Dems seem to be awfully in touch with all the ‘damage’ Trump has caused in America.
I’ve been searching for threads/posts where these same Dems whom are so vocal and connected to America’s issues have discussed the root cause of the chaos, violence, hate and anarchy in Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland and the cities and states mentioned in the title.
I’ve yet to find anything so I ask; Dems, could it be Dem policy and Dem ideologies lying at the root of all the disorder and madness?
Chicago was never nice, at least not in living memory
NY is nicer than it's ever been because they pushed all the poorer* people out
Cops take the credit but that's not what it was....They just priced out most of the poor people in NYC proper
And there is just the general movement towards non violence for humanity no matter how poor you are. Violence rates been dropping for generations all over the planet.
Are you saying Dem ideology / policy does not manifest violence, civil disobedience, poverty, chaos and disarray?
I'm saying the real correlation is poverty
Would having a police state with surveillance camers, 1 cop for every 10 citizens, and no bill of rights decrease teh crime rate? Yea probably
Works for teh Japanese
But within what we would consider the limits of a free society? No
People are struggling crime rates go up, really impossible to disagregate that from police behavior. You can point to any success police claim to have (again without a massive surveillance state, they have crushed crime in a few cities by just making it impossible to shoot a gun without the state knowing immediately, Newark the most famous example)
Most of the time it's got nothing to do with the cops
"I'm saying the real correlation is poverty"
If true, why such low crime in predominantly white, likeminded, no multiculturalism Appalachia?
“There's not much violent crime here. There's a bit of the usual enterprise one finds everywhere there are drugs and poor people, which is to say, everywhere. But even the crime here is pretty well predictable. The police chief's assistant notes that if they know the nature and location of a particular crime, they can more or less drive straight to the perpetrator.
There's a great deal of drug use, welfare fraud, and the like,
but the overall crime rate throughout Appalachia is about two thirds the national average, and the rate of violent crime is half the national average.”
In Appalachia, jobs have vanished, and people live for pills, soda pop, and welfare
theweek.com
Ok urban is another, fair. But rural blacks commit way less crime too
My mothers from the country, you and i both know when you have one sheriff on duty int he fuckign county most crimes aren't getting recorded. I could greet the local sheriff with a beer in my hand driving around in illinois and he'd probably just nod at me. (can't drive with an open container in illinois by law)
Poor urban whites are not much better behaved than blacks. And with the meth epidemic god knows whites are using drugs at just a high a rate even in the middle of no where.
Black America is more urban that's their problem.
"Black America is more urban that's their problem."
Urban....you mean like Asians? What's the crime rate among urban Asians looking like these days?
Asians are a modern self selecting immigrant group
African immigrants don't have high crime rates either, they make money. Nigerian immigrants probably have a very similar crime rate to the Chinese, Indians, and Eastern Euros. All their other outcomes are pretty good. We just don't have a special "african immigrant" category in crime stats or "former soviet bloc immigrant"
Only exception to that i've ever heard of were Jamaicans who apparently assimilate native black crime rates very fast according to the data. Or that was true once anyway.
In 100 years we'll see what Asian crime rates are like...There have to be more native born asians than immigrants for that counter to start ticking tho. And at the rate Americans breed idk if it's even possible.
"Asians are a modern self selecting immigrant group."
You mean like the Somalis in Minneapolis?
7 Somali Men Killed over 10-month Period, and Cops Believe All were Killed by Fellow Somalis
www.cbsnews.com
they are refugees, the opposite lol
everything about their coming to america was subsidized
if you didn't help them get across and we let them in, yea then they're self selecting. If you can't get here on your own legally. You're not a self selecting immigrant...
The problem with guys like you who wanna talk about immigration is you know nothing about immigration policy or immigrants. If you want a solid "nativist" view of immigrants go to Mark Krikorian, the pre eminent thinker on the right on immigration. At least in academic circles. Center for Immigration Studies. The man goes by teh data.
First rule of nationalism is more people is better in the long term, always, so in that lens you want to maximize immigration (and birth rate).
Anyone not starting from there doesn't know what's best for their nation. Especially in 2020 when some nations are about to have inverted age pyramids.
Refugges are charity and is not in the same vein as most legal modern American immigrants.
"they are refugees, the opposite lol"
Damn, you have a lot of caveats to add to your championing of "immigrants".
"The problem with guys like you who wanna talk about immigration is you know nothing about immigration policy or immigrants."
I know that Democrats fight for immigration policy that benefits immigrants and ***** over Americans.
I know that not one of you pro immigration globalists have been able to show core Americans any comprehensive data that proves core Americans benefit from the presence of dark immigrants.
"First rule of nationalism is more people is better in the long term, always, so in that lens you want to maximize immigration (and birth rate)."
Weird, that's such a simple formula, why doesn't every nation know they'd be better with millions of dark immigrants? Good luck selling that crazy ass THEORY.
"First rule of nationalism is more people is better in the long term, always, so in that lens you want to maximize immigration (and birth rate)."
Should businesses follow the same theory?
Should they always be hiring, adding anyone with a pulse to their payroll? You know, since quantity and not quality is what matters.
Shouldn't businesses be selective with whom they hire? Shouldn't they think about about communication and cultural barriers among employees? Don't you think businesses should think about whether or not there is opportunity for more employees, shouldn't they consider product / service demand, revenue and scalability?
You have come across as seemingly intelligent at times in the past...What happened, did you catch a case of FEELZ?
