The homicide rate was plummeting through almost the entirety of the '90s. Under your assertion that democratic policies are the cause of increasing crime rates, this trend makes no sense. You cannot claim that something is making something else worse without evidence past the fact that rapid improvement was seen during the time period that was supposedly "the worst".

How does this not compute? Like, do you not understand how time works? Do you not understand that in order to get from bad->good, you typically have to go through everything in between?

While it is tremendously unnecessary, here is yet another graph showing how this argument is bullshit:

As you can see, the trend is consistent across both Rural (largely Republican) and Urban (largely Democrat) areas for the past two decades, with Urban areas rapidly catching up to the lower crime rates of Rural areas (meaning improvement has been greater in Democratic areas than Republican areas). This implies a lot of things. First of all, it implies that you are thoroughly full of shit, but we already knew that. Second, it implies that the spike in crime in the early '90s was not strictly a result of local politics. It implies that there was instead larger cultural or national level trends leading to this higher crime rate, which is further obfuscated by the fact that this was not just a national trend, it was largely a global one.

You have nothing.

No, you have less than nothing.

Beside the fact that he doesn't make sense. After all, he's claiming that there's more gun violence because democrats restricted gun access. So they cause more gun violence because they don't have access to guns so they're killing with the guns they don't have... huh?

Yet strangely this works in literally every other country. 

Maybe these issues are slightly more complicated than "gun access=good".  Just maybe.  

Ignoring the fact that this is cherry picking.  

It'd help to know that most of Detroit's mayors were Republican up till 1962, well after Detroit started declining.  From 1924 till 1962, Detroit only had a Democratic mayor for 5 of those years.  Only a few months of those were in the 1950's, during the start of Detroit's decline.    

But sure, Detroit is a great scapegoat, because it's been entirely Democratic after it's decline.  Key word being after.  

That doesn't really make sense.  What money and resources do they run out of?  

Snoopy, please provide:

1). Evidence that Democrats intentionally "increase gun violence, poverty, and broken families so they become more reliant on the government and give them more votes".
2). Evidence that Democratic mayors "move their problems from one city to the next".

Failure to adequately address these claims of yours will result in a majority consensus among us that you are either intentionally lying or willfully ignorant. This is your opportunity to quell these assertions.

Ironically, Mexico's failure is because of the US's.

https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-all-mexico-violence-fueled-illegal-us-guns-1453694

And he was mayor until 1962. 

If you're going to take a random selection of "worst cities to live in" that happen to be Democrat, you also have to take into account the best cities to live in.

https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/best-places-to-live

Austin Texas:  Last few mayors are Democratic

Denver, CO: Democratic since the 1960's.  

Colorado Springs: Several Republican mayors recently

(A couple it's harder to find lists on)

Saint Paul: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Saint_Paul,_Minnesota Democratic minus 6 years, since the 1960's.  

San Francisco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_San_Francisco Democratic since the 1960's.

Portland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Portland,_Oregon Democratic or left leaning, minus one year since the late 50's. 

So why is this list of successes not as important as your list of failures?  It's almost like cherry picking can lead to whatever result you want.  

The reality is that the crime rate of a city is down to a lot of factors.  Blaming Republicans/Democrats as a whole is the stuff of nonsense.  Corruption leads to a lot of failures, and corruption can happen to either political party.  

Unlike you, I don't think Republicans are bad just for being Republicans.  I don't even think most of them are bad.  

And I don't think Democrats are good just for being Democrats.  And similarly I don't even think most of them are all that great.  

The world is complicated.  People are complicated.  

I know it's so much easier to just blame Dems for such and such failures.  But you aren't doing yourself any favors.  

No one is perfect.  Everyone makes mistakes. Doesn't mean that one political party is better than the other.  

That's not how any of this works.  

So moving on from this nonsense, what does everybody think about Trump dragging out the anti-semetic "Dual loyalty" trope again?

But when the entire country, rural and urban are seeing similar trends, it's almost impossible to be due to local policies.  

1.  False, you gave a couple of cherry picked examples, while ignoring other Liberal ran cities that do much better.  

1B.  the policies themselves work fine.  Most of the guns that are used in crimes in Chicago for example, are brought in from other areas without those policies.  

1C.  How people go into poverty is complicated.  People love pointing at California as an example of how liberal policies cause homelessness, but the reality is that the reason housing is so expensive there is because the state isn't building enough houses.  The reason why they aren't building enough houses, is because people don't want the houses there so they vote for people to prevent housing.  

So in California's case, the reason for poverty isn't because economically they are failing, it is essentially the opposite.  It's doing so well that people are moving in, but people don't want more people to move in.

2.  You're claiming that the reasons why jobs get lost is exclusively due to local liberal policies (regulations, taxes), that's pretty nonsensical.

And I'm sure you're unconvinced about Detroit, despite the fact that during the 1950's and up till 1962, when the Auto industry in Detroit was falling on its face, that those are somehow Democratic policy mistakes, despite a Republican being in charge.