socialism

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
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 don't know if he's talking about mass shootings.

Do you think NYC was safer or more dangerous during Dem or Repub mayors? Urban center didn't change, but the leadership did.

Also from chatgpt, since I've been born or at least close enough:

Koch (1978–1989) High and rising across the board; NYC was among the most violent major cities.
Dinkins (1990–1993) Triggered initial declines in violent and major offenses—but crime was still very high.
Giuliani (1994–2001) Sharp drop in major felonies (~56%); crime reductions among the steepest in city history.
Bloomberg (2002–2013) Continued declines; by 2013 city was the safest large U.S. city.
de Blasio (2014–2021) violent crime (especially shootings, assaults, and murders) rose significantly as did homelessness ---> bail reform, policing changes
Adams (2022–present) Strong recent declines in index crimes, shootings, and transit crime; mixed for rapes
 
As someone who used to commit crimes in NYC as a kid and hung out with the crews committing crimes, I can say firsthand that leadership plays a role in supporting or countering criminal behavior. I don't care how anyone tries to spin the data to support whatever opinion they have. I know the way I thought.
 
actually not true.

the states with highest homicide rates:
View attachment 408751
(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.
You’re completely wrong once again Duct

Nineteen of the 20 cities with the highest murder rates again have one thing in common. I don’t care about the state politics, red or blue. That doesn’t matter bc crime is local. And local law enforcement and politics is what really matters when it comes to crime

“Your public safety as a resident is dramatically impacted by your district attorney, by your police department, and by whether the local politicians support and adequately fund the police and prosecutor’s offices...."

It doesn’t matter where these cities are located. If Democrats run them, it’s more likely than not that residents are stuck with local prosecutors who won’t prosecute crimes, police departments that are understaffed and demoralized, criminals who, if they are caught at all, get released on cashless bail, and political machines that keep these Democrats in power, decade after miserable decade.

Dallas’ Mayor Johnson said it best when he switched to the GOP. “The future of America’s great urban centers depends on the willingness of the nation’s mayors to champion law and order and practice fiscal conservatism. Our cities desperately need the genuine commitment to these principles (as opposed to the inconsistent, poll-driven commitment of many Democrats) that has long been a defining characteristic of the GOP.” ❞

 
I don't know if he's talking about mass shootings.

Do you think NYC was safer or more dangerous during Dem or Repub mayors? Urban center didn't change, but the leadership did.

Also from chatgpt, since I've been born or at least close enough:

Koch (1978–1989) High and rising across the board; NYC was among the most violent major cities.
Dinkins (1990–1993) Triggered initial declines in violent and major offenses—but crime was still very high.
Giuliani (1994–2001) Sharp drop in major felonies (~56%); crime reductions among the steepest in city history.
Bloomberg (2002–2013) Continued declines; by 2013 city was the safest large U.S. city.
de Blasio (2014–2021) violent crime (especially shootings, assaults, and murders) rose significantly as did homelessness ---> bail reform, policing changes
Adams (2022–present) Strong recent declines in index crimes, shootings, and transit crime; mixed for rapes
Exactly. NYC is a nice example which completely refutes @powermd theory
 
Can we do a poll? If Mamdani becomes mayor, I predict a significant worsening in crime.

Either that, or he puts aside his socialist views. Those are your only 2 choices.

If I'm wrong, I'll buy @hyperalgesia a donut to eat.
 
You’re completely wrong once again Duct

Nineteen of the 20 cities with the highest murder rates again have one thing in common. I don’t care about the state politics, red or blue. That doesn’t matter bc crime is local. And local law enforcement and politics is what really matters when it comes to crime

“Your public safety as a resident is dramatically impacted by your district attorney, by your police department, and by whether the local politicians support and adequately fund the police and prosecutor’s offices...."

It doesn’t matter where these cities are located. If Democrats run them, it’s more likely than not that residents are stuck with local prosecutors who won’t prosecute crimes, police departments that are understaffed and demoralized, criminals who, if they are caught at all, get released on cashless bail, and political machines that keep these Democrats in power, decade after miserable decade.

Dallas’ Mayor Johnson said it best when he switched to the GOP. “The future of America’s great urban centers depends on the willingness of the nation’s mayors to champion law and order and practice fiscal conservatism. Our cities desperately need the genuine commitment to these principles (as opposed to the inconsistent, poll-driven commitment of many Democrats) that has long been a defining characteristic of the GOP.” ❞

first you brought up the possibility that because a city is blue there is more crime.

i brought up the fact that for Tenn and La, the state rates of violent crime are similar to the city rates. but you then came up with "crime is local!"

i would argue violent crime has a state component, because accessibility to guns is determined by state laws. and i would argue that violent crime is directly influenced by economic status. the better the economy, the less violent crime. hence part of the reduction in crime in NYC was due to the economic boom of the 1990s.

then you bring up the entire issue of deterrence, a completely different topic.



so lets look at this from a different perspective: you are trying to prove that having a blue mayor means there is higher crime.

out of the top 50 cities by size, you know that 8 have a republican mayor.

so the vast majority of cities have democratic mayors by a 5:1 margin. statistically speaking there will be more democrat led cities with high crime than republican.


in more detail, out of the 8 republican mayor led cities, Dallas has a higher murder rate higher than NYC. so does Miami, Oklahoma City, Ft Worth, Mesa, Fresno, and Bakersfield. only Va Beach is below NYC in murder rate. NYC, Dallas and Ok City are within 2 spots on the list of each other in terms of total violent crime.




and fwiw, Guiliani claims credit for reducing crime, but it is pretty well known there was a significant reduction in crime that started 3 years before he came in to office in NYC. thats not to say that he didnt contribute, but the rates were already going down before he came to power.

oh and i am sure you are aware that Bloomberg was a democrat until 2001, when he changed to run as a republican for mayor, then switched to being an independent in 2007 half way through his time as mayor, and finally switched back to democrat in 2018.
 
first you brought up the possibility that because a city is blue there is more crime.

i brought up the fact that for Tenn and La, the state rates of violent crime are similar to the city rates. but you then came up with "crime is local!"

i would argue violent crime has a state component, because accessibility to guns is determined by state laws. and i would argue that violent crime is directly influenced by economic status. the better the economy, the less violent crime. hence part of the reduction in crime in NYC was due to the economic boom of the 1990s.

then you bring up the entire issue of deterrence, a completely different topic.



so lets look at this from a different perspective: you are trying to prove that having a blue mayor means there is higher crime.

out of the top 50 cities by size, you know that 8 have a republican mayor.

so the vast majority of cities have democratic mayors by a 5:1 margin. statistically speaking there will be more democrat led cities with high crime than republican.


in more detail, out of the 8 republican mayor led cities, Dallas has a higher murder rate higher than NYC. so does Miami, Oklahoma City, Ft Worth, Mesa, Fresno, and Bakersfield. only Va Beach is below NYC in murder rate. NYC, Dallas and Ok City are within 2 spots on the list of each other in terms of total violent crime.




and fwiw, Guiliani claims credit for reducing crime, but it is pretty well known there was a significant reduction in crime that started 3 years before he came in to office in NYC. thats not to say that he didnt contribute, but the rates were already going down before he came to power.

oh and i am sure you are aware that Bloomberg was a democrat until 2001, when he changed to run as a republican for mayor, then switched to being an independent in 2007 half way through his time as mayor, and finally switched back to democrat in 2018.
Yeah it started dropping when Dinkins realized how stupid the lefty policies were and started taking a rightward shift by hiring new officers and supporting the police. But it still didn't see the significant drop in crime that followed with Giuliani's righty policies such as broken windows and crimestat. Doesn't matter what Bloomberg was in a past life, he governed NYC with strong policies such as stop and frisk.

I remember that it seemed like overnight the aggressive squeegee dudes on the corner were disappeared. Don't know how and don't care but that happened under Giuliani.

No worries, deBlasio worked hard to destroy the city for everyone and was pretty successful at doing so by replacing these policies with lefty ones. Let's see how the city fares once Mamdani is elected. I'll be very happy to be wrong and will be the first to eat my words, as I still own property there.
 
Yeah it started dropping when Dinkins realized how stupid the lefty policies were and started taking a rightward shift by hiring new officers and supporting the police. But it still didn't see the significant drop in crime that followed with Giuliani's righty policies such as broken windows and crimestat. Doesn't matter what Bloomberg was in a past life, he governed NYC with strong policies such as stop and frisk.

I remember that it seemed like overnight the aggressive squeegee dudes on the corner were disappeared. Don't know how and don't care but that happened under Giuliani.

No worries, deBlasio worked hard to destroy the city for everyone and was pretty successful at doing so by replacing these policies with lefty ones. Let's see how the city fares once Mamdani is elected. I'll be very happy to be wrong and will be the first to eat my words, as I still own property there.
The discussion is about Democrat and Republican mayors and affect on violent crime. Dinkins is a Democrat. Conservatives like to paint Democrats as universally 'lefty' and weak on crime, which is false.

As someone who used to commit crimes in NYC as a kid and hung out with the crews committing crimes, I can say firsthand that leadership plays a role in supporting or countering criminal behavior. I don't care how anyone tries to spin the data to support whatever opinion they have. I know the way I thought.
I believe you, but policy decisions should be based on data, not anecdote.
 
The discussion is about Democrat and Republican mayors and affect on violent crime. Dinkins is a Democrat. Conservatives like to paint Democrats as universally 'lefty' and weak on crime, which is false.


I believe you, but policy decisions should be based on data, not anecdote.
I appreciate you believing me but not important either way. I would frame it more as conserv vs lib which typically correlates with party, although is in constant flux so I'll give that to you.

Some things are not very easy to measure. Data is important but so is life experience. And sometimes, data is wrong. How long have MI pts been given beta blockers for?
 
Yeah it started dropping when Dinkins realized how stupid the lefty policies were and started taking a rightward shift by hiring new officers and supporting the police. But it still didn't see the significant drop in crime that followed with Giuliani's righty policies such as broken windows and crimestat. Doesn't matter what Bloomberg was in a past life, he governed NYC with strong policies such as stop and frisk.

I remember that it seemed like overnight the aggressive squeegee dudes on the corner were disappeared. Don't know how and don't care but that happened under Giuliani.

No worries, deBlasio worked hard to destroy the city for everyone and was pretty successful at doing so by replacing these policies with lefty ones. Let's see how the city fares once Mamdani is elected. I'll be very happy to be wrong and will be the first to eat my words, as I still own property there.
um... sure, lets go revisit the 90s.

crime rate was going down during Dinkins 3 years in office. remember he was elected in '89, started in '90, inheriting Koch's policy. he did hire more police but he also made more police community based.


Guiliani was able to inherit what Dinkins started and furthered crime reduction, but the process was 3 years in the making when he started in 1994 (he won election in Nov 1993).


oh and it was Dinkins that got the squeegee men off the street, not guiliani.

He even got the “squeegee men,” whom Giuliani made an example of in two campaigns, off the street.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
um... sure, lets go revisit the 90s.

crime rate was going down during Dinkins 3 years in office. remember he was elected in '89, started in '90, inheriting Koch's policy. he did hire more police but he also made more police community based.


Guiliani was able to inherit what Dinkins started and furthered crime reduction, but the process was 3 years in the making when he started in 1994 (he won election in Nov 1993).


oh and it was Dinkins that got the squeegee men off the street, not guiliani.


Going down because he hired more police but the significant decrease occurred with Giuliani

Giuliani (1994–2001) Sharp drop in major felonies (~56%); crime reductions among the steepest in city history.
Bloomberg (2002–2013) Continued declines; by 2013 city was the safest large U.S. city.

Sorry but no way are you going to tell me about squeegee men and Dinkins, especially you as an outsider. I clearly remember them as I lived it. Did you??? Ray Kelly may have been Dinkin's police commissioner but Giuliani took the initiative. In fact, they were a big QOL issue during the mayoral debates so GTFOutta here with your nonsense.

“Killers and rapists are the city’s real public enemies, not squeegee pests.” -Dinkins

...and he uses a typical lib argument along the lines of: ...scapegoating a powerless group wah wah wah
 
first you brought up the possibility that because a city is blue there is more crime.

i brought up the fact that for Tenn and La, the state rates of violent crime are similar to the city rates. but you then came up with "crime is local!"

i would argue violent crime has a state component, because accessibility to guns is determined by state laws. and i would argue that violent crime is directly influenced by economic status. the better the economy, the less violent crime. hence part of the reduction in crime in NYC was due to the economic boom of the 1990s.

then you bring up the entire issue of deterrence, a completely different topic.



so lets look at this from a different perspective: you are trying to prove that having a blue mayor means there is higher crime.

out of the top 50 cities by size, you know that 8 have a republican mayor.

so the vast majority of cities have democratic mayors by a 5:1 margin. statistically speaking there will be more democrat led cities with high crime than republican.


in more detail, out of the 8 republican mayor led cities, Dallas has a higher murder rate higher than NYC. so does Miami, Oklahoma City, Ft Worth, Mesa, Fresno, and Bakersfield. only Va Beach is below NYC in murder rate. NYC, Dallas and Ok City are within 2 spots on the list of each other in terms of total violent crime.




and fwiw, Guiliani claims credit for reducing crime, but it is pretty well known there was a significant reduction in crime that started 3 years before he came in to office in NYC. thats not to say that he didnt contribute, but the rates were already going down before he came to power.

oh and i am sure you are aware that Bloomberg was a democrat until 2001, when he changed to run as a republican for mayor, then switched to being an independent in 2007 half way through his time as mayor, and finally switched back to democrat in 2018.
I get what you’re saying and I know you want to champion for your side but the data and lived experiences are so one sided that it’s hard to make a case for Democratic mayors

Common sense would tell you that their policies are typically abysmal failures at the local level. San Fran is a perfect example. How long has it been ruled by dems? Would you say it’s a thriving and safe city?

You'd be hard-pressed to find a more leftwing city in America than San Francisco, but the people were so fed up with the high crime under DA Chesa Boudin's administration that they RECALLED him in 2022.

Voters can only take so much before they rebel. Unfortunately, by the time Boudin was removed, dozens of businesses had already left the city, including iconic companies that were founded in SF.

1756849288440.png
 
People are sick of it @Ducttape. Like painapplicant says, pray Mamdani doesn’t get elected

A woman who moved from NYC to the Pacific Palisades tells New Yorkers how important the choice of mayor is.
"New York, the beloved city I was born and raised in, this is my urgent warning to you. What happened to my home and my community in the Pacific Palisades was due to mayoral incompetence. Mayors matter. Don't make our tragic mistake."

 
Last edited:
...and don't forget about Kiko Garcia, the drug dealer who attacked the police and was killed by them in self-defense.

How about saying, kids "better not to deal drugs and not threaten the police with violence while armed?" Wouldn't that be better than paying for the criminal's funeral and visiting the family in the hospital?
 
I appreciate you believing me but not important either way. I would frame it more as conserv vs lib which typically correlates with party, although is in constant flux so I'll give that to you.

Some things are not very easy to measure. Data is important but so is life experience. And sometimes, data is wrong. How long have MI pts been given beta blockers for?
When better data is available it should certainly be used. The best we can do is interpret it as best we can and try to make decisions from there. It is still better than basing decisions on anecdote.

You may have read Freakonomics. They had a controversial stance that abortion and ruling of Roe vs Wade played a large role in decreasing crime in NYC in the 90s. Certainly not universally accepted, but I wonder if we will see any uptick in crime 15 to 20 years from now with new abortion policies.
 
I get what you’re saying and I know you want to champion for your side but the data and lived experiences are so one sided that it’s hard to make a case for Democratic mayors

Common sense would tell you that their policies are typically abysmal failures at the local level. San Fran is a perfect example. How long has it been ruled by dems? Would you say it’s a thriving and safe city?

You'd be hard-pressed to find a more leftwing city in America than San Francisco, but the people were so fed up with the high crime under DA Chesa Boudin's administration that they RECALLED him in 2022.

Voters can only take so much before they rebel. Unfortunately, by the time Boudin was removed, dozens of businesses had already left the city, including iconic companies that were founded in SF.

They all came back. Silicon valley is really where it's at for tech and AI though, not SF city.

1756858802284.jpeg
 
When better data is available it should certainly be used. The best we can do is interpret it as best we can and try to make decisions from there. It is still better than basing decisions on anecdote.

You may have read Freakonomics. They had a controversial stance that abortion and ruling of Roe vs Wade played a large role in decreasing crime in NYC in the 90s. Certainly not universally accepted, but I wonder if we will see any uptick in crime 15 to 20 years from now with new abortion policies.
Yeah, I read it. Great book, way back when. I finished it in one day because I couldn't put it down.

There will always be multiple variables affecting any issue, and depending on your opinion, you can pretty much support any position you want with the data. So, I wouldn't discount life experience over academics to the degree that you are.

Since we're going back in time, how about this scene from Back to School, where the professor fails Rodney Dangerfield for his paper on Vonnegut because the writer doesn't know anything about Vonnegut, despite that the paper was written by Vonnegut himself, lol.



Sorry, but I'll take an experienced and successful business guy who didn't go to college any day over a Wharton professor who spends his entire life in academia.

BTW, did anyone see the movie Kids? That was the closest thing to reality of what it was like growing up in NY in the 80s and 90s.
 
Since we’re supposed to be talking about socialism. How in the **** does a socialist like Ilhan Omar become a multimillionaire in 2 yrs? Honestly. I’m out here begging for rvu pellets while someone who espouses the tenets of socialism becomes a multimillionaire?

 
Last edited:
Since we’re supposed to be talking about socialism. How in the **** does a socialist like Ilhan Omar become a multimillionaire in 2 yrs? Honestly. I’m out here begging for rvu pellets while someone who espouses the tenets of socialism becomes a multimillionaire?

if you did even a tiny bit of reading, you would see that the $$$ is from her husband's companies
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
if you did even a tiny bit of reading, you would see that the $$$ is from her husband's companies
Sick, she comes into our country. Decried how horrible capitalism is and then gets filthy rich off of it
 
Last edited:
? i thought you liked capitalism?


honestly, who cares about ilhan omar? i dont. are you so desperate to find and enemy and get pissed off about it?
 
Lol, you are raging at a woman of color with left-leaning views because her wealthy husband.

Nevermind the many white Republican men who are pro-life but encourage their mistresses to get abortions.
 
Lol, you are raging at a woman of color with left-leaning views because her wealthy husband.

Nevermind the many white Republican men who are pro-life but encourage their mistresses to get abortions.
@SSdoc33 Read the entire post above. Didn’t finish my thought
 
? i thought you liked capitalism?


honestly, who cares about ilhan omar? i dont. are you so desperate to find and enemy and get pissed off about it?
Give her too much power and I don’t think you’ll like how your country looks. Check out what’s happening in England
 
Lol, you are raging at a woman of color with left-leaning views because her wealthy husband.

Nevermind the many white Republican men who are pro-life but encourage their mistresses to get abortions.
You seem like a cool person but just out of curiosity, why does race always have to come up in everything with some people? What did he say about race? He's clearly pointing out the ideology and hypocrisy of a socialist, which commonly goes hand in hand.

Similarly, there's hypocrisy with conservs too, such as abortion or having gay relations behind closed doors, but again, this is about ideology, and not race.

Do you think the race-baiting that you're doing improves or worsens race relations?
 
Give her too much power and I don’t think you’ll like how your country looks. Check out what’s happening in England
YOU are giving her power by paying attention to her and getting outraged by nothing.

England is fine
 
You seem like a cool person but just out of curiosity, why does race always have to come up in everything with some people? What did he say about race? He's clearly pointing out the ideology and hypocrisy of a socialist, which commonly goes hand in hand.

Similarly, there's hypocrisy with conservs too, such as abortion or having gay relations behind closed doors, but again, this is about ideology, and not race.

Do you think the race-baiting that you're doing improves or worsens race relations?
I am pointing out the double standard he makes with his criticism of Omar. I am not in clubdeac's head, but I would presume he does so because she is left-leaning as I don't think he is racist. But there ARE Republicans who are very public who criticize her and others for personal traits (race, religion). This is the double standard I am pointing out.

When did she identify as a socialist or say she opposes capitalism? I don't see anything inconsistent with her political views and her husband being wealthy. That is not the case with with conservatives getting abortions behind closed, and actively campaigning to be pro-life.

Here are Ilhan Omar and Mamdani being targeted by House Republicans for race/religion:




And thanks, I'll tell the wife internet guy thinks I'm cool 😉
 
I am pointing out the double standard he makes with his criticism of Omar. I am not in clubdeac's head, but I would presume he does so because she is left-leaning as I don't think he is racist. But there ARE Republicans who are very public who criticize her and others for personal traits (race, religion). This is the double standard I am pointing out.

When did she identify as a socialist or say she opposes capitalism? I don't see anything inconsistent with her political views and her husband being wealthy. That is not the case with with conservatives getting abortions behind closed, and actively campaigning to be pro-life.

Here are Ilhan Omar and Mamdani being targeted by House Republicans for race/religion:




And thanks, I'll tell the wife internet guy thinks I'm cool 😉
The only double standard is the one you're making up in your head. This had nothing to do with race until you brought it up and it has nothing to do with the sexual activities of Republicans. The title of this thread for God's sake is socialism.

You are inflating the race issue to the point that no one cares to listen about it anymore. You are hurting the cause you think you are fighting for.

Consider taking some advice from Morgan Freeman.

How are we going to get rid of racism?” -Mike Wallace

“Stop talking about it." -Morgan Freeman
 
The only double standard is the one you're making up in your head. This had nothing to do with race until you brought it up and it has nothing to do with the sexual activities of Republicans. The title of this thread for God's sake is socialism.

You are inflating the race issue to the point that no one cares to listen about it anymore. You are hurting the cause you think you are fighting for.

Consider taking some advice from Morgan Freeman.

How are we going to get rid of racism?” -Mike Wallace

“Stop talking about it." -Morgan Freeman
Yes the title is socialism, except Ilhan Omar isn't a socialist. However, she HAS been consistently attacked for her ethnicity and religion.

Did you read the posts of US Republican Congressman endorsed by Trump?

If you think race isn't an issue in the Republican party, you are living in a bubble.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yes the title is socialism, except Ilhan Omar isn't a socialist. However, she HAS been consistently attacked for her ethnicity and religion.

Did you read the posts of US Republican Congressman endorsed by Trump?

If you think race isn't an issue in the Republican party, you are living in a bubble.
Still has nothing to do with the point he was making. Did he attack her race or religion? You're conflating different topics to bolster your argument when you should just admit you made a mistake, apologize to my good friend clubdeac, and move on. Considering that you seem to be following in the footsteps of ducttape I will assume this to be impossible for you, so I'll help you out a bit. You should have limited your posts to the following and you would have been okay:

"Yes the title is socialism, except Ilhan Omar isn't a socialist"
"When did she identify as a socialist or say she opposes capitalism? I don't see anything inconsistent with her political views and her husband being wealthy"

Then you can stay on topic and discuss the valid points you're making. Your other info is just noisy garbo.
 
They all came back. Silicon valley is really where it's at for tech and AI though, not SF city.

View attachment 408764
I am not fan of Newsome - guy is horrible.

But I la la love how he is doing these tweets. I find them so funny.

And the reaction from the right is even better. They seem to get so pissed off and annoyed by them. Oh, the irony.....
 
Still has nothing to do with the point he was making. Did he attack her race or religion? You're conflating different topics to bolster your argument when you should just admit you made a mistake, apologize to my good friend clubdeac, and move on. Considering that you seem to be following in the footsteps of ducttape I will assume this to be impossible for you, so I'll help you out a bit. You should have limited your posts to the following and you would have been okay:

"Yes the title is socialism, except Ilhan Omar isn't a socialist"
"When did she identify as a socialist or say she opposes capitalism? I don't see anything inconsistent with her political views and her husband being wealthy"

Then you can stay on topic and discuss the valid points you're making. Your other info is just noisy garbo.

I did not imply clubdeac is racist, and if he took it as so he can tell me and I will absolutely apologize. I am sure we have widely differing political views, but I bet I would love to have him as a neighbor. He is big on charity if I recall, and that alone speaks a whole lot more about a person than their political views.

Yes I did mention she is a woman of color. Clubdeac said "she comes to our country" and then made an inaccurate statement about her stance on capitalism. I really don't care for Ilhan Omar. What bothers me is the target on her. This story about a wealthy husband and being a socialist is a total nothingburger pushed by right wing media and blogs.

There are dozens of not hundreds of Democrats that support increased minimum wage, higher taxes on the wealthy, debt relief, etc. Did the outlets pushing the Ilhan Omar story do a deep dive on if any of these people have a sizeable net worth? So then think why is Ilhan Omar being singled out? It is not a secret, but in the words of her Republican colleagues in the US Congress. What seems to make Omar a much larger target over other Democrats is some combination of:

- being an immigrant from Somalia
- being darker skinned
- being Muslim/wearing a hijab
- being critical of Israel/AIPAC/netanyahu

Only the last one has to do with policy. So you can stay stop talking about race, but it is a major reason she is targeted by some main stream Repubs/conservatives.
 
I did not imply clubdeac is racist, and if he took it as so he can tell me and I will absolutely apologize. I am sure we have widely differing political views, but I bet I would love to have him as a neighbor. He is big on charity if I recall, and that alone speaks a whole lot more about a person than their political views.

Yes I did mention she is a woman of color. Clubdeac said "she comes to our country" and then made an inaccurate statement about her stance on capitalism. I really don't care for Ilhan Omar. What bothers me is the target on her. This story about a wealthy husband and being a socialist is a total nothingburger pushed by right wing media and blogs.

There are dozens of not hundreds of Democrats that support increased minimum wage, higher taxes on the wealthy, debt relief, etc. Did the outlets pushing the Ilhan Omar story do a deep dive on if any of these people have a sizeable net worth? So then think why is Ilhan Omar being singled out? It is not a secret, but in the words of her Republican colleagues in the US Congress. What seems to make Omar a much larger target over other Democrats is some combination of:

- being an immigrant from Somalia
- being darker skinned
- being Muslim/wearing a hijab
- being critical of Israel/AIPAC/netanyahu

Only the last one has to do with policy. So you can stay stop talking about race, but it is a major reason she is targeted by some main stream Repubs/conservatives.
No, it's not. It's very simple, but you're making it out to be something it's not.

An immigrant comes here. Profits handsomely from our system. Complains about our system. Supports socialism.

That's it. No more no less. She made the news because someone recently found out that she is a multimillionaire. That would seem hypocritical to someone who is a socialist and wants a more equitable distribution of funds. It's having money and being socialist, that's the point, no matter who or what the person is.

---

Now, whether or not she's truly a socialist, I have no idea. Nor do I care, but when you constantly inject race into every facet of debate, you start making things out to be racial issues when they're not. That encourages racial divisions, and those divisions result in animosity, which creates problems for society, so I had to call you out on it.
 
People call out the hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders all of the time, including when he was proud to profit from his book because he said he worked hard at it....

...and he has none of the characteristics you mention.

People also called out Nancy Pelosi for her husband's stock trades and all the money she has. Also, none of the characteristics you mention.

The dems try to represent themselves as the party of the people so of course, they're going to be called out anytime something shows that they're anything but part of the people. The more left you lean, the more you look like a hypocrite when discussing equality. Do you honestly not see that?

 
People call out the hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders all of the time, including when he was proud to profit from his book because he said he worked hard at it....

...and he has none of the characteristics you mention.

People also called out Nancy Pelosi for her husband's stock trades and all the money she has. Also, none of the characteristics you mention.

The dems try to represent themselves as the party of the people so of course, they're going to be called out anytime something shows that they're anything but part of the people. The more left you lean, the more you look like a hypocrite when discussing equality. Do you honestly not see that?

They don't get attacked in the same way. There is racism problem in the Republican party that you seem intent on ignoring.


Randy Fine, US Congressman


"I'm sure it is difficult to see us welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists"


Laura Loomer, inner circle of Trump


"He is from Africa. And you can tell in the way he eats. Disgusting. My dogs are cleaner and more civilized when they eat than little Muhammad."


Brandon Gill, US Congressman

“Civilized people in America don’t eat like this,” Gill posted on X (formerly Twitter). “If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the third world.”

Nancy Mace, House Rep implied Mamdani was involved or supported 9/11 attack.


Andy Ogles, House Rep is another. The list goes on.
 
They don't get attacked in the same way. There is racism problem in the Republican party that you seem intent on ignoring.


Randy Fine, US Congressman


"I'm sure it is difficult to see us welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists"


Laura Loomer, inner circle of Trump


"He is from Africa. And you can tell in the way he eats. Disgusting. My dogs are cleaner and more civilized when they eat than little Muhammad."


Brandon Gill, US Congressman

“Civilized people in America don’t eat like this,” Gill posted on X (formerly Twitter). “If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the third world.”

Nancy Mace, House Rep implied Mamdani was involved or supported 9/11 attack.


Andy Ogles, House Rep is another. The list goes on.
Again, nothing to do with clubdeac or the point he was making. Take your issue up with those people.

Anyway, it's getting repetitive at this point, and we're going to go in circles. More importantly, my weekend from medicine just started so have a nice weekend and thanks for the conversation.

Can you sign up for the attending forum? We have fun discussions in there. We can talk about racial issues, Israel, libs, welfare, hot-button topics etc. to your heart's content. I'm sure you have a lot to opine about, and because we're such important people, we have a tremendous impact on world events and policy makers. We can also do controversial books in our book club if you want, and debate them. Sign up, okay? Are you an attending?
 
People call out the hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders all of the time, including when he was proud to profit from his book because he said he worked hard at it....

...and he has none of the characteristics you mention.

People also called out Nancy Pelosi for her husband's stock trades and all the money she has. Also, none of the characteristics you mention.

The dems try to represent themselves as the party of the people so of course, they're going to be called out anytime something shows that they're anything but part of the people. The more left you lean, the more you look like a hypocrite when discussing equality. Do you honestly not see that?

Sanders is a bad choice here. He's been in Congress for over 30 years and his net worth seems to be around $3 million. I guarantee no one else who has served that long has that little (by comparison) money.

Don't get me wrong, I detest his politics but he stays pretty true to his principles.
 
They don't get attacked in the same way. There is racism problem in the Republican party that you seem intent on ignoring.


Randy Fine, US Congressman


"I'm sure it is difficult to see us welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists"


Laura Loomer, inner circle of Trump


"He is from Africa. And you can tell in the way he eats. Disgusting. My dogs are cleaner and more civilized when they eat than little Muhammad."


Brandon Gill, US Congressman

“Civilized people in America don’t eat like this,” Gill posted on X (formerly Twitter). “If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the third world.”

Nancy Mace, House Rep implied Mamdani was involved or supported 9/11 attack.


Andy Ogles, House Rep is another. The list goes on.
Just curious, is there a racism problem from the left also?
 
Again, nothing to do with clubdeac or the point he was making. Take your issue up with those people.

Anyway, it's getting repetitive at this point, and we're going to go in circles. More importantly, my weekend from medicine just started so have a nice weekend and thanks for the conversation.

Can you sign up for the attending forum? We have fun discussions in there. We can talk about racial issues, Israel, libs, welfare, hot-button topics etc. to your heart's content. I'm sure you have a lot to opine about, and because we're such important people, we have a tremendous impact on world events and policy makers. We can also do controversial books in our book club if you want, and debate them. Sign up, okay? Are you an attending?
Good talk and enjoy your weekend! I am an attending. The book club sounds interesting but I think I post more than enough unnecessary political discussion here, thank you very much!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Nineteen of the 20 cities with the highest murder rates again have one thing in common. I don’t care about the state politics, red or blue. That doesn’t matter bc crime is local. And local law enforcement and politics is what really matters when it comes to crime

There is another something those cities have in common, but no one is gonna say it...

Crime in the US is overall improving however, especially violent crime. It is really only occurring in large number in certain hot spots, but across the nation it is declining.
 
There is another something those cities have in common, but no one is gonna say it...

Crime in the US is overall improving however, especially violent crime. It is really only occurring in large number in certain hot spots, but across the nation it is declining.
Thank Trump for that
 
Thank Trump for that
Men are killed 3.5x more often as women, and blacks 7x more commonly than whites.

Black homicide is 8.8 out of 10 guns, virtually always pistols (lets ban "assault rifles"), whereas whites are 6.8 out of 10 with guns. Whites use far more knives and blunt instruments.

White homicide 3.2/100,000 people
Black homicide 21.3/100,000 people

Nearly impossible to track Hispanic data for reasons I don't really understand.

These crimes occur nearly exclusively in cities, most of which are Democratically-run.
 
While her reported assets have ballooned, Omar still lists liabilities. These include as much as $100,000 in combined student loans and credit card debt. Additional filings show she holds between $1,000 and $15,000 in savings at the congressional credit union and another $15,000 to $50,000 in a retirement fund from her Minnesota state legislature days.
all of her wealth is in her husband's "assets" in his 2 companies.


and just to touch on the democrat congressmen with wealth - pretty much most congresspersons get richer while in office.

there are several on both sides who have not used the office directly or indirectly for wealth. examples: from the right - timothy scott. from the left, christopher murphy.

(hint AOC is not a millionaire. AOC Became a Multi-Millionaire After Serving Four Years in Congress? )

Thank Trump for that
again, crime in US has been decreasing before trump.


addendum data from 2024, which showed crime decreased from 2023.

National violent crime decreased an estimated 4.5% in 2024 compared to 2023 estimates:

posted Aug 5, 2025
 
Last edited:
Men are killed 3.5x more often as women, and blacks 7x more commonly than whites.

Black homicide is 8.8 out of 10 guns, virtually always pistols (lets ban "assault rifles"), whereas whites are 6.8 out of 10 with guns. Whites use far more knives and blunt instruments.

White homicide 3.2/100,000 people
Black homicide 21.3/100,000 people

Nearly impossible to track Hispanic data for reasons I don't really understand.

These crimes occur nearly exclusively in cities, most of which are Democratically-run.
correlation, not causation.

crime also occurs in Dallas, Ft. Worth, Oklahoma City, and other cities run by republican mayors.

btw, did you know that since both prostate cancer and autism have gone up in the past 20 years, prostate cancer must be causing all these cases of autism! also, our increasing use of emails has lead to an increase in use of high fructose corn syrup! stop sending emails!!!

===

yes, an assault rifle ban would not affect handgun homicides directly. the point of the assault rifle and semi-automatic ban is to reduce the sensationalist killings such as school or church shootings. thats what most people care about and if you ask advocates for gun control, its about protecting innocents esp the children.


what "may" affect homicides would be other gun control laws such as registration or purchase/sale of gun regulations, because most handgun killings, if i remember correctly, are not done with legally purchased handguns.
 
i should also hesitate to suggest that, given the train of thinking, maybe big cities do not elect republican mayors is because they think important issues such crime would get worse under republican leadership......
 
Men are killed 3.5x more often as women, and blacks 7x more commonly than whites.

Black homicide is 8.8 out of 10 guns, virtually always pistols (lets ban "assault rifles"), whereas whites are 6.8 out of 10 with guns. Whites use far more knives and blunt instruments.

White homicide 3.2/100,000 people
Black homicide 21.3/100,000 people

Nearly impossible to track Hispanic data for reasons I don't really understand.

These crimes occur nearly exclusively in cities, most of which are Democratically-run.
Exactly. Here are the stats I’ve seen recently

From the left-leaning Journal of the American Medical Association:
"The highest homicide rates, by a substantial margin, were among Black males aged 15 to 24 years (74.6 per 100,000 population) and 25 to 44 years (70 per 100,000 population) followed by American Indian and Alaska Native males aged 15 to 24 years (24.5 per 100,000).

Also this….

"About half of homicides are known to be single-offender/single-victim, and most of those were intraracial; in those where the perpetrator's and victim's races were known, 81% of white victims were killed by whites and 91% of black or African-American victims were killed by blacks or African-Americans."
 
correlation, not causation.

crime also occurs in Dallas, Ft. Worth, Oklahoma City, and other cities run by republican mayors.

btw, did you know that since both prostate cancer and autism have gone up in the past 20 years, prostate cancer must be causing all these cases of autism! also, our increasing use of emails has lead to an increase in use of high fructose corn syrup! stop sending emails!!!

===

yes, an assault rifle ban would not affect handgun homicides directly. the point of the assault rifle and semi-automatic ban is to reduce the sensationalist killings such as school or church shootings. thats what most people care about and if you ask advocates for gun control, its about protecting innocents esp the children.


what "may" affect homicides would be other gun control laws such as registration or purchase/sale of gun regulations, because most handgun killings, if i remember correctly, are not done with legally purchased handguns.
So much mental gymnastics trying to argue that high crime in predominantly Democratic controlled cities has nothing to do with who’s running the city or their policies. You poor thing. You must be exhausted
 
So much mental gymnastics trying to argue that high crime in predominantly Democratic controlled cities has nothing to do with who’s running the city or their policies. You poor thing. You must be exhausted
if you are going to be condescending, you have to at least be smart. sorry, but you dont fit the bill
 
correlation, not causation.

crime also occurs in Dallas, Ft. Worth, Oklahoma City, and other cities run by republican mayors.

btw, did you know that since both prostate cancer and autism have gone up in the past 20 years, prostate cancer must be causing all these cases of autism! also, our increasing use of emails has lead to an increase in use of high fructose corn syrup! stop sending emails!!!

===

yes, an assault rifle ban would not affect handgun homicides directly. the point of the assault rifle and semi-automatic ban is to reduce the sensationalist killings such as school or church shootings. thats what most people care about and if you ask advocates for gun control, its about protecting innocents esp the children.


what "may" affect homicides would be other gun control laws such as registration or purchase/sale of gun regulations, because most handgun killings, if i remember correctly, are not done with legally purchased handguns.

Sir...You do not care about minority children, only whites apparently.

If you did, you would go after pistols and put a cop on every corner of the inner city neighborhoods where most of the crime takes place.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Top Bottom