White Liberals who want to defund and be progressive fail to realize their policies indirectly affect poor black people, the same group they want to help

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the police shooting this weekend within feet of a bunch of children I’m going to say no.

Where was that one?

Madison and 3rd St NW on Saturday at Fort Slocum Park

Anonymous wrote:After the police shooting this weekend within feet of a bunch of children I’m going to say no.

Where was that one?

It’s comical that with rising crime the city is going to reform the criminal justice code so it’s more lenient.

Anonymous wrote:
Stop trying to be politically correct and be correct. Be tough. Unless there are serious consequences, criminals wouldn't learn their lesson of not to mess with DC.



Do you know how offensive it is to tell people in a majority-black city to not be politically correct and be correct? Be tough? Just like you "don't mess with Texas"? I think you might be happier if you went back home, wherever that is.

There is no issue with DC's budget. No one is worried about the "tax base" (wink, wink) leaving. We still have a surplus.

DC is *so* much better than it was, even today. You can't compare it to [plain suburban place where you grew up with little diversity] & declare it "a dump."

I still love DC.

DC is not a majority black city anymore. And the approach to juvenile crime, and especially juvenile violent crime, is why the crime statistics are continuing to climb. The approaches advocated by DC's progressive politicians towards juvenile crime are so hypocritical given that most of these UMC politicians (of both races) would never approach their own child's misbehaviors similarly. When a middle class kid goes off track (i.e., drugs, petty crime, hanging with the wrong crowd), most parents move heaven and earth to get that kid away from their current environment and impose appropriate deterring consequences. That's because middle class parents KNOW that doing NOTHING will almost certainly lead to escalating behaviors. And yes, I realize that unlike most MC kids, the juveniles committing crimes come from trauma backgrounds. But lack of any meaningful consequences does these kids a grave disservice because it will lead to their aging out of the juvenile "get out of jail free" phase and landing in jail for behaviors that they had previously gotten away with. What do MC parents do? They send their troubled kids to therapeutic programs, wilderness education, etc., That's what the council should be focused on instead of letting crime go out of control---get the worst offenders off the streets and into programs that remove them from their environments and give trauma informed structure. Spend the money on creating those programs, not the ridiculous and ineffective violence "interruptors".

Anonymous wrote:Stop trying to be politically correct and be correct. Be tough. Unless there are serious consequences, criminals wouldn't learn their lesson of not to mess with DC.

Do you know how offensive it is to tell people in a majority-black city to not be politically correct and be correct? Be tough? Just like you "don't mess with Texas"? I think you might be happier if you went back home, wherever that is.

There is no issue with DC's budget. No one is worried about the "tax base" (wink, wink) leaving. We still have a surplus.

DC is *so* much better than it was, even today. You can't compare it to [plain suburban place where you grew up with little diversity] & declare it "a dump."

I still love DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

You mean like how crime rates declined consistently from the late-90’s until about 2018?

The reduction in crime started in the early 90s. Exactly 20 years after the legalization of abortion (Roe vs. Wade) and outlawing of lead in paint and gasoline.

Economists have pinpointed that access to abortion and the outlawing of lead were the biggest factors in the reduction of crime from 1993 to around 2015. Why? Because it reduced unwanted children and unwanted children are a lot more likely to become criminals. Similarly, lead exposure is hugely detrimental to brain development and impulse control.

Crime has since risen since 2015. Uf we could study it accurately, I would venture to guess that the current rise in crime is most associated with the loosening of firearms laws and restrictions. Gun deaths and gun crimes have risen enormously.

“Economists” LOL. None of these metrics are directly related to micro or macro econ. If you would have said sociologists, it would be more credible as social science research.

Anonymous wrote:The USA is appointed by the President. The USAO is part of DOJ and for decades has been pretty much non-responsive to FOIA requests re: stats.

Judges are also federally appointed.

The only input DC voters have is the DC Council who write the laws, including penalties, and the AG who prosecutes some juvenile crimes. The AG is more responsive to FOIA requests. The role of chair of the Safety Committee on the Council is quite important. The current chair, Charles Allen, is running for reelection unopposed this cycle.

Are you actually FOIA ing "stats"? You can't FOIA things that don't exist. Why should the FOIA office have to do research for you?

After the police shooting this weekend within feet of a bunch of children I’m going to say no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

You mean like how crime rates declined consistently from the late-90’s until about 2018?

The reduction in crime started in the early 90s. Exactly 20 years after the legalization of abortion (Roe vs. Wade) and outlawing of lead in paint and gasoline.

Economists have pinpointed that access to abortion and the outlawing of lead were the biggest factors in the reduction of crime from 1993 to around 2015. Why? Because it reduced unwanted children and unwanted children are a lot more likely to become criminals. Similarly, lead exposure is hugely detrimental to brain development and impulse control.

Crime has since risen since 2015. Uf we could study it accurately, I would venture to guess that the current rise in crime is most associated with the loosening of firearms laws and restrictions. Gun deaths and gun crimes have risen enormously.

Which firearm laws were loosened since 2015?

DC vs. Heller was decided in 2008 and has resulted in a nationwide loosening of firearms laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

You mean like how crime rates declined consistently from the late-90’s until about 2018?

The reduction in crime started in the early 90s. Exactly 20 years after the legalization of abortion (Roe vs. Wade) and outlawing of lead in paint and gasoline.

Economists have pinpointed that access to abortion and the outlawing of lead were the biggest factors in the reduction of crime from 1993 to around 2015. Why? Because it reduced unwanted children and unwanted children are a lot more likely to become criminals. Similarly, lead exposure is hugely detrimental to brain development and impulse control.

Crime has since risen since 2015. Uf we could study it accurately, I would venture to guess that the current rise in crime is most associated with the loosening of firearms laws and restrictions. Gun deaths and gun crimes have risen enormously.

Which firearm laws were loosened since 2015?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

You mean like how crime rates declined consistently from the late-90’s until about 2018?

The reduction in crime started in the early 90s. Exactly 20 years after the legalization of abortion (Roe vs. Wade) and outlawing of lead in paint and gasoline.

Economists have pinpointed that access to abortion and the outlawing of lead were the biggest factors in the reduction of crime from 1993 to around 2015. Why? Because it reduced unwanted children and unwanted children are a lot more likely to become criminals. Similarly, lead exposure is hugely detrimental to brain development and impulse control.

Crime has since risen since 2015. Uf we could study it accurately, I would venture to guess that the current rise in crime is most associated with the loosening of firearms laws and restrictions. Gun deaths and gun crimes have risen enormously.

Bring back vice and mandatory minimums.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

You mean like how crime rates declined consistently from the late-90’s until about 2018?

I’d argue that’s much more due to the decline of the crack epidemic, gentrifying neighborhoods, and the simple fact that a bunch of unwanted future criminals simply weren’t born. It wasn’t because we spent more money on police or venerated them more. I also question some of those numbers. When my family member was pickpocketed at Union Station in the mid-2010s, I couldn’t get any of the three police forces working there to take the report.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

You mean like how crime rates declined consistently from the late-90’s until about 2018?