6 ms·

The natural reflex in the US is to scream "Democrat" or "Republican" as the supposed root cause of every problem. This is just rooting for your favorite team a

The natural reflex in the US is to scream "Democrat" or "Republican" as the supposed root cause of every problem. This is just rooting for your favorite team and it doesn't illuminate what policies work or don't work. A better way would be to survey the cities of the world, measure crime and homelessness, and systematically identify the policies that consistently deliver better results.

dundercoder 7y ago
I might be dreaming but I would love for people to be more concerned about what’s right, not who’s right.
CryptoPunk 7y ago
I wish the problematic policies weren't perpetuated almost exclusively by one party, because then I wouldn't sound so partisan. Opposition to laws and policies that set boundaries on the behaviour of drug addicts, like anti-vagrancy laws and forced rebab, comes only from Democrats. Empowering public sector unions that make public servants less accountable and government less effective is promoted primarily by Democrats. The creation of clusters of social housing that creates crime-ridden neighbourhoods that perpetuate anti-social and lawless behaviour, as well as government dependency, is done exclusively by registered Democrats. Look at major cities with severe trash/homelessness problems, and how many of them are run by Democrats. In the short-term, a lot of Democrat policies help the people they set out to help. In the long run, they create government dependency and ghettos, and that harms far more people. If you want law and order, Republicans are the party to vote for. The longer this reality is denied for political correctness reasons, the stronger the populist right-wing political backlash will be when it comes.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  So, in this country, the Democrats tend to do better (electorally) in the big cities, and the Republicans find more success in small towns or rural. So, when a big city is run by Republicans, there is always a very real and ever-present chance of Democrats taking it away at the next election. On the other hand, there are many big cities where Democrats think they will never lose to Republicans, and in some cases (e.g. Chicago) they're right. So there is less of a check on their power. So, the better comparison to Democrats running a big city, would be Republicans running a state where Democrats haven't won state-wide elections in a long time.
  - varelse 7y ago
    It goes back and forth, and the Democrats grabbed an early lead in Big Data to insure Obama's victory in 2012, but I think they seriously underestimate the ability of republican operators to catch up and game the existing system. They've been at this for decades and they play a very long game. That's how Republican candidates can lose the popular vote yet win the electoral college. I see no sign of the Democrats playing catch-up for 2020 and I think they are in for a rude awakening despite our current leader's seemingly low numbers because that guy brings out his base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
    - rossdavidh 7y ago
      The electoral college is, by original design, intended to keep the few large (population-wise) states from dominating the federal government. In other words, not much about it works as originally designed, but the one thing that does is what it did in 2016, which was to guarantee that you cannot dominate federal government if you ignore rural and small states. Which, given the Democrats urban emphasis, means it is biased against them, not as an accident or via a loophole, but by original design. I don't know that the Republicans deserve a lot of credit for seeing this, it was no secret, it was the original stated intention of giving each state 2 senators, and making electoral college votes equal senators plus representatives. One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states.
      - varelse 7y ago
        >One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states. Nailed it. I lost almost all respect for Hillary Clinton when she refused to campaign there whilst Trump, all of my dislike for him and his ideology aside, campaigned there and truly earned every vote he got. Doubly so when her own husband, all of his failings aside someone insanely great on the campaign trail himself, urged her to do so. https://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/ https://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/
bilbo0s 7y ago
>?The natural reflex in the US is to scream "Democrat" or "Republican" as the supposed root cause of every problem. This is just rooting for your favorite team... I can attest to this. Long time ago, I lived in Minneapolis for a while and thought the place got worked over by liberals. Now I live in small town Wisconsin, and we got bent over by conservatives so bad that we're a regular feature in the national news and the butt of late night comedy jokes. I was foolish when I was younger, and thought the liberal-conservative thing made a difference in politicians. It doesn't. You can get reamed by either one. In fact, you're most likely to get reamed when you're thinking in terms of the liberal-conservative dichotomy. At least, that's been my experience. Your mileage may vary I guess.
- senser 7y ago
  As a gay person, I definitely get less reamed by Democrats... Can we please stop with the false equivalences? The entire system might be garbage, but I can tell you who is and is not trying to take away my rights.
  - RickJWagner 7y ago
    Serious question-- which of your rights are endangered? (Citations, please)
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_marriage_i... Guess which party was in favor of it, and which was against it. This happened recently, within your living memory.
      - berberous 7y ago
        Hilary Clinton was quoted as saying a marriage is always between a man and a woman and did not support gay marriage until like 2013. Supposedly liberal California overturned the courts ruling on this issue with prop 8 in 2008. I think Republicans, being conservatives, definitely took longer to move on this issue than Democrats, but I think this is an area where the country as a whole shifted a lot over the recent past.
pokibowlforu 7y ago
.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Well jail for drug/alcohol abusers doesn't work. It's just another weak wristed attempt to paper over the problem. Like throwing mentally ill people in jail. I mean, I get it. There's no place else to put them. But it only makes the problem worse. You could have users, potentially anyway, be in the same jail as their dealer. (Even in the same cell.) It's just lunacy. What you really need are real mental health facilities that police, families and courts can call on. You need real drug rehab facilities that police, families and courts can call on. We've tried to turn jails into mental health and rehab facilities and we're wondering why it doesn't work. Well, that's not what a jail is for. Incentivizing owner occupied housing is a no brainer I suppose. It certainly can't hurt in any way I can think of? Free food is ok. Needles and cash could potentially be used to simply feed addictions. Shouldn't be giving out needles and cash. Food is a necessity though. It's the canary in the coal mine. You'll know something's going wrong when the amount of food consumed at kitchens or taken from food banks starts going up. These are the metrics municipalities should be tracking.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- amluto 7y ago
  If you want a rational discussion, it helps to state your beliefs in a way that can be discussed usefully. For example, saying “unchecked illegal immigration” is a non-working policy makes quite a few assumptions. Are many of LA’s homeless illegal immigrants? Does homelessness have anything to do with immigration, legal or otherwise? If so, what? In what respect is illegal immigration “unchecked”? [0] For that matter, why do free food, etc incentivize homelessness? Do you want a rational discussion in which your own assumptions might be challenged or do you just consider anyone who disagrees to be irrational? [0] Estimates of the recent net illegal immigration rate vary from negative to positive but quite low. Illegal immigration may or may not be “unchecked”, but the rate seems quite low.
sjg007 7y ago
Umm.. this article is about illegal dumping. That has nothing to do with politics. What LA needs to do is setup cameras in those areas with license plate readers. Also LA has also always had a problem with illegal dumping. Maybe offer a tip line as well with cash rewards.
- panarky 7y ago
  > Umm... nothing to do with politics. Cruise through the comments on this thread to see this "natural reflex" on display.

dundercoder 7y ago

I might be dreaming but I would love for people to be more concerned about what’s right, not who’s right.

CryptoPunk 7y ago

I wish the problematic policies weren't perpetuated almost exclusively by one party, because then I wouldn't sound so partisan. Opposition to laws and policies that set boundaries on the behaviour of drug addicts, like anti-vagrancy laws and forced rebab, comes only from Democrats. Empowering public sector unions that make public servants less accountable and government less effective is promoted primarily by Democrats. The creation of clusters of social housing that creates crime-ridden neighbourhoods that perpetuate anti-social and lawless behaviour, as well as government dependency, is done exclusively by registered Democrats. Look at major cities with severe trash/homelessness problems, and how many of them are run by Democrats. In the short-term, a lot of Democrat policies help the people they set out to help. In the long run, they create government dependency and ghettos, and that harms far more people. If you want law and order, Republicans are the party to vote for. The longer this reality is denied for political correctness reasons, the stronger the populist right-wing political backlash will be when it comes.

rossdavidh 7y ago
So, in this country, the Democrats tend to do better (electorally) in the big cities, and the Republicans find more success in small towns or rural. So, when a big city is run by Republicans, there is always a very real and ever-present chance of Democrats taking it away at the next election. On the other hand, there are many big cities where Democrats think they will never lose to Republicans, and in some cases (e.g. Chicago) they're right. So there is less of a check on their power. So, the better comparison to Democrats running a big city, would be Republicans running a state where Democrats haven't won state-wide elections in a long time.
- varelse 7y ago
  It goes back and forth, and the Democrats grabbed an early lead in Big Data to insure Obama's victory in 2012, but I think they seriously underestimate the ability of republican operators to catch up and game the existing system. They've been at this for decades and they play a very long game. That's how Republican candidates can lose the popular vote yet win the electoral college. I see no sign of the Democrats playing catch-up for 2020 and I think they are in for a rude awakening despite our current leader's seemingly low numbers because that guy brings out his base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    The electoral college is, by original design, intended to keep the few large (population-wise) states from dominating the federal government. In other words, not much about it works as originally designed, but the one thing that does is what it did in 2016, which was to guarantee that you cannot dominate federal government if you ignore rural and small states. Which, given the Democrats urban emphasis, means it is biased against them, not as an accident or via a loophole, but by original design. I don't know that the Republicans deserve a lot of credit for seeing this, it was no secret, it was the original stated intention of giving each state 2 senators, and making electoral college votes equal senators plus representatives. One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states.
    - varelse 7y ago
      >One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states. Nailed it. I lost almost all respect for Hillary Clinton when she refused to campaign there whilst Trump, all of my dislike for him and his ideology aside, campaigned there and truly earned every vote he got. Doubly so when her own husband, all of his failings aside someone insanely great on the campaign trail himself, urged her to do so. https://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/ https://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/

bilbo0s 7y ago

>?The natural reflex in the US is to scream "Democrat" or "Republican" as the supposed root cause of every problem. This is just rooting for your favorite team... I can attest to this. Long time ago, I lived in Minneapolis for a while and thought the place got worked over by liberals. Now I live in small town Wisconsin, and we got bent over by conservatives so bad that we're a regular feature in the national news and the butt of late night comedy jokes. I was foolish when I was younger, and thought the liberal-conservative thing made a difference in politicians. It doesn't. You can get reamed by either one. In fact, you're most likely to get reamed when you're thinking in terms of the liberal-conservative dichotomy. At least, that's been my experience. Your mileage may vary I guess.

senser 7y ago
As a gay person, I definitely get less reamed by Democrats... Can we please stop with the false equivalences? The entire system might be garbage, but I can tell you who is and is not trying to take away my rights.
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  Serious question-- which of your rights are endangered? (Citations, please)
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_marriage_i... Guess which party was in favor of it, and which was against it. This happened recently, within your living memory.
    - berberous 7y ago
      Hilary Clinton was quoted as saying a marriage is always between a man and a woman and did not support gay marriage until like 2013. Supposedly liberal California overturned the courts ruling on this issue with prop 8 in 2008. I think Republicans, being conservatives, definitely took longer to move on this issue than Democrats, but I think this is an area where the country as a whole shifted a lot over the recent past.

pokibowlforu 7y ago

bilbo0s 7y ago
Well jail for drug/alcohol abusers doesn't work. It's just another weak wristed attempt to paper over the problem. Like throwing mentally ill people in jail. I mean, I get it. There's no place else to put them. But it only makes the problem worse. You could have users, potentially anyway, be in the same jail as their dealer. (Even in the same cell.) It's just lunacy. What you really need are real mental health facilities that police, families and courts can call on. You need real drug rehab facilities that police, families and courts can call on. We've tried to turn jails into mental health and rehab facilities and we're wondering why it doesn't work. Well, that's not what a jail is for. Incentivizing owner occupied housing is a no brainer I suppose. It certainly can't hurt in any way I can think of? Free food is ok. Needles and cash could potentially be used to simply feed addictions. Shouldn't be giving out needles and cash. Food is a necessity though. It's the canary in the coal mine. You'll know something's going wrong when the amount of food consumed at kitchens or taken from food banks starts going up. These are the metrics municipalities should be tracking.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
amluto 7y ago
If you want a rational discussion, it helps to state your beliefs in a way that can be discussed usefully. For example, saying “unchecked illegal immigration” is a non-working policy makes quite a few assumptions. Are many of LA’s homeless illegal immigrants? Does homelessness have anything to do with immigration, legal or otherwise? If so, what? In what respect is illegal immigration “unchecked”? [0] For that matter, why do free food, etc incentivize homelessness? Do you want a rational discussion in which your own assumptions might be challenged or do you just consider anyone who disagrees to be irrational? [0] Estimates of the recent net illegal immigration rate vary from negative to positive but quite low. Illegal immigration may or may not be “unchecked”, but the rate seems quite low.

sjg007 7y ago

Umm.. this article is about illegal dumping. That has nothing to do with politics. What LA needs to do is setup cameras in those areas with license plate readers. Also LA has also always had a problem with illegal dumping. Maybe offer a tip line as well with cash rewards.

panarky 7y ago
> Umm... nothing to do with politics. Cruise through the comments on this thread to see this "natural reflex" on display.