calls?   I seriously doubt it.
> 
> In large cities this can be fixed with an officer AND a social worker/mental health professional responding together.  They have the resources to do that.  In smaller cities, probably not.




Social workers don't go to domestic violence calls. Rather, social workers can help families before it comes to DV calls, or more assuredly, help families after the first DV call before things escalate to violence. 

Current policing is almost entirely a reaction, but the whole "defund the police" movement is about trading reactive government with proactive government. Women's shelters do far more to help blunt domestic violence than armed officers who arrive late, and may even accelerate violence by their very presence. 

Moreover, we're spending all this time worrying about defunding the police when the reason that two NYC cops were shot was because of the prevalence and easily availability of firearms throughout the nation. 

A recent report from the ATF showed that the rise in crime may be attributed to the massive number of gun sales during the pandemic. 

As the Trace explains: 



> ...ATF data shows that in 2020, police recovered almost twice as many guns with a short “time-to-crime” — in this case, guns recovered within a year of their purchase — than in 2019. Law enforcement officials generally view a short time-to-crime as an indicator that a firearm was purchased with criminal intent, since a gun with a narrow window between sale and recovery is less likely to have changed hands. Altogether, more than 87,000 such guns were recovered in 2020, almost double the previous high. And almost 68,000 guns were recovered in 2020 with a time-to-crime of less than seven months (meaning they were less likely to have been purchased the previous year)....






> ....Put more plainly, thousands of guns purchased in 2020 were almost immediately used in crimes — some as soon as a day after their sale. That was the case of the 9mm Beretta pistol purchased by an Arlington man from Uncle Dan’s Pawn Shop and Jewelry in Dallas, according to police records. Officers seized the gun from its owner during a drug arrest 24 hours later. In another example, a Laredo, Texas, man assaulted his mother, then opened fire on police with his Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 rifle in July 2020. The gun had been purchased at a Cabela’s in Ammon, Idaho, just three months earlier.


----------



## hulugu

Yoused said:


> Apart from what others have said about this, one thing jumps out at me there
> 
> Please, ‘splain me about how that would not be taking up the slack for the money that would have been taken away from APD. I mean, that is _supposed to be their fucking job_ (well, apart from busting negro heads).
> 
> I do understand that you have doubts and misgivings about what a "violence prevention" program would look like, how it would work and how it could be protected from corruption. But, in terms of what the police _are_ doing, it seems unlikely that doing some different thing could possibly be worse.




Violence prevention is, when done right, a multi-pronged program that relies on social workers, city aid programs, and police working hand-in-hand. 

It's difficult to do, expensive, and the metrics are difficult to nail down. Hence the reason why few politicos want to do it because it's far easier to act tough on crime, and just buy a bunch of military equipment for officers. Officers like shiny guns too, so it's easy to get the union on board if you promise equipment and weapons. 

Smart officers know that lack of housing, food insecurity, untreated mental illness, and drug/alcohol use drive nearly all of their calls. But trying to get the entire staff to accept that solving these can't be done with shiny toys remains difficult because most cops are reactionary, and police forces are largely culturally stagnant.


----------



## ronntaylor

Herdfan said:


> Wonder why?  Was it because it was a bad idea?



Bullshit. It was increased because the GQP of Texas mandated it via threats to overall funding. And the actual "cuts" were illusory as they were really budgetary jujitsu: Austin moved the 9-1-1 system (personel, offices, etc) from the PD to a new separate entity, so that division's budget was "cut" from the APD budget. But not really since the personnel and expenses wouldn't directly affect the PD budget overall.

Similar to "cuts" to the NYPD budget. Cuts to traffic enforcement and Police Admin Assts -- two units under the NYPD command and within the department's budget -- saw cuts that was part of "Defunding the Police. These sp-called cuts were only proposed and reduced. Eventually, the actual budget remained the same as OT was astronomical considering the orchestrated police slowdowns and the impacts of COVID-19 lessening overall crime rates.


----------



## ronntaylor

Herdfan said:


> No.  But defunding them isn't a solution either.
> 
> Just this past week 2 NYC cops were shot (1 died) responding to a domestic violence call.  Do you think social workers are going to be willing go to these calls?   I seriously doubt it.
> 
> In large cities this can be fixed with an officer AND a social worker/mental health professional responding together.  They have the resources to do that.  In smaller cities, probably not.



Conveniently left out common sense gun safety measures. I'm sure the "stolen" gun used by a convicted felon was really stolen and didn't make its way through the Black market via law-abiding citizens. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in my hometown. And he clearly had mental health issues. NYPD is looking into his involvement in the Sovereign Rights Movement nuttery.

Any town that has an armored vehicle that is collecting dust can afford social workers/mental health workers to be involved in certain calls. The costs of upkeep on rarely/never used military-grade equipment should be cut and diverted. I rather NYPD get rid of most of/the entire mounted police division, and probably at least half of the scuba and helicopter divisions. That's a ton of social workers/mental health workers right there. Get uniformed officers out of paper pushing jobs and back onto patrol.



> “Here’s my problem with the NYPD. You hired … a police officer to be on patrol to go after the bad guys — that was why you hired him. He should not be sitting in the license division. His dangerous day should not be a paper cut. He needs to be on patrol.” -- Eric Adams




There are cops in cushy office jobs due to nepotism and who they know. Some of them are lame or too old/out of shape to be on patrol. They're in those "soft" jobs until they have enough time to earn a full pension. Too bad, so sad. Get rid of them if they can't perform.

Conservatives cry about government waste and size, and often overlook the biggest piece of fat in most cities budgets. The NYPD's *total* budget this year is $10.2B. That's more than some states. That's more than some countries. That is insanity and needs to stop.


----------



## SuperMatt

ronntaylor said:


> Cities vowed in 2020 to cut police funding — but budgets expanded in 2021
> 
> 
> Some local politicians said they would cut funds allocated to policing to boost social services. But a year later, those budgets have been restored or are even bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some local politicians said they would cut funds allocated to policing to boost social services. But a year later, *those budgets have been restored or are even bigger*.



Stop using facts. Every crime that happens in America is the fault of “defund” no matter whether anything was defunded or not. This has been a message from the Fox News network!


----------



## ronntaylor

SuperMatt said:


> Stop using facts. Every crime that happens in America is the fault of “defund” no matter whether anything was defunded or not. This has been a message from the Fox News network!



Crime is rising in your city that never thought about "Defund the Police!" at all? Simply knowing that it was out there in liberal DemonCrap America is enough. It's the virus to end them all. Unlike that fake COVID stuff.


----------



## rdrr

ronntaylor said:


> Conveniently left out common sense gun safety measures. I'm sure the "stolen" gun used by a convicted felon was really stolen and didn't make its way through the Black market via law-abiding citizens. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in my hometown. And he clearly had mental health issues. NYPD is looking into his involvement in the Sovereign Rights Movement nuttery.
> 
> Any town that has an armored vehicle that is collecting dust can afford social workers/mental health workers to be involved in certain calls. The costs of upkeep on rarely/never used military-grade equipment should be cut and diverted. I rather NYPD get rid of most of/the entire mounted police division, and probably at least half of the scuba and helicopter divisions. That's a ton of social workers/mental health workers right there. Get uniformed officers out of paper pushing jobs and back onto patrol.
> 
> 
> 
> There are cops in cushy office jobs due to nepotism and who they know. Some of them are lame or too old/out of shape to be on patrol. They're in those "soft" jobs until they have enough time to earn a full pension. Too bad, so sad. Get rid of them if they can't perform.
> 
> Conservatives cry about government waste and size, and often overlook the biggest piece of fat in most cities budgets. *The NYPD's total budget this year is $10.2B. That's more than some states. *That's more than some countries. That is insanity and needs to stop.



Yeah, but the the NYC DSS budget is much larger.  So diverting funds doesn't seem to be the answer.   Maybe fixing the way these departments work is the answer, however I guarantee there is more to it than blatant inefficiency.


----------



## ronntaylor

rdrr said:


> Yeah, but the the NYC DSS budget is much larger. So diverting funds doesn't seem to be the answer. Maybe fixing the way these departments work is the answer, however I guarantee there is more to it than blatant inefficiency.



The proposed budget for DSS is slightly larger than the proposed *total *budget for the NYPD. But it probably will be below the actual expenditures for the NYPD once you factor in OT and other unanticipated costs. The previous year saw a 70+% increase in Police OT despite overall crime being down.


----------



## Yoused

hulugu said:


> Smart officers know that lack of housing, food insecurity, untreated mental illness, and drug/alcohol use drive nearly all of their calls.



Evidence seems to suggest that PDs make an extra special effort to hire officers who have a different range of smartness. Complex thinking does not seem to be encouraged, for the most part.


----------



## rdrr

ronntaylor said:


> The proposed budget for DSS is slightly larger than the proposed *total *budget for the NYPD. But it probably will be below the actual expenditures for the NYPD once you factor in OT and other unanticipated costs. The previous year saw a 70+% increase in Police OT despite overall crime being down.



I agree with you that the budgets are out of control.  However, when you are talking about total budget you are including the the Expense budget (Benefits and Pensions) 5.2B with the Operating budget of 5.6B.  You cannot be suggesting to cutting into the benefits and pensions 5.2B budget.

The DSS Operating budget is 10.2B and I don't even know what the benefits and pension budget it, but I guarantee you it is much larger than the NYPD total budget + overtime.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Yoused said:


> Evidence seems to suggest that PDs make an extra special effort to hire officers who have a different range of smartness. Complex thinking does not seem to be encouraged, for the most part.




Kind of a side rant, but I'd like to see a minimum cooling-off period from when somebody leaves the military and when they become a cop, like several years, and that includes from when they can start training.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Kind of a side rant, but I'd like to see a minimum cooling-off period from when somebody leaves the military and when they become a cop, like several years, and that includes from when they can start training.



Why? Military is better trained and probably more selective than the PD.


----------



## Yoused

P_X said:


> Why? Military is better trained and probably more selective than the PD.



Selective? They will take _anybody_.

Well, anybody except me.


----------



## ronntaylor

rdrr said:


> I agree with you that the budgets are out of control. However, when you are talking about total budget you are including the the Expense budget (Benefits and Pensions) 5.2B with the Operating budget of 5.6B. *You cannot be suggesting to cutting into the benefits and pensions 5.2B budget*.



Hell fucking yeah going forward. A great deal of it is scamming future pension budgets with stacked OT during the last few years on the job. Get rid of the bloat, extraneous paper pushers and wasteful divisions and you could easily cut annual operating budgets and the pension funds for future retirees now. Get rid of qualified immunity and stop tossing out hundreds of millions in lawsuits every year. DSS personnel ain't falsely arresting, punching, kicking and killing citizens on a regular basis. They are not overburdening the court and prison/correction systems with shitty work.


----------



## ronntaylor

P_X said:


> Why? Military is better trained and probably more selective than the PD.



Almost all of the shitty cops that I know were former military. A few barely literate neanderthals. A couple are complete loons. So of course they passed the psych. Meanwhile, a former science major, who is very compassionate and literate and community-minded took a couple tries to pass. Of course I think it is partially because she is a woman and was anti-military adventurism years ago.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> Why? Military is better trained and probably more selective than the PD.




To barrow from the hammer factory analogy, when you‘re used to being in an active war zone then everywhere becomes an active war zone.  Also it’s no surprise anti-government militias are heavily populated by veterans.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

theSeb said:


> I don't believe that "defunding" the police, cutting waste etc is going to change much in the culture of the police forces across the US. There are more fundamental changes that are required and that's what people should be pushing for. I am not one for cute and catchy slogans.
> 
> This guy nailed it on arstechnica imo, so I am going to share his post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inmates sue Arkansas doc, jail after unknowingly taking dangerous doses of ivermectin
> 
> 
> Detainees “were not informed of the side effects of the drug.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arstechnica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 11310




Well, another solution would be to increase the funding to the agencies that are better equipped than the police to handle certain situations without taking that funding from the police but our party of "fuck that!" will most likely apply that stamp to such an effort.


----------



## Huntn

Thinking of the thread title:
… and Repooplicans will hire a thief to fix it while chugging their orange Kool-Aid.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

theSeb said:


> The repubs sell fear. It is their weapon and their currency. It is what they have always done and it's the only way they know. Whether the crime is going up, or down, won't matter. They will blame the usual suspects if it's up and use that as an excuse to move closer to a police state and curb liberties. They will use words like freedom and patriot when they enact such laws. If crime is going down, then they will take credit for it, even if they did nothing about it.




The best correlation of crime rates is usually the economic reality of the poor and working class. Unfortunately too many politicians (from both sides) think the economy of Wall St. is the only one that matters and should be paid attention to.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## SuperMatt

Who is responsible for the most theft in America?









						Rite Aid, wrong crime
					

On January 25, actor and comedian Michael Rapaport posted a video of a man allegedly stealing condoms and shampoo from a Rite Aid on the Upper East Side of New York City. Rapaport claimed the theft, and others like it, were forcing the store to close. "I was just informed this Rite Aid is...




					popular.info
				






> A 2017 study of minimum wage violations, which is just one kind of wage theft, found that in the ten most populous states "2.4 million workers lose $8 billion annually (an average of $3,300 per year for year-round workers) to minimum wage violations—nearly a quarter of their earned wages."
> 
> If similar levels of wage theft are found in other states, it suggests "the total wages stolen from workers due to minimum wage violations exceeds *$15 billion each year." That's more than the value of stolen goods in all property crimes*, according to the latest FBI statistics.


----------



## Thomas Veil

Right in line with that you're talking about, Matt.



​Now, I'm not arguing whether these things were stolen. I'm just pointing out how _incredibly_ tone deaf this is, and how *majorly fucked up* this country is, when our politicians and corporations are getting away with stealing millions and the cops are showing us this.

Not to mention cops are the ones who use forfeiture laws to confiscate private property from even innocent people. Pardon me if I don't think you're so fucking wonderful because you busted a mom with some stolen Pampers and laundry detergent.


----------



## User.45

Thomas Veil said:


> Right in line with that you're talking about, Matt.
> 
> View attachment 11781​Now, I'm not arguing whether these things were stolen. I'm just pointing out how _incredibly_ tone deaf this is, and how *majorly fucked up* this country is, when our politicians and corporations are getting away with stealing millions and the cops are showing us this.
> 
> Not to mention cops are the ones who use forfeiture laws to confiscate private property from even innocent people. Pardon me if I don't think you're so fucking wonderful because you busted a mom with some stolen Pampers and laundry detergent.



Agree, this is negative PR. I understand the cops are doing their jobs, but showcasing retrieved diapers is just shameful on so many levels


----------



## SuperMatt

Thomas Veil said:


> Right in line with that you're talking about, Matt.
> 
> View attachment 11781​Now, I'm not arguing whether these things were stolen. I'm just pointing out how _incredibly_ tone deaf this is, and how *majorly fucked up* this country is, when our politicians and corporations are getting away with stealing millions and the cops are showing us this.
> 
> Not to mention cops are the ones who use forfeiture laws to confiscate private property from even innocent people. Pardon me if I don't think you're so fucking wonderful because you busted a mom with some stolen Pampers and laundry detergent.



Putting that $6 billion budget to good use, I see… How many executives from Wells Fargo got arrested when they stole millions from their account holders?









						Wells Fargo to pay $3 billion over fake account scandal
					

Since the fraud became public in 2016, the bank has faced a torrent of lawsuits.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## Joe

Y’all gonna bypass the 23 warrants that were closed in the process?

Like the title of this thread says “rising crime will hurt democrats” and that is exactly what is happening. Crime is getting out of control and people aren’t concerned with Wells Fargo executives. They’re concerned with rising crime in their neighborhoods and their safety. Things they deal with on a daily basis. You don’t know why these people stole diapers. They could be selling them. People steal baby formula and sell them because each can is very expensive. But you just assume that they're going after single mothers taking care of kids.

This way of thinking "oh, it's diapers and Wells Fargo CEOs do worse" is the exact reason why you see people walking into stores and walking out with baskets full of stuff and no one stopping them because "hey, these corporations can afford to take the hit!" I see so many videos on social media of people just walking into stores and running out with handfuls and baskets full of stuff...and almost all the comments are defending the shoplifters because they think the corporations are worse.

This is why Republicans win elections. Because democrats focus on being some kind of social justice warriors going after big corporation when no one gives a fuck. They give a fuck about thugs running around stealing catalytic converters off their truck while they're at the gym. They give a fuck about being held at gunpoint while pulling into their garage. Or being held at gunpoint and mugged/carjacked leaving a restaurant. They give a fuck about people with fake paper car plates committing crimes and police unable to track them because of the fake paper plates. This is the shit dems should be focused on fixing, but they're more concerned with coddling criminals.


----------



## SuperMatt

Joe said:


> Y’all gonna bypass the 23 warrants that were closed in the process?
> 
> Like the title of this thread says “rising crime will hurt democrats” and that is exactly what is happening. Crime is getting out of control and people aren’t concerned with Wells Fargo executives. They’re concerned with rising crime in their neighborhoods and their safety. Things they deal with on a daily basis. You don’t know why these people stole diapers. They could be selling them. People steal baby formula and sell them because each can is very expensive. But you just assume that they're going after single mothers taking care of kids.
> 
> This way of thinking "oh, it's diapers and Wells Fargo CEOs do worse" is the exact reason why you see people walking into stores and walking out with baskets full of stuff and no one stopping them because "hey, these corporations can afford to take the hit!" I see so many videos on social media of people just walking into stores and running out with handfuls and baskets full of stuff...and almost all the comments are defending the shoplifters because they think the corporations are worse.
> 
> This is why Republicans win elections. Because democrats focus on being some kind of social justice warriors going after big corporation when no one gives a fuck. They give a fuck about thugs running around stealing catalytic converters off their truck while they're at the gym. They give a fuck about being held at gunpoint while pulling into their garage. Or being held at gunpoint and mugged/carjacked leaving a restaurant. They give a fuck about people with fake paper car plates committing crimes and police unable to track them because of the fake paper plates. This is the shit dems should be focused on fixing, but they're more concerned with coddling criminals.



“THEY” - used multiple times here. You claim to know a lot about “THEM” and what THEY think.

Did any of THEM have accounts at Wells Fargo? Did any of THEM have houses foreclosed while banks made off with bailout money? Did any of THEM die in Texas when the greedy power company never spent any money to winterize? Did THEY lose relatives to the opioid crisis?

YOU seem to be imposing YOUR beliefs on what you say THEY think. Try speaking for yourself. Perhaps YOU don’t give a f*** about corporations ripping people off. If you were one of the people who lost their home, job, or loved one to misdeeds of corporations, maybe you WOULD give a f***.

YOU might care more about somebody shoplifting diapers from Rite Aid than about somebody losing their home. Fine, be angry at people stealing a loaf of bread to stay alive while the country is raped and pillaged by billionaires.

Your suggestions of being tough on petty crime were taken on fully by Clinton in the 90s, and it led to mass incarceration of black people for minor offenses, and rampant police violence against black people.

In DC, there is worry about a recent surge in carjackings by teenagers. But you know what? Multiple local residents that were interviewed aren’t asking for these kids to be locked up for life. They are asking for better schools, interventions, and programs to help keep the kids occupied and engaged so they don’t run to a life of crime. I guess THEY are a bunch of social justice warriors who don’t fit the mold of what you believe THEY think. THEY are way smarter than you think THEY are.


----------



## Joe

SuperMatt said:


> “THEY” - used multiple times here. You claim to know a lot about “THEM” and what THEY think.
> 
> Did any of THEM have accounts at Wells Fargo? Did any of THEM have houses foreclosed while banks made off with bailout money? Did any of THEM die in Texas when the greedy power company never spent any money to winterize? Did THEY lose relatives to the opioid crisis?
> 
> YOU seem to be imposing YOUR beliefs on what you say THEY think. Try speaking for yourself. Perhaps YOU don’t give a f*** about corporations ripping people off. If you were one of the people who lost their home, job, or loved one to misdeeds of corporations, maybe you WOULD give a f***.
> 
> YOU might care more about somebody shoplifting diapers from Rite Aid than about somebody losing their home. Fine, be angry at people stealing a loaf of bread to stay alive while the country is raped and pillaged by billionaires.
> 
> Your suggestions of being tough on petty crime were taken on fully by Clinton in the 90s, and it led to mass incarceration of black people for minor offenses, and rampant police violence against black people.
> 
> In DC, there is worry about a recent surge in carjackings by teenagers. But you know what? Multiple local residents that were interviewed aren’t asking for these kids to be locked up for life. They are asking for better schools, interventions, and programs to help keep the kids occupied and engaged so they don’t run to a life of crime. I guess THEY are a bunch of social justice warriors who don’t fit the mold of what you believe THEY think. THEY are way smarter than you think THEY are.




I care about crime committed by billionaires as much as I do about "petty" crime. But the title of this thread is "Rising crime will hurt democrats" and just like I stated, people are more concerned about local crime increasing. This doesn't mean they don't care about crime committed by CEOs. They're just more concerned at this time about their personal safety. You know, not getting carjacked, robbed leaving their homes, or even killed. 

I don't understand why you give passes to teenagers carjacking. I grew up dirt poor in a housing project and not once did I ever think of carjacking or turning to a life of crime. Did others in my neighborhood go that route? Sure, but we all make our own choices. We all need to start taking responsibility for our own actions. But people will continue this life of crime knowing they'll always have you to defend them. A recent surge in carjackings by teenagers in DC and you're more concerned about the criminals doing the carjacking. Unbelievable. This is why democrats will lose upcoming elections.


----------



## SuperMatt

Joe said:


> I don't understand why you give passes to teenagers carjacking.



Did you read what I wrote? I was referring to interviews with multiple local people done after the carjackings. And nobody was giving them a pass. However, they WERE intelligent enough to see the root problem instead of thinking that “tough on crime” policies (that historically lead to mass incarceration of minorities) will solve the problem. No question, the juvenile criminals will do time, but that does very little to actually solve the problem.

I guarantee you in DC, Republicans will NOT win upcoming elections. Trump only got 4% of the vote here. Republicans win big in rural areas where shoplifting at a CVS in NYC doesn’t affect them in the slightest. It’s just fear mongering by the right wing media. If people living in cities were all petrified of crime and actually believed only tough Republicans could save them, why do Republicans seldom win anything in the big cities? They’re always exaggerating crime as if it’s crippling every large city, and if they don’t vote GOP, those evil criminal gangs will come to middle-of-nowhere, Missouri next!


----------



## Huntn

Joe said:


> Y’all gonna bypass the 23 warrants that were closed in the process?
> 
> Like the title of this thread says “rising crime will hurt democrats” and that is exactly what is happening. Crime is getting out of control and people aren’t concerned with Wells Fargo executives. They’re concerned with rising crime in their neighborhoods and their safety. Things they deal with on a daily basis. You don’t know why these people stole diapers. They could be selling them. People steal baby formula and sell them because each can is very expensive. But you just assume that they're going after single mothers taking care of kids.
> 
> This way of thinking "oh, it's diapers and Wells Fargo CEOs do worse" is the exact reason why you see people walking into stores and walking out with baskets full of stuff and no one stopping them because "hey, these corporations can afford to take the hit!" I see so many videos on social media of people just walking into stores and running out with handfuls and baskets full of stuff...and almost all the comments are defending the shoplifters because they think the corporations are worse.
> 
> This is why Republicans win elections. Because democrats focus on being some kind of social justice warriors going after big corporation when no one gives a fuck. They give a fuck about thugs running around stealing catalytic converters off their truck while they're at the gym. They give a fuck about being held at gunpoint while pulling into their garage. Or being held at gunpoint and mugged/carjacked leaving a restaurant. They give a fuck about people with fake paper car plates committing crimes and police unable to track them because of the fake paper plates. This is the shit dems should be focused on fixing, but they're more concerned with coddling criminals.



Republicans are in charge of most states so focus blame on those in charge who don’t give a damn about poverty unless it’s someone dark is causing trouble and does not know their  place. PS there is nothing wrong with long overdue social Justice. We just have a very serious problem with the base of voters when it has to do with white privilege.


----------



## Joe

SuperMatt said:


> Did you read what I wrote? I was referring to interviews with multiple local people done after the carjackings. And nobody was giving them a pass. However, they WERE intelligent enough to see the root problem instead of thinking that “tough on crime” policies (that historically lead to mass incarceration of minorities) will solve the problem. No question, the juvenile criminals will do time, but that does very little to actually solve the problem.
> 
> I guarantee you in DC, Republicans will NOT win upcoming elections. Trump only got 4% of the vote here. Republicans win big in rural areas where shoplifting at a CVS in NYC doesn’t affect them in the slightest. It’s just fear mongering by the right wing media. If people living in cities were all petrified of crime and actually believed only tough Republicans could save them, why do Republicans seldom win anything in the big cities? They’re always exaggerating crime as if it’s crippling every large city, and if they don’t vote GOP, those evil criminal gangs will come to middle-of-nowhere, Missouri next!




I agree with the fear mongering that Republicans do. I just don't agree with the whole giving people a pass to commit crimes because they're poor and CEOs do it too. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Joe

Huntn said:


> Republicans are in charge of most states so focus blame on those in charge who don’t give a damn about poverty unless it’s someone dark is causing trouble and does not know their  place. PS there is nothing wrong with long overdue social Justice. We just have a very serious problem with the base of voters when it has to do with white privilege.




I'm just looking at things from outside the echo chamber. Some people here tend to forget how stupid most people are. Republicans fear monger for a reason.  It works.


----------



## Huntn

Joe said:


> I'm just looking at things from outside the echo chamber. Some people here tend to forget how stupid most people are. Republicans fear monger for a reason.  It works.



I agree with that. All of those states that Republicans  control they control them because of the base of citizens who make choices. However there is distortion and a real issue with gerrymandering that is or will effect the outcome of future elections. We also have some Republican controlled State legislatures who  are trying to enact legislation that would allow them to flush the outcome of any election they don’t like the results of.

I don’t know how you feel about it, but regarding the functioning of an actual democracy, this is a serious worrisome issue. As adults we have to realize that we win or lose elections based on our ideas and ideals. Cheating to win is not going to work long term.


----------



## User.45

Joe said:


> I'm just looking at things from outside the echo chamber. Some people here tend to forget how stupid most people are. Republicans fear monger for a reason.  It works.



Even if they shut down the baby product mafia, Let’s add that cops showcasing confiscated baby products is just a self inflicted PR wound.

@Herdfan himself posted an article about a Dem led proposal to clamp down on organized property crime where the intent is resell and profit. 

It’s also well known that in battleground states, Democrats are harder on crime than Republicans. So if we shape policy that prioritizes the perceptions of the Q Kooks Clan over fixing root causes of issues then we are doomed. 

As I said before, personal responsibility is an excellent principle to guide a person, but a horrible policy to guide society.


----------



## hulugu

Joe said:


> Y’all gonna bypass the 23 warrants that were closed in the process?
> 
> Like the title of this thread says “rising crime will hurt democrats” and that is exactly what is happening. Crime is getting out of control and people aren’t concerned with Wells Fargo executives. They’re concerned with rising crime in their neighborhoods and their safety. Things they deal with on a daily basis. You don’t know why these people stole diapers. They could be selling them. People steal baby formula and sell them because each can is very expensive. But you just assume that they're going after single mothers taking care of kids.
> 
> This way of thinking "oh, it's diapers and Wells Fargo CEOs do worse" is the exact reason why you see people walking into stores and walking out with baskets full of stuff and no one stopping them because "hey, these corporations can afford to take the hit!" I see so many videos on social media of people just walking into stores and running out with handfuls and baskets full of stuff...and almost all the comments are defending the shoplifters because they think the corporations are worse.
> 
> This is why Republicans win elections. Because democrats focus on being some kind of social justice warriors going after big corporation when no one gives a fuck. They give a fuck about thugs running around stealing catalytic converters off their truck while they're at the gym. They give a fuck about being held at gunpoint while pulling into their garage. Or being held at gunpoint and mugged/carjacked leaving a restaurant. They give a fuck about people with fake paper car plates committing crimes and police unable to track them because of the fake paper plates. This is the shit dems should be focused on fixing, but they're more concerned with coddling criminals.




I'm a little wary of trusting the NYPD that those 23 warrants were anything beyond parking tickets and failure to appear. Moreover, crime is not "getting out of control." We have very low crime rates all told, and we've yet to see a shift away from what has been a generation decline in crime. A minor spike from year to year is just noise. 

That said, I think Democrats are committing an error in not engaging with people's fears about crime and launching programs intended to blunt crime. If I were a Democratic mayor, I'd be announcing programs loudly and consistently. You don't have to be successful per se, but you do have to appear to be doing something. 

Republicans on the other hand are loudly proclaiming their "concern" but doing nothing to blunt crime aside from the usual nattering about "society" i.e. blaming rap music or kids, rather than the fact that our social fabric is so frayed people try to make ends meet by stealing baby formula to sell to mothers who can't afford it.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Something to keep in mind about the NYPD in all of this.

The NYPD was so proud of their "law enforcement" efforts with this, until they weren't.  They then did what everyone seems to do on social media when they are shamed into oblivion.  They deleted their posts.  When they found themselves heavily panned for the concerted effort to retrieve diapers & other sought after necessities of $1800, when so many are desperate now.  Optics wise & the use of the efforts of one of the largest organizations in the country, it was the epitome of tone deafness.  Also business as usual sometimes for the NYPD.  You'll notice of the warrants mentioned, they seem to only specifically ONLY mention the one about bank robbery.  They gloss over what the others were, that those 22 - 23 ( the number seems to change ) apply to actually 12 people.

This wasn't about law enforcement.  This was once again about a show of force to the most vulnerable, the lowest hanging fruit.  It's like other crime is hard, but they can assemble a force to take out one guy selling a single cigarette in the name of concern for lost taxes.  Even though the current mayor of NY is a dem, he himself rides "law enforcement" bandwagon.

If you are proud of your crackdown of basic necessities like you made a major drug bust in the 80s or 90s, you're telling the communities you supposedly "police" what your true focus is.  And that community has every reason to be wary.  Then again that is part of the intention of such messages, that and telling those well off who they won't be looking at.


----------



## SuperMatt

To continue with the comparison between crimes the NYPD cares about and those they don’t:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1496734246991446017/


----------



## SuperMatt

Murder went up 25% in rural areas in 2020. Why are these conservative-governed areas so soft on crime?



			https://wapo.st/3aOOg1g
		

(paywall removed)



> So how do we explain this? None of the things conservatives blame for crime — progressive prosecutors, lenient Democratic politicians, police feeling disrespected by racial justice protests, a lack of religious piety — are present in these places.
> 
> If — as we’ve all been told again and again — voters are fed up with “soft on crime” Democrats and are ready to “send them a message” in November’s midterm elections, to whom should a message be sent about the rural crime wave? And what should that message be?


----------



## Joe

SuperMatt said:


> Murder went up 25% in rural areas in 2020. Why are these conservative-governed areas so soft on crime?
> 
> 
> 
> https://wapo.st/3aOOg1g
> 
> 
> (paywall removed)




I grew up in a small town. I follow the twitter account of the local police. Full of crime there.


----------



## SuperMatt

Joe said:


> I grew up in a small town. I follow the twitter account of the local police. Full of crime there.



Crime is everywhere. An in-law that lives in the boonies of Pennsylvania got her home robbed while she was home. Had my car window smashed when it was parked overnight in a rural neighborhood on the shores of Lake Erie in Western NY.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> Crime is everywhere. An in-law that lives in the boonies of Pennsylvania got her home robbed while she was home. Had my car window smashed when it was parked overnight in a rural neighborhood on the shores of Lake Erie in Western NY.



Big time crime and corruption is everywhere too. "Fat Leonard" escaped from US Marshals.  Seems fishy...









						‘Fat Leonard’, contractor in US navy’s worst corruption scandal, flees house arrest
					

Leonard Francis pleaded guilty in 2015 to offering $500,000 in bribes to navy officers to steer work to his shipyards




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## lizkat

I have decided that the only crime that will matter in November 2022 is Democrats failing to vote in record numbers, enough to make it too embarrassing for would-be GOP state level officials to try to overturn 2:1 blue margins...


----------

