CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[the urban politician]

^ Meh, I’m not a “non for profits” type of guy

Rampant crime has no solution. We just need to live with it. I’m increasingly of the mind set that one must just protect themselves. I agree that police can’t do much.

Policing works when there is massive, large scale buy in and compliance with laws and reporting illegal activity. When culturally that compliance and buy in falls apart, policing cannot keep up with sheer volume of criminal activity. That’s when individuals with the means are forced to provide their own security.

So you cannot simultaneously have a culture of “you are a criminal but it’s not your fault” and have reduced crime/effective policing. Mutually inconclusive.

Instead, ALL members of society and ALL groups need to firmly teach their kids what is considered unacceptable behavior. When that occurs at a large scale, policing becomes effective.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Policing works when there is massive, large scale buy in and compliance with laws and reporting illegal activity. When culturally that compliance and buy in falls apart, policing cannot keep up with sheer volume of criminal activity. That’s when individuals with the means are forced to provide their own security.

After the Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008, I was told by many right-leaning people that the city would get much safer because now everyone would have a 🞵🞵🞵. It was going to scare the criminals from committing crimes. That hasn't happened, which implies more access to 🞵🞵🞵🞵 won't necessarily improve things.

I can't think of a well-developed nation that does policing by private security force. We should be looking at the other rich countries of the world and analyzing where our laws are mismatched. Things like qualified immunity, stand-your-ground laws, and loose 🞵🞵🞵 laws would be a decent place to start.

The Atlantic on rise in murders from 2019 to 2020:

What’s most startling in these new data is the degree to which firearms purchased in 2020 featured in crimes committed in 2020. The ATF’s data set includes a measure known as the “time to crime” of each 🞵🞵🞵 traced—the time from when a firearm was legally purchased to when it was recovered after a crime. On this metric, an enormous shift is apparent: The number of traced 🞵🞵🞵🞵 whose time to crime was a year or more increased by less than 1 percent in 2020 compared with 2019, but the number of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 whose time to crime was six months or less increased by 90 percent.

Moreover, states with greater upticks in 🞵🞵🞵 background checks—meaning more purchases of new 🞵🞵🞵🞵—also saw greater increases in new 🞵🞵🞵🞵 recovered in and traced to crimes. All told, what this reveals is that 🞵🞵🞵🞵 used in crimes in 2020 were newer than in the past.

[the urban politician]

^ Sure, but that doesn’t really address most of my point.

I simply said that people are going to take matters into their own hands if crime is rampant and policing isn’t effective.

Cultural failure is the single biggest reason why crime is rampant, and police can’t fix that. Easy access to 🞵🞵🞵🞵 is another.

But practically, your average person isn’t going to wait for solutions. They will adjust their lives in order to stay safe (ie hire security, buy a 🞵🞵🞵, move to perceived lower crime areas, etc)

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Sure, but that doesn’t really address most of my point.

I simply said that people are going to take matters into their own hands if crime is rampant and policing isn’t effective.

Cultural failure is the single biggest reason why crime is rampant, and police can’t fix that. Easy access to 🞵🞵🞵🞵 is another.

But practically, your average person isn’t going to wait for solutions. They will adjust their lives in order to stay safe (ie hire security, buy a 🞵🞵🞵, move to perceived lower crime areas, etc)

Totally agreed. The natural reaction is to retract from society and focus only on protecting/providing for your kin. I have to fight against this instinct all the time, as it actually pushes us further away from civilized society.

Our shared spaces seem to be getting smaller and more single-minded as technology consumes our lives. In that sense, I very much appreciate the different perspective you provide on this board.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Meh, I’m not a “non for profits” type of guy

Rampant crime has no solution. We just need to live with it. I’m increasingly of the mind set that one must just protect themselves. I agree that police can’t do much.

Policing works when there is massive, large scale buy in and compliance with laws and reporting illegal activity. When culturally that compliance and buy in falls apart, policing cannot keep up with sheer volume of criminal activity. That’s when individuals with the means are forced to provide their own security.

So you cannot simultaneously have a culture of “you are a criminal but it’s not your fault” and have reduced crime/effective policing. Mutually inconclusive.

Instead, ALL members of society and ALL groups need to firmly teach their kids what is considered unacceptable behavior. When that occurs at a large scale, policing becomes effective.

For society to fully comply, mistrust in the system has to be comprehensively addressed. But that takes too much self-reflection for authorities to take that step, therefore some members of society opt out and tolerate the ramifications.

[the urban politician]

Alright, I’m feelin Pritzker on this one:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...15-gqv43cab5jaqpih7uy4s77nlfq-story.html

[BrinChi]

Really the only data that consistently correlates with higher rates of 🞵🞵🞵 violence across the U.S. compared to the rest of the world is the per capita number of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 per resident https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us-🞵🞵🞵-culture-world-comparison-intl-cmd/index.html

I recently saw the following study referenced, which may help explain the uptick in 🞵🞵🞵 violence during the pandemic years as other crime types are relatively flat or down: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/20/us-🞵🞵🞵-purchases-2020-2021-study

Based on the data, I don't think any long-term solution is possible without reducing the number of 🞵🞵🞵🞵... be that through laws and regulations, voluntary incentives, or a shift in culture.

[the urban politician]

• Video Link

I'm keeping an eye on this guy, and I so far like what I"m seeing.

We need an alternative to the Pritzker/Springfield/🞵🞵🞵🞵 the taxpayer machine we've got going on right now.

[Handro]

A lifelong Democrat who suddenly switches parties to be the political beard of a billionaire with an axe to grind. Seems like a totally scrupulous ticket.

[sentinel]

Yeah, no red flags there, none at all. Nope.

If Illinoisians are stupid enough to not see Ken Griffin for what he truly is, then this puppet deserves to win.

Rauner DELIBERATELY tried to force the entire state into bankruptcy, why would I ever vote for another Repub to try to do that again, considering how much progress Pritzker has already made paying down the state's bills:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-illin...-in-late-payment-penalties-idUSKBN1FB2MB

[Via Chicago]

also imagine being a member of the IL repub party (id rather not, just ate breakfast) and having Griffin show up out of the blue and dictate who the party is going to run like its his personal operation.

why is griffin such a coward? he sure does seem to have a lot of opinions about the running of the state. so run for office. put up or shut up. say what you will about JB but he ran on his own merits, his own money, and his own ideas. he didnt need a more likeable face to do it for him because his own personality and brand was so toxic.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Handro

A lifelong Democrat who suddenly switches parties to be the political beard of a billionaire with an axe to grind. Seems like a totally scrupulous ticket.

I disagree.

I'm not bothered by people switching parties. If they feel that a party no longer serves their ideology, then that's fine by me. And usually the people who switch parties tend to be centrists, which are the types that I prefer.

We just need more choices. Pritzker should not have this election "in the bag". That's 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 democracy and we deserve better

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

also imagine being a member of the IL repub party (id rather not, just ate breakfast) and having Griffin show up out of the blue and dictate who the party is going to run like its his personal operation.

why is griffin such a coward? he sure does seem to have a lot of opinions about the running of the state. so run for office. put up or shut up. say what you will about JB but he ran on his own merits, his own money, and his own ideas. he didnt need a more likeable face to do it for him because his own personality and brand was so toxic.

It's really sad that you guys have already made up your minds.

That's why IL suffers from one party rule. And that answers Moorhosj's question about why Republicans have "given up" on this State.

Because nimrod idiots see a letter ('R' or 'D') and that instantly flips their minds into binary thinking.

Not me. I will vote based on who I think has the best vision for this State. We need more informed voters.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Rauner DELIBERATELY tried to force the entire state into bankruptcy, why would I ever vote for another Repub to try to do that again, considering how much progress Pritzker has already made paying down the state's bills:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-illin...-in-late-payment-penalties-idUSKBN1FB2MB

^ Well, Rauner ended up being a failure, I don't disagree.

It's also not outlandish to view bankruptcy as the only real solution to Illinois' ridiculous financial situation. I mean, it's really bad. Just needs to be handled better.

[Bonsai Tree]

And we're not? For the most part, I've liked what Pritzker's done. He's definitely had some problems (like the state-income tax fiasco). But the way I see it he's the best governor this state has had in decades. I voted for him in 2018 and unless something changes in that time, I'll vote for him again. Oh, and I definitely wouldn't call myself an uninformed voter.

Lori on the other hand. . . . well let's just say I'm not the biggest fan.

[Via Chicago]

having an R or a D in front of someones name is a pretty good proxy for who's ideology i align with in '22 lol. this isnt as difficult of a decision as youre making it sound. griffin is just mad because pritzker tried to raise his taxes. dont know why you think thatd be a personal sore point for me. i can understand why its a sore point for griffin. i think JBs been great.

i will say it should be pretty entertaining watching a) IL republicans tie themselves into knots trying to justify following the lead of a big city elite billionaire (their favorite punching bag), and b) watchin Irvin tie himself into a pretzel dis-avowing every policy he previously supported in an effort to appeal to the far right wing of the GOP in order to win the primary and distance himself...from himself

[the urban politician]

^ That's fine, but I think it's safe to say that you are not who will decide this election anyhow, as you are pretty far left (as are most of the people in this forum) from the norm.

But a centrist Republican absolutely has a chance. And I find it cute that you guys don't see the hypocrisy of criticizing people for taking Griffin's money, but are perfectly fine with a porky billionaire who never had to lift a finger in his life financing his own campaign, somehow "understanding the needs of the common man" so much more.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

griffin is just mad because pritzker tried to raise his taxes.

^ You mean Pritzker's signature policy that he ran on, and the voters soundly rejected?

Yeah, what about that?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But a centrist Republican absolutely has a chance.

lol theres no such thing. look at the national party. if you want a chance of getting elected, you have to be to the far right. the GOP has done everything possible within its power to eliminate centrists from their party, and the reason is their constituency no longer exists.

also, pritzkers tax policy would have benefitted the vast majority of IL residents (those making under $250,000 aka 97% of state residents). leave it to the average american to vote against their own self interest.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

lol theres no such thing. look at the national party. if you want a chance of getting elected, you have to be to the far right. the GOP has done everything possible within its power to eliminate centrists from their party, and the reason is their constituency no longer exists.

also, pritzkers tax policy would have benefitted the vast majority of IL residents (those making under $250,000 aka 97% of state residents). leave it to the average american to vote against their own self interest.

So much nonsense here. And we are talking about local politics, not national.

Anyhow, I look forward to considering all options, then making a decision. Hopefully more voters do that this time around