4 out of 50 most dangerous cities are in the U.S., guess which party runs them?

[westwall]

I saw this on thegunfeed.com...and followed the link.....of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world, 4 are in the United States....and all 4 of them have been run by democrats for decades....

World's 50 most violent cities revealed, and 21 of them are in Brazil

But the list doesn't just include Latin America, with U.S. cities St Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans also featuring.

The question is...Which came first, the abject poverty or the Democrats?

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over and after 50+ years of uninterrupted rule Detroit is collapsing, it is billions of dollars in debt (yes, a single city is billions of dollars in debt) and the people who can leave are doing so. It has lost 60% of its population since 1950. Progressives take other peoples money, give it to those who are not productive and when they run out of other peoples money they begin to eat their own. That is the phase they are in now.

If progressivism was so damned good Detroit should be a model of progress and culture. Instead it looks like this...

Nothing at all to do with Nixon allowing Japan to product dump cars in exchange for air bases in southern Japan, or the big three designing and engineering crap cars in the 70's and 80's. Detroit was a company town, when the company failed, so did the town.

Considering the Democrats had been in power for over two decades by then the answer is no. No matter how much you try and blame the repubs for everything the facts are these. In 1932 the wealthiest two percent of this country controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took control of both houses of Congress and ruled them with an iron fist for 40 continuous years. They also controlled the Presidency for a good portion of that reign as well. The net result after all of that control was the wealthiest 1 percent now control 90% of this nations wealth.

So, dumbass... who were the Democrats working for? Because it sure as hell doesn't look like they were working for the poor and middle class now does it.

 

[Pogo]

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over

Once again for the fallacy fans.... "Democrats" run virtually all cities. Rich ones, poor ones, desirable ones, undesirable ones, growing ones and dying ones. That's got to do with established political machines --- not with ideology. There is no specific "Democratic" or "Republican" way to run a city. Does not apply. In fact, go ahead and look back at the history of cities in general -- the same sample, before the machines were established -- and you'll notice that many such city administrations had no political parties at all. They didn't need one then either. Because ideologically, they never did.

The pattern, for what it's worth and that's very little, is that Republicans tended to dominate in the first part of the 20th century, which trend later shifted to the Democrats. That may say something about efficiency of organization; it says nothing about ideology. Meaning that, if this thread were created in say 1930, guess which party the fallacy would point to.

Matter of fact, Detroit's city charter for the last 98 years specifically has required nonpartisan elections. So city residents don't vote for a party anyway.

So there goes that.


Detroit grew in the industrial expansion of the early 20th century, and paid the price when that expansion migrated. That's a result of factors far beyond the city's own administrations, and even farther beyond what political letter happened to be appended after their names. It's directly related to the industrial evolution over the past century and the choices made by the industries that fueled it. It's not related to what letter derives from some politician's voter registration card.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Most liberals so not recognize failed policies of their own making. In their minds that is why conservatives exist.

Their policies fail by design.

Cleaning up the mess caused by Republicans isn't easy to do.

Right! That's what's happening...lol

 

[gipper]

I saw this on thegunfeed.com...and followed the link.....of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world, 4 are in the United States....and all 4 of them have been run by democrats for decades....

World's 50 most violent cities revealed, and 21 of them are in Brazil

But the list doesn't just include Latin America, with U.S. cities St Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans also featuring.

The question is...Which came first, the abject poverty or the Democrats?

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over and after 50+ years of uninterrupted rule Detroit is collapsing, it is billions of dollars in debt (yes, a single city is billions of dollars in debt) and the people who can leave are doing so. It has lost 60% of its population since 1950. Progressives take other peoples money, give it to those who are not productive and when they run out of other peoples money they begin to eat their own. That is the phase they are in now.

If progressivism was so damned good Detroit should be a model of progress and culture. Instead it looks like this...

Nothing at all to do with Nixon allowing Japan to product dump cars in exchange for air bases in southern Japan, or the big three designing and engineering crap cars in the 70's and 80's. Detroit was a company town, when the company failed, so did the town.

Total bull shit!!!

Detroit was failing much earlier than the 70s and 80s. White flight started in the late 50s and after it's disasterous riot of 1967, whites fled the city. By the mid 70s when the auto companies were producing shit, Detroit was already shit. The auto companies demise had little to do with it.

It's demise was about a lot of things mostly government incompetence...including rising crime, corrupt police department, shitty p-schools, bussing, racial problems, e-ways allowing easy access to suburbs with new homes, good schools, and no crime were whites moved to. HUD selling homes to blacks for $1 and city allowing them to fail to maintain the homes.

I know because I witnessed as it happened.

 

[gipper]

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over

Once again for the fallacy fans.... "Democrats" run virtually all cities. Rich ones, poor ones, desirable ones, undesirable ones, growing ones and dying ones. That's got to do with established political machines --- not with ideology. There is no specific "Democratic" or "Republican" way to run a city. Does not apply. In fact, go ahead and look back at the history of cities in general -- the same sample, before the machines were established -- and you'll notice that many such city administrations had no political parties at all. They didn't need one then either. Because ideologically, they never did.

The pattern, for what it's worth and that's very little, is that Republicans tended to dominate in the first part of the 20th century, which trend later shifted to the Democrats. That may say something about efficiency of organization; it says nothing about ideology. Meaning that, if this thread were created in say 1930, guess which party the fallacy would point to.

Matter of fact, Detroit's city charter for the last 98 years specifically has required nonpartisan elections. So city residents don't vote for a party anyway.

So there goes that.


Detroit grew in the industrial expansion of the early 20th century, and paid the price when that expansion migrated. That's a result of factors far beyond the city's own administrations, and even farther beyond what political letter happened to be appended after their names. It's directly related to the industrial evolution over the past century and the choices made by the industries that fueled it. It's not related to what letter derives from some politician's voter registration card.

I agree with much, but Detroit went to shit not because of the auto industry's failures. See above post.

 

[Pogo]

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over

Once again for the fallacy fans.... "Democrats" run virtually all cities. Rich ones, poor ones, desirable ones, undesirable ones, growing ones and dying ones. That's got to do with established political machines --- not with ideology. There is no specific "Democratic" or "Republican" way to run a city. Does not apply. In fact, go ahead and look back at the history of cities in general -- the same sample, before the machines were established -- and you'll notice that many such city administrations had no political parties at all. They didn't need one then either. Because ideologically, they never did.

The pattern, for what it's worth and that's very little, is that Republicans tended to dominate in the first part of the 20th century, which trend later shifted to the Democrats. That may say something about efficiency of organization; it says nothing about ideology. Meaning that, if this thread were created in say 1930, guess which party the fallacy would point to.

Matter of fact, Detroit's city charter for the last 98 years specifically has required nonpartisan elections. So city residents don't vote for a party anyway.

So there goes that.


Detroit grew in the industrial expansion of the early 20th century, and paid the price when that expansion migrated. That's a result of factors far beyond the city's own administrations, and even farther beyond what political letter happened to be appended after their names. It's directly related to the industrial evolution over the past century and the choices made by the industries that fueled it. It's not related to what letter derives from some politician's voter registration card.

I agree with much, but Detroit went to shit not because of the auto industry's failures. See above post.

It's good background to know but again what you describe above are social migration factors, economic shifts, general incompetence and/or corruption, and as already noted national trends in the economic and social structure of which Detroit is a part.

None of those however are directly traceable to one political party affiliation or another, which is the fallacy both the post I responded to, and this thread, are built on.

Westwall's cherrypicked images of a city two thousand miles away from him (but which he'll tell you he can drive to in three minutes) belie an interesting bias. I've been to Detroit and necessarily saw several parts of it, including when I set my GPS for a mistaken address and landed across town in a residential neighborhood --- and nowhere did I see anything remotely resembling what he cherrypicks off the internets. What I did see was traffic jams on busy streets. In other words nothing different from any other American city, and certainly not the Bangladesh the partisan hacks go hunting down and trotting out as if it's some kind of representative sample.

 

[gipper]

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over

Once again for the fallacy fans.... "Democrats" run virtually all cities. Rich ones, poor ones, desirable ones, undesirable ones, growing ones and dying ones. That's got to do with established political machines --- not with ideology. There is no specific "Democratic" or "Republican" way to run a city. Does not apply. In fact, go ahead and look back at the history of cities in general -- the same sample, before the machines were established -- and you'll notice that many such city administrations had no political parties at all. They didn't need one then either. Because ideologically, they never did.

The pattern, for what it's worth and that's very little, is that Republicans tended to dominate in the first part of the 20th century, which trend later shifted to the Democrats. That may say something about efficiency of organization; it says nothing about ideology. Meaning that, if this thread were created in say 1930, guess which party the fallacy would point to.

Matter of fact, Detroit's city charter for the last 98 years specifically has required nonpartisan elections. So city residents don't vote for a party anyway.

So there goes that.


Detroit grew in the industrial expansion of the early 20th century, and paid the price when that expansion migrated. That's a result of factors far beyond the city's own administrations, and even farther beyond what political letter happened to be appended after their names. It's directly related to the industrial evolution over the past century and the choices made by the industries that fueled it. It's not related to what letter derives from some politician's voter registration card.

I agree with much, but Detroit went to shit not because of the auto industry's failures. See above post.

It's good background to know but again what you describe above are social migration factors, economic shifts, general incompetence and/or corruption, and as already noted national trends in the economic and social structure of which Detroit is a part.

None of those however are directly traceable to one political party affiliation or another, which is the fallacy both the post I responded to, and this thread, are built on.

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

 

[Pogo]

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over

Once again for the fallacy fans.... "Democrats" run virtually all cities. Rich ones, poor ones, desirable ones, undesirable ones, growing ones and dying ones. That's got to do with established political machines --- not with ideology. There is no specific "Democratic" or "Republican" way to run a city. Does not apply. In fact, go ahead and look back at the history of cities in general -- the same sample, before the machines were established -- and you'll notice that many such city administrations had no political parties at all. They didn't need one then either. Because ideologically, they never did.

The pattern, for what it's worth and that's very little, is that Republicans tended to dominate in the first part of the 20th century, which trend later shifted to the Democrats. That may say something about efficiency of organization; it says nothing about ideology. Meaning that, if this thread were created in say 1930, guess which party the fallacy would point to.

Matter of fact, Detroit's city charter for the last 98 years specifically has required nonpartisan elections. So city residents don't vote for a party anyway.

So there goes that.


Detroit grew in the industrial expansion of the early 20th century, and paid the price when that expansion migrated. That's a result of factors far beyond the city's own administrations, and even farther beyond what political letter happened to be appended after their names. It's directly related to the industrial evolution over the past century and the choices made by the industries that fueled it. It's not related to what letter derives from some politician's voter registration card.

I agree with much, but Detroit went to shit not because of the auto industry's failures. See above post.

It's good background to know but again what you describe above are social migration factors, economic shifts, general incompetence and/or corruption, and as already noted national trends in the economic and social structure of which Detroit is a part.

None of those however are directly traceable to one political party affiliation or another, which is the fallacy both the post I responded to, and this thread, are built on.

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

The actual party controlled it?

-- or people who happened to have a "D" after their name?

See the thread title. That's why we're here.

 

[gipper]

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over

Once again for the fallacy fans.... "Democrats" run virtually all cities. Rich ones, poor ones, desirable ones, undesirable ones, growing ones and dying ones. That's got to do with established political machines --- not with ideology. There is no specific "Democratic" or "Republican" way to run a city. Does not apply. In fact, go ahead and look back at the history of cities in general -- the same sample, before the machines were established -- and you'll notice that many such city administrations had no political parties at all. They didn't need one then either. Because ideologically, they never did.

The pattern, for what it's worth and that's very little, is that Republicans tended to dominate in the first part of the 20th century, which trend later shifted to the Democrats. That may say something about efficiency of organization; it says nothing about ideology. Meaning that, if this thread were created in say 1930, guess which party the fallacy would point to.

Matter of fact, Detroit's city charter for the last 98 years specifically has required nonpartisan elections. So city residents don't vote for a party anyway.

So there goes that.


Detroit grew in the industrial expansion of the early 20th century, and paid the price when that expansion migrated. That's a result of factors far beyond the city's own administrations, and even farther beyond what political letter happened to be appended after their names. It's directly related to the industrial evolution over the past century and the choices made by the industries that fueled it. It's not related to what letter derives from some politician's voter registration card.

I agree with much, but Detroit went to shit not because of the auto industry's failures. See above post.

It's good background to know but again what you describe above are social migration factors, economic shifts, general incompetence and/or corruption, and as already noted national trends in the economic and social structure of which Detroit is a part.

None of those however are directly traceable to one political party affiliation or another, which is the fallacy both the post I responded to, and this thread, are built on.

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

The actual party controlled it?

-- or people who happened to have a "D" after their name?

See the thread title. That's why we're here.

WTF are you related to Bill Clinton? One party rules a city that descends into the sewer, a once great city, of course that party deserves blame. If the Rs did it you might comprehend.

 

[Pogo]

Once again for the fallacy fans.... "Democrats" run virtually all cities. Rich ones, poor ones, desirable ones, undesirable ones, growing ones and dying ones. That's got to do with established political machines --- not with ideology. There is no specific "Democratic" or "Republican" way to run a city. Does not apply. In fact, go ahead and look back at the history of cities in general -- the same sample, before the machines were established -- and you'll notice that many such city administrations had no political parties at all. They didn't need one then either. Because ideologically, they never did.

The pattern, for what it's worth and that's very little, is that Republicans tended to dominate in the first part of the 20th century, which trend later shifted to the Democrats. That may say something about efficiency of organization; it says nothing about ideology. Meaning that, if this thread were created in say 1930, guess which party the fallacy would point to.

Matter of fact, Detroit's city charter for the last 98 years specifically has required nonpartisan elections. So city residents don't vote for a party anyway.

So there goes that.


Detroit grew in the industrial expansion of the early 20th century, and paid the price when that expansion migrated. That's a result of factors far beyond the city's own administrations, and even farther beyond what political letter happened to be appended after their names. It's directly related to the industrial evolution over the past century and the choices made by the industries that fueled it. It's not related to what letter derives from some politician's voter registration card.

I agree with much, but Detroit went to shit not because of the auto industry's failures. See above post.

It's good background to know but again what you describe above are social migration factors, economic shifts, general incompetence and/or corruption, and as already noted national trends in the economic and social structure of which Detroit is a part.

None of those however are directly traceable to one political party affiliation or another, which is the fallacy both the post I responded to, and this thread, are built on.

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

The actual party controlled it?

-- or people who happened to have a "D" after their name?

See the thread title. That's why we're here.

WTF are you related to Bill Clinton? One party rules a city that descends into the sewer, a once great city, of course that party deserves blame. If the Rs did it you might comprehend.

So you have no answer.

I'm here to bust a fallacy. Which I did. As I just laid out, the Composition Fallacy cannot be legitimized. Because as I noted when I first got here --- political parties don't run cities. Mayors and city councils and city managers do that. We could run stats on how many of them had blue eyes or were lefthanded or stood at a height expressable by an even number of centimeters, and it would have the same amount of (non) meaning.

 

[westwall]

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over

Once again for the fallacy fans.... "Democrats" run virtually all cities. Rich ones, poor ones, desirable ones, undesirable ones, growing ones and dying ones. That's got to do with established political machines --- not with ideology. There is no specific "Democratic" or "Republican" way to run a city. Does not apply. In fact, go ahead and look back at the history of cities in general -- the same sample, before the machines were established -- and you'll notice that many such city administrations had no political parties at all. They didn't need one then either. Because ideologically, they never did.

The pattern, for what it's worth and that's very little, is that Republicans tended to dominate in the first part of the 20th century, which trend later shifted to the Democrats. That may say something about efficiency of organization; it says nothing about ideology. Meaning that, if this thread were created in say 1930, guess which party the fallacy would point to.

Matter of fact, Detroit's city charter for the last 98 years specifically has required nonpartisan elections. So city residents don't vote for a party anyway.

So there goes that.


Detroit grew in the industrial expansion of the early 20th century, and paid the price when that expansion migrated. That's a result of factors far beyond the city's own administrations, and even farther beyond what political letter happened to be appended after their names. It's directly related to the industrial evolution over the past century and the choices made by the industries that fueled it. It's not related to what letter derives from some politician's voter registration card.

I agree with much, but Detroit went to shit not because of the auto industry's failures. See above post.

It's good background to know but again what you describe above are social migration factors, economic shifts, general incompetence and/or corruption, and as already noted national trends in the economic and social structure of which Detroit is a part.

None of those however are directly traceable to one political party affiliation or another, which is the fallacy both the post I responded to, and this thread, are built on.

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

The actual party controlled it?

-- or people who happened to have a "D" after their name?

See the thread title. That's why we're here.

Still arguing over what the definition of "is" is? You are pissing up a rope dude. Democrats controlled the city for decades and due to their policies the city began to fall apart. It truly collapsed in the 1980's and 90's.

 

[Pogo]

Once again for the fallacy fans.... "Democrats" run virtually all cities. Rich ones, poor ones, desirable ones, undesirable ones, growing ones and dying ones. That's got to do with established political machines --- not with ideology. There is no specific "Democratic" or "Republican" way to run a city. Does not apply. In fact, go ahead and look back at the history of cities in general -- the same sample, before the machines were established -- and you'll notice that many such city administrations had no political parties at all. They didn't need one then either. Because ideologically, they never did.

The pattern, for what it's worth and that's very little, is that Republicans tended to dominate in the first part of the 20th century, which trend later shifted to the Democrats. That may say something about efficiency of organization; it says nothing about ideology. Meaning that, if this thread were created in say 1930, guess which party the fallacy would point to.

Matter of fact, Detroit's city charter for the last 98 years specifically has required nonpartisan elections. So city residents don't vote for a party anyway.

So there goes that.


Detroit grew in the industrial expansion of the early 20th century, and paid the price when that expansion migrated. That's a result of factors far beyond the city's own administrations, and even farther beyond what political letter happened to be appended after their names. It's directly related to the industrial evolution over the past century and the choices made by the industries that fueled it. It's not related to what letter derives from some politician's voter registration card.

I agree with much, but Detroit went to shit not because of the auto industry's failures. See above post.

It's good background to know but again what you describe above are social migration factors, economic shifts, general incompetence and/or corruption, and as already noted national trends in the economic and social structure of which Detroit is a part.

None of those however are directly traceable to one political party affiliation or another, which is the fallacy both the post I responded to, and this thread, are built on.

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

The actual party controlled it?

-- or people who happened to have a "D" after their name?

See the thread title. That's why we're here.

Still arguing over what the definition of "is" is? You are pissing up a rope dude. Democrats controlled the city for decades and due to their policies the city began to fall apart. It truly collapsed in the 1980's and 90's.

And STILL unable to get it off the ground.
Posting the same Composition Fallacy over and over, expecting different results. That sounds like a plan.

 

[westwall]

I agree with much, but Detroit went to shit not because of the auto industry's failures. See above post.

It's good background to know but again what you describe above are social migration factors, economic shifts, general incompetence and/or corruption, and as already noted national trends in the economic and social structure of which Detroit is a part.

None of those however are directly traceable to one political party affiliation or another, which is the fallacy both the post I responded to, and this thread, are built on.

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

The actual party controlled it?

-- or people who happened to have a "D" after their name?

See the thread title. That's why we're here.

Still arguing over what the definition of "is" is? You are pissing up a rope dude. Democrats controlled the city for decades and due to their policies the city began to fall apart. It truly collapsed in the 1980's and 90's.

And STILL unable to get it off the ground.
Posting the same Composition Fallacy over and over, expecting different results. That sounds like a plan.

No, that would be you. It is YOU posting the fallacies. Learn some basic logic and stop posting terms you don't understand.

 

[Pogo]

It's good background to know but again what you describe above are social migration factors, economic shifts, general incompetence and/or corruption, and as already noted national trends in the economic and social structure of which Detroit is a part.

None of those however are directly traceable to one political party affiliation or another, which is the fallacy both the post I responded to, and this thread, are built on.

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

The actual party controlled it?

-- or people who happened to have a "D" after their name?

See the thread title. That's why we're here.

Still arguing over what the definition of "is" is? You are pissing up a rope dude. Democrats controlled the city for decades and due to their policies the city began to fall apart. It truly collapsed in the 1980's and 90's.

And STILL unable to get it off the ground.
Posting the same Composition Fallacy over and over, expecting different results. That sounds like a plan.

No, that would be you. It is YOU posting the fallacies. Learn some basic logic and stop posting terms you don't understand.

Going doesn't make the fallacy go away either, Dumbass.

I posed the question back at the beginning of this thread, asking for a link to any evidence of a political party "running a city" as the title avers.

I have yet to get that link.

And you know why?

Because there's no such thing.

 

[westwall]

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

The actual party controlled it?

-- or people who happened to have a "D" after their name?

See the thread title. That's why we're here.

Still arguing over what the definition of "is" is? You are pissing up a rope dude. Democrats controlled the city for decades and due to their policies the city began to fall apart. It truly collapsed in the 1980's and 90's.

And STILL unable to get it off the ground.
Posting the same Composition Fallacy over and over, expecting different results. That sounds like a plan.

No, that would be you. It is YOU posting the fallacies. Learn some basic logic and stop posting terms you don't understand.

Going doesn't make the fallacy go away either, Dumbass.

I posed the question back at the beginning of this thread, asking for a link to any evidence of a political party "running a city" as the title avers.

I have yet to get that link.

And you know why?

Because there's no such thing.

No, you are playing a bullshit semantic game. You know it. And I know it. Stop behaving like a 9 year old. I already have one of those and based on experiences here she is far smarter than you.

 

[OnePercenter]

I saw this on thegunfeed.com...and followed the link.....of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world, 4 are in the United States....and all 4 of them have been run by democrats for decades....

World's 50 most violent cities revealed, and 21 of them are in Brazil

But the list doesn't just include Latin America, with U.S. cities St Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans also featuring.

The question is...Which came first, the abject poverty or the Democrats?

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over and after 50+ years of uninterrupted rule Detroit is collapsing, it is billions of dollars in debt (yes, a single city is billions of dollars in debt) and the people who can leave are doing so. It has lost 60% of its population since 1950. Progressives take other peoples money, give it to those who are not productive and when they run out of other peoples money they begin to eat their own. That is the phase they are in now.

If progressivism was so damned good Detroit should be a model of progress and culture. Instead it looks like this...

Nothing at all to do with Nixon allowing Japan to product dump cars in exchange for air bases in southern Japan, or the big three designing and engineering crap cars in the 70's and 80's. Detroit was a company town, when the company failed, so did the town.

Considering the Democrats had been in power for over two decades by then the answer is no. No matter how much you try and blame the repubs for everything the facts are these. In 1932 the wealthiest two percent of this country controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took control of both houses of Congress and ruled them with an iron fist for 40 continuous years. They also controlled the Presidency for a good portion of that reign as well. The net result after all of that control was the wealthiest 1 percent now control 90% of this nations wealth.

So, dumbass... who were the Democrats working for? Because it sure as hell doesn't look like they were working for the poor and middle class now does it.

You're being 100% deceitful. You're conveniently forgetting the ideological change between Democrats and Republicans in the 60's. Making my case; The best economy EVER for the middle class was 1956 due primarily to the Union supported Republicans. Stop being such a conservative blowhard.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The question is...Which came first, the abject poverty or the Democrats?

Dunno, but once you get the democrats, the abject poverty will never end...

 

[2aguy]

Except that Ds controlled Detroit before during and after it's demise. They certainly deserve some of the blame.

The actual party controlled it?

-- or people who happened to have a "D" after their name?

See the thread title. That's why we're here.

Still arguing over what the definition of "is" is? You are pissing up a rope dude. Democrats controlled the city for decades and due to their policies the city began to fall apart. It truly collapsed in the 1980's and 90's.

And STILL unable to get it off the ground.
Posting the same Composition Fallacy over and over, expecting different results. That sounds like a plan.

No, that would be you. It is YOU posting the fallacies. Learn some basic logic and stop posting terms you don't understand.

Going doesn't make the fallacy go away either, Dumbass.

I posed the question back at the beginning of this thread, asking for a link to any evidence of a political party "running a city" as the title avers.

I have yet to get that link.

And you know why?

Because there's no such thing.

Wrong.....democrat beliefs have run these cities into the ground.....they don't support the police, they spend and tax businesses out of the state because of their beliefs on taxes and their hate for businesses......you are wrong...

 

[OnePercenter]

I saw this on thegunfeed.com...and followed the link.....of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world, 4 are in the United States....and all 4 of them have been run by democrats for decades....

World's 50 most violent cities revealed, and 21 of them are in Brazil

But the list doesn't just include Latin America, with U.S. cities St Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans also featuring.

The question is...Which came first, the abject poverty or the Democrats?

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over and after 50+ years of uninterrupted rule Detroit is collapsing, it is billions of dollars in debt (yes, a single city is billions of dollars in debt) and the people who can leave are doing so. It has lost 60% of its population since 1950. Progressives take other peoples money, give it to those who are not productive and when they run out of other peoples money they begin to eat their own. That is the phase they are in now.

If progressivism was so damned good Detroit should be a model of progress and culture. Instead it looks like this...

Nothing at all to do with Nixon allowing Japan to product dump cars in exchange for air bases in southern Japan, or the big three designing and engineering crap cars in the 70's and 80's. Detroit was a company town, when the company failed, so did the town.

Total bull shit!!!

Detroit was failing much earlier than the 70s and 80s. White flight started in the late 50s and after it's disasterous riot of 1967, whites fled the city. By the mid 70s when the auto companies were producing shit, Detroit was already shit. The auto companies demise had little to do with it.

It's demise was about a lot of things mostly government incompetence...including rising crime, corrupt police department, shitty p-schools, bussing, racial problems, e-ways allowing easy access to suburbs with new homes, good schools, and no crime were whites moved to. HUD selling homes to blacks for $1 and city allowing them to fail to maintain the homes.

I know because I witnessed as it happened.

Los Angeles had the Watts riots, and today if you want a house in Watts it will set you back $250k.

When you have a Detroit, and one industry controls directly and indirectly 80% of the populations paychecks, and the industry fails, you have a Detroit.

 

[2aguy]

I saw this on thegunfeed.com...and followed the link.....of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world, 4 are in the United States....and all 4 of them have been run by democrats for decades....

World's 50 most violent cities revealed, and 21 of them are in Brazil

But the list doesn't just include Latin America, with U.S. cities St Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans also featuring.

The question is...Which came first, the abject poverty or the Democrats?

Detroit was a wealthy city then progressive Democrats took it over and after 50+ years of uninterrupted rule Detroit is collapsing, it is billions of dollars in debt (yes, a single city is billions of dollars in debt) and the people who can leave are doing so. It has lost 60% of its population since 1950. Progressives take other peoples money, give it to those who are not productive and when they run out of other peoples money they begin to eat their own. That is the phase they are in now.

If progressivism was so damned good Detroit should be a model of progress and culture. Instead it looks like this...

Nothing at all to do with Nixon allowing Japan to product dump cars in exchange for air bases in southern Japan, or the big three designing and engineering crap cars in the 70's and 80's. Detroit was a company town, when the company failed, so did the town.

Considering the Democrats had been in power for over two decades by then the answer is no. No matter how much you try and blame the repubs for everything the facts are these. In 1932 the wealthiest two percent of this country controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took control of both houses of Congress and ruled them with an iron fist for 40 continuous years. They also controlled the Presidency for a good portion of that reign as well. The net result after all of that control was the wealthiest 1 percent now control 90% of this nations wealth.

So, dumbass... who were the Democrats working for? Because it sure as hell doesn't look like they were working for the poor and middle class now does it.

You're being 100% deceitful. You're conveniently forgetting the ideological change between Democrats and Republicans in the 60's. Making my case; The best economy EVER for the middle class was 1956 due primarily to the Union supported Republicans. Stop being such a conservative blowhard.

No...the economy was great because the industrial base of the rest of the world was destroyed by World War 2.......