A funny thing about "worst cities" lists: They ALL have ONE THING in Common!

A funny thing about this thread - it uses newsbusters.org as a source of inspiration.

Meanwhile - America's Best Cities have the following mayors:

1. San Francisco, CA Edwin Lee Democrat

2. Seattle, WA Michael McGinn Democrat

3. Washington, D.C. Vincent C. Gray Democrat

4. Boston, MA Thomas Menino Democrat

5. Portland, OR Sam Adams Democrat

6. Denver, CO Michael Hancock Democrat

7. New York, NY Michael Bloomberg Independent (but OP's own source claims he's "really" a Democrat)

8. Austin, TX Lee Leffingwell Democrat

9. San Diego, CA Jerry Sanders Republican

10. St. Paul, MN Chris Coleman Democrat

11. Pittsburgh, PA Luke Ravenstahl Democrat

12. Minneapolis, MN R. T. Rybak Democrat

13. Nashville, TN Karl Dean Democrat

14. New Orleans, LA Mitch Landrieu Democrat

15. Kansas City, MO Sly James Independent

16. Atlanta, GA Kasim Reed Democrat

17. Madison, WI Paul Soglin Democrat

18. Raleigh, NC Nancy McFarlane Independent (but ran under endorsement of Democrats)

19. Honolulu, HI Peter Carlisle Independent

20. Columbus, OH Michael B. Coleman Democrat


So wow what a bizarre "correlation" huh? The take home point really shouldn't be that the best cities, or the worst cities, in America happen to be run by Democrats, it's simply that most cities in America happen to be run by Democrats. It's well known Liberal strongholds tend to come from urban centers while Republicans are more rural.

This type of shameless political cherry-picking could easily be turned around to ask why the poorest states in America happen to be overwhelmingly "red" ones: List of U.S. States by Income

But I say you're better off wasting your time with fun facts like this instead: America’s 10 fattest states v. its 10 poorest states: notice anything?

deny ignorance

endorse partisan political trolling

It's pretty simple... Democrats, well let's be honest here.. PROGRESSIVES believe in high taxes and lots of social programs. Unfortunately for them, business owners and entrepreneurs do not... so Progressives end up driving them away which leaves all of the, well let's just say undesirables to suck up any remaining resources left. A recipe for disaster and yet Progressives continue to repeat their emotionally based, illogical mistakes time and time again.

Originally posted by samuel1990
reply to post by jdub297

 

Well, I'm certainly curious as living in Aus, we don't tend to have crazy political things like this going on.
I really was born in the 'lucky country'.

You cannot be serious, my fair dinkum. (We had a local TV host who used that all the time, so I had to look it up.)

You know the story, here's the punch-line: ""Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted for us"

Good luck.

jw

reply to post by mc_squared


I made it perfectly clear that I drew no conclusions from the correlation.

Another funny thing, is that several of the cities you listed as "best" were also on others' lists of the "worst!"

You will get whatever results you want,depending upon the criteria you use, just ask Pew or Gallup.

I've seen argument that some of your "Best" (D.C., NYC, New Orleans, K.C., Atlanta ) are the "worst" considering crime, taxes, services and corruption. Others find the night life, commuting time, food and demographics to make them among the "Best."

I set forth the criteria at the outset, that's why some of them were not included and others were.

I haven't turned correlation into any kind of indictment or even tried to insinuate one.

Thankfully, I've had the opportunity to live in two cities that have consistently been among the "Best," and never in anyone's "Worst." One was a Republican stronghold; the other was Austin, which defies any kind of pigeon-holing.

jw

Those cities have high populations that want free things. Flint Mi is a rats nest I was born there I wouldn't go back for anything. GM got tired of the lazy workforce and moved but the city tried to live like nothing happened. Keep the extra employees and all city workers had city car that was new every other year. retirees got 12 monthly checks because so much money was in the account then it suddenly went broke and they kept writing bad checks

reply to post by jdub297


My question is

Did you get snowballed by the propaganda?

Or did you aim to spread the propaganda lie, knowing it was propaganda?

reply to post by jdub297


I hate democratic (party, not ideology) policies . ., . but, then again, I also hate republican (party, not ideology) policies.

That said, I understand that people like to rag on Cali, especially the the Bay Area, when complaining about Dems and Progressive ideals.

Hell, I'm an Arizona libertarian (classical liberal), so take that for what it is worth.

However, If you are throwing around cities like Oakland, today, you have not spent as much time there as you think. I get that people have differing degrees of what they consider "safe" "acceptable" and I also realize that many people think the safest cities are not simply due to demographics.

I challenge you to go to Oakland and stay at someplace like the Marriot Downtown. Then, leave your room at midnight and walk south down to Jack London Square . . . then back north up Broadway all the way to Telegraph . . . then back down south to the Marriot. You should get back to the hotel at 2-230am, unless you sprint. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that unless you "maddog" people or jump around screaming insults you will continue on unharmed. Will anybody ever approach and try to talk to you . . . sure. There are homeless, young, old people on the street. Someone may ask you for a cigarette or change or something to eat . . . but it is an urban area that happens.

Also, Oakland looks 100x nicer than it did in the late 80's/early 90's . . . so I don't understand why this city is on your list . . . unless you are going by rep and not by intimate knowledge . . . as you claim?

reply to post by mc_squared


I'm sorry . . . I don't agree with the OP, but your list and it's criteria are just as slanted so I don't see a correlation that can be made to back you ish up (dems).

Businessweek . . . really. See any small cities on there . . . nope. Urban business centers . . . Pittsburgh? Have you been?

Also poorest states/median income . . . really? Is it a coincidence that those states have an extremely low cost of living, thus effecting income rates?

What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander?

Sorry to burst your bubble. Its not a partisan problem. Its a problem that we are all afraid to acknowledge. A lot of people will in private.

Look at the demographics of those cities. I live in one of the lowest crime rated cities in the nation per capita. We are just twenty miles from Saginaw, Mi and 50 miles from Flint, Mi. i wont tell you the demographic, you can look it up its Midland, Mi. It may give you a clue as to what I am eluding too.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by jdub297

 

Democrats destroy everything they touch. They are greedy, mercilous people that think if they throw a little (or a lot) of money at a problem, it'll fix itself. They have no personal responsiblity themselves, and expect no one else to exhibit personal responsibility.

That is their big problem.

At least they try to fix problems, unlike Republicans who ignore them if it's not cost-efficient or runs against their increasingly ding-batty philosophy.

It makes logical sense. Cities that don't put accountability on their citizens and instead give hand outs will attract the sort of citizen that's dependent and non-contributing and generally not welcome.

If I was a person that made consistently bad decisions, I'd move to a place where they were lenient and afforded me my vices. It's really just conservation of energy. Least trouble for the biggest bang.

You lower the standards and you attract people who have lower standards.

I'm not against helping others. But when you help others, they should be held accountable for their actions. Help them reach higher standards, don't lower your own to suit their shortcomings.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Sorry to burst your bubble. Its not a partisan problem. Its a problem that we are all afraid to acknowledge. A lot of people will in private.

Look at the demographics of those cities. I live in one of the lowest crime rated cities in the nation per capita. We are just twenty miles from Saginaw, Mi and 50 miles from Flint, Mi. i wont tell you the demographic, you can look it up its Midland, Mi. It may give you a clue as to what I am eluding too.

Now we are getting somewhere . . . A poster with cajones!

You are right about demographics . . .

If we could just round up and kill all the poor people . . . Wait . . . you are talking about the poor right? Or, do I have the wrong demographic?

Please clarify your views for the world to see . . .

Originally posted by jonnywhite
It makes logical sense. Cities that don't put accountability on their citizens and instead give hand outs will attract the sort of citizen that's dependent and non-contributing and generally not welcome.

If I was a person that made consistently bad decisions, I'd move to a place where they were lenient and afforded me my vices. It's really just conservation of energy. Least trouble for the biggest bang.

You lower the standards and you attract people who have lower standards.

edit on 24-2-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

This answer I actually like . . . personal responsiblilty! Not political group think, race, creed, religion, or socio-economic status.

Bravo!

reply to post by solomons path


The urban ghetto crime centers are not what they once were, back in the day of the welfare ghettos created under Nixon.

The PTBs probably miss those days. It is hard to get more money for the police state when poor people in the ghettos aren't creating the crime rates they used to create.

Will people ever wise up to the propaganda lies?

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I think this is what you call a false equivalency.

If we follow the same line of thinking, what does it say about Republicans when we hear that the the biggest welfare states in the country are Red states?

The game can be played both ways and in the end it serves no real purpose to solve real problems.

Exactly I am so tired of LEFT an RIGHT hit pieces putting blame on a party in a dodge and shuffle. Offer no ways to change only blame!

Boring is what it is. I saw this title and I was like finally some figured something out and maybe we can change it! I was excited! Then I read the same ole BS and it solves nothing...

reply to post by inverslyproportional


That's... interesting. According to their website here, the Indianapolis City Council is 16 (D), 13 (R). Former Mayor Bart Peterson is a Democrat and was mayor from '00 to '08. Maybe you don't pay attention. Maybe you're jusy playing the 'hope nobody checks' game. I don't know, but you're wrong and it took me about 8 seconds to prove it.

Indiana has a state debt of about $37 billion. This is even after nearly 40% of the budget is Federal funds. When your bank account reads -$37,000,000,000.00 I'm pretty confident that is the opposite of "money in the bank". The unemployment rate is 8.2%, the state economy is 40th in the nation even though it's the 15th most populous state, the average income is $35,689.00 which is also 40th. I'm not sure what your definition of a healthy economy is.

The crime statistics per 100,000 of Indiana versus US in parantheses: total 3,494 (3,295), violent 332 (386), property 3,162 (2,909), homicide 4.8 (4.7). If you can say that Indiana has low crime then the US as a whole is even better. These are 2011 numbers since they're the most recent complete statistics.

Corruption? Lincoln Plowman, Bud Gray, George Pabey, Jefferson City's fishy audit, Carl Brizzi, Tim Morrison, serious questions concerning the State Gaming Commission. There's a start on some recent corruption problems.

As for your last bit, that's total speculation and meaningless.

It's not just democrats/progressives/socialists ruining things, it's that they are doing it with the help of UNIONS.

Democrat corruption + union corruption = not a nice place to live.

reply to post by jdub297


Makes sense, poorer people tend to lean more towards the democrat party. So, if there is a correlation then i think you have the cause and effect backwards, although i think at least half of these places are just as divided on party affiliation as the rest of the country is.

Step back from the whole republican vs democrat thing, both parties are going to run this country into the ground no matter which one is more in control. The big corporations that buy out the politicians don't care if a politician is right or left wing, either way he'll take the bribe. Rare is a man who doesn't have a price, and even rarer among politicians.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Left wingers think if they throw OTHER PEOPLES' money at a problem, that will fix it.

edit on 24-2-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

Oh, I forgot, Left Wingers don't pay taxes