socialism

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

mille125

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
389
Points
4,676
  1. Attending Physician
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
A lot of writers that frequent this site have come out strongly against socialism and have mentioned on several occasions that a lot of our current systems are socialist constructs with many coming from liberal Democratic administrations. Looking broadly at Trump, I think there is a very strong argument that Trump's policies may be some of the most socialist ones seen in our lifetime. Even beyond tariffs, which are obviously a state means to control production, other policy choices such as owning shares in companies such as Nvidia, US Steel, and possible Intel seem to be strongly socialist.

Thoughts?

And if you agree with me, I assume that the "anti-socialists" on the site will repudiate these policies even though they are solely from the Trump admin.
 
In a binary election, you pick the lesser evil. I voted for Trump/Vance. Having established my conservative credentials let's compare Fascism with Socialism. Trump is not Socialist at all, you are mistaking a hint of Fascism for Socialism. Obviously Trump's detractors see him as a lot Fascist, I do not think so, but I respect all viewpoints. It pays to remember Adolf Hitler began as a socialist, and
Na·zi
/ˈnätsē,ˈnatsē/

noun

  1. HISTORICAL
    a member of the far-right National ***Socialist*** German Workers' Party.



adjective

  1. of or concerning the Nazis or Nazism.
From Google AI.
  • Economic Approach:
    • Fascism: While it involves strong state control over the economy, it generally does not abolish private property, but rather subordinates it to national interests.
    • Socialism: Involves varying degrees of public ownership, collective control of production, and planning in resource allocation.
 
The classic definitions have been blurred for some time. Socialism involves a redistribution of wealth back to society and we aren’t seeing that as much. We are seeing a strong central government and POTUS imposing its way, which leads to the “fascist” tag. The economic doctrines of fascism seemed to be similar to far left ideas with autocratic allocation of resources. Either way the people get the shaft while those in government prosper.
 
A lot of writers that frequent this site have come out strongly against socialism and have mentioned on several occasions that a lot of our current systems are socialist constructs with many coming from liberal Democratic administrations. Looking broadly at Trump, I think there is a very strong argument that Trump's policies may be some of the most socialist ones seen in our lifetime. Even beyond tariffs, which are obviously a state means to control production, other policy choices such as owning shares in companies such as Nvidia, US Steel, and possible Intel seem to be strongly socialist.

Thoughts?

And if you agree with me, I assume that the "anti-socialists" on the site will repudiate these policies even though they are solely from the Trump admin.
Bernie and Elizabeth Warren seem A LOT more fascist than Trump
 
Trump is really hard to characterize. I think that taking 10% of Nvidia, US Steel and Intel definitely appear Socialist but when you but everything together you come up with something else, still uncharacterized.

Trump has definitely fully embraced xenophobic and racist language reminiscent of fascist rhetoric and launched a vicious campaign against immigrants, both legal and illegal. However, he likely does this to get the relatively poor majority and middle classes a to divert their growing discontent towards a this racialized/LGBTQ “other” rather than the wealthy class.

In Fascism, the good of the nation is elevated above all, and the state plays an overarching role in society and the economy. Even though, Trump's "movement" uses the name American first, the resulting laws from this are anything but putting America first. He is not pursing the good of the nation. He is pursing the good of the 0.1 percent of which he is benefiting as well.

If you scratch the surface on Trump’s tariff policies you will see that the trade war the US president is waging is really not about “bringing jobs back”, “defending national interests” or reversing globalization. Trump is using tariffs as a coercive tool to force various countries into negotiating with him. It is far more likely that these bilateral talks will be used to extort concessions that will also favor big capital closely associated with the Trump administration rather than to defend the rights of American workers and to create the conditions for the return of manufacturing jobs to the US.

So I guess I am going to retract my initial characterization. I don't really know how to label the current course but in my opinion it has the potential to be as destructive and dangerous as fascism or socialism.
 
Trump is really hard to characterize. I think that taking 10% of Nvidia, US Steel and Intel definitely appear Socialist but when you but everything together you come up with something else, still uncharacterized.

Trump has definitely fully embraced xenophobic and racist language reminiscent of fascist rhetoric and launched a vicious campaign against immigrants, both legal and illegal. However, he likely does this to get the relatively poor majority and middle classes a to divert their growing discontent towards a this racialized/LGBTQ “other” rather than the wealthy class.

In Fascism, the good of the nation is elevated above all, and the state plays an overarching role in society and the economy. Even though, Trump's "movement" uses the name American first, the resulting laws from this are anything but putting America first. He is not pursing the good of the nation. He is pursing the good of the 0.1 percent of which he is benefiting as well.

If you scratch the surface on Trump’s tariff policies you will see that the trade war the US president is waging is really not about “bringing jobs back”, “defending national interests” or reversing globalization. Trump is using tariffs as a coercive tool to force various countries into negotiating with him. It is far more likely that these bilateral talks will be used to extort concessions that will also favor big capital closely associated with the Trump administration rather than to defend the rights of American workers and to create the conditions for the return of manufacturing jobs to the US.

So I guess I am going to retract my initial characterization. I don't really know how to label the current course but in my opinion it has the potential to be as destructive and dangerous as fascism or socialism.
I have a let's see how it turns out attitude on the tariffs. The tariffs are putting billions into the U.S.Treasury which I applaud. Wall Street obviously hates the tariffs and yet the stock market is hitting new highs. A severe bout of inflation will kill Trump's favorability rating just as fast as it did Biden's.
 
I have a let's see how it turns out attitude on the tariffs. The tariffs are putting billions into the U.S.Treasury which I applaud. Wall Street obviously hates the tariffs and yet the stock market is hitting new highs. A severe bout of inflation will kill Trump's favorability rating just as fast as it did Biden's.


Yes the tariffs are putting money into the Treasury but American businesses are paying the taxes. The ones that can will pass it to the consumers. If that is what everyone wants then fine. But we shouldn't pretend that taxes are being cut when they arent.
 
Question is can anesthesiology based salaries (including all of the para-professionals) continue to rise as they have now. I think that a lot of hospital departments are going to be strapped in the coming months/years with the Big Beautiful Bill stuff. Almost all of these people make the money that they do only because of the hospital stipends.
 
I have a let's see how it turns out attitude on the tariffs. The tariffs are putting billions into the U.S.Treasury which I applaud. Wall Street obviously hates the tariffs and yet the stock market is hitting new highs. A severe bout of inflation will kill Trump's favorability rating just as fast as it did Biden's.
Some stocks are doing okay.

Many sectors are doing horrible - airline companies did horrible this last quarter (all except two). Restaurants did abysmal. I think these are bellwethers for economic health.


For this last earning season…

Earnings per share (EPS) growth is expected to come in around 4% year-over-year, much lower than the roughly 12% growth seen in Q1 2025.
• Revenue growth is also slowing to around 4% year-over-year.
• Profit margins are coming under pressure, falling from 12.1% in Q1 to about 11.6% in Q2.

It doesn’t matter if tarriffs gained a bunch of money if the government is spending even more money. Is that the case? How is Trump doing on sending?
 
In a binary election, you pick the lesser evil. I voted for Trump/Vance. Having established my conservative credentials let's compare Fascism with Socialism. Trump is not Socialist at all, you are mistaking a hint of Fascism for Socialism. Obviously Trump's detractors see him as a lot Fascist, I do not think so, but I respect all viewpoints. It pays to remember Adolf Hitler began as a socialist, and
Na·zi
/ˈnätsē,ˈnatsē/

noun

  1. HISTORICAL
    a member of the far-right National ***Socialist*** German Workers' Party.


adjective

  1. of or concerning the Nazis or Nazism.
From Google AI.
  • Economic Approach:
    • Fascism: While it involves strong state control over the economy, it generally does not abolish private property, but rather subordinates it to national interests.
    • Socialism: Involves varying degrees of public ownership, collective control of production, and planning in resource allocation.
a lot of political organizations have misused the term socialism throughout history. the fasciists were one of them. there was never a time during hitlers reign that there was any thought socialist rule by the people, a key component to socialism. nazis were always authoritarian one leader, never at any point socialist in government, though they trumpeted populist (ie socialist) themes in order to convince people to follow them.


trump is all about himself and his control over others. after all, he is the only one that can fix things, whether it is weed out the deep state (where are the epstein lists), fix grocery prices, energy prices down, stop war like in ukraine or gaza, MAGA.

besides touting his savior status, he actively pits group of americans against another groups, targetting marginalized groups to sow discontent and show how he is the only one that can create a solution for them, but with the goal of consolidating his power.

---

the brunt of the money the treasury department is bringing in is from us companies primarily, and less consumers at this present time. Powell has alluded that this has already happened. the market did respond by going up because he hinted that he may reduce interest rates in september.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
a lot of political organizations have misused the term socialism throughout history. the fasciists were one of them. there was never a time during hitlers reign that there was any thought socialist rule by the people, a key component to socialism. nazis were always authoritarian one leader, never at any point socialist in government, though they trumpeted populist (ie socialist) themes in order to convince people to follow them.


trump is all about himself and his control over others. after all, he is the only one that can fix things, whether it is weed out the deep state (where are the epstein lists), fix grocery prices, energy prices down, stop war like in ukraine or gaza, MAGA.

besides touting his savior status, he actively pits group of americans against another groups, targetting marginalized groups to sow discontent and show how he is the only one that can create a solution for them, but with the goal of consolidating his power.

---

the brunt of the money the treasury department is bringing in is from us companies primarily, and less consumers at this present time. Powell has alluded that this has already happened. the market did respond by going up because he hinted that he may reduce interest rates in september.

There has been a problem of creeping socialism in medicine for decades:

 
So
a lot of political organizations have misused the term socialism throughout history. the fasciists were one of them. there was never a time during hitlers reign that there was any thought socialist rule by the people, a key component to socialism. nazis were always authoritarian one leader, never at any point socialist in government, though they trumpeted populist (ie socialist) themes in order to convince people to follow them.


trump is all about himself and his control over others. after all, he is the only one that can fix things, whether it is weed out the deep state (where are the epstein lists), fix grocery prices, energy prices down, stop war like in ukraine or gaza, MAGA.

besides touting his savior status, he actively pits group of americans against another groups, targetting marginalized groups to sow discontent and show how he is the only one that can create a solution for them, but with the goal of consolidating his power.

---

the brunt of the money the treasury department is bringing in is from us companies primarily, and less consumers at this present time. Powell has alluded that this has already happened. the market did respond by going up because he hinted that he may reduce interest rates in september.
so Cali is the closest thing we have to socialism in the US. How have they done to eradicate homelessness? I think they’ve spent somewhere close to 16 billion over 15 yrs and have nothing to show for it. It’s a failed system

 
So

so Cali is the closest thing we have to socialism in the US. How have they done to eradicate homelessness? I think they’ve spent somewhere close to 16 billion over 15 yrs and have nothing to show for it. It’s a failed system



Good example.

I suggest the OP name a country with true socialism where you would like to actually live?
People are all trying to come to the US for a reason.
(no country in western/northern Europe has true socialism)
 
Good example.

I suggest the OP name a country with true socialism where you would like to actually live?
People are all trying to come to the US for a reason.
(no country in western/northern Europe has true socialism)
cuba, laos, north korea, and vietnam are the only ones that fit the bill if you eliminate northern europe.
 
Would you like to live in Cuba or North Korea?

you mean either/or?

definitely cuba over north korea. the climate, sandwiches, baseball, rum, and women make that choice a no brainer. fried chicken and kim chee can only take you so far.

but i get your point.

it is not necessarily the type of government that makes a country desirable. somalia has essentially no central government and it is a hellscape run by warlords. north korea has a strongman telling you everything you can and cant do, and its a sh$thole as well. denmark is pretty close to socialism and the people there are some of the happiest on earth.

what america has to offer is the opportunity to for upwards mobility that really is like no place else on earth.
 
America is unique because we are a nation of immigrants. Many other countries have predominantly just a few ethnic groups or those that have many have very small percentages. This is really what makes American great and because of this we are able to draw talent from around the world. In addition we have (had) high immigration from countries that have the best demographics such as Mexico and India which is really the main reason that we will avoid the demographic cliffs that China and Japan and Russia and others will see..

Again this is what makes America great now.
 
Last edited:
Good example.

I suggest the OP name a country with true socialism where you would like to actually live?
People are all trying to come to the US for a reason.
(no country in western/northern Europe has true socialism)

To be clear there is no country in the world that has true socialism. China and Vietnam probably approach it most closely but are still far from being true socialist states.

From your question, I think that you might be assuming that I am advocating for socialism. As an entrepreneur with multiple business a true socialist approach would be antithetical for everything that I have done.

The point of my post is that many on the right and many in this forum have criticized (to put it lightly) previous left leaning administrations as being socialist in policies. Trump has brought out policies that are definitely in line with sociialist tendency especially concerning taking percentages of private companies thru the federal govt (Senator Paul agrees with me). I was interested to see response about this especially from the "anti-socialists" here. I would also like to see what the free speech folks what say about the recent anti-flag burning executive order. Some on the right have actually spoken out about this but many have not.

As I expected, not one Trump leaning/supporting person said anything about this. It is quite clear that you are only against a perceived Socialist idea if it comes from a Democrat but are fine with accepting it from a Republican administration. It is also clear that you are only pro free speech if it has to do with something that you support. Free speech for gun rights or abortion prohibition is fine but free speech for Palestinian causes or for using flag burning as a symbol is not.
 
I left out Cuba. It is a mostly socialist state led by a communist party but it is also not true socialist.
 
Good example.
um....

trump decreased legal immigration during his first term. he appears to be in the process of doing the same to legal immigration.
I suggest the OP name a country with true socialism where you would like to actually live?
People are all trying to come to the US for a reason.
(no country in western/northern Europe has true socialism)
this is close to a logical fallacy.

asking someone to essentially look for somewhere else to live should go against the american way, but i could not expect more.

we should be working to encourage changes in the system that make life better for all americans, which is the democratic (not the political party) way.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The contradiction I am surprised by is conservatives who supposedly believe in limited government, and the actual overreach of Trump through executive orders, lawsuits, federal funding, and more.

- Flag burning is a good example. I think burning a US flag is being an ***hole, but I don't want my country to jail someone for doing so.
- Another is his lawsuits and essentially blackmailing of universities. He is withholding or cutting funds to universities that ideologically don't agree with him and his base. Basically, protesting Israel is 'antisemitism' so he is using government power to punish them.
- DEI is another. Cutting funding for programs is one thing. Threatening legal action and cutting unrelated funds is another.
- LGBTQ crackdown - no transgender troops, cutting funding to schools, etc.
- Tariffs - as you mentioned, goes against free market and is government intervention.
- Big Beautiful Bill - the massive debt increase, the opposite of limited government.
- Immigration crackdown - this is definitely in his campaign process, and probably goes with border defense for many limited government advocates. However, imposing federal control over state/local government policy is not consistent with supposed limited federal government. Or sending the national guard to California. Or deporting protesters of Israel's bombing in Gaza.
- Selective foreign interference - he did campaign on ending wars and not starting new ones. This is sort of mixed. He is pressuring Ukraine to concede as they are losing and cutting aid, etc. Elsewhere, he has unequivocal aid/support for Israel's continued Gaza assault, not to mention Iran bombing.
-Speaking of use of national guard - to DC, Chicago, Baltimore, etc for some manufactured crisis. This is completely antithetical to limited government.

Trump's ability to fearmonger and influence of special interests outweighs any conservative beliefs in limited government.

Most of the above polices play to people's xenophobia/transphobia/anti-liberal beliefs - flag burning, university crackdown, LGBTQ, DEI.

Special interests also play a big role: big business, crypto, Heritage Foundation, crackdown on Israel protesters, Heritage foundation policy, etc.
 
The contradiction I am surprised by is conservatives who supposedly believe in limited government, and the actual overreach of Trump through executive orders, lawsuits, federal funding, and more.

- Flag burning is a good example. I think burning a US flag is being an ***hole, but I don't want my country to jail someone for doing so.
- Another is his lawsuits and essentially blackmailing of universities. He is withholding or cutting funds to universities that ideologically don't agree with him and his base. Basically, protesting Israel is 'antisemitism' so he is using government power to punish them.
- DEI is another. Cutting funding for programs is one thing. Threatening legal action and cutting unrelated funds is another.
- LGBTQ crackdown - no transgender troops, cutting funding to schools, etc.
- Tariffs - as you mentioned, goes against free market and is government intervention.
- Big Beautiful Bill - the massive debt increase, the opposite of limited government.
- Immigration crackdown - this is definitely in his campaign process, and probably goes with border defense for many limited government advocates. However, imposing federal control over state/local government policy is not consistent with supposed limited federal government. Or sending the national guard to California. Or deporting protesters of Israel's bombing in Gaza.
- Selective foreign interference - he did campaign on ending wars and not starting new ones. This is sort of mixed. He is pressuring Ukraine to concede as they are losing and cutting aid, etc. Elsewhere, he has unequivocal aid/support for Israel's continued Gaza assault, not to mention Iran bombing.
-Speaking of use of national guard - to DC, Chicago, Baltimore, etc for some manufactured crisis. This is completely antithetical to limited government.

Trump's ability to fearmonger and influence of special interests outweighs any conservative beliefs in limited government.

Most of the above polices play to people's xenophobia/transphobia/anti-liberal beliefs - flag burning, university crackdown, LGBTQ, DEI.

Special interests also play a big role: big business, crypto, Heritage Foundation, crackdown on Israel protesters, Heritage foundation policy, etc.
Honestly very few people are openly homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic or whatever these days. Can you imagine if someone actually were in the public square? They’d doxx’d, ostracized, fired, publicly humiliated, beaten and their house burnt to the ground. Can you actually imagine

No one should be any of those things above but at this point in our history and in our culture, these terms are typically used as straw man arguments and means of exerting power over an opposing majority

I think the general public was likely tired of having to show outward support and celebration for some of these causes such as the trans issue. It’s not that they could no longer have opinions. They also had to show fealty to your cause

And that’s exactly why Trump won. The media and the far left leadership still hasn’t figured that out yet so, barring an economic collapse, I see history repeating itself at the midterms and likely at the next presidential election 🤦🏻‍♂️
 
Honestly very few people are openly homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic or whatever these days. Can you imagine if someone actually were in the public square? They’d doxx’d, ostracized, fired, publicly humiliated, beaten and their house burnt to the ground. Can you actually imagine

No one should be any of those things above but at this point in our history and in our culture, these terms are typically used as straw man arguments and means of exerting power over an opposing majority

I think the general public was likely tired of having to show outward support and celebration for some of these causes such as the trans issue. It’s not that they could no longer have opinions. They also had to show fealty to your cause

And that’s exactly why Trump won. The media and the far left leadership still hasn’t figured that out yet so, barring an economic collapse, I see history repeating itself at the midterms and likely at the next presidential election 🤦🏻‍♂️


Only time will tell but all signs point that Trump has less support now than he had in November. If he felt that this is true why would he been getting openly involved in redistricting discussions.?

I think that the public embraced of his rhetoric but I think many feel he has gone too far. Removing immigrants who are intertwined in local communities without a trial in with a bunch of masked hoodlums jumping out of a van. I don't think that the vast majority of Americans support that.
 
In a binary election, you pick the lesser evil. I voted for Trump/Vance. Having established my conservative credentials let's compare Fascism with Socialism. Trump is not Socialist at all, you are mistaking a hint of Fascism for Socialism. Obviously Trump's detractors see him as a lot Fascist, I do not think so, but I respect all viewpoints. It pays to remember Adolf Hitler began as a socialist, and
Na·zi
/ˈnätsē,ˈnatsē/

noun

  1. HISTORICAL
    a member of the far-right National ***Socialist*** German Workers' Party.


adjective

  1. of or concerning the Nazis or Nazism.
From Google AI.
  • Economic Approach:
    • Fascism: While it involves strong state control over the economy, it generally does not abolish private property, but rather subordinates it to national interests.
    • Socialism: Involves varying degrees of public ownership, collective control of production, and planning in resource allocation.
I'm not sure if it's that straightforward with Hitler although it might be. Drexler might have been a bit socialist but seems like it was mainly to attract the working classes. Hitler took part in the 25-point plan but he seems to have ignored the socialist aspects of it later on.

At least that's kind of how it went down, according to Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Socialists will always try to deny a relationship and both groups hated each other for sure, just like they do today, but without a doubt there's overlap and both are similar as they're about controlling the individual into a mass of collectivism.
 
I'm not sure if it's that straightforward with Hitler although it might be. Drexler might have been a bit socialist but seems like it was mainly to attract the working classes. Hitler took part in the 25-point plan but he seems to have ignored the socialist aspects of it later on.

At least that's kind of how it went down, according to Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Socialists will always try to deny a relationship and both groups hated each other for sure, just like they do today, but without a doubt there's overlap and both are similar as they're about controlling the individual into a mass of collectivism.
There's a new-ish series of books that basically does what that book did but with more sources available to it that Shirer didn't have when he wrote his book:


If you like that sort of thing, I'd give it a read.
 
maybe if your leaders didnt cut resources for mental health, things would be better.

maybe if your leaders didnt go out of their way to marginalize an already marginalized group, things would be better.



but then again, since 1% (according to AI) of all shooters are trans, maybe there is something else going on...



talking about his sexuality is a diversion from gun discussion. so that republicans can keep sending thoughts and prayers instead of doing something.
 
maybe if your leaders didnt cut resources for mental health, things would be better.

maybe if your leaders didnt go out of their way to marginalize an already marginalized group, things would be better.



but then again, since 1% (according to AI) of all shooters are trans, maybe there is something else going on...



talking about his sexuality is a diversion from gun discussion. so that republicans can keep sending thoughts and prayers instead of doing something.
You’re a complete *****
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There's a new-ish series of books that basically does what that book did but with more sources available to it that Shirer didn't have when he wrote his book:


If you like that sort of thing, I'd give it a read.
Nice dude. Grassy ass for posting.

Are you in the attending forum also or only here at the children's table?

We have a book club over there but it's quickly becoming the sick mam of Europe despite my attempts to revive. It might be fun to have you there.
 
Just saw this circulating. If true we’ve got major issues in America

Huge mental health issue in the country.
 
In regards to OP's original question, the issue is that ALL government tends to be socialist by nature. People in power want to control others. Democrat, Republican, whatever.

Trump is far from perfect, and I don't agree with all he's done, but in my opinion he's definitely bringing a refreshing amount of sanity to our many of our policies.
 
i get this feeling that a significant portion of americans are less concerned about gang violence as opposed to school shootings.


there have been 8 school shootings leading to death this year.


another site tracks incidences in which guns were present, either brandished or fired on schoolgrounds, and counts 146 incidents this year so far.





of course, all of these incidents have one common denominator - guns. too bad we cant do anything about this factor except thoughts and prayers...


which are working as intended...
 
Nice dude. Grassy ass for posting.

Are you in the attending forum also or only here at the children's table?

We have a book club over there but it's quickly becoming the sick mam of Europe despite my attempts to revive. It might be fun to have you there.
I'm not in pain management so while I can see your private forum I don't go there unless I have to for mod stuff since it's not meant for me.
 
I'm not in pain management so while I can see your private forum I don't go there unless I have to for mod stuff since it's not meant for me.
Well, if you change your mind, it'd probably be a lot of fun to have you in the book club. We can knock out books to review, debate, discuss, etc. We can do a new book every week or two. At least consider it.
 

268th mass shooting of the year (so far).
Pattern recognition? Do you not see the irony of that accusation??
I’m seeing some interesting patterns. I looked at the most dangerous cities in America and they all have one thing in common: long held democratic control

All of these cities (except Virginia Beach) have that one thing in common

Washington D.C.'s last Republican mayor served in 1910, Atlanta's in 1879. Some of the cities listed 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨, despite having high crime rates. One-party rule is not healthy and often leads to poor results and a high risk of corruption. These cities all have blue DAs, police chiefs and judges who will either refuse to prosecute crime, or prosecute and immediately turn the criminals back on the streets.

If politicians have no fear of being removed by voters, their incentive to provide essential public services plummets. (See: Los Angeles and county building permits.)

𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆/𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟬𝟬𝗸 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲/𝗧𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀
Memphis 40.9 372
St. Louis 37.6 106
(St. Louis County)
Baltimore 36.3 205
Washington, DC 35.9 244
Birmingham 28.2 187
Virginia Beach 26.9 26
(Portsmouth County)
Philadelphia 25.9 402
St. Louis 25.5 64
(St. Claire County, Il.)
Kansas City, MO 25.3 182
Kansas City, KS 24.2 40
Richmond 23.1 53
Atlanta 21.9 21
Indianapolis 21.8 211
Virginia Beach 21.3 39
(Newport News County)
Milwaukee 20.7 190
 
I’m seeing some interesting patterns. I looked at the most dangerous cities in America and they all have one thing in common: long held democratic control

All of these cities (except Virginia Beach) have that one thing in common

Washington D.C.'s last Republican mayor served in 1910, Atlanta's in 1879. Some of the cities listed 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨, despite having high crime rates. One-party rule is not healthy and often leads to poor results and a high risk of corruption. These cities all have blue DAs, police chiefs and judges who will either refuse to prosecute crime, or prosecute and immediately turn the criminals back on the streets.

If politicians have no fear of being removed by voters, their incentive to provide essential public services plummets. (See: Los Angeles and county building permits.)

𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆/𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟬𝟬𝗸 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲/𝗧𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀
Memphis 40.9 372
St. Louis 37.6 106
(St. Louis County)
Baltimore 36.3 205
Washington, DC 35.9 244
Birmingham 28.2 187
Virginia Beach 26.9 26
(Portsmouth County)
Philadelphia 25.9 402
St. Louis 25.5 64
(St. Claire County, Il.)
Kansas City, MO 25.3 182
Kansas City, KS 24.2 40
Richmond 23.1 53
Atlanta 21.9 21
Indianapolis 21.8 211
Virginia Beach 21.3 39
(Newport News County)
Milwaukee 20.7 190

Chat GPT is soooo much fun for claims like this...

That claim—“mass shootings skew toward Democrat-controlled territories”—is a common talking point, but it oversimplifies what’s really going on. Here are a few angles to keep in mind when looking at the 2025 numbers you shared:




1.​


Most of the incidents listed occur in large cities: Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, Atlanta, etc.
Big cities overwhelmingly lean Democratic in elections, regardless of what state they’re in. So yes, a map of shootings often overlaps with blue areas—but that’s more about urban concentration than partisan policy.


  • Population density: Cities have more people packed into smaller areas, making conflicts and stray bullets more likely to harm multiple victims at once.
  • Social factors: Poverty, gangs, illegal markets, and strained police-community relations are more concentrated in cities.
  • Reporting: Incidents in rural areas sometimes don’t meet the “mass shooting” definition or don’t get reported as widely.



2.​


Gun laws are generally set at the state level. Many states with Democratic-run cities (like Illinois, New York, California) are governed by stronger gun-control laws, but those laws can’t prevent firearms from flowing in from neighboring states with looser regulations. For example:


  • Chicago traces a large share of recovered crime guns back to Indiana, which has laxer gun laws.
  • New York guns often come from the “Iron Pipeline” down I-95 (Georgia, Virginia, etc.).

So “blue city” doesn’t always mean “blue gun laws at work.”




3.​


Red states also experience mass shootings—Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, etc. show up repeatedly on the list. But those events are often spread across smaller towns or domestic/family disputes, so they don’t dominate headlines in the same way.
When you add them up, red states contribute a significant share of mass shootings despite lower population density.




4.​


Saying “Democratic control causes mass shootings” confuses correlation with causation. The driver is urbanization, not party leadership.


  • If you only compared cities (say, Chicago vs. Houston vs. Dallas vs. Miami), you’d find that all major metros—blue or red—experience high levels of gun violence.
  • If you compared states, red states actually have higher per-capita gun deaths overall (including suicides, homicides, accidents), according to CDC data.



Bottom line:
There is a concentration of mass shootings in areas that lean Democratic—but that’s because those are the nation’s urban centers, where population density and social stressors make shootings more likely to reach the “mass” threshold. It doesn’t mean Democratic policies cause the violence. In fact, many Democratic-led areas are struggling against the effects of looser gun laws in surrounding states.
 
Chat GPT is soooo much fun for claims like this...

That claim—“mass shootings skew toward Democrat-controlled territories”—is a common talking point, but it oversimplifies what’s really going on. Here are a few angles to keep in mind when looking at the 2025 numbers you shared:




1.​


Most of the incidents listed occur in large cities: Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, Atlanta, etc.
Big cities overwhelmingly lean Democratic in elections, regardless of what state they’re in. So yes, a map of shootings often overlaps with blue areas—but that’s more about urban concentration than partisan policy.


  • Population density: Cities have more people packed into smaller areas, making conflicts and stray bullets more likely to harm multiple victims at once.
  • Social factors: Poverty, gangs, illegal markets, and strained police-community relations are more concentrated in cities.
  • Reporting: Incidents in rural areas sometimes don’t meet the “mass shooting” definition or don’t get reported as widely.



2.​


Gun laws are generally set at the state level. Many states with Democratic-run cities (like Illinois, New York, California) are governed by stronger gun-control laws, but those laws can’t prevent firearms from flowing in from neighboring states with looser regulations. For example:


  • Chicago traces a large share of recovered crime guns back to Indiana, which has laxer gun laws.
  • New York guns often come from the “Iron Pipeline” down I-95 (Georgia, Virginia, etc.).

So “blue city” doesn’t always mean “blue gun laws at work.”




3.​


Red states also experience mass shootings—Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, etc. show up repeatedly on the list. But those events are often spread across smaller towns or domestic/family disputes, so they don’t dominate headlines in the same way.
When you add them up, red states contribute a significant share of mass shootings despite lower population density.




4.​


Saying “Democratic control causes mass shootings” confuses correlation with causation. The driver is urbanization, not party leadership.


  • If you only compared cities (say, Chicago vs. Houston vs. Dallas vs. Miami), you’d find that all major metros—blue or red—experience high levels of gun violence.
  • If you compared states, red states actually have higher per-capita gun deaths overall (including suicides, homicides, accidents), according to CDC data.



Bottom line:
There is a concentration of mass shootings in areas that lean Democratic—but that’s because those are the nation’s urban centers, where population density and social stressors make shootings more likely to reach the “mass” threshold. It doesn’t mean Democratic policies cause the violence. In fact, many Democratic-led areas are struggling against the effects of looser gun laws in surrounding states.
I think AI is wrong here. First off I wasn’t talking about just mass shootings. Second, you admit correlation is not causation but then in the next sentence say urbanization equals causation. I think it primarily has do with how democratic mayors govern these cities. If you don’t police crime you get more crime. Democrats don’t like to police crime
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I think AI is wrong here. First off I wasn’t talking about just mass shootings. Second, you admit correlation is not causation but then in the next sentence say urbanization equals causation. I think it primarily has do with how democratic mayors govern these cities. If you don’t police crime you get more crime. Democrats don’t like to police crime
Red states also have higher murder rates than blue states.

Sometimes it is hard to admit when we are mistaken.


Also from chatGPT:

Key Findings from Think Tank Analysis (Third Way)​


A report by Third Way, analyzing CDC mortality data for 2021 and 2022, provides the clearest insight:


  • Overall difference: For both years, red states had murder rates 33% higher than blue states.
    In 2021:
  • After excluding the largest city (or its county) in each red state:
    • Red states still had murder rates 20% higher than blue states in 2021.
    • In 2022, the gap was still 16% higher in red states. Third Way.

This suggests that even when we “give red states a break” by removing the influence of their biggest population centers, they still show significantly higher homicide rates.
 
I think AI is wrong here. First off I wasn’t talking about just mass shootings. Second, you admit correlation is not causation but then in the next sentence say urbanization equals causation. I think it primarily has do with how democratic mayors govern these cities. If you don’t police crime you get more crime. Democrats don’t like to police crime

Somewhere along the way in school most of us learend how to move from correlation to causation. This is pretty important in science. Doing it with social science is harder because you can't easily control variables.

Back to GPT5--

If you look at the claim “urbanization, more than Democratic control, drives gun violence rates,” here’s how it holds up in the correlation → causation framework:
  1. Correlation: Gun violence is higher in cities. Cities also tend to vote Democratic. So you see a correlation between Democratic control and gun violence — but this may just reflect that both are tied to urbanization.
  2. Temporal order: Urbanization comes first. Large cities grew and developed long before their current partisan leanings. That makes urbanization a more plausible cause than party control.
  3. Confounders: Density, poverty concentration, inequality, and demographics are all strongly related to both urbanization and violence. Once you adjust for those, “Democratic control” mostly drops out as an explanation.
  4. Mechanism: Urban areas create more opportunities for violent conflict (more interactions, illegal gun markets, strained policing). These mechanisms exist whether the city votes Republican or Democrat.
  5. Consistency: Internationally, urbanization correlates with violence even where there are no U.S. political parties. Within the U.S., Democratic rural areas don’t show high violence, while Republican cities still do. That points to density, not party.
  6. Intervention evidence: Policies that target urban risk factors (hotspot policing, environmental design, social investment) reduce violence regardless of which party governs.

Bottom line: Urbanization is the stronger causal explanation. It precedes party patterns, has clear mechanisms, replicates across contexts, and interventions aimed at urban risk factors actually work. Party control, by contrast, looks more like a side-effect of urbanization than a root cause.

And what about your "Democratic mayors are the cause" hypothesis:?
  1. Mayors inherit the urban baseline.
    Cities with millions of residents already have higher structural risks for gun violence: dense populations, concentrated poverty, inequality, large illegal markets. These conditions are there regardless of who the mayor is.
  2. Republican mayors face the same baseline.
    When you look at cities that have had Republican leadership (e.g., Jacksonville, FL or Fort Worth, TX), they still face higher violence rates than rural areas in their own states. That suggests urban conditions are the common denominator.
  3. Policy vs. structural constraints.
    Local mayors don’t have full control over key drivers:
    • State laws (gun availability, sentencing rules).
    • National trends (drug epidemics, economic shocks).
    • Policing resources and union constraints.
      This limits the independent impact of mayoral policy.
  4. Evidence from policy experiments.
    • Targeted programs like hotspot policing, “focused deterrence,” or environmental design can reduce violence, and they’ve been implemented under both Democratic and Republican mayors.
    • Results vary more by which strategy is chosen and resourced than by party affiliation.
  5. Replication problem.
    If Democratic mayors themselves were the primary cause, we’d expect to see a clear partisan pattern within cities of similar size. But the data show that big cities everywhere — regardless of mayoral party — struggle more with violence than small towns do.
Bottom line:
Democratic mayors don’t cause high gun violence rates. They preside over cities that are already structurally more prone to violence because of density and inequality. Republican-led cities with similar size show the same pattern. The real driver is urbanization and its structural challenges, not the party label of the mayor.
 
These are great AI thought experiments but all AI does is pull articles from the Internet. It’s not some magical, end all be all, know all force. Plus you can lead it to your biased conclusions

I agree urbanization has something to do with it but you have to admit it’s hard to quantify the degree that urbanization and political control play into this. Copy and pasting an AI generated response and then saying gotcha is foolish. I just don’t think the tech is there yet. Much like our previously “unbiased fact checkers” over the last few years. That was embarrassing

Twenty-one of the 25 biggest cities in the U.S. are run by Democrats. Despite assessing high taxes on residents, the cities are plagued by crime, crumbling infrastructure, high costs, homelessness, poverty and poor schools. If Democratic policies worked, you wouldn’t think we’d see such dramatic correlations

 
Last edited:
The people who run and control these cities are to blame per AI. If you read below it specifically says policy decisions are a driving force in crime rates.

U.S. Cities with the Highest Crime Rates (2025 Data)​

Violent Crime Rate (per 100,000 residents)​

Based on recent crime statistics:
  • St. Louis, Missouri – Violent crime ~2,082 per 100K; property crime ~6,749 per 100K The Global StatisticsWilover.
  • Detroit, Michigan – Violent crime ~2,057 per 100K; property crime ~4,541 per 100K Wilover.
  • Baltimore, Maryland – Violent crime ~2,027 per 100K; property crime ~4,928 per 100K Wilover.
  • Memphis, Tennessee – Violent crime ~2,003 per 100K; property crime ~6,298 per 100K Wilover.
These four consistently top violent crime rankings WiloverHSF For MeUS Press News.

Most Dangerous Cities Overall (Violent Crime Ranking)​

Several sources echo similar findings:

Murder Rates (Homicides per 100,000)​

According to more specific homicide-focused data:
Another source focused on homicide rates listed:
  • St. Louis (~69.4), Baltimore (~51.1), New Orleans (~40.6), Detroit (~39.7), Cleveland (~33.7), Las Vegas, Kansas City, Memphis, Newark, Chicago, etc. Freedom For All Americans.

Summary Table: Most Crime-Afflicted U.S. Cities (2025)​

CityViolent Crime Rate (per 100K)Murder Rate (per 100K)Why It's Notable
St. Louis, MO~2,082~87.8Highest violent & homicide rates
Memphis, TN~2,003~49.2Leading in surveys as most dangerous
Baltimore, MD~2,027~58.3High in both violent & homicide rates
Detroit, MI~2,057~41.4Persistent elevated crime rates
Birmingham, AL~1,682 (2023)~50.6Sharp spike in recent homicides
Cleveland, OH~1,557~33.7Rust Belt violence & economic woes
New Orleans, LA~40.6Historical murder capital
Washington, D.C.~1,049~35.5Capital still struggles with violence
(All numbers are approximate, based on the most recent aggregated data from 2024–2025.)

Context & Trends to Consider​


Let me know if you'd like comparisons to smaller towns, international cities, or deeper breakdowns (e.g., property crime vs. violent crime, neighborhood-level detail, or longitudinal trends)!

Summary​

Cities consistently identified with the highest crime rates (2025, U.S.):
  • St. Louis, Memphis, Baltimore, Detroit, Birmingham, Cleveland, New Orleans, Washington D.C.
These cities lead in violent crime (> 1,500–2,000 per 100K) and homicide rates (> 30 per 100K), making them the most crime-impacted urban areas based on prevailing data.
Want to look at specific stats for your area or compare crime trends over time?

You said:​

What policies contribute to crime in these cities

ChatGPT said:​

Crime is a complex issue influenced by many factors, but certain policy decisions—often systemic and long-term—are strongly linked to elevated crime rates in cities like St. Louis, Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore, and others.
Here’s a breakdown of key policies (or lack thereof) that contribute to persistent high crime in these cities:

🔑 1. Disinvestment in Public Services

Many high-crime cities have faced decades of budget cuts and disinvestment, particularly in:
  • Public education
  • Youth programs
  • Mental health services
  • Rehabilitation and drug treatment centers
This creates conditions for long-term poverty, joblessness, and a school-to-prison pipeline.
🔎 Example: Detroit and Baltimore both saw school closures, underfunded public services, and crumbling infrastructure over decades.

🔑 2. Mass Incarceration & Tough-on-Crime Policies

Policies from the 1980s–2000s, such as:
  • Mandatory minimum sentences
  • Three-strikes laws
  • "Broken windows" policing
…led to over-policing in poor communities while failing to reduce long-term crime. These policies:
  • Disrupted families and communities
  • Led to distrust between police and residents
  • Focused on punishment, not prevention
🔎 Example: Memphis implemented aggressive policing, but homicide and violent crime persisted due to lack of community trust and prevention programs.

🔑 3. Housing & Urban Planning Failures

Policies that isolated or destabilized communities:
  • Redlining and racially discriminatory housing practices
  • High-density public housing without support services
  • Neglect of zoning and community infrastructure
This created neighborhoods with poor access to jobs, transportation, or healthcare, fueling crime and gang activity.
🔎 Example: St. Louis's history of redlining and failed public housing (e.g., Pruitt-Igoe) created lasting socio-economic ghettos.

🔑 4. Underfunded or Dysfunctional Police Departments

In many of these cities:
  • Police are undertrained, underpaid, or corrupt
  • Departments have low clearance rates (unsolved crimes)
  • Focus is often reactive, not preventive or community-oriented
This leads to low trust and low deterrence for criminals.
🔎 Example: In Baltimore, following the Freddie Gray incident and DOJ consent decree, police morale and funding dropped—leading to slower response times and fewer arrests for serious crimes.

🔑 5. Neglect of Economic Development

Cities like Detroit and Cleveland were hit hard by:
  • Deindustrialization
  • Loss of unionized jobs
  • Automation and globalization
But policies failed to replace those jobs with meaningful economic alternatives—leading to chronic unemployment, especially among young men.
🔎 Example: Detroit lost over 50% of its population from 1950 to 2020, but revitalization efforts often ignored Black neighborhoods.

🔑 6. Inadequate Gun Control Policies

Many high-crime cities are in states with lax gun laws, or are surrounded by areas where firearms are easily trafficked.
  • Weak state laws can undermine local gun restrictions.
  • Federal enforcement (e.g., ATF) is often stretched thin.
🔎 Example: Missouri eliminated its permit-to-purchase law in 2007—St. Louis saw a 25% increase in firearm-related homicides over the next decade.

🔑 7. Gaps in Mental Health & Addiction Treatment

  • Lack of access to mental healthcare and addiction treatment means many at-risk individuals don’t get help.
  • Instead, they end up in the criminal justice system—untreated and likely to re-offend.
🔎 Example: Memphis has struggled with opioid addiction and lacks sufficient long-term rehab facilities, contributing to both crime and recidivism.

🔑 8. Failure to Invest in Community-Based Solutions

Evidence-based violence reduction strategies (like Cure Violence, Operation Peacemaker, or credible messenger programs) are:
  • Proven to work in cities like Oakland, NYC, and Richmond
  • Rarely funded or implemented in cities with the most need
🔎 Example: Baltimore had a successful program (Safe Streets), but inconsistent funding and political support limited its impact.

Summary Table: Policy Failures & Their Impact​

Policy FailureHow It Fuels CrimeCity Examples
Disinvestment in public servicesPoverty, lack of education, fewer opportunitiesDetroit, Baltimore
Mass incarcerationBreaks families, no rehabilitationMemphis, Cleveland
Redlining / housing segregationConcentrated poverty, isolationSt. Louis, Birmingham
Dysfunctional policingLow clearance, lack of trust, poor preventionBaltimore, New Orleans
Economic decline without recoveryJoblessness, hopelessness, rise in informal economiesDetroit, Cleveland
Weak gun control lawsEasy access to firearms, more lethal violenceSt. Louis, Memphis
Inadequate mental health servicesUntreated trauma and addiction lead to crimeMemphis, Baltimore
Ignoring community-based programsMissed chance to stop violence before it happensBaltimore, Birmingham

✅ What Helps Reduce Crime Instead?​

  • Targeted investments in jobs, education, and housing
  • Violence interruption and community-led safety initiatives
  • Fair policing with accountability and community relationships
  • Mental health care access and trauma-informed services
  • Gun control and firearm trafficking enforcement

Would you like to dive deeper into one of these cities or explore successful crime-reduction models?
 
OMG, can I get a TL;DR on some of these? I just copied and pasted the most recent one into Word and it's FOUR freaking pages and 1352 words long.

The growing trend of people posting massive blocks of text that chatgpt/gemini/grok/whatever spits out is annoying AF.

If you want to use AI to research your argument, please do. Then maybe consider posting a concise statement supporting your position instead of something more akin to an excerpt from War and Peace.
 
OMG, can I get a TL;DR on some of these? I just copied and pasted the most recent one into Word and it's FOUR freaking pages and 1352 words long.

The growing trend of people posting massive blocks of text that chatgpt/gemini/grok/whatever spits out is annoying AF.

If you want to use AI to research your argument, please do. Then maybe consider posting a concise statement supporting your position instead of something more akin to an excerpt from War and Peace.
My thoughts exactly!! 😂 glad someone got my point
 
Red states also have higher murder rates than blue states.

Sometimes it is hard to admit when we are mistaken.


Also from chatGPT:

Key Findings from Think Tank Analysis (Third Way)​


A report by Third Way, analyzing CDC mortality data for 2021 and 2022, provides the clearest insight:


  • Overall difference: For both years, red states had murder rates 33% higher than blue states.
    In 2021:
  • After excluding the largest city (or its county) in each red state:
    • Red states still had murder rates 20% higher than blue states in 2021.
    • In 2022, the gap was still 16% higher in red states. Third Way.

This suggests that even when we “give red states a break” by removing the influence of their biggest population centers, they still show significantly higher homicide rates.
Red states have higher murder rates exactly bc of their cities with blue controlled mayors. Most all cities with the highest murder rates in red states are and have been controlled by blue mayors for decades. That’s the point. It’s nuanced but I think even you surely can understand it. Your post just proved my point so thank you
 
Last edited:
Red states have higher murder rates exactly bc of their cities with blue controlled mayors. Most all cities with the highest murder rates in red states are and have been controlled by blue mayors for decades. That’s the point. It’s nuanced but I think even you surely can understand it. Your post just proved my point so thank you
My hometown is the same size as Detroit but is lead by a mayor you would probably describe as a communist. Despite that, its murder rate is 2/100 000/year (compared to Detroit's 40). Maybe mayors and where they stand on the left to right scale aren't the reason why crimes happen?
 
I’m seeing some interesting patterns. I looked at the most dangerous cities in America and they all have one thing in common: long held democratic control

All of these cities (except Virginia Beach) have that one thing in common

Washington D.C.'s last Republican mayor served in 1910, Atlanta's in 1879. Some of the cities listed 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨, despite having high crime rates. One-party rule is not healthy and often leads to poor results and a high risk of corruption. These cities all have blue DAs, police chiefs and judges who will either refuse to prosecute crime, or prosecute and immediately turn the criminals back on the streets.

If politicians have no fear of being removed by voters, their incentive to provide essential public services plummets. (See: Los Angeles and county building permits.)

𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆/𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟬𝟬𝗸 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲/𝗧𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀
Memphis 40.9 372
St. Louis 37.6 106
(St. Louis County)
Baltimore 36.3 205
Washington, DC 35.9 244
Birmingham 28.2 187
Virginia Beach 26.9 26
(Portsmouth County)
Philadelphia 25.9 402
St. Louis 25.5 64
(St. Claire County, Il.)
Kansas City, MO 25.3 182
Kansas City, KS 24.2 40
Richmond 23.1 53
Atlanta 21.9 21
Indianapolis 21.8 211
Virginia Beach 21.3 39
(Newport News County)
Milwaukee 20.7 190
which one of these cities are in blue states?

Baltimore in Md. Philly in Penn. Milwaukee in Minn.

but the 9 others - Memphis, St. Louis, Birmingham, Va Beach, St. Louis, Kansas City, Richmond, Atlanta, Indianapolis are all in red states.

(DC is not in a state)


same thing with all of your other statistics.

the cities that are in red states are more likely to be in your list of deadly cities.

notice how NYC, Boston, LA, San Diego, Seattle are not in any of those lists.
 
Red states have higher murder rates exactly bc of their cities with blue controlled mayors. Most all cities with the highest murder rates in red states are and have been controlled by blue mayors for decades. That’s the point. It’s nuanced but I think even you surely can understand it. Your post just proved my point so thank you
actually not true.

the states with highest homicide rates:
1756821199512.png

(i only put the top 13 because that was what fit in the screen fo rme to snip. In, Nv, Fla, Md, NM, Penn and Mi made up the remaining 20)


i dont see a single blue state there.

i see only 2 states with a large blue city on that list - New Orleans and Memphis.


of note, Tenn outside of Memphis also has a violent crime rate above the national average, with memphis having the 4th highest murder rate of cities in Tenn. In Louisiana, New Orleans is considered the 5th most dangerous city.


of course, some of these cities are very small. for example Bolivar Tenn has a population of 5127 and 3 murders. but the point is that the rest of the state has a high murder rate similar to the blue center you are trying to implicate.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Top Bottom