• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Demand for Safe Rooms Skyrockets in Los Angeles

I didn't write the news articles. You'll have to query the media outlets why they're writing about local stories.

I'm asking you, what is your point? If you're making a claim that crime has gone up in L.A. so much that the wealthy are paying to have safe/panic. rooms installed, what is your point? Indicative of crime going up in large cities? Only the rich can afford protection? It's your post and your words. Please clarify.
 
I'm surprised to see righties go after LA. Usually they prefer their trifecta of San Fran, Chicago, and Portland. But LA is not far down their hate list.

Yup. L.A. is right up there on their list. Portland only came on because of the demonstrations, which is temporary. Rep/cons make a big deal out of violent crime in large cities. However, the increase in 2021 compared to the avg of 2010 - 2020 is lower in large cities than all cities combined.
 
I'm asking you, what is your point?

My point is to post interesting news articles and discuss them.

If you're making a claim that crime has gone up in L.A. so much that the wealthy are paying to have safe/panic. rooms installed, what is your point?

My claim? The article claims that demand for pricey panic rooms is booming amid an increase in crime.

Didn't you read the article? I also linked recent, local news articles describing the increase in crime and residents responses.

Is there something in the 3 article from the OP you don't understand?

Indicative of crime going up in large cities?

Looks like it.
Only the rich can afford protection?

Isn't that normally the case?
It's your post and your words.

here are my words from the OP: "Stay safe L.A.! You get what you vote for!"
Please clarify.

Okay, here goes....

"Stay safe L.A.! You get what you vote for!"
 
Yup. L.A. is right up there on their list. Portland only came on because of the demonstrations, which is temporary.

Two years is hardly "temporary".

Rep/cons make a big deal out of violent crime in large cities. However, the increase in 2021 compared to the avg of 2010 - 2020 is lower in large cities than all cities combined.

The left love to dilute and spread out the sludge.

This local Portland article describes the exodus of businesses from downtown - Old Town resident raises safety concerns over crime, homelessness - you should listen to the residents and business owners.

This article focuses on the wider problem - As crimes rise, battles rage on about police funding
 
Two years is hardly "temporary".



The left love to dilute and spread out the sludge.

This local Portland article describes the exodus of businesses from downtown - Old Town resident raises safety concerns over crime, homelessness - you should listen to the residents and business owners.

This article focuses on the wider problem - As crimes rise, battles rage on about police funding

C'mon, I've already got Portland crossed off on my Bingo card. Can't you give us another city?
 
Crime is related to poverty, so right winger can shut up about it, since they don't want o do anything about it but give billionaires tax rates. They don't want universal healthcare, livable wages. people are pissed, the wealthy are disgustingly rich and teh right worships these scumbags. They are lucky their heads don't end up in guillotines, figuratively, for their ruining this country wiht their greed.

This is what happens when people are poor and desperate, they have to turn to crime to get by. Working full time and you can't even afford housing or food, while the rich snatch up property as investments, keep demand up and continue to drive housing prices up, while they don't pay people livable wages. The result is going to be more crime when people get desperate.

But republicans dont' want to do anything to address is, just more police, tougher on crime nonsense. No mental health funding, no drug rehabilitation, no min wage increases, nothing to pressure companies to pay more, no funding for infrastructure or housing, so they can STFU about crime
 
Two years is hardly "temporary".



The left love to dilute and spread out the sludge.

This local Portland article describes the exodus of businesses from downtown - Old Town resident raises safety concerns over crime, homelessness - you should listen to the residents and business owners.

This article focuses on the wider problem - As crimes rise, battles rage on about police funding

Compared to the many yrs that make an established trend, yes, 2 yrs is temporary.

What you call "sludge" are facts that support what I say but you can't refute because you avoid genuine debate.

One city does not a nation make.

What is your point on your wider problem link? Is it just for discussion, as you said in your other post? Do you agree with any and all recommendation in the article? Or do you just want to know other people's opinions, but won't give your own?
 
My point is to post interesting news articles and discuss them.



My claim? The article claims that demand for pricey panic rooms is booming amid an increase in crime.

Didn't you read the article? I also linked recent, local news articles describing the increase in crime and residents responses.

Is there something in the 3 article from the OP you don't understand?



Looks like it.


Isn't that normally the case?


here are my words from the OP: "Stay safe L.A.! You get what you vote for!"


Okay, here goes....

"Stay safe L.A.! You get what you vote for!"

You say you post what you do for discussion, then avoid discussion. Got it.
 
Compared to the many yrs that make an established trend, yes, 2 yrs is temporary.

This is you making an assertion.
What you call "sludge" are facts that support what I say

You haven't stated any facts; just assertions, POV, your opinion, in an attempt to water down what's happening in major cities and pretending it's normal or not a concern. Obviously, to the people building safe rooms, it's a major concern; one that's worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
but you can't refute because you avoid genuine debate.

Refute your assertions? Rich people are buying and installing safe rooms. Do you believe these folks feel unsafe for some reason? Do you believe that reason could be because personal, property, and violent crimes are on the rise?
One city does not a nation make.
Name one Democrat run city that is tough on crime and can demonstrate their rank among the lowest crime rates when compared nationally.
What is your point on your wider problem link?
That there is a wider problem among Democrat run cities? See post #32
Is it just for discussion, as you said in your other post?
Isn't that what this is? Maybe you just don't like the discussion.
Do you agree with any and all recommendation in the article?
I agree with prosecuting crime and holding criminals accountable. The fact that a revolving door exists for criminals to essentially walk free hours after committing robberies, thefts, shoplifting, assaults, etc has emboldened them to not care about the consequences of their actions and to continue committing personal and property crimes.
Or do you just want to know other people's opinions, but won't give your own?
Weird, considering my opinions appear throughout this thread. I just think you're upset that your opinion doesn't really matter to others.
 
This is you making an assertion.


You haven't stated any facts; just assertions, POV, your opinion, in an attempt to water down what's happening in major cities and pretending it's normal or not a concern. Obviously, to the people building safe rooms, it's a major concern; one that's worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Refute your assertions? Rich people are buying and installing safe rooms. Do you believe these folks feel unsafe for some reason? Do you believe that reason could be because personal, property, and violent crimes are on the rise?

Name one Democrat run city that is tough on crime and can demonstrate their rank among the lowest crime rates when compared nationally.

That there is a wider problem among Democrat run cities? See post #32

Isn't that what this is? Maybe you just don't like the discussion.

I agree with prosecuting crime and holding criminals accountable. The fact that a revolving door exists for criminals to essentially walk free hours after committing robberies, thefts, shoplifting, assaults, etc has emboldened them to not care about the consequences of their actions and to continue committing personal and property crimes.

Weird, considering my opinions appear throughout this thread. I just think you're upset that your opinion doesn't really matter to others.

Of course, it’s an assertion. Most of what is debated in this forum are assertion, opinion and claim. My assertion is based on fact. What can you say in refute that is supported by fact? Without that, you make a baseless and pointless assertion.

Safe rooms are not worth “hundreds of thousands” of dollars to people that do without them. That you believe them “worth” it is your POV unsupported by data. How quickly can a home invader get into the house vs how long you can collect your family into a “safe” room?

Rather than come up with facts to counter what I said, you just ask questions. Instead, you make assertion unsupported by evidence. If you can’t provide significant proof of what you imply in your questions, my claim stands unrefuted.

What is your definition of “tough on crime”?

Again, you’ve not answered my questions and instead go off on a tangent of a maybe, being your avoiding the facts.

Your revolving door argument is your own unsupported POV.

Opinions without supporting facts of evidence are dismissed without the need for further debate. You won’t make, hardly, outright claims supported by evidence of fact. If you can't engage in forthright debate, this debate is not worth continuing.
 
Why cherry pick just L.A.? One single city is not significant. What about all cities that get what they vote for? Are you talking violent crime or all crime? What about all large cities compared to all cities?
Lol. The second largest city in America with global cultural influece and massive media coverage does not get “cherry picked”
 
Why cherry pick just L.A.?

Because it’s the thread topic works for me.

One single city is not significant. What about all cities that get what they vote for?

All cities don’t vote for the same (foolish?) representatives.

Are you talking violent crime or all crime?

Which would you rather not be safe from?

What about all large cities compared to all cities?

What about all the starving pygmies in New Guinea? ;)
 
,Lol. The second largest city in America with global cultural influece and massive media coverage does not get “cherry picked”

In the context of statistical significance, being 1.2% of the US pop, choosing as if it's significant just L.A., is cherry-picking.
 
In the context of statistical significance, being 1.2% of the US pop, choosing as if it's significant just L.A., is cherry-picking.
In the context of knowing you have an indefensible position, it is amazing that this is the best argument you can come up with.
 
Because it’s the thread topic works for me.



All cities don’t vote for the same (foolish?) representatives.



Which would you rather not be safe from?



What about all the starving pygmies in New Guinea? ;)

And I'm saying the topic is cherry-picking because it does not necessarily represent the country statistically.

Nationwide, reps are reelected more often than not. Again, you're ignoring statistical significance.

Why won't you answer my question? There's no sense in continuing debate if you go coy.

Another question you refuse to answer directly. You're avoiding honest, straightforward debate. See you on another thread.
 
In the context of knowing you have an indefensible position, it is amazing that this is the best argument you can come up with.

You honestly think your examples are statistically significant to support what you say? Even regardless of how selectively self-serving they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom