Conservatives and Liberals

[MDlaxfan76]

^^^^ More bullsh*t.

It's strikingly dumb, but I think it's willful, not actual stupidity and ignorance.
Yes, bulls*t.

If it is strikingly dumb in your opinion ( ), Then why do you CONTINUE to engage with it? Do you realize that is even MORE DUMB? I'm not back on these threads, but had to post this. You and Jhu72 spent 95% of your time on here thinking you are achieving the greater good by constantly diminishing, trivializing and dismissing a poster that simply wants to engage in a conversation. Since it is not a conversation that either of you are willing to engage in, you dismiss him like a 5th grader does when they feel that one of the group is not "cool". It's truly laughable behavior to observe, and it plays out DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY. Sad...

*I know it must be hard to understand, but you CANNOT maintain a level of control over everything that gets said in a PUBLIC forum. How long is it going to take to get that through your head?

Joe

Joe,
yes, my "opinion". I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions and judgments about Petey's trolling and expressing them as I see fit.

I don't seek "control" over what someone else writes, but I am equally free to express my own views. Whether in direct response or otherwise.

Where I disagree with you is in my own assessment that Petey is dishonest in his efforts to "engage" others in "conversation". I simply don't believe he is as stupid or ignorant as the great majority of his posts might well indicate. Thus, my belief that he is dishonestly putting forth assertions as if "fact" and opinions as if persuasive, when they are quite the opposite.

Petey has made perfectly clear that he is a hyper-partisan keyboard warrior. He claims as well to be a substantial financial supporter of a great number of GOP candidates around the country, and for this current GOP he is a whirling dervish of propaganda and misinformation.

Yes, IMO.

Amazing.

As ‘chief arbiter of misinformation’ here, could you quote any posts of mine where ‘he claims as well to be a substantial financial supporter of a great number of GOP candidates around the country’. Could you identify that claim, both your and supposedly mine? I know I’ve said I’m a “meager donor”. I just can’t recall anytime I’ve claimed to be a ‘substantial donor’, which surely you can locate since you just stated it as fact. It just doesn’t seem like something I’d ever say.

I wouldn’t want anyone to accuse you of misinforming the board. Again.

funny that's your retort, you didn't use the phrase "substantial donor"...that's it...

yes, you a day ago described yourself as "just a meager donor" right before saying you'd sent $2,700 to Jennifer Strahan.

You've bragged many times on being on funding calls for numerous candidates around the country and making such donations.

I wasn't quoting you, but that's my characterization of "substantial donor". I have no idea how much you actually donate, for all I know it's nada or perhaps you work for a PAC or something, but according to your own claims you donate quite a lot to many candidates...and in my parlance, that's "substantial"...maybe in yours it's just "meager", but it feels more like BS to me.

When someone invents words, phrases, and adjectives and tries to pass those words off as someone else’s, it’s really not much different than a Trumpian slight of hand. And frankly, I wouldn’t care if thats how how you chose to operate online (it’s a standard trick of the left, so whatevs), but all I’d really point out to you is, if you’re bold enough to declare yourself ‘Minister of Truth’ here or anywhere, you probably ought to be fairly precise with your wording (not, you know, the Trump of posts).

You want to castigate me for characterizing your claims as "substantial", when clearly that's a fair characterization... under this odd notion that my words need to be precisely your own, though I clearly wasn't quoting you? And then you turn around, with quotes, saying I "declare" (myself) 'Minister of Truth' a phrase I've never used, much less applied to myself...unbelievable, you just can't help sticking your foot in your mouth, can you, Petey?

[Peter Brown]

^^^^ More bullsh*t.

It's strikingly dumb, but I think it's willful, not actual stupidity and ignorance.
Yes, bulls*t.

If it is strikingly dumb in your opinion ( ), Then why do you CONTINUE to engage with it? Do you realize that is even MORE DUMB? I'm not back on these threads, but had to post this. You and Jhu72 spent 95% of your time on here thinking you are achieving the greater good by constantly diminishing, trivializing and dismissing a poster that simply wants to engage in a conversation. Since it is not a conversation that either of you are willing to engage in, you dismiss him like a 5th grader does when they feel that one of the group is not "cool". It's truly laughable behavior to observe, and it plays out DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY. Sad...

*I know it must be hard to understand, but you CANNOT maintain a level of control over everything that gets said in a PUBLIC forum. How long is it going to take to get that through your head?

Joe

Joe,
yes, my "opinion". I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions and judgments about Petey's trolling and expressing them as I see fit.

I don't seek "control" over what someone else writes, but I am equally free to express my own views. Whether in direct response or otherwise.

Where I disagree with you is in my own assessment that Petey is dishonest in his efforts to "engage" others in "conversation". I simply don't believe he is as stupid or ignorant as the great majority of his posts might well indicate. Thus, my belief that he is dishonestly putting forth assertions as if "fact" and opinions as if persuasive, when they are quite the opposite.

Petey has made perfectly clear that he is a hyper-partisan keyboard warrior. He claims as well to be a substantial financial supporter of a great number of GOP candidates around the country, and for this current GOP he is a whirling dervish of propaganda and misinformation.

Yes, IMO.

Amazing.

As ‘chief arbiter of misinformation’ here, could you quote any posts of mine where ‘he claims as well to be a substantial financial supporter of a great number of GOP candidates around the country’. Could you identify that claim, both your and supposedly mine? I know I’ve said I’m a “meager donor”. I just can’t recall anytime I’ve claimed to be a ‘substantial donor’, which surely you can locate since you just stated it as fact. It just doesn’t seem like something I’d ever say.

I wouldn’t want anyone to accuse you of misinforming the board. Again.

funny that's your retort, you didn't use the phrase "substantial donor"...that's it...

yes, you a day ago described yourself as "just a meager donor" right before saying you'd sent $2,700 to Jennifer Strahan.

You've bragged many times on being on funding calls for numerous candidates around the country and making such donations.

I wasn't quoting you, but that's my characterization of "substantial donor". I have no idea how much you actually donate, for all I know it's nada or perhaps you work for a PAC or something, but according to your own claims you donate quite a lot to many candidates...and in my parlance, that's "substantial"...maybe in yours it's just "meager", but it feels more like BS to me.

When someone invents words, phrases, and adjectives and tries to pass those words off as someone else’s, it’s really not much different than a Trumpian slight of hand. And frankly, I wouldn’t care if thats how how you chose to operate online (it’s a standard trick of the left, so whatevs), but all I’d really point out to you is, if you’re bold enough to declare yourself ‘Minister of Truth’ here or anywhere, you probably ought to be fairly precise with your wording (not, you know, the Trump of posts).

You want to castigate me for characterizing your claims as "substantial", when clearly that's a fair characterization... under this odd notion that my words need to be precisely your own, though I clearly wasn't quoting you? And then you turn around, with quotes, saying I "declare" (myself) 'Minister of Truth' a phrase I've never used, much less applied to myself...unbelievable, you just can't help sticking your foot in your mouth, can you, Petey?

I don’t accuse folks here of “lying”. Presumably if I did, I’d have evidence they are. But I don’t, so I don’t.

I’m interested in ideas.

[MDlaxfan76]

^^^^ More bullsh*t.

It's strikingly dumb, but I think it's willful, not actual stupidity and ignorance.
Yes, bulls*t.

If it is strikingly dumb in your opinion ( ), Then why do you CONTINUE to engage with it? Do you realize that is even MORE DUMB? I'm not back on these threads, but had to post this. You and Jhu72 spent 95% of your time on here thinking you are achieving the greater good by constantly diminishing, trivializing and dismissing a poster that simply wants to engage in a conversation. Since it is not a conversation that either of you are willing to engage in, you dismiss him like a 5th grader does when they feel that one of the group is not "cool". It's truly laughable behavior to observe, and it plays out DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY. Sad...

*I know it must be hard to understand, but you CANNOT maintain a level of control over everything that gets said in a PUBLIC forum. How long is it going to take to get that through your head?

Joe

Joe,
yes, my "opinion". I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions and judgments about Petey's trolling and expressing them as I see fit.

I don't seek "control" over what someone else writes, but I am equally free to express my own views. Whether in direct response or otherwise.

Where I disagree with you is in my own assessment that Petey is dishonest in his efforts to "engage" others in "conversation". I simply don't believe he is as stupid or ignorant as the great majority of his posts might well indicate. Thus, my belief that he is dishonestly putting forth assertions as if "fact" and opinions as if persuasive, when they are quite the opposite.

Petey has made perfectly clear that he is a hyper-partisan keyboard warrior. He claims as well to be a substantial financial supporter of a great number of GOP candidates around the country, and for this current GOP he is a whirling dervish of propaganda and misinformation.

Yes, IMO.

Amazing.

As ‘chief arbiter of misinformation’ here, could you quote any posts of mine where ‘he claims as well to be a substantial financial supporter of a great number of GOP candidates around the country’. Could you identify that claim, both your and supposedly mine? I know I’ve said I’m a “meager donor”. I just can’t recall anytime I’ve claimed to be a ‘substantial donor’, which surely you can locate since you just stated it as fact. It just doesn’t seem like something I’d ever say.

I wouldn’t want anyone to accuse you of misinforming the board. Again.

funny that's your retort, you didn't use the phrase "substantial donor"...that's it...

yes, you a day ago described yourself as "just a meager donor" right before saying you'd sent $2,700 to Jennifer Strahan.

You've bragged many times on being on funding calls for numerous candidates around the country and making such donations.

I wasn't quoting you, but that's my characterization of "substantial donor". I have no idea how much you actually donate, for all I know it's nada or perhaps you work for a PAC or something, but according to your own claims you donate quite a lot to many candidates...and in my parlance, that's "substantial"...maybe in yours it's just "meager", but it feels more like BS to me.

When someone invents words, phrases, and adjectives and tries to pass those words off as someone else’s, it’s really not much different than a Trumpian slight of hand. And frankly, I wouldn’t care if thats how how you chose to operate online (it’s a standard trick of the left, so whatevs), but all I’d really point out to you is, if you’re bold enough to declare yourself ‘Minister of Truth’ here or anywhere, you probably ought to be fairly precise with your wording (not, you know, the Trump of posts).

You want to castigate me for characterizing your claims as "substantial", when clearly that's a fair characterization... under this odd notion that my words need to be precisely your own, though I clearly wasn't quoting you? And then you turn around, with quotes, saying I "declare" (myself) 'Minister of Truth' a phrase I've never used, much less applied to myself...unbelievable, you just can't help sticking your foot in your mouth, can you, Petey?

I don’t accuse folks here of “lying”. Presumably if I did, I’d have evidence they are. But I don’t, so I don’t.

I’m interested in ideas.

Sure you are...

[jhu72]

British Medical Journal finds republican majority counties have higher mortality rates than democratic majority counties.

[dislaxxic]

Memo to the media: GOP policies — not the rare liberal prosecutors — are driving crime

As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post notes, similarly-sized cities with "Republican mayors and Republican chief prosecutors" have even worse murder rates than San Francisco. In fact, violent crime is more of a red state problem than a blue state one, as 8 out of the 10 states with the highest murder rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The murder rate in the 25 states that went for Trump is, on average, 40% higher than that of states that voted for Joe Biden. But, as Waldman notes, the mainstream media ignores this cold statistical evidence in favor of the right-wing framework that pins the blame on liberal prosecutors. Liberal prosecutors are exceedingly rare even in Democratic cities and, as in San Francisco, often helm cities with lower crime rates than their "tough-on-crime" counterparts.

The excuse for this misleading framework is that journalists are simply reporting on voter sentiment and the perception that liberal policies lead to crime. But this is a cop-out. Voters are confused because the media keeps regurgitating a framework that implies they must choose between liberal policies and lower crime rates. Of course, voters believe in this false dichotomy — it's the one presented as truth every time they turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

This misleading coverage is all the more frustrating because it distracts from the very real causes of the crime and disorder problems that are legitimately bedeviling cities. To be certain, crime, especially violent crime, is a multifaceted problem that can rarely be reduced to a single cause. But what is driving voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco is anger over widespread homelessness and property crimes. And those problems are attributable in large part to Trump-era economic policies. National Democrats — hobbled by timing issues, centrist politicians, and the Senate filibuster — have done little to fix the situation.

..

[Seacoaster(1)]

Memo to the media: GOP policies — not the rare liberal prosecutors — are driving crime

As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post notes, similarly-sized cities with "Republican mayors and Republican chief prosecutors" have even worse murder rates than San Francisco. In fact, violent crime is more of a red state problem than a blue state one, as 8 out of the 10 states with the highest murder rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The murder rate in the 25 states that went for Trump is, on average, 40% higher than that of states that voted for Joe Biden. But, as Waldman notes, the mainstream media ignores this cold statistical evidence in favor of the right-wing framework that pins the blame on liberal prosecutors. Liberal prosecutors are exceedingly rare even in Democratic cities and, as in San Francisco, often helm cities with lower crime rates than their "tough-on-crime" counterparts.

The excuse for this misleading framework is that journalists are simply reporting on voter sentiment and the perception that liberal policies lead to crime. But this is a cop-out. Voters are confused because the media keeps regurgitating a framework that implies they must choose between liberal policies and lower crime rates. Of course, voters believe in this false dichotomy — it's the one presented as truth every time they turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

This misleading coverage is all the more frustrating because it distracts from the very real causes of the crime and disorder problems that are legitimately bedeviling cities. To be certain, crime, especially violent crime, is a multifaceted problem that can rarely be reduced to a single cause. But what is driving voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco is anger over widespread homelessness and property crimes. And those problems are attributable in large part to Trump-era economic policies. National Democrats — hobbled by timing issues, centrist politicians, and the Senate filibuster — have done little to fix the situation.

..

Which is to say, the media is basically failing us.

[cradleandshoot]

Memo to the media: GOP policies — not the rare liberal prosecutors — are driving crime

As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post notes, similarly-sized cities with "Republican mayors and Republican chief prosecutors" have even worse murder rates than San Francisco. In fact, violent crime is more of a red state problem than a blue state one, as 8 out of the 10 states with the highest murder rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The murder rate in the 25 states that went for Trump is, on average, 40% higher than that of states that voted for Joe Biden. But, as Waldman notes, the mainstream media ignores this cold statistical evidence in favor of the right-wing framework that pins the blame on liberal prosecutors. Liberal prosecutors are exceedingly rare even in Democratic cities and, as in San Francisco, often helm cities with lower crime rates than their "tough-on-crime" counterparts.

The excuse for this misleading framework is that journalists are simply reporting on voter sentiment and the perception that liberal policies lead to crime. But this is a cop-out. Voters are confused because the media keeps regurgitating a framework that implies they must choose between liberal policies and lower crime rates. Of course, voters believe in this false dichotomy — it's the one presented as truth every time they turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

This misleading coverage is all the more frustrating because it distracts from the very real causes of the crime and disorder problems that are legitimately bedeviling cities. To be certain, crime, especially violent crime, is a multifaceted problem that can rarely be reduced to a single cause. But what is driving voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco is anger over widespread homelessness and property crimes. And those problems are attributable in large part to Trump-era economic policies. National Democrats — hobbled by timing issues, centrist politicians, and the Senate filibuster — have done little to fix the situation.

..

Which is to say, the media is basically failing us.

The media is failing YOUR Party is a more accurate assessment. Why is that the case counselor??? It ain't for a lack of effort on their part.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Memo to the media: GOP policies — not the rare liberal prosecutors — are driving crime

As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post notes, similarly-sized cities with "Republican mayors and Republican chief prosecutors" have even worse murder rates than San Francisco. In fact, violent crime is more of a red state problem than a blue state one, as 8 out of the 10 states with the highest murder rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The murder rate in the 25 states that went for Trump is, on average, 40% higher than that of states that voted for Joe Biden. But, as Waldman notes, the mainstream media ignores this cold statistical evidence in favor of the right-wing framework that pins the blame on liberal prosecutors. Liberal prosecutors are exceedingly rare even in Democratic cities and, as in San Francisco, often helm cities with lower crime rates than their "tough-on-crime" counterparts.

The excuse for this misleading framework is that journalists are simply reporting on voter sentiment and the perception that liberal policies lead to crime. But this is a cop-out. Voters are confused because the media keeps regurgitating a framework that implies they must choose between liberal policies and lower crime rates. Of course, voters believe in this false dichotomy — it's the one presented as truth every time they turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

This misleading coverage is all the more frustrating because it distracts from the very real causes of the crime and disorder problems that are legitimately bedeviling cities. To be certain, crime, especially violent crime, is a multifaceted problem that can rarely be reduced to a single cause. But what is driving voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco is anger over widespread homelessness and property crimes. And those problems are attributable in large part to Trump-era economic policies. National Democrats — hobbled by timing issues, centrist politicians, and the Senate filibuster — have done little to fix the situation.

..

Which is to say, the media is basically failing us.

The media is failing YOUR Party is a more accurate assessment. Why is that the case counselor??? It ain't for a lack of effort on their part.

You missed the point, again. There is some comfort in things being predictable.

[youthathletics]

Memo to the media: GOP policies — not the rare liberal prosecutors — are driving crime

As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post notes, similarly-sized cities with "Republican mayors and Republican chief prosecutors" have even worse murder rates than San Francisco. In fact, violent crime is more of a red state problem than a blue state one, as 8 out of the 10 states with the highest murder rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The murder rate in the 25 states that went for Trump is, on average, 40% higher than that of states that voted for Joe Biden. But, as Waldman notes, the mainstream media ignores this cold statistical evidence in favor of the right-wing framework that pins the blame on liberal prosecutors. Liberal prosecutors are exceedingly rare even in Democratic cities and, as in San Francisco, often helm cities with lower crime rates than their "tough-on-crime" counterparts.

The excuse for this misleading framework is that journalists are simply reporting on voter sentiment and the perception that liberal policies lead to crime. But this is a cop-out. Voters are confused because the media keeps regurgitating a framework that implies they must choose between liberal policies and lower crime rates. Of course, voters believe in this false dichotomy — it's the one presented as truth every time they turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

This misleading coverage is all the more frustrating because it distracts from the very real causes of the crime and disorder problems that are legitimately bedeviling cities. To be certain, crime, especially violent crime, is a multifaceted problem that can rarely be reduced to a single cause. But what is driving voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco is anger over widespread homelessness and property crimes. And those problems are attributable in large part to Trump-era economic policies. National Democrats — hobbled by timing issues, centrist politicians, and the Senate filibuster — have done little to fix the situation.

..

Which is to say, the media is basically failing us.

The media is failing YOUR Party is a more accurate assessment. Why is that the case counselor??? It ain't for a lack of effort on their part.

You missed the point, again. There is some comfort in things being predictable.

That article is only true in the minds of pol driven narcissists. Yet another failed attempt at trying to pass the blame on to someone else, when everyone most everyone else sees right through BS.

Seacoaster is right.... "There is some comfort in things being predictable."

[MDlaxfan76]

Memo to the media: GOP policies — not the rare liberal prosecutors — are driving crime

As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post notes, similarly-sized cities with "Republican mayors and Republican chief prosecutors" have even worse murder rates than San Francisco. In fact, violent crime is more of a red state problem than a blue state one, as 8 out of the 10 states with the highest murder rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The murder rate in the 25 states that went for Trump is, on average, 40% higher than that of states that voted for Joe Biden. But, as Waldman notes, the mainstream media ignores this cold statistical evidence in favor of the right-wing framework that pins the blame on liberal prosecutors. Liberal prosecutors are exceedingly rare even in Democratic cities and, as in San Francisco, often helm cities with lower crime rates than their "tough-on-crime" counterparts.

The excuse for this misleading framework is that journalists are simply reporting on voter sentiment and the perception that liberal policies lead to crime. But this is a cop-out. Voters are confused because the media keeps regurgitating a framework that implies they must choose between liberal policies and lower crime rates. Of course, voters believe in this false dichotomy — it's the one presented as truth every time they turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

This misleading coverage is all the more frustrating because it distracts from the very real causes of the crime and disorder problems that are legitimately bedeviling cities. To be certain, crime, especially violent crime, is a multifaceted problem that can rarely be reduced to a single cause. But what is driving voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco is anger over widespread homelessness and property crimes. And those problems are attributable in large part to Trump-era economic policies. National Democrats — hobbled by timing issues, centrist politicians, and the Senate filibuster — have done little to fix the situation.

..

Which is to say, the media is basically failing us.

The media is failing YOUR Party is a more accurate assessment. Why is that the case counselor??? It ain't for a lack of effort on their part.

You missed the point, again. There is some comfort in things being predictable.

That article is only true in the minds of pol driven narcissists. Yet another failed attempt at trying to pass the blame on to someone else, when everyone most everyone else sees right through BS.

Seacoaster is right.... "There is some comfort in things being predictable."

What aspect isn't true? Is that first paragraph accurate?

Or are you just saying that you disagree with the conclusion of the last para?

[cradleandshoot]

Memo to the media: GOP policies — not the rare liberal prosecutors — are driving crime

As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post notes, similarly-sized cities with "Republican mayors and Republican chief prosecutors" have even worse murder rates than San Francisco. In fact, violent crime is more of a red state problem than a blue state one, as 8 out of the 10 states with the highest murder rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The murder rate in the 25 states that went for Trump is, on average, 40% higher than that of states that voted for Joe Biden. But, as Waldman notes, the mainstream media ignores this cold statistical evidence in favor of the right-wing framework that pins the blame on liberal prosecutors. Liberal prosecutors are exceedingly rare even in Democratic cities and, as in San Francisco, often helm cities with lower crime rates than their "tough-on-crime" counterparts.

The excuse for this misleading framework is that journalists are simply reporting on voter sentiment and the perception that liberal policies lead to crime. But this is a cop-out. Voters are confused because the media keeps regurgitating a framework that implies they must choose between liberal policies and lower crime rates. Of course, voters believe in this false dichotomy — it's the one presented as truth every time they turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

This misleading coverage is all the more frustrating because it distracts from the very real causes of the crime and disorder problems that are legitimately bedeviling cities. To be certain, crime, especially violent crime, is a multifaceted problem that can rarely be reduced to a single cause. But what is driving voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco is anger over widespread homelessness and property crimes. And those problems are attributable in large part to Trump-era economic policies. National Democrats — hobbled by timing issues, centrist politicians, and the Senate filibuster — have done little to fix the situation.

..

Which is to say, the media is basically failing us.

The media is failing YOUR Party is a more accurate assessment. Why is that the case counselor??? It ain't for a lack of effort on their part.

You missed the point, again. There is some comfort in things being predictable.

While I'm not a media phobe like yourself I did not miss any point counselor. I'm just as comfortable in your obtuseness as you claim to be in mine.

[youthathletics]

Memo to the media: GOP policies — not the rare liberal prosecutors — are driving crime

As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post notes, similarly-sized cities with "Republican mayors and Republican chief prosecutors" have even worse murder rates than San Francisco. In fact, violent crime is more of a red state problem than a blue state one, as 8 out of the 10 states with the highest murder rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The murder rate in the 25 states that went for Trump is, on average, 40% higher than that of states that voted for Joe Biden. But, as Waldman notes, the mainstream media ignores this cold statistical evidence in favor of the right-wing framework that pins the blame on liberal prosecutors. Liberal prosecutors are exceedingly rare even in Democratic cities and, as in San Francisco, often helm cities with lower crime rates than their "tough-on-crime" counterparts.

The excuse for this misleading framework is that journalists are simply reporting on voter sentiment and the perception that liberal policies lead to crime. But this is a cop-out. Voters are confused because the media keeps regurgitating a framework that implies they must choose between liberal policies and lower crime rates. Of course, voters believe in this false dichotomy — it's the one presented as truth every time they turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

This misleading coverage is all the more frustrating because it distracts from the very real causes of the crime and disorder problems that are legitimately bedeviling cities. To be certain, crime, especially violent crime, is a multifaceted problem that can rarely be reduced to a single cause. But what is driving voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco is anger over widespread homelessness and property crimes. And those problems are attributable in large part to Trump-era economic policies. National Democrats — hobbled by timing issues, centrist politicians, and the Senate filibuster — have done little to fix the situation.

..

Which is to say, the media is basically failing us.

The media is failing YOUR Party is a more accurate assessment. Why is that the case counselor??? It ain't for a lack of effort on their part.

You missed the point, again. There is some comfort in things being predictable.

That article is only true in the minds of pol driven narcissists. Yet another failed attempt at trying to pass the blame on to someone else, when everyone most everyone else sees right through BS.

Seacoaster is right.... "There is some comfort in things being predictable."

What aspect isn't true? Is that first paragraph accurate?

Or are you just saying that you disagree with the conclusion of the last para?

The entire premise, MD. To argue that the voters for Trump are an indicator of high crime is just cheap, as if a moment in time of voters is the direct result of high crime and yet in the same breath, we the people are encouraged that our vote sends a message that we are frustrated with pol status quo.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1534571 ... 61056?s=21

[CU88]

https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1534571 ... 61056?s=21

Conservatives don't care about facts!

[MDlaxfan76]

Memo to the media: GOP policies — not the rare liberal prosecutors — are driving crime

As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post notes, similarly-sized cities with "Republican mayors and Republican chief prosecutors" have even worse murder rates than San Francisco. In fact, violent crime is more of a red state problem than a blue state one, as 8 out of the 10 states with the highest murder rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The murder rate in the 25 states that went for Trump is, on average, 40% higher than that of states that voted for Joe Biden. But, as Waldman notes, the mainstream media ignores this cold statistical evidence in favor of the right-wing framework that pins the blame on liberal prosecutors. Liberal prosecutors are exceedingly rare even in Democratic cities and, as in San Francisco, often helm cities with lower crime rates than their "tough-on-crime" counterparts.

The excuse for this misleading framework is that journalists are simply reporting on voter sentiment and the perception that liberal policies lead to crime. But this is a cop-out. Voters are confused because the media keeps regurgitating a framework that implies they must choose between liberal policies and lower crime rates. Of course, voters believe in this false dichotomy — it's the one presented as truth every time they turn on a TV or read a newspaper.

This misleading coverage is all the more frustrating because it distracts from the very real causes of the crime and disorder problems that are legitimately bedeviling cities. To be certain, crime, especially violent crime, is a multifaceted problem that can rarely be reduced to a single cause. But what is driving voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco is anger over widespread homelessness and property crimes. And those problems are attributable in large part to Trump-era economic policies. National Democrats — hobbled by timing issues, centrist politicians, and the Senate filibuster — have done little to fix the situation.

..

Which is to say, the media is basically failing us.

The media is failing YOUR Party is a more accurate assessment. Why is that the case counselor??? It ain't for a lack of effort on their part.

You missed the point, again. There is some comfort in things being predictable.

That article is only true in the minds of pol driven narcissists. Yet another failed attempt at trying to pass the blame on to someone else, when everyone most everyone else sees right through BS.

Seacoaster is right.... "There is some comfort in things being predictable."

What aspect isn't true? Is that first paragraph accurate?

Or are you just saying that you disagree with the conclusion of the last para?

The entire premise, MD. To argue that the voters for Trump are an indicator of high crime is just cheap, as if a moment in time of voters is the direct result of high crime and yet in the same breath, we the people are encouraged that our vote sends a message that we are frustrated with pol status quo.

mmmm, I think you're missing the point that Republican-led cities and states are, (surprisingly), worse in murder rates than Dem such. Why is that surprising? Because there's an assumption by many that Dem policies and management actually lead to higher violence, at least that's the narrative of right wing media...but it's simply not true.

Yes, we should be frustrated with our political leadership, both parties, in the failure to collectively address the drivers of high crime, but that doesn't mean that the policies of red states are actually better.

It matters. It's not "cheap", it's asking that we open our eyes to the disinformation we get from media sources that tell us that crime is a phenomenon driven by Dems...

[youthathletics]

Just strange what the mayor did in NYC. The theatrics is embarrassing and purely wasteful. https://twitter.com/Fabien_Levy/status/ ... afdp7IJz3A

[a fan]

Just strange what the mayor did in NYC. The theatrics is embarrassing and purely wasteful. https://twitter.com/Fabien_Levy/status/ ... afdp7IJz3A

? Why the F didn't he donate the things to some UpState city?

[Seacoaster(1)]

Just strange what the mayor did in NYC. The theatrics is embarrassing and purely wasteful. https://twitter.com/Fabien_Levy/status/ ... afdp7IJz3A

Kind of agree; donate to farm kids in the midwest? But this is context-free Twitter: Do we have any idea about what was so bad about these bikes from the City's perspective?

[youthathletics]

Just strange what the mayor did in NYC. The theatrics is embarrassing and purely wasteful. https://twitter.com/Fabien_Levy/status/ ... afdp7IJz3A

Kind of agree; donate to farm kids in the midwest? But this is context-free Twitter: Do we have any idea about what was so bad about these bikes from the City's perspective?

That'll teach em... What a tool he is.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a4037 ... %20Twitter.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Just strange what the mayor did in NYC. The theatrics is embarrassing and purely wasteful. https://twitter.com/Fabien_Levy/status/ ... afdp7IJz3A

Kind of agree; donate to farm kids in the midwest? But this is context-free Twitter: Do we have any idea about what was so bad about these bikes from the City's perspective?

That'll teach em... What a tool he is.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a4037 ... %20Twitter.

A buddy in Baltimore has been saying that the Mayor should do this for years….. I sent him a link 5 minutes before your post.