Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "The B1M" channel.

@Netizen's United Have you ever noticed that there are almost no Republican cities? It's funny that, to stay Republican, you almost have to be isolated from other people and live in a rural community. It's almost like, when you live and grow up with a huge range of different people in a city, your worldview starts to expand and shift... a little to the left.
12
@bollejy I honestly don't get how half of the places in the US have the gall to call themselves "cities". Past a certain point, don't people realize that more roads isn't good? You're only thinking of yourself, but if you (3rd person), a motorist, could make it 100% efficient to commute into a city... then there wouldn't be any city to drive to.
2
@Netizen's United Cleaner, safer? Cities subsidize the suburbs. They don't generate any economic activity of their own— no shops or public places, just houses. You're quite literally mooching off of the people you despise. Biting the hand that feeds you. So even if what you said were somehow true— it can't last. You're coasting on borrowed money. Your way of life cannot and will not continue. Your grandchildren are gonna need to make some tough choices that you didn't have the balls to. All that being said: Safer? Is it safer for children to be chauffeured around all the time and never learn how to fend for themselves? You tell me which you think a trafficker would target. Suburbs are almost always empty, no one fucking walks in them. Except for kids, because they don't have cars. In the city, more people are out, so more potential criminals, but you're always within earshot. If anything happens, everyone knows right away. On the other hand, if you're a kid in the suburbs and aomwthing happens, you're fucked. I was one of those kids who had to walk, the city was always safer for me. And don't get me started on your opioid problem. Safer, my ass. Cleaner? Not really. Suburbs are most wasteful per person and frankly, I don't consider barren grass lawns to be a sign of cleanliness. New York is dirty, sure, but it's the exception, not the rule. Chicago, Tampa, Austin (it's blue, too), San Francisco, are all cleaner and better serviced than whatever backwater subdivision you crawled out of. Chickenwire houses and dingy little grass patches =/= cleaner.
2
@Netizen's United It sounds to me like you just don't want to scrutinize your own ideas. You're avoiding talking about any specific points because if you did, you'd find out you were wrong. Suburbs aren't financially sustainable. Sorry. They're definitely not safer, and outside of the example of New York City, they're not cleaner. The fact that you refuse to respond just tells me that you're just afraid of the possibility that you're wrong, so you're avoiding thinking too hard about any actual points. People leave, by the way, because cities are actually getting so developed that property values keep all but the wealthy away from the center. We'd build more houses to lower rates, but suburban hicks don't want any new development near them, because it might "ruin the character" of their suburb. Which is hilarious. There is nothing distinct about any American suburb, anywhere. That's the whole point.
1