• 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!

Why doesn't Trump send troops to the cities with the highest crime rates?

WisconIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2023
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
2,747
Gender
Male
I was just reading that of the top 25 cities with the highest crime rates, 13 are in Red states. Of the top 40 cities with the highest crime rates, Washington D.C, is the 40th, not the top. So, why is Trump sending Troops to the 40th most dangerous place instead of the others that certainly have higher crime rates. He keeps telling us that it is because it is so dangerous, but what about all of the cities that are much less safe. Try and tell me this is not about two things, showing his desire for autocratic rule and to take attention away from the Epstein problem.
 
I was just reading that of the top 25 cities with the highest crime rates, 13 are in Red states. Of the top 40 cities with the highest crime rates, Washington D.C, is the 40th, not the top. So, why is Trump sending Troops to the 40th most dangerous place instead of the others that certainly have higher crime rates. He keeps telling us that it is because it is so dangerous, but what about all of the cities that are much less safe. Try and tell me this is not about two things, showing his desire for autocratic rule and to take attention away from the Epstein problem.
1755376021973.webp
 
after that guy in Montana shot a bunch of people in a bar, or that target shooting in Austin, I was sure he was going to send in the troops
 
I was just reading that of the top 25 cities with the highest crime rates, 13 are in Red states. Of the top 40 cities with the highest crime rates, Washington D.C, is the 40th, not the top. So, why is Trump sending Troops to the 40th most dangerous place instead of the others that certainly have higher crime rates. He keeps telling us that it is because it is so dangerous, but what about all of the cities that are much less safe. Try and tell me this is not about two things, showing his desire for autocratic rule and to take attention away from the Epstein problem.
You do not see anything unique about DC?
 
The dictator surrounds themselves with an army because that's where the revolution targets.
 
You do not see anything unique about DC?

Nothing that requires emergency measures like bringing in federal troops. I’ve been there recently. It’s a very fun place! This is all just a show.
 
Nope, it is yes, our capital city, but it is just another city with a much lower crime rate than many other cities,
Every other city has a governor. DC has the president. Crime stats are self reported with incentives to fudge though DC is not unique in that. DC will ultimately be a model for the rest. It need not start as the worst.
The next option would be to make all but the capitol, white house, mall and memorials part of Maryland. Based on the plight of Baltimore not a good one.
 
Every other city has a governor. DC has the president. Crime stats are self reported with incentives to fudge though DC is not unique in that. DC will ultimately be a model for the rest. It need not start as the worst.
The next option would be to make all but the capitol, white house, mall and memorials part of Maryland. Based on the plight of Baltimore not a good one.

The way to improve DC and Baltimore is through better investment in education and infrastructure. Not sending in tanks.
 
Last edited:
The way to improve DC and Baltimore is through better investment in education and infrastructure. Not sending in tanks.
That would require better "investors". Current city leadership is producing poor ROI.

There are fine schools in both DC and Baltimore unavailable to many trapped in public schools. School choice with vouchers would give some a chance to excape. If you polled parents in either city, 70 + support for school choice. A different topic though.
 
The way to improve DC and Baltimore is through better investment in education and infrastructure. Not sending in tanks.

Quit making more shitbags is a good idea, but in the meanwhile you do have to get rid of the existing shitbags. I'm not in favor of that being accomplished with the military.
 
That would require better "investors". Current city leadership is producing poor ROI.

There are fine schools in both DC and Baltimore unavailable to many trapped in public schools. School choice with vouchers would give some a chance to excape. If you polled parents in either city, 70 + support for school choice. A different topic though.
That sounds good in theory. It makes sense. But some hypotheses that make sense sometimes just don't work out in practice.
The research, observations, and experience on voucher programs—while often discussed—doesn't actually show they outperform well-funded public schools.

In fact, numerous rigorous studies—including lottery-based experiments and evaluations in places like Washington, D.C., New York, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio—found no overall test-score improvements from vouchers; in many cases, scores actually declined for students who transferred from public to private schools.

For example, in Louisiana and Indiana, voucher students performed noticeably worse in math and reading compared to peers who stayed in public schools.

Stanford’s Martin Carnoy also concluded that evidence for academic gains from vouchers is very weak, and that they often distract policymakers from investing in proven public-school strategies—like better teacher training, early childhood programs, or after-school support—which yield much higher returns .

Meanwhile, while voucher programs occasionally show modest gains in high school graduation or college enrollment, those effects are small—and researchers warn those might reflect school selection biases or other confounding factors, not true learning improvements.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...chool-voucher-studies/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Put simply, vouchers don't seem to deliver better academic outcomes—and sometimes even make things worse. By contrast, investing in public schools has a much stronger evidence base supporting real, equitable gains in student achievement.
 
Quit making more shitbags is a good idea, but in the meanwhile you do have to get rid of the existing shitbags. I'm not in favor of that being accomplished with the military.

Not sure what this means. What are "shitbags", and how do you make them?
 
I was just reading that of the top 25 cities with the highest crime rates, 13 are in Red states. Of the top 40 cities with the highest crime rates, Washington D.C, is the 40th, not the top. So, why is Trump sending Troops to the 40th most dangerous place instead of the others that certainly have higher crime rates. He keeps telling us that it is because it is so dangerous, but what about all of the cities that are much less safe. Try and tell me this is not about two things, showing his desire for autocratic rule and to take attention away from the Epstein problem.

I don't think he can send in the national guard to anywhere besides DC unless he can show there is an emergency.
 
That sounds good in theory. It makes sense. But some hypotheses that make sense sometimes just don't work out in practice.
The research, observations, and experience on voucher programs—while often discussed—doesn't actually show they outperform well-funded public schools.

In fact, numerous rigorous studies—including lottery-based experiments and evaluations in places like Washington, D.C., New York, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio—found no overall test-score improvements from vouchers; in many cases, scores actually declined for students who transferred from public to private schools.

For example, in Louisiana and Indiana, voucher students performed noticeably worse in math and reading compared to peers who stayed in public schools.

Stanford’s Martin Carnoy also concluded that evidence for academic gains from vouchers is very weak, and that they often distract policymakers from investing in proven public-school strategies—like better teacher training, early childhood programs, or after-school support—which yield much higher returns .

Meanwhile, while voucher programs occasionally show modest gains in high school graduation or college enrollment, those effects are small—and researchers warn those might reflect school selection biases or other confounding factors, not true learning improvements.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...chool-voucher-studies/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Put simply, vouchers don't seem to deliver better academic outcomes—and sometimes even make things worse. By contrast, investing in public schools has a much stronger evidence base supporting real, equitable gains in student achievement.
Very similar to telling residents or visitors in DC that statistically they are safer now. Parents need to be able to guide their children to their best outcome even if "statistically" it might not be the best. Things that make sense make sense. Children are not statistics. Victims are not statistics. Failed schools and failed communities is a choice.
 
I was just reading that of the top 25 cities with the highest crime rates, 13 are in Red states. Of the top 40 cities with the highest crime rates, Washington D.C, is the 40th, not the top. So, why is Trump sending Troops to the 40th most dangerous place instead of the others that certainly have higher crime rates. He keeps telling us that it is because it is so dangerous, but what about all of the cities that are much less safe. Try and tell me this is not about two things, showing his desire for autocratic rule and to take attention away from the Epstein problem.
DC is different than states. Just as simple as that.
 
Very similar to telling residents or visitors in DC that statistically they are safer now. Parents need to be able to guide their children to their best outcome even if "statistically" it might not be the best. Things that make sense make sense. Children are not statistics. Victims are not statistics. Failed schools and failed communities is a choice.
But how are you reaching your conclusion that voucher schools have a better outcome when statistically they have not shown to- and how do dismiss better investments in public schools when that HAS been shown statistically to be a more helpful approach?
 
But how are you reaching your conclusion that voucher schools have a better outcome when statistically they have not shown to- and how do dismiss better investments in public schools when that HAS been shown statistically to be a more helpful approach?
Tell the mother who's child is failing for whatever reason that the child is statistically better of. You'd have thought the Obama's would be smart enough to know that their daughters would be better off in public schools. The Carters must have believed as you do.
 
Back
Top Bottom