Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "City Goes \"Light On Crime\" Then Congressmen Gets Robbed and Stores Flee Crime.." video.

99%? Really, where precisely did you get that figure, because I'm pretty sure that none of the politicians running the city got 99% of the eligible voters to vote for them.
74
This isn't mercy, this is doing nothing because they might get yelled at.
5
@tony001212 That's a poor excuse. The reality is that it's much closer to 50%, but that doesn't actually help your argument. And BTW, yes, I know what hyperbole is. In this case, it's a lazy way of getting out of having to actually come up with a nuanced world view. You can just blame all the lefties, ignoring that a good chunk did not support this.
2
@jordananthony6432 It's ignorant and misleading is what it is. This sort of rhetoric is not helpful in the slightest bit.
2
@gawainethefirst So, for whom do I vote if I don't want the status quo then? A candidate that is significantly worse? Because that's been working out rather well, just look at the MTGs of congress and tell me that's better.
2
@slee2819 Which means that it only takes roughly 47% of the population voting for this kind of silliness in order to get it. Which is sort of the point.
2
@inicolov It's not complex, it was a stupid point and remains a stupid point. That sort of laziness doesn't really help change anybody's mind. In this case, it takes less than half the eligible voters to vote for a candidate for them to win. Rounding that up to that extent is neither informative nor useful. The fact is that there is a significant portion of the left leaning voter base that did not support these policies.
2
The problem there is that just because a lot of us vote for Democrats, doesn't mean that this is what we want. There's a number of reasons why we won't vote GOP, for example abortion, our out of control defense spending and a continued march towards no gun regulations at all. This is a minority of Democrats that go for this, they just happen to be influential and there aren't viable alternatives to either party at this point.
2
@BerserkPublishing Yep, if it were as simple as just switching parties, this wouldn't have gone on this long. The problem is that the GOP refuses to run competent and non-crazy candidates in places like San Francisco. I remember being pissed off at the Democrats years ago and specifically looking for a GOP candidate that I could vote for and even looking specifically to vote for one on the basis of not being a Democrat, they still couldn't get my vote because they were all poison pill candidates that were never going to win because they were absolute monsters. Now I only vote 3rd party if there is a candidate and against the incumbent if there is no 3rd party candidate. I don't know how long I'm going to do that, but given the negative progress that's going on in both parties right now, it's going to be a long while.
2
Because it's irrelevant. Folks move to near the stores to steal. That is the ones that aren't engaged in organized crime. People don't steal hundreds of dollars worth of meat to feed their families.
1
The issue is that cities like San Francisco and Seattle did it backwards. The draw down in police is supposed to come after a drop in need due to services being provided by more appropriate agencies,not before. Reducing policing numbers prior to any of that being put into place and seeing a related drop in crime was never going to work and only great fools would expect otherwise.
1
Most liberals don't support this sort of nonsense. There's a loud minority that do, and normally they're about as relevant as the Libertarian party is.
1