Post New

“I brought my family to DC for the Cherry Blossom festival. The first thing I saw when I exited the L’Enfant Plaza Metro was a gang of youths driving ATVs down the street, one of whom was doing a wheelie So forgive me if I doubt that crime is down.”

Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel to the Internet Accountability Project, Federalist Society

A wheelie...absolute proof that crime is NOT down.

“DC is not safe. people don’t just walk the streets in DC and feel safe anywhere around DC. I mean, I gotta be careful in what I do. I’ve got people in my office that are very careful about where they go. So this is great when Donald Trump is doing.” Rick Scott

Laughable lie, but it plays well to the LM's and Dope's of the country.

You may think it’s funny, ges, but we are currently in the bloody middle of a crime wave that never happened.

I mean, really….. picture poor Blue Balls, fighting off the black hordes of cannibalistic thugs in a scene straight out of Road Warrior

MS13 and Tren d’Agua gang members popping wheelies on the street while hordes of homeless zombies stare on in anticipation of descending like vultures on the soon to be corpses of the victims.

Laughable lie, but it plays well to the LM's and Dope's of the country.

The reason that it plays well - and is likely to be a political winner for the GOP and a loser for the Democrats - is that it's not actually a lie, for the most part.

Look carefully at the language:

"DC is not safe. people don’t just walk the streets in DC and feel safe anywhere around DC. I mean, I gotta be careful in what I do. I’ve got people in my office that are very careful about where they go.

Notice that he's not really talking about whether DC is safe. He's talking about whether people feel safe. And by context, he's talking about whether the sort of people that he comes into regular contact with feel safe.

The former can be contradicted by looking at crime statistics and whatnot. Those can tell you whether a place is experiencing a given level of crime. But whether people feel safe is affected by more than the city-wide actual crime statistics.

The GOP has correctly identified that people feel that urban core areas are less safe than they used to be. Part of that is because there are fewer people in those areas than there used to be. Many urban core areas still haven't rebounded from COVID's effects on daytime population, even with RTO programs, with office attendance still close to only 50% of pre-pandemic levels. So everything feels emptier than it should be, which itself makes people feel uneasy - both in terms of direct personal safety and in an indirect sense of a struggling and less vibrant business area. And the other major part is that since the population of distressed people hasn't really changed (the homeless, the addicted), it really looks like proportionally there's a lot more of those folks than there used to be.

This is an excellent issue for the GOP and Trump. They can solve the "feelings" problem in the parts of the city that people will see on the news or experience as visitors (the downtown office and tourist areas). Many people will feel safer if there's a visible law enforcement presence in a previously empty-ish area. It doesn't matter that this won't actually reduce crime rates in the city (which most crimes occur out of that area any way) - the people who commute or are tourists will feel much safer.

It's somewhat disappointing that Democrats don't seem to understand that they're being baited into a losing issue for them. You can't cite figures to people to tell them what they're feeling isn't true, and expect that to work well politically.

An adjudicate rapist, pedophile, convicted felon POTUS is proof enough for me that crime is not down in D.C.

You may think it’s funny, ges, but we are currently in the bloody middle of a crime wave that never happened.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough shockingly breaks ranks with mainstream media to support Trump’s DC clean up

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-host-reveals-d...

Geewhiz..Even Morning Joe, a long time DC resident, who hates all things Trump admits he and his family believe Washington DC is not a safe city and agrees with President Trump’s undertaking to clean up crime in DC.

A DC police commander fudged crime data:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-police...

A D.C. police commander is under investigation for allegedly making changes to crime statistics in his district.

The Metropolitan Police Department confirmed Michael Pulliam was placed on paid administrative leave in mid-May. That happened just a week after Pulliam filed an equal employment opportunity complaint against an assistant chief and the police union accused the department of deliberately falsifying crime data, according to three law enforcement sources familiar with the complaint.

The union claims police supervisors in the department manipulate crime data to make it appear violent crime has fallen considerably compared to last year.

The union claims police supervisors in the department manipulate crime data to make it appear violent crime has fallen considerably compared to last year.

The truth is out. Which dem politician paid who to falsify the crime data?

Need an investigation here and answers to questions.

I mean, really….. picture poor Blue Balls, fighting off the black hordes of cannibalistic thugs in a scene straight out of Road Warrior

MS13 and Tren d’Agua gang members popping wheelies on the street while hordes of homeless zombies stare on in anticipation of descending like vultures on the soon to be corpses of the victims.

Trump's description of this 'crisis' was not a whole lot different.

And it will work to take the MAGA's minds off the fact that Trump is a pedo.

This is an excellent issue for the GOP and Trump.

That is probably, sadly, true.

But if the trend in the statistics is correct, then it is a manufactured crisis.

It's more of Trump's demagoguing. Seems fair to call it what it is.

But if the trend in the statistics is correct, then it is a manufactured crisis.

No, it's not. Because what Trump is pushing against and what's measured by the crime statistics are two different things.

Consider the following numbers for Washington, DC:

Residents:            ~700,000 people
Daytime population: ~1,400,000 people
Annual Tourists:   ~25,000,000 people

Most serious crime in DC takes place in the neighborhoods where the permanent residents live and hang out in, and is suffered by those permanent residents. That's the crime that's generally measured by serious crime statistics. That's what those 700K people who live their full time run into.

Meanwhile, there's another 700K people who commute into DC. They're there mostly during daytime hours, they're mostly in the business and downtown districts, and they're mostly in workplaces. And there's another 25 million people who come in as tourists who spend almost all their time in the tourist attractions and immediate environs. Those are places that are not going to be experiencing a lot of the city's crime in any scenario.

The crime statistics measure actual serious crimes that take place mostly in the parts of the city where residents spend their time - and that's what the residents care about. But the largest number of people that experience DC don't go there. They spend their time in different parts of the city. What affects their experience of the city isn't the frequency of actual serious crimes, but the degree to which those areas appear to exhibit a loss of public order or control.

So if the tourist and downtown areas start to look like no one's actually maintaining any order, millions of people will experience that as feeling more unsafe. And that's utterly unrelated to whether the actual serious crimes (which are mostly in other parts of the city) are up or down.

The reason that it plays well - and is likely to be a political winner for the GOP and a loser for the Democrats - is that it's not actually a lie, for the most part.

I doubt it’s a political winner for the GOP (Groping Old Pedophiles).

Generally speaking, I don’t believe Americans like the idea of having military troops on their streets. It’s not a warm and fuzzy feeling. It’s more of a holy fuck, what’s going on feeling.

Now, DC is a different animal. Did you see the DC mayor and police chief’s presser the other day? Their response was low key and muted. They both emphasized that DC has a good working relationship with the Fed’s and they expect that to continue. They acknowledged that the President has the authority to send troops, and if he does, they will continue to work with the Fed’s as they already do. Meh.

Ever since I’ve been a kid, dinosaur that I am, and in every city I’ve ever lived in, I was always aware that there were parts of the city you try to avoid. Heck, even when I traveled for business (primarily in Europe and South and Central America), I was made aware (by the locals) to avoid certain areas. It seems to be a global issue with cities. Even in the city I currently have lived in for over 50 years, there are parts I try to avoid. And I love my city and feel quite safe here (otherwise I would have moved years ago).

That’s why we have a police force. To help keep citizens safe. And for the most part, they do a very good job of it. And just for the record, ‘Defund Police’ is the dumbest 2-word slogan. Ever. And police are local, so they know the area, including the trouble spots.

It’s obvious to me that Trump doesn’t give a rat’s ass about crime (adjudicated rapist, 34 convicted felon). This is a show. And a poor one at that. And, funny this, Trump will only send troops to cities controlled by Democrats. It’s NOT about crime.

So, unless there is a specific reason (natural disaster, uncontrollable riots, etc.) there’s no benefit to sending military troops to the scene. It’s just another reality TV gimmick. Should we expect these military troops to be permanently stationed in cities around the country? What will happen when they leave? It’s just not a good or realistic solution. If you feel threatened, call the police. If your police are not responsive, you need new politicians.

Which gets me back to this point; except for certain specific reasons mentioned above, having military on the streets is not a warm, fuzzy safe feeling. It’s a what the fuck feeling. And I believe the vast majority of Americans think the same way. Military troops are not the solution to crime. Or, if it comes down to that, we got much bigger issues to deal with.

So if the tourist and downtown areas start to look like no one's actually maintaining any order

Is that what is a actually happening now?

BTW, you almost always have the best arguments albaby1 and I usually end up agreeing with you. Maybe this time as well...not sure.

So, unless there is a specific reason (natural disaster, uncontrollable riots, etc.) there’s no benefit to sending military troops to the scene.

I think that's wrong. And I think it's why Democrats get pwned on "mantaining order" issues.

If I went to the Lincoln Memorial and saw a group of teenagers climbing on the statue of Lincoln and riding their mountain bikes down the stairs, it would make me feel uncomfortable and less safe there. Because that's a pretty good indicator that something is going wrong. Public order is not being maintained, and it's being broken in a pretty significant way. No, it's not rioting; no, it's not looting. But what I just described are also things that are just not supposed to happen in a place where public order is being properly maintained. I might know intellectually that this doesn't mean there's a material increase in my being the victim of a violent crime, but we all use heuristics to gauge the safety/protection of our surroundings.

If there's troops there, there aren't going to be kids messing around on the statue or riding their bikes down the stairs. You won't have a breach of public order.

This is why Democrats run the risk of getting baited into a politically damaging response to all this. If people feel like cities are less safe (for the reasons I mentioned upthread), it is political suicide to try to convince them that they're wrong for feeling that way.

If there's troops there, there aren't going to be kids messing around on the statue or riding their bikes down the stairs. You won't have a breach of public order.

So you’re suggesting that armed military troops trained for fighting, not law enforcement, be stationed there permanently to ensure there is no breach of public order by teenagers?

As a certified Lincolnholic, I would be mortified to see anyone climbing the statue or riding bikes down the stairs. And I wouldn’t feel safe. But, are armed military troops trained for fighting, not law enforcement, the solution that makes you feel safe?

Not me.

Is that what is a actually happening now?

Yes.

This isn't just a made-up issue that the GOP has constructed out of whole cloth. They successfully ran on public concerns about declining social order during the last election. And we know that they had the better of the issue because we're seeing Democratic elected officials in these jurisdictions changing their policy positions on things like homeless encampments in public places and criminal justice reform (especially reduced incarceration for minor offenses). That's something you wouldn't see if general public perception about social order hadn't changed for the worse. And of course, polling demonstrated that respondents felt that crime was increasing and that things were getting more dangerous.

The Democratic response of, "you guys are wrong, look at these statistics" didn't work very well politically. Because it misdiagnosed the problem. Voters weren't saying, "I believe that specific crime rates per capita are rising across a municipal area." They were saying, "I feel like the places that I go are now more disordered and less safe than they used to be."

Whether the Democrats are right about whether cities are getting less safe, it doesn't matter. If people believe they're less safe than previously, then it doesn't matter whether that's actually true.

And as I've tried to point out in this thread, the people who believe that cities are less safe are probably justified in believing that to be true, for a few reasons. The first is that the pandemic really did change how cities looked. Tons of people stopped going to central business districts and downtowns and using mass transit systems. That in itself will make people who are in those areas think that something's wrong - if there are fewer people in an area than there should be, that's a danger sign. But it also makes failures in social order stand out more. If there's the same number of people engaging in disordered behavior but fewer orderly people around them, it seems like the problem is worse. Having a large number of people is also an inhibitor to disordered behavior - the "eyes on the street" theory of social order.

And the second is that people experience cities in different ways - people who live in the suburbs and commute for work are going to experience some parts of the city, while people who live within the city limits are going to experience vastly different parts of the city. If you reprioritize criminal justice to go after more serious offenders more than minor offenders, you can reduce the amount of serious crime. That's probably a good outcome! It will make the places where serious crime tends to happen actually be a lot safer, and those areas will feel a lot safer as well! But if you're a person who isn't ever going to those parts of the city, that won't affect your experience of the city. And if the parts of the city that you go to start getting more disordered because of these new priorities, you won't care about (and probably won't believe) the even true statistics that show that crime is falling in the municipality overall. Things are getting worse where you are and for the types of disorder you experience - and the fact that aggravated battery or domestic sexual assault is falling on the other side of town doesn't change that for you.

So you’re suggesting that armed military troops trained for fighting, not law enforcement, be stationed there permanently to ensure there is no breach of public order by teenagers?

Nope. That's a misallocation of resources. What you should have is enough civilian law enforcement infrastructure to make sure that there this doesn't happen.

But the GOP is not wrong to note that the breach of public order by teenagers makes people feel unsafe. People don't always behave, and part of being in a city is having to deal with other people. But when things start to feel like they're out of control, like no one's really in charge, it doesn't matter that most of (or even all of) the disordered behavior is relatively minor. People will feel less safe, because they'll feel like no one is in control of the area that they're in. Absent confidence in public and collective provision of safety, they'll default to individual behaviors to ensure safety - hypervigilant monitoring of their surroundings, extra precautions around their person and belongings, reluctance to engage in certain activities they enjoy and have every right to engage in. And they'll be upset by having to do that.

The GOP gets that. There's always been a division between the GOP and the Democrats on law and order issues, and they represent different constituency, and there's very thorny questions around "Who Is The City For?" that get implicated in these issues. But in the past, Democrats have always been much better at recognizing that voters genuinely care about these things and trying to echo that importance, rather than trying to convince voters that they're wrong because look at the crime stats.

Nope. That's a misallocation of resources. What you should have is enough civilian law enforcement infrastructure to make sure that there this doesn't happen.

That’s kind of my point. The current administration is using the wrong tool for the right thing. That makes a huge difference.

Most Americans have a visceral reaction against having troops involved in domestic activity, with a few previously mentioned exceptions.

I don’t believe this reaction (sending in armed military troops) will make most Americans think wow, this is great! Please send more troops.

The vast majority of Americans would love a tax bill that lowers taxes. But about 60% of Americans don’t like the BBB. Why? Right thing, wrong tool. Like cutting a board with a hammer.

It is my belief that, with very few exceptions, using armed military troops to ensure domestic tranquility is not going to be perceived by most Americans (except MAGA) as accomplishing a good thing. It’s going to be perceived as a scary thing.

Anyway, I’ve said my piece. You may have the last response.

That’s kind of my point. The current administration is using the wrong tool for the right thing. That makes a huge difference.

It makes a difference, but I don't think it makes a huge difference.

I think politically, the GOP is correct in their belief that a lot of folks are deeply frustrated with municipal leaders' failure to address their concerns about public disorder. I don't think they care very much any more if this is the wrong tool for the right thing. They want the right thing to happen.

Your analogy to the BBB and lower taxes is inapt, I think - that's a right tool for the wrong thing scenario. The tool is legislation passed by Congress to amend the tax code...which is exactly the right mechanism for achieving a change in the tax code. The right tool. But I think a majority of Americans believe that the specific change that was pursued in the BBB - what taxes were lowered and for which groups - is not the right outcome. The wrong thing.

I think you're wrong in thinking that most Americans won't perceive using armed military troops to ensure domestic tranquility as a good thing. I think it will be received very badly by folks on the political left....but once you start getting into left-center and moderate folks, there's probably a lot of political support for a more robust effort to control public disorder. And I think those folks want to avoid a "best is the enemy of the good" continuation of the status quo. More stringent civilian law enforcement would be the best response (in their eyes). But if that's not on offer, and the military is the only tool that is available to the federal government to secure public order in municipalities over the objections of municipal leaders, then they're happy with "good" rather than "best."

We see it across all the law and order issues. Clearing homeless camps isn't the best way to address homelessness, but the public thinks it's good that there's fewer externalities associated with homelessness even in a less-than-ideal way. Returning to the carceral state isn't the best way to address minor crimes, but the public thinks it's good to have minor crimes addressed even by a less-than-ideal way. Etc.

That's why the GOP is itching to have this fight. They're going to frame it as the feckless local progressives being to soft too fix things, while the brave federal leadership is willing to weather the criticism accompanying having pictures of soldiers near the Washington monument in order to actually solve the problem. They view that as a political winner. And I think they're absolutely right.

That’s kind of my point. The current administration is using the wrong tool for the right thing. That makes a huge difference.

Not only is it the wrong tool (as in using a wrench where a screwdriver is needed), but it’s also a dangerous choice (as in using explosives to get rid of a tree-stump a on a crowded preschool playground).

But the MAGA Nazis yell “Just watch how real men get rid of tree stumps!”

Fuck these Nazis.

The GOP has correctly identified that people feel that urban core areas are less safe than they used to be.

This is an interesting observation, somewhat echoed by Krugman who writes "we’re clearly entering an era of policy driven by feelings rather than facts". Policy that ignores facts is likely to fail to improve those facts, because improvement is not the goal. The feel-good policymaker's goal is gaining power through the manipulation of people. Create a crisis and then claim only one person can solve it. So, expect ineffective policies, deteriorating facts, manufactured crisis, and talking points centered on feelings. Soldiers near the Washington monument are not solving any problem. Good photo op though.


MAGA’s Feelings Don’t Care About Your Facts, Aug 14, 2025
"This week Trump seized control of the Washington DC police force and sent in the National Guard to deal with what he claims is a runaway crime wave, even though crime in the District has been falling rapidly. What these two stories have in common is this: MAGA’s feelings don’t care about your facts. And the rejection of data Trump doesn’t like will surely extend to many areas beyond jobs and crime. About jobs: E.J. Antoni, Trump’s pick for BLS Commissioner, has actually said that we should define a recession not on the basis of things like employment data or GDP but by how people “feel.”"
"I’m not sure how many Americans realize how low our life expectancy is compared with other rich countries. The divergence began under Ronald Reagan, and was already a chasm even before partisanship led many Americans on the right to reject Covid vaccines. In case you’re wondering, I included the most recent estimate for New York City, which aside from being a dystopian hellscape is one of the few places in America that has life expectancy comparable to other advanced countries. As Justin Fox has pointed out, a lot of this has to do with New Yorkers being less likely than other Americans to die in traffic accidents."
"All in all, we’re clearly entering an era of policy driven by feelings rather than facts. But facts always win in the end."
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/magas-feelings-...

This is an interesting observation, somewhat echoed by Krugman who writes "we’re clearly entering an era of policy driven by feelings rather than facts". Policy that ignores facts is likely to fail to improve those facts, because improvement is not the goal. The feel-good policymaker's goal is gaining power through the manipulation of people. Create a crisis and then claim only one person can solve it. So, expect ineffective policies, deteriorating facts, manufactured crisis, and talking points centered on feelings. Soldiers near the Washington monument are not solving any problem.

But that's exactly wrong, which is what I've been trying to emphasize in this thread.

Democrats keep pointing to city-wide statistics on serious crimes in an effort to prove that there is no problem, that the GOP is making this up. But it's the Democrats that are wrong on the issue, because they are either unintentionally or deliberately mischaracterizing the problem that the GOP is targeting.

The urban disorder that they are attacking consists of minor crimes, socially maladaptive behavior, sanitary and aesthetic conditions, and disruption of public civic life in public facilities and central business districts/downtowns. The crime rates that Democrats are measuring are serious crimes that (for the most part) largely occur in a different part of the city. So it's the Democrats that are fooling themselves with policies that aren't being driven by the facts - because they're pointing to a set of facts that is largely unrelated to the issue that's making voters unhappy.

So, for example, large homeless encampments in public parks and municipal downtowns factually end up degrading those specific areas for anyone trying to use them. Whether overall domestic violence cases or burglary cases or other major crimes across the entire municipality are up or down or level has no bearing on that. The homeless encampments create a specific problem in a specific area for specific people, and the city-wide crime rates don't make that disappear. It's absolutely true that if you address the fundamental society-wide root causes of homelessness you can create a benefit for both the currently-homeless (by housing them) and for everyone else (by removing the negative effects of their homelessness). So it's true that shutting down homeless encampments and driving them out of public spaces and downtowns doesn't solve the problem for the homeless people. But it does solve the problem for the people trying to use the public spaces and downtowns.

The GOP response is entirely fact-based. People are actually made afraid when they encounter displays of socially maladapted behavior in public spaces. Or minor crimes, or unsanitary conditions or discarded drug paraphernalia or what have you. It has an actual, real negative impact on them. They want that to stop. Citing city-wide major crime rates doesn't mean they're wrong in what they see in their public spaces, and it makes the Democrats look out of touch when they keep telling them that they're wrong.

Heh.

https://x.com/WesternLensman/status/19552492291543...

Scarborough: Democrats in DC are privately cheering Trump’s moves to crack down on crime:

"Democrats who worked on Joe Biden's campaign and other campaigns are saying, yeah, I'd like to feel safe walking around this city."

The best part about Trump is getting democrats to sit on the wrong side of 80/20 issues.

https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1955295517941...

Joe Scarborough reads a text from a "very liberal" friend who lives in D.C.:

"I'm not totally opposed to Trump's National Guard move in D.C... crime remains rampant. I've had too many friends carjacked, shot at. None of us will walk more than 3 blocks after 8 P.M."

Got to say, you lost me there. Is there an anecdote available? Sounds like the well-known broken window theory, but that is different than your original point (feelings not facts matter). I live in a city, and don't see a problem here. I do not see any "socially maladapted behavior in public spaces". But maybe I am just overly tolerant, and should raise expectations to Stepford Wifes level. Who exactly decides what is "socially maladapted behavior". Cities have a social tension arising from many people in close contact. I do not want to live in a Stepford Wifes city.

Public safety is important, and could easily be improved in the US with gun and health policies, but that improvement is not the goal today. Instead, we see a show of force to impress out-of-towners that city folk are being forced to obey the supreme commander. Ineffective policy, but a good photo op.

Got to say, you lost me there. Is there an anecdote available?

Sure. As an anecdote, here's an NPR article with SF Mayor London Breed discussing the public disorder in parts of that city:

Breed announced an "emergency declaration" for the area last month saying drug deaths, open-air drug dealing, street chaos and violence there had gotten "totally out of control." She vowed "tough love" for those who break the law and expanded access to help for those with alcohol and substance use disorders.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/05/1076830470/san-fran...

Sounds like the well-known broken window theory, but that is different than your original point (feelings not facts matter).

My original point was not "feelings not facts matter." Rather, it's that voter concerns about social disorder were supported by facts. That they were encountering real negative events in the parts of the city that they go to, and that their perceptions of the lack of social order in these spaces were both legitimate and not disproven by city-wide crime statistics on major offense.

This is not the broken window theory, which is an argument that the presence of minor crime in an area can cause more significant crime. Rather, it's that the minor crime (or non criminal anti-social behavior) is itself bad. That it's a problem if people are engaging in open drug use on the streets in front of passers-by even if that's not going to lead to anyone getting murdered. Because the open drug use itself is unpleasant and diminishes other people's use of the public areas. And it legitimately causes them to be apprehensive in those spaces and restrict their uses of them.

Got to say, you lost me there. Is there an anecdote available? Sounds like the well-known broken window theory, but that is different than your original point (feelings not facts matter). I live in a city, and don't see a problem here. I do not see any "socially maladapted behavior in public spaces". But maybe I am just overly tolerant, and should raise expectations to Stepford Wifes level. Who exactly decides what is "socially maladapted behavior". Cities have a social tension arising from many people in close contact. I do not want to live in a Stepford Wifes city.

Public safety is important, and could easily be improved in the US with gun and health policies, but that improvement is not the goal today. Instead, we see a show of force to impress out-of-towners that city folk are being forced to obey the supreme commander. Ineffective policy, but a good photo op

Bears repeating. Every word of it.

Bears repeating. Every word of it.

No, it doesn't.
This especially misses the mark
Public safety is important, and could easily be improved in the US with gun and health policies, but that improvement is not the goal today.

Most big cities already have gun control AND the worst murder rates. Perhaps there's something else going on.

And this part
I do not see any "socially maladapted behavior in public spaces".

...screams as someone who lets virtue signaling override common sense.

we see a show of force to impress out-of-towners that city folk are being forced to obey the supreme commander

That's my take away. I don't see city dwellers (or even suburbanites who commute to the city) complaining about crime in their cities. It seems to me that most of the complaints about crime in the cities are coming from rural people who rarely visit the city, but get their impressions about crime in the city from news media on both left and right. It's very easy to get the impression that cities are crime ridden if you never visit the city.

I don't think I'm contradicting albaby's points about the impression or feelings about crime. That seems to be a plausible explanation of the situation. But as a suburbanite myself, I don't feel that crime is running rampant in the larger cities around me. Sure - it's happening. And it probably happens more in larger cities than in rural areas, simply because its easier for those with a tendency toward crime to be in more densely populated areas. Easier to hide. More potential targets, including targets of opportunity. More access to more street drugs.

--Peter

Got to say, you lost me there. Is there an anecdote available?
Sure. As an anecdote, here's an NPR article with SF Mayor London Breed discussing the public disorder in parts of that city...."

My sister and her husband were Alameda County DAs their entire careers (worked with Kamala while she was there).

Though they live in the upscale Oakland hills, they've been burgled, had car windows smashed while shopping in Oakland and SF, and hate how the sidewalk residents have made shopping and dining out a less than enjoyable experience.

Car and store windows are regularly broken on Lakeshore, a short walk from the Alameda Courthouse where they worked. The pop-up market by Lake Merrit has lots of merchandise freshly stolen from stores. Before we drive down into town, they advise us if any of our plans would put us in high risk neighborhoods.

I've fantasized deploying ED209s from dusk to dawn to address the window breakers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ED-209

If there's troops there, there aren't going to be kids messing around on the statue or riding their bikes down the stairs. You won't have a breach of public order.

The Lincoln Memorial is part of the Park Service. Get a few rangers there, and you would have the same effect. Guys with uniforms and badges have an effect. So, he's gutted the Park Service, and then called the national guard to fulfill part of the rangers' roles.

Yes, I realize that most people (especially the MAGA ditto-heads) won't think that far, but that's basically what's happening.

And I do get your point in this thread that it's more about perception and reality/statistics. Sometimes Dems are too smart for their own good.

The Lincoln Memorial is part of the Park Service. Get a few rangers there, and you would have the same effect. Guys with uniforms and badges have an effect. So, he's gutted the Park Service, and then called the national guard to fulfill part of the rangers' roles.

I know, and there aren't literally a bunch of youths messing around on the Lincoln Memorial. I chose that site because it's something that everyone is familiar with - moreso than if I used the imagery of drug users and sidewalk dwellers harassing passersby trying to get into the Farrgut North metro station.

I know, and there aren't literally a bunch of youths messing around on the Lincoln Memorial.

I get that. I was just expanding your example, mostly in support of your point. It's perception. And it's also gutting services that previously existed, and then claiming a problem is there (and requires "troops" of some sort to address).

Plus, it does seem he's concocting situations that then require "emergency measures".

I have been in several cities as a tourist that have assorted vagrant problems. Walking to a Filipino restaurant through San Francisco's "Tenderloin" area was not overly comfortable. Nobody messed with us...few even looked at us. And we witnessed some guy chasing a younger kid down the street. Dunno why. If I lived in that area, I would say they have a huge problem. Other areas we walked in were fine, and my perception might be different if I lived in those areas.

Seattle also has a problem, but they have a MAJOR police presence for probably at least a mile around Pike Street Market. Again, no one messed with us. They were too busy getting/being high (sitting on the ground, spaced-out). But the police presence did lend some reassurance, rightly or wrongly.

Didn't notice much in Miami/Hollywood, except for really (REALLY!!) bad drivers. But I'm sure you have your areas, too. So does Phoenix.

But is all that really a federal problem? The Felon is making a show (perception!), but it's not his problem. It's the mayor's of whatever municipality we're talking about (Seattle, DC, SF, Miami, etc). Or, maybe the governor's (except for DC which doesn't have a governor).

But is all that really a federal problem? The Felon is making a show (perception!), but it's not his problem. It's the mayor's of whatever municipality we're talking about (Seattle, DC, SF, Miami, etc). Or, maybe the governor's (except for DC which doesn't have a governor).

I mean - maybe? Washington DC is a federal area. There's a municipal government that exists to provide services and offer some measure of local control (the way that a city in a State would have) - but the actual sovereign governing body of the area is, in fact, the federal government. The federal government sits in the same position to DC as a state government sits in relationship to a city in their state. So while DC doesn't have a governor, the President is in an analogous position.

And obviously the area is the location of tons of institutions and entities that are of national importance in a way that most other cities are not.

This is exactly why DC needs to be a state.

This is some racist bullshit. This kind of emotional rhetoric plays well in white Trump world because cities are diverse and Trumpism is white supremacy wrapped up in public safety concerns. For you to call it a “winning issue” without calling out the racist tropes is to be complicit . No suprise coming from a Clintonite though. You guys played the same card in the nineties.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.