I would be more interested in crime in areas compared to voting tendencies in that area. For example, Missouri is reactively crime free, as long as you exclude Saint Louis and Kansas City from the counting, both areas that are Democrat strongholds and have been for a long time. The rest of the State is Republican. Both cities are crime ridden crap holes that make our quiet State look bad. We've tried giving them to Kansas and Illinois, but they aren't falling for that one.
I would bet that as you get away from the Democrat areas of California, that crime also drops significantly and will reflect voting habits of the specific area.
There is a couple of phenomena we run into driving over the road. Two things, the more Democrat an area is, the worst the drivers are. And the more "progressive" bumper stickers a vehicle has on it, the more likely it is to cut you off or do stupid things. The only conclusion I can come to (and I might be wrong) is that the more progressive a person becomes, the less they care about other people or the effects their actions have on others. This creates a sort of snowball effect where everyone stops being decent unless the police or news is watching.
On a semi-related note. I'd be curious as to the political makeup of prisoners. I would bet that most aren't registered with either party, but just curious about their leanings. I did a quick search on it but can only find very biased sites that ignore the totals and just try to play in the numbers to get their own biased views confirmed.
St. Louis and Kansas City may be Democratic strongholds, but that's only government at the city and county level.
At the state level, Missouri is currently a Republican "trifecta"—a Republican governor and Republican majorities in the Missouri Senate and the General Assembly. Missouri also has Republicans across the board in the other top slots in Jefferson City: the state Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Auditor and Treasurer are all Republicans. No one is listed as a Democrat in this "Ballotpedia" listing of the Missouri state executive officeholders: https://ballotpedia.org/Mis...te_executive_offices
St. Louis and Kansas City are Democratic strongholds at the city and county level, but what happens in St. Louis and Kansas City is also shaped by what happens at the state level.
And of course, the national level.
It's not so easy to put it all on Democrats when it comes to the typical "big city" problems like gangs and street crime, underperforming public school systems, substandard infrastructure, shortages of affordable housing, and polluted air, water and soil.
It's easy to say that it's all on Democrats, but that isn't the reality.
and I don't know, or really care whether the Democrat party attracts mental illness and crime, or if it causes it. That's not for me to decide. Either way... it doesn't change the facts... and if we're smart, we should try to figure out WHY this is the way it is.
The "if we are smart" says it all.
You can not understand this issue until you get smart enough to understand the difference between "causation" and "correlation". I point out the fact that large cities controlled by Republicans have the same problems as Democrats and you just completely ignore it.
It is impossible to have any reasonable debate about facts with you. Your political standing is so completely controlled by your emotions that you can't even discuss facts. You just shut down when presented with any facts that conflicts with your feelings.
If "democratic policies" are the cause of high crime rates in big cities then why do big cities controlled by Republicans also have high crime rates?
Originally posted by BingB: Big cities have higher crime rates. Does not matter if they are controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Same for rural areas. Crime rate is lower no matter which party is in control. So crime rate does not have to do with political party control.
Originally posted by BingB: The "if we are smart" says it all.
You can not understand this issue until you get smart enough to understand the difference between "causation" and "correlation". I point out the fact that large cities controlled by Republicans have the same problems as Democrats and you just completely ignore it.
It is impossible to have any reasonable debate about facts with you. Your political standing is so completely controlled by your emotions that you can't even discuss facts. You just shut down when presented with any facts that conflicts with your feelings.
If "democratic policies" are the cause of high crime rates in big cities then why do big cities controlled by Republicans also have high crime rates?
I've proven to you that the majority of the insane are Democrats. I've also proven to you that the majority of those who commit crimes are Democrats.
You're talking about causation and correlation. I could care less... it still doesn't change the fact that most of the insane and crime-ridden are Democrat.
YOU, as a Democrat, should try to figure it out. Maybe YOU can tell me why that is... is it because the Democrat party attracts these people? Or is it because the Democrat party causes it? I think it's a little bit of both, personally...
I'm all ears though. Please explain to me why most criminals and insane are Democrat?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I've proven to you that the majority of the insane are Democrats. I've also proven to you that the majority of those who commit crimes are Democrats.
You're talking about causation and correlation. I could care less... it still doesn't change the fact that most of the insane and crime-ridden are Democrat.
YOU, as a Democrat, should try to figure it out. Maybe YOU can tell me why that is... is it because the Democrat party attracts these people? Or is it because the Democrat party causes it? I think it's a little bit of both, personally...
I'm all ears though. Please explain to me why most criminals and insane are Democrat?
Democrats control most big cities. Big cities have higher crime rates. Therefore democrats have higher crime rates. But there is no "causation" connection between crime and democrats. It is just a correlation. This is proven by the facts that big cities that are controlled by Republicans also have higher crime rates. The high crime rates in these cities are not caused by any "republican policy" anymore than high crime rates in cities controlled by democrats are caused by any "democrat policy". Instead the high crime rate has to do with other issues like population density, poverty concentration, and opportunity.
Your claim that you don't care about the difference between "causation" and "correlation" is nothing more than you bragging about your ignorance. The difference between "causation" and "correlation" is a basic principle of logic. Ignoring it just makes you look uneducated.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 02-11-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: Total number of crimes as a percentage of population.
A town of 10,000 with 5 murders would have a higher "murder rate" than than a city of 1,000,000 with 400 murders.
You forgot to consider the 'time' component of average.
A town of 1000 with a single event of 5 killings would have a high murder rate in that year, but if the town had been in existence for 100 years, taken over time the town would have a low murder rate.
Take a length of time of 3 years, 5 years or 10 years and apply it to rural vs. urban murder statistics and get back with us.
Big city governments are predominantly Leftist. It has been so, for many years. Big cities have a higher crime rate. All of the above has been acknowledged by the left.
So, the question is: Why can't the Leftist government fix the problem?
"Pre-Preemption:" GOP-controlled states are blocking liberal cities from passing legislation residents desperately need, despite widespread voter support. Harold Meyerson reports on how Republican state legislatures prevent the will of urban voters for our February print issue.
This is a teaser for an article in the American Prospect. I don't know whether I will access it. I think you have to at least register, or start a trial subscription. Even just the requirement to submit my email address is sometimes enough to deter me.
FOR EXAMPLE, picking up from where my previous remark ended:
"St. Louis Is the Struggling Downtown You Haven’t Heard Of—and Right-Wing Policies Are Making Things Worse" Kevin McDermott for the New York Times; June 27, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/202...eturn-to-office.html
Excerpt:
quote
To combat crime [in St. Louis], the [Missouri state] legislature offered the helping hand of attempting a state takeover of the city’s police force. The narrative from the right was that the city’s soft-on-crime policies were to blame for the unmoored violence that is driving the city’s economic decline, so the police need to be under outside control.
Left out of that narrative is the fact that gun crime here is abetted by Missouri gun laws that are among the loosest in the nation. Virtually anyone can walk around the city with a gun, with no state-mandated background check and few state-level restrictions, and there’s next to nothing the police can do about it until the shooting starts. The state has rebuffed all entreaties from the city to be allowed to enforce some kind of permit requirement. . . .
Republican critics maintain it is the city’s de-emphasizing of policing that’s the real problem, and as such, the legislature in 2021 passed a state law that effectively penalizes cities that cut their police budgets. But even the largest St. Louis police force would still be policing a city flooded with unregulated guns and few tools to confront them, courtesy of the same Republican state leaders. A current effort to pass a statewide ballot referendum that would go around lawmakers to give St. Louis the authority to impose firearms permits and other reforms is the kind of Hail Mary the city is left with. Whatever impediments San Francisco faces in confronting its problems, at least it doesn’t have an adversary rather than a partner in its State Capitol.
"Editorial: St. Louis is different than outstate Missouri. It should have different gun laws." Editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch; June 14, 2023. https://www.stltoday.com/op...37-677b6f8a3d36.html
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-11-2024).]
This is a teaser for an article in the American Prospect. I don't know whether I will access it. I think you have to at least register, or start a trial subscription. Even just the requirement to submit my email address is sometimes enough to deter me.
But I'm sure I could find similar material.
So, what you are saying is that no matter who is in charge, high crime is because of Republicans.
What about California and New York? Illinois and Michigan?
Originally posted by olejoedad: Take a length of time of 3 years, 5 years or 10 years and apply it to rural vs. urban murder statistics and get back with us.
No difference. There is still high crime rates across Missouri other than just in KC and St Louis. Here is the example of Nevada Missouri over the last 20 years. Crime rate higher than national average.
Why are you incapable of doing this research yourself? It might keep you from looking so clueless if you did it yourself before making posts like the one above.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 02-11-2024).]
Why do you cherrypick data to 'prove' your lame claims?
I don't do searches because I already know the results of the data, and you wouldn't listen even if someone force fed you. I'm not trying to 'prove' a point - that's useless. It works better if you prove it to yourself. But you won't, because you will cherrypick data to justify your beliefs. So, GFY.
Why do you cherrypick data to 'prove' your lame claims?
I don't do searches because I already know the results of the data, and you wouldn't listen even if someone force fed you. I'm not trying to 'prove' a point - that's useless. It works better if you prove it to yourself. But you won't, because you will cherrypick data to justify your beliefs. So, GFY.
I "cherry pick" because I do not have to present all the data to prove my point. But since you don't mind being embarrassed by my research here is more
Springfield Missoure crime rate by year. Way above national average.
So you clearly do NOT know the results of the data. The claim that "Missouri is relatively crime free except for Kansas City and St Louis is 100% BS. I PROVED it with actual facts.
During the period that Giuliani was mayor of NYC ('94-'00) the NATIONAL crime rate was cut almost in half from 9.0% to 5.2%.
I give Rudy some credit for turning around NYC, but he benefitted greatly from a nationwide drop in crime at the same time he was trying to reduce crime in NYC.
So, what you are saying is that no matter who is in charge, high crime is because of Republicans.
What about California and New York? Illinois and Michigan?
Democratic strongholds in California, New York, Illinois and Michigan are affected by national politics, and even though we currently have a Democrat for president and a razor-thin Democratic advantage in the U.S. Senate, the Republican Party is "muscular" at the national level.
And beyond that, Republicans do wield considerable power at the state level, even in states like New York, Illinois and Michigan where you might say that Democrats have more of an upper hand, overall.
California? I guess we're kind of "sui generis."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-11-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: Democrats control most big cities. Big cities have higher crime rates. Therefore democrats have higher crime rates. But there is no "causation" connection between crime and democrats. It is just a correlation. This is proven by the facts that big cities that are controlled by Republicans also have higher crime rates. The high crime rates in these cities are not caused by any "republican policy" anymore than high crime rates in cities controlled by democrats are caused by any "democrat policy". Instead the high crime rate has to do with other issues like population density, poverty concentration, and opportunity.
Your claim that you don't care about the difference between "causation" and "correlation" is nothing more than you bragging about your ignorance. The difference between "causation" and "correlation" is a basic principle of logic. Ignoring it just makes you look uneducated.
This doesn't make any sense to me: "Your claim that you don't care about the difference between "causation" and "correlation" is nothing more than you bragging about your ignorance."
Best I can figure, you don't like the information, and you're not really sure what else to say. I don't want to say that I care less (let me correct that), I definitely think it's important to understand why, but I've already made up my mind; however, I'm interested in your take on why Democrats are more likely to be insane and commit crimes. You've not addressed this. You've simply stated that cities have more crime. That doesn't change the fact though that Democrats in these cities are more likely to commit crimes than Republicans are. Democrats in general are more likely to commit crimes anywhere, based on the links above. You also only addressed "crime," but seemed to completely ignore the mental illness discussion.
Can you please explain to me a few things: - Why are the majority of crimes committed by people who are registered or lean Democrat? - Why do Democrats make up the preponderance of those classified as mentally ill? - Are the two above as a result of Democrat policies, or does the Democrat party merely attract these kinds of people?
I'm happy to share my thoughts after you can reasonably answer the three questions above without deflection, please.
EDIT: Something for you to chew on... Miami's crime rate has dropped 200% since Republicans took over the city back in 1996. It had been under Democrat control for the previous 50 years, and crime was so bad, they literally made a TV show about it (Miami Vice). It waffled back and forth through the 90s and early 2000s until it became solidly Republican in 2009, and crime dropped another 50% from that point today. Crime in Miami is effectively 200% less than it was when it was run entirely by Democrats, in an entirely Democrat state at the time. Most cities also show this... looking at NYC as it changes hands between Republican and Democrat governance.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 02-12-2024).]
and three of 5 miami city commissioners are under indictment or being made to pay millions for their acts
mayor of miami is up to several scams For Miami Mayor Francis Suarez's bad month, blame one ... Sun Sentinel https://www.sun-sentinel.com › 2023/07/06 › for-mia... Jul 6, 2023 — As Suarez, the mayor of Miami, remains engulfed in a scandal surrounding his consulting work for a developer doing business with his city ... chic commis is charged
and Miami Commissioner Joe Carollo's salary to be garnished ...he is a Gop and ex cop
cuba was totally corrupt that is why they got commies
then the most corrupt cubans came to miami guess what happened
and three of 5 miami city commissioners are under indictment or being made to pay millions for their acts
mayor of miami is up to several scams For Miami Mayor Francis Suarez's bad month, blame one ... Sun Sentinel https://www.sun-sentinel.com › 2023/07/06 › for-mia... Jul 6, 2023 — As Suarez, the mayor of Miami, remains engulfed in a scandal surrounding his consulting work for a developer doing business with his city ... chic commis is charged
and Miami Commissioner Joe Carollo's salary to be garnished ...he is a Gop and ex cop
cuba was totally corrupt that is why they got commies
then the most corrupt cubans came to miami guess what happened
Translation = You are right Todd, the Republicans have cut crime by 200% since they took over Miami. But I'm not happy about these facts, and since I can't counter them, I'll deflect and share some other tangential information to change the subject.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Translation = You are right Todd, the Republicans have cut crime by 200% since they took over Miami. But I'm not happy about these facts, and since I can't counter them, I'll deflect and share some other tangential information to change the subject.
I'm prepared to believe that at least some categories of crime are characterized by lower numbers and lower percentages (per capita) for Miami, since Republicans "took over Miami"—a statement that needs to be explained with more precision.
But what is there to support "cut crime by 200%"..?
Without further explanation, there's no way I can credit this assertion as credible.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Translation = You are right Todd, the Republicans have cut crime by 200% since they took over Miami. But I'm not happy about these facts, and since I can't counter them, I'll deflect and share some other tangential information to change the subject.
How can anyone reduce crime by more than 100%?
Did the Republicans in charge of Miami create "negative crime"?
Are there now street gangs in Miami that are cornering pedestrians and giving them money? Going up and down the city and fixing up anything that has been damaged or is in need of repair? Painting any buildings that look like they could use fresh paint?
Did the Republicans in charge of Miami create "negative crime"?
Are there now street gangs in Miami that are cornering pedestrians and giving them money? Going up and down the city and fixing up anything that has been damaged or is in need of repair? Painting any buildings that look like they could use fresh paint?
Criminal Illegal immigrant gangs target New York City to commit their crimes, knowing they will get away with it, and then head to Florida to spend the money, according to NYC law enforcement sources. NYPD Detectives reportedly told CNN’s Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence analyst John Miller that the criminal gangs return to the sanctuary city to commit more crimes because they know if they try it in Florida they’ll “go to jail.”
I'm prepared to believe that at least some categories of crime are characterized by lower numbers and lower percentages (per capita) for Miami, since Republicans "took over Miami"—a statement that needs to be explained with more precision.
But what is there to support "cut crime by 200%"..?
Without further explanation, there's no way I can credit this assertion as credible.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:How can anyone reduce crime by more than 100%?
Did the Republicans in charge of Miami create "negative crime"?
Are there now street gangs in Miami that are cornering pedestrians and giving them money? Going up and down the city and fixing up anything that has been damaged or is in need of repair? Painting any buildings that look like they could use fresh paint?
It boggles the mind.
Hey, it's OK... I don't have a degree specifically in math. I only got up to Calculus 2, so I'll take the L.
Republicans reduced crime by over 70%. It's actually gone down even further since 2016... I'll have to find the numbers, but it's even lower today.
Can you please explain to me a few things: - Why are the majority of crimes committed by people who are registered or lean Democrat? - Why do Democrats make up the preponderance of those classified as mentally ill? - Are the two above as a result of Democrat policies, or does the Democrat party merely attract these kinds of people?
I'm happy to share my thoughts after you can reasonably answer the three questions above without deflection, please.
The causes of crime are complicated, but empirical evidence proves that it is not related to party affiliation. For example, rural areas with a majority democrat population and controlled by democrats have LOWER crime rates than urban areas and big cities with majority republican population and controlled by republicans. Since Democrats control an overwhelming majority of big cities then the crime rate among democrats is going to be higher. So there is a statistical correlation but no causation. It would be like blaming sunburn on Republicans policies because more people get sunburns in Florida than in Vermont.
Mental illness is even more complicated. . . .
1. An overwhelming majority of people treated for mental illness seek out the treatment themselves. So most statistics are based on "self-reporting". Among conservatives there is more of a stigma attached to mental illness. It is often labeled as a weakness in character or even a sin. So a certain part of the answer is simply that more Democrats admit to mental illness and seek treatment than Republicans who are in denial or too ashamed to admit a problem and seek treatment.
2. Then there is the fact that people with higher IQs are more likely to suffer from metal issues ( as well as allergies, asthma, and autoimmune disease). https://bigthink.com/neurop...e%20mood%20disorder.
3. And finally, there is the problem with define "mental illness". For example, a person who believes something that has no basis in physical reality has a "delusional disorder". but Christians do not include themselves under the category of "mentally ill". So if we follow strict definitions I feel that just as many Republicans kave "mental disorders" as Democrats.
3. And finally, there is the problem with define "mental illness". For example, a person who believes something that has no basis in physical reality has a "delusional disorder". but Christians do not include themselves under the category of "mentally ill". So if we follow strict definitions I feel that just as many Republicans kave "mental disorders" as Democrats.
Originally posted by BingB: ... empirical evidence proves ...
... a person who believes something that has no basis in physical reality has a "delusional disorder".
Which is it ?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Mental illness is even more complicated. . . .
An overwhelming majority of people treated for mental illness seek out the treatment themselves. So most statistics are based on "self-reporting". Among conservatives there is more of a stigma attached to mental illness. It is often labeled as a weakness in character or even a sin. So a certain part of the answer is simply that more Democrats admit to mental illness and seek treatment than Republicans who are in denial or too ashamed to admit a problem and seek treatment.
