Skyrocketing Chicago crime has small businesses, corporations pack their bags: 'Enough is enough'

[ElChupacabra]

Post 42 is ignored just like the OP content, keep diverting and showing just how partisan and biased members of the left are

Nope, it's not ignored. What's happened is others have brought in that "context" you always claim is missing, but it's clear you only care about it when you need to make excuses. If your interest was discussing crime in cities, partisan nonsense wouldn't be included but since that's the framing of just about everything you post, you get called out on it.

 

[HenryChinaski]

39 of the top 50 cities in this country in population are run by Democrats including the cities that gave Biden the popular vote win, LA, S.D. SF, NYC and Chicago

What goes over your head is that voting for the same ideology over and over again expecting different results is what Einstein calls insanity. Ally that to the top 39 cities run by Democrats and tell me the last time they had a GOP mayor or city council?

Interesting, When I drive through through Harlan and Martin County Kentucky, I see nothing but poverty, Extremely high unemployment, no job opportunities. People supplementing their incomes selling Oxys. Same with places like Boone County West Virginia, Impoverished shitholes lacking infrastructure and resources filled with destitute disenfranchised people who keep voting Republican. At least cities have opportunities, careers, upward mobility. Red America at this time offers nothing but poisoned water from coal factory run off and meth labs.

 

[Conservative]

The results you want to focus on selectively though, since you start whinging when crime stats of all cities come into play and reveal the flaw in your one sided argument. The only one bringing rhetoric here is you.

Right there is no place for results on personal finances, poverty, cost of living, state and local taxes, quality of life but certainly rhetoric is always much more important as it creates a diversion from the issues that really are important. Why would anyone want this country to be like your state, California, NY? You cannot bring the mountains, beaches and weather from California, but you can bring the social disasters that are happening there, your state and NYC in particular. Crime stats using per capita and the red state blue state argument is bogus as I have pointed out as there are highly populated blue cities in Red states and those cities are run by Democrat Mayors. You cannot seem to grasp that reality and the impact those cities have on stats for the state

 

[coyote505]

I was born, grew up and live on the North side. I remember when Uptown was a ghetto and crawling with hillbillies and Latin Kings in the 70s. The North side disgusts me as gentrification has taken hold and now resembles the suburbs with corporate chains popping up every day. This town has always been on the take since it’s founding in 1833. It was no better in the 20s when Republicans ran the show. Was actually worse because when Big Bill Thomson was mayor, he had the mob show up at the polls making sure people voted “the right way” Democratic judges homes were dynamited, good times.
This town is like a battered wife, but I love her.

Sorry to beat up on her, dude. But she is the only big, infamous city with which I am intimately familiar. That way I don't need to rely on Fox, which everyone of the Left thinks everyone on the Right does. And actually, if you watch the news, you can get plenty from Manhattan Media to support the arguments of the Right.

She would have so much potential, if her politicians were all tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

 

[Conservative]

Sorry to beat up on her, dude. But she is the only big, infamous city with which I am intimately familiar. That way I don't need to rely on Fox, which everyone of the Left thinks everyone on the Right does. And actually, if you watch the news, you can get plenty from Manhattan Media to support the arguments of the Right.

She would have so much potential, if her politicians were all tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

The Northside of Chicago includes the Miracle Mile which doesn't even come close to representing the problems in Chicago, it just creates secure individual oblivious to what is going on around the city. Many of these are what some would call "cradle democrats" supporting the D regardless of results

 

[americanwoman]

What a coincidence I turned on Fox a little while ago at lunchtime and they were discussing how Democrat cities are all running amok with crime mainly Chicago. It's the gift that keeps on giving for their viewers.

 

[Conservative]

What a coincidence I turned on Fox a little while ago at lunchtime and they were discussing how Democrat cities are all running amok with crime mainly Chicago. It's the gift that keeps on giving for their viewers.

Not to the people who live there, how typical arrogant response attack the messenger and ignore the message

 

[americanwoman]

Not to the people who live there, how typical arrogant response attack the messenger and ignore the message

I know people who live in Chicago and they seem to like it just fine. I also like it when I visit too.

 

[Conservative]

I know people who live in Chicago and they seem to like it just fine. I also like it when I visit too.

So do I and spent days in Chicago, those living on the Northside close to the Miracle Mile are safe and secure with no clue or concern what is happening basically on the southside. Always loved Chicago until it was radicalized by the Democrat party and ideology

 

[HenryChinaski]

So do I and spent days in Chicago, those living on the Northside close to the Miracle Mile are safe and secure with no clue or concern what is happening basically on the southside. Always loved Chicago until it was radicalized by the Democrat party and ideology

You must be really old, Democrats have ran Chicago since 1932.

 

[Conservative]

You must be really old, Democrats have ran Chicago since 1932.

Yep, really am old enough but remember when there weren't shootings every weekend and murders setting records. was employed in 1970 at South Riverside Plaza downtown, spent days there in our Region office, and days in Naperville a great suburb but never experienced what I am seeing in Chicago condoned by people like you who support the same ideology over and over again expecting better results.

 

[americanwoman]

So do I and spent days in Chicago, those living on the Northside close to the Miracle Mile are safe and secure with no clue or concern what is happening basically on the southside. Always loved Chicago until it was radicalized by the Democrat party and ideology

2.699 million people live in Chicago. Must not be too bad.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Yep, really am old enough but remember when there weren't shootings every weekend and murders setting records. was employed in 1970 at South Riverside Plaza downtown, spent days there in our Region office, and days in Naperville a great suburb but never experienced what I am seeing in Chicago condoned by people like you who support the same ideology over and over again expecting better results.

Naperville is a shithole that I wouldn't visit if I were paid. 1970 Chicago? My family had property at the corner of Southport and Addison then. It was crime ridden and gang infested. Today it's multi million dollar condos and brownstones and has the character and culture of Naperville. It was better in 1970.

 

[noonereal]

Guns guns guns. Never killed anyone. It’s the finger on the trigger that kills. A gun is but a tool. Can’t act on its own.

A tool make for the purpose of slaughter.

No place in a civilized society for such a "tool."

 

[Mina]

Ok, what benefit does high GDP have on liberal ideology of helping the poor?

High GDP doesn't necessarily help the poor. Take the disastrous Reagan/Bush era, for example. Real GDP per capita was far higher in 1992 than it had been in 1980, yet poverty had actually RISEN substantially in that time. By comparison, during the Obama presidency, real GDP per capita didn't rise as much, in percentage terms, but poverty rates actually fell.

So, it's not enough to have the engine of big cities creating higher GDP. That doesn't AUTOMATICALLY help the poor. You need the right kind of leadership to make sure that extra production actually buys widespread prosperity growth, rather than just getting horded by the wealthy.

Historically, we have a pretty good idea what works and what doesn't, on that front. For example, since the Census started tracking poverty rates, there's been a net INCREASE of such rates under Republican presidents, and a gigantic net DECREASE under Democratic presidents. Basically, if leadership at the top sits back and waits for the laissez faire market to decide where all that added wealth goes, it'll all go to the rich, and then some, leaving the poor worse off. But with more active and competent leadership at the top, the system can be tweaked so that a substantial portion of the added production shows up as broad-based prosperity, even for people at the bottom.

....a blue state, leads the nation in poverty....

You could say that a blue state leads in poverty in the same sense that a blue state leads in terms of people with blue eyes, or the name "Michael," or people born on a Tuesday, or with an undergraduate degree, etc. Since California is by far the biggest state, it tends to lead in a lot, good, bad, and indifferent, if we measure by raw count. It has more rich, more poor, and more middle class, as well. But if we measure in per capita terms, that tells us a lot more.

In those terms, the states that lead the nation in poverty are MS, LA, NM, WV, KY, AR, AL, OK, TN, and MI. As you might have predicted, that's dominated by conservative states. The bottom ten poverty rates are nine blue states plus Utah.

 

[The flaming lib]

A tool make for the purpose of slaughter.

No place in a civilized society for such a "tool."

The places where the majority of the killing happen ain’t civilized.

 

[Mina]

what do those facts have to do with the context and content of the OP?

They call attention to the silliness of the way the right consistently focuses their discussion of crime on Chicago, rather than one of the cities that has a much bigger problem.

Why is it blue cities all over the nation, Post 42 run by Democrat Mayors have such poor crime statistics.

Why is it that cities all over the nation that are sitting on navigable bodies of water have poor crime statistics? The answer to that question is that the large majority of big cities are built on navigable bodies of water. So, the best cities and the worst and everything in between will tend to be sitting on such bodies of water.

It's similar with Democratic mayors. The large majority of large cities in the US are run by Democratic mayors. So, the best cities and the worst and everything in between will tend to be run by such people.

I'm sure you'd get that immediately if someone tried to point out that the best big cities tend to be run by Democrats. The lowest murder rates for any large MSA's are for Albany, Raleigh, Boston, Worcester, and Grand Rapids. They ALL have Democratic mayors. Some have had Democratic mayors for a very, very long time. Boston's had nothing but Democratic mayors for 92 straight years! Is Boston such a very low-crime, high-productivity, high-livability city because it has Democratic mayors? Or is it just that nearly all big cities, whether good or bad, have Democratic mayors?

So more blacks in blue cities impact the crime stats?

You misunderstood. Try rereading. Good luck.

Amazing response to the OP and total ignorance of data.

As you can see, my data is all correct. I get that the facts hurt your feelings, but that doesn't magically convert knowledge of that data into "ignorance."

 

[Conservative]

2.699 million people live in Chicago. Must not be too bad.

And almost 30 MILLION Live in TX, a place the left calls a hell hole so by your standards TX must not be that bad as people keep moving here

 

[americanwoman]

And almost 30 MILLION Live in TX, a place the left calls a hell hole so by your standards TX must not be that bad as people keep moving here

I don't think Texas is bad either.

 

[Conservative]

They call attention to the silliness of the way the right consistently focuses their discussion of crime on Chicago, rather than one of the cities that has a much bigger problem.

What do you try to defend the indefensible, doesn't the murder rate in Chicago bother you? What is it about liberalism that creates your kind of loyalty, call it like it really is a social disaster

Why is it that cities all over the nation that are sitting on navigable bodies of water have poor crime statistics? The answer to that question is that the large majority of big cities are built on navigable bodies of water. So, the best cities and the worst and everything in between will tend to be sitting on such bodies of water.

Why can't you accept the fact that liberalism is a fraud and creates dependent along with poor social results? What you want to ignore is the fact that the beauty of a city cannot be transferred to other areas of the country so tell me why you want the Country to be like Chicago or LA, or SF?

It's similar with Democratic mayors. The large majority of large cities in the US are run by Democratic mayors. So, the best cities and the worst and everything in between will tend to be run by such people.

OMG, again answer the question, why so loyal to the D? What did Einstein say about supporting the same ideology over and over again expecting different results? What in this OP is false?

I'm sure you'd get that immediately if someone tried to point out that the best big cities tend to be run by Democrats. The lowest murder rates for any large MSA's are for Albany, Raleigh, Boston, Worcester, and Grand Rapids. They ALL have Democratic mayors. Some have had Democratic mayors for a very, very long time. Boston's had nothing but Democratic mayors for 92 straight years! Is Boston such a very low-crime, high-productivity, high-livability city because it has Democratic mayors? Or is it just that nearly all big cities, whether good or bad, have Democratic mayors?

Look reality is Biden won the popular vote by winning Chicago, NYC, LA, SF and San Diego, that is reality. It really doesn't matter what happens in Boston as that has nothing to do with Chicago or LA or NYC. I was a staunch Democrat like you for years and know there are still some good Democrats just not in those major cities and those cities are run by Democrats and have been for decades

You misunderstood. Try rereading. Good luck.

You brought up race, why?

As you can see, my data is all correct. I get that the facts hurt your feelings, but that doesn't magically convert knowledge of that data into "ignorance."

Your data may be correct but what does that have to do with the OP, my response was to another poster who wants to compare red states vs blue states ignoring that Red states have blue cities

 

[Conservative]

I don't think Texas is bad either.

Good for you, but pay attention to what other posters are saying in defense of blue city and state results.

 

[Conservative]

High GDP doesn't necessarily help the poor. Take the disastrous Reagan/Bush era, for example. Real GDP per capita was far higher in 1992 than it had been in 1980, yet poverty had actually RISEN substantially in that time. By comparison, during the Obama presidency, real GDP per capita didn't rise as much, in percentage terms, but poverty rates actually fell.

See there you go again distorting Reagan and Bush results, I posted results of almost 17 million NEW jobs created under Reagan, why do you hate Republicans so much?

So, it's not enough to have the engine of big cities creating higher GDP. That doesn't AUTOMATICALLY help the poor. You need the right kind of leadership to make sure that extra production actually buys widespread prosperity growth, rather than just getting horded by the wealthy.

Historically, we have a pretty good idea what works and what doesn't, on that front. For example, since the Census started tracking poverty rates, there's been a net INCREASE of such rates under Republican presidents, and a gigantic net DECREASE under Democratic presidents. Basically, if leadership at the top sits back and waits for the laissez faire market to decide where all that added wealth goes, it'll all go to the rich, and then some, leaving the poor worse off. But with more active and competent leadership at the top, the system can be tweaked so that a substantial portion of the added production shows up as broad-based prosperity, even for people at the bottom.



You could say that a blue state leads in poverty in the same sense that a blue state leads in terms of people with blue eyes, or the name "Michael," or people born on a Tuesday, or with an undergraduate degree, etc. Since California is by far the biggest state, it tends to lead in a lot, good, bad, and indifferent, if we measure by raw count. It has more rich, more poor, and more middle class, as well. But if we measure in per capita terms, that tells us a lot more.

In those terms, the states that lead the nation in poverty are MS, LA, NM, WV, KY, AR, AL, OK, TN, and MI. As you might have predicted, that's dominated by conservative states. The bottom ten poverty rates are nine blue states plus Utah.

Leading the nation in poverty doesn't mean they are leading the nation in quality of life or cost of living. You keep wanting to make this a Red vs Blue or Democrat vs Republican, why? Can you tell me what policies have Democrats implemented that promote your own individual wealth creation? Why do you support the D so strongly and why are you in the 34% today that support Biden economic results? Link to those poll numbers posted earlier in this thread

Back to the thread topic, what in that topic is false? Is the messenger lying?

 

[Mina]

.... doesn't the murder rate in Chicago bother you? ....

Yes... it bothers me around one quarter as much as the murder rate in St. Louis does. But that's because my sentiment is proportional to the severity of the problem, not proportional to the amount of time Fox News spends fearmongering about it.

Why can't you accept the fact that liberalism is a fraud and creates dependent along with poor social results?

I'm a practical person, so I look to results. The results tell us the states with the worst problems tend to be conservative states. They also tell us that the eras when things get better tend to be liberal-led eras. And they tell us the highest-quality-of-life countries tend to be liberal societies. So, with the REAL WORLD data suggesting that liberalism is effective and creates superior social results, why would I instead embrace the consistent failure of conservatism?

What you want to ignore is the fact that the beauty of a city cannot be transferred to other areas of the country so tell me why you want the Country to be like Chicago or LA, or SF?

I don't want all areas to be like them. However, I see big cities as part of a vibrant and successful country.... and among the big cities, the ones I'd most likely to see emulated tend to be liberal cities in liberal regions, such as NYC, SF, Seattle, Boston, and Providence.

OMG, again answer the question, why so loyal to the D?

I have no loyalty to the D. My loyalty is to the truth.

Look reality is Biden won the popular vote by winning Chicago, NYC, LA, SF and San Diego, that is reality.

No. He won the popular vote by winning a whole lot of votes right across the country. That includes, for example, winning every single county in Massachusetts and Hawaii. He was just a lot more popular than Trump, overall. Chicago, NYC, LA, SF, and SD, together, don't have enough population to make up a majority of voters, much less to hand Biden the electoral college.

It really doesn't matter what happens in Boston as that has nothing to do with Chicago or LA or NYC

It matters a great deal. If we want to figure out how to have safe and livable cities in this countyr, we need to study the best of our big cities (like Boston) along with the worst (like St. Louis, New Orleans, Memphis, Kansas City, et.c)

I was a staunch Democrat like you....

I'm not a Democrat and never have been. I'm simply someone who believes political views should be based on real-world facts, not Fox News spin.

You brought up race, why?

Because race is the Rosetta Stone for understanding right-wing politics in this country. If you aren't aware of race, their attitudes can be baffling -- like why did they hate Obama, who led the country to across-the-board improvement, while loving Trump, who led us into one of the biggest catastrophes in American history? Race also explains a great deal about why they're much more worried about the perils of living in Chicago (life expectancy in 2019: 77.3 years) than the perils of living in West Virginia or Kentucky (the same year, their life expectancies were 74.5 and 75.5, respectively). It's not really about the overall risk level, for them. It's about those scary Black folks.

Your data may be correct but what does that have to do with the OP, my response was to another poster who wants to compare red states vs blue states ignoring that Red states have blue cities

I don't think that needs to be ignored. It just needs to be acknowledge that by that definition, pretty much all big cities are blue cities. Some of them -- particularly those in liberal areas-- thrive. Some --particularly those in conservative areas-- are in rough shape.

 

[Conservative]

Yes... it bothers me around one quarter as much as the murder rate in St. Louis does. But that's because my sentiment is proportional to the severity of the problem, not proportional to the amount of time Fox News spends fearmongering about it.

Apparently not enough to respond to the messenger in this OP

I'm a practical person, so I look to results. The results tell us the states with the worst problems tend to be conservative states. They also tell us that the eras when things get better tend to be liberal-led eras. And they tell us the highest-quality-of-life countries tend to be liberal societies. So, with the REAL WORLD data suggesting that liberalism is effective and creates superior social results, why would I instead embrace the consistent failure of conservatism?

Worst problem by whose standards, yours? Do you understand the difference between poverty and cost of living? What superior social results are in California, NY, and Chicago

I don't want all areas to be like them. However, I see big cities as part of a vibrant and successful country.... and among the big cities, the ones I'd most likely to see emulated tend to be liberal cities in liberal regions, such as NYC, SF, Seattle, Boston, and Providence.

What you see is your own personal opinion not backed up by data. If you don't live in a big city what credibility do you have?

I have no loyalty to the D. My loyalty is to the truth.

Then that is contrary to the D of today, where is the truth in the Democrat party in talking about results?

No. He won the popular vote by winning a whole lot of votes right across the country. That includes, for example, winning every single county in Massachusetts and Hawaii. He was just a lot more popular than Trump, overall. Chicago, NYC, LA, SF, and SD, together, don't have enough population to make up a majority of voters, much less to hand Biden the electoral college.

Sorry but that just isn't true, he lost California by over 5 million votes and NY by 2.5 million, then add in Chicago, the vote was 81 million to 74 million, where did that 7 million vote win come from?

It matters a great deal. If we want to figure out how to have safe and livable cities in this countyr, we need to study the best of our big cities (like Boston) along with the worst (like St. Louis, New Orleans, Memphis, Kansas City, et.c)

You are free to move to any city you want, the question remains what does Boston have to do with the OP? You are responding to a post that I was required to make to another liberal poster, this OP is about the disaster in Chicago, you want to address that without making it partisan liberal bs?

 

[Conservative]

I'm not a Democrat and never have been. I'm simply someone who believes political views should be based on real-world facts, not Fox News spin.

What world facts? what is a source that you believe is credible and then apply that source to the last election. If results matter then Trump would be President, at least results that most people believe matter, economic

Because race is the Rosetta Stone for understanding right-wing politics in this country. If you aren't aware of race, their attitudes can be baffling -- like why did they hate Obama, who led the country to across-the-board improvement, while loving Trump, who led us into one of the biggest catastrophes in American history? Race also explains a great deal about why they're much more worried about the perils of living in Chicago (life expectancy in 2019: 77.3 years) than the perils of living in West Virginia or Kentucky (the same year, their life expectancies were 74.5 and 75.5, respectively). It's not really about the overall risk level, for them. It's about those scary Black folks.

I see no evidence that have any clue about right wing or conservative policies as everything to you is rhetoric and personality based. I have NEVER hated any President, it is their policies that I hated so why don't you tell us exactly why Biden has a 38% job approval rating and 34% approval rating on the economy, Fox News?? Have no idea what is wrong with people on the left who attack a persons personality, rhetoric and ignore the policies and results. Claiming that Trump led us into the biggest catastrophes in history is a statement by an indoctrinated liberal who is not only civics challenged but easily swayed by liberal rhetoric, Can you tell me exactly what Trump had the authority to do to prevent that catastrophe while you ignore where the true responsibility rests, with the individual first, then the mayor and governor. Trump did his job got is a vaccine and approval to reimburse states for all their Covid expenses. Try taking a civics course before buying the liberal rhetoric