At the Presidential Debate, Trump Again Falsely Claimed Crime Is Rising
Violent crime dropped in 2023 and appears to be on track for another large decline this year.

During Tuesday's presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Donald Trump repeated his false claim that crime is rising.
Crime has been going down everywhere else around the world, Trump said at ABC News' debate in Philadelphia, but "crime in this country is through the roof."
In fact, the 2020 crime wave has been receding for the past two years. Violent crime dropped in 2022 and 2023 and, according to preliminary data, is on track for another steep drop in 2024. The FBI's Quarterly Uniform Crime Report for the first quarter of 2024 reported that overall violent crime decreased by 15 percent nationally compared to the first quarter of 2023.
Debate moderators cited the FBI numbers, but Trump does not consider them reliable. "They were defrauding statements," Trump shot back. "They didn't include the cities with the worst crimes. It was a fraud."
The FBI data are far from perfect, but they track with other early data from 2024. The Major Cities Chiefs Association released first-quarter data in May, based on a survey of 68 major metropolitan police departments, showing a 17 percent drop in murder.
"A murder decline of even half the magnitude suggested by the early 2024 data," wrote Jeff Asher, a data analyst and co-founder of AH Datalytics, "would place the US murder rate this year largely on par with or below where it was from 2015 to 2019 prior to the surge in murder in 2020."
As Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote last month, Trump's repeated claims that "homicides are skyrocketing" simply do not hold water, no matter which way you slice the stats.
"The Trump campaign describes the FBI's quarterly numbers as 'garbage' and 'fake statistics,'" Sullum wrote. "But notwithstanding the preliminary nature of those numbers and the challenges associated with the transition to the new reporting system, they are broadly consistent, in direction if not magnitude, with what other sources indicate."
Politicians should be celebrating a safer America rather than stoking fear and rolling back criminal justice reforms based on a spike in crime that is already in the rearview mirror.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What the hell was that? Crazy Uncle Don couldn't even stay on topic when it was his best issue, immigration. Jesus, that was pure insanity.
Trump is angry. Very angry. He has no agenda or plan (well, he has "concepts of a plan" lol), he has only anger and grievance. If your highest goal is to tear down everyone who makes you sad, then Trump's your guy.
No Fatfuck, YOU are angry. Angry, shrill, and desperate. But you will continue to rant and rave about Trump. Everyone knew when we saw the title of the article you would be in here right away shitposting. Miserable shill.
We all know that crime is skyrocketing because of your illegals. No matter how much your fellow travelers try to hide it.
Wow, Tulsi did a great job with that debate prep.
You’re about as dumb as Harris, aren’t you?
LOL. I see the Mises Caucus shitstains are big mad about being confronted by actual statistics, instead of forwarded memes from their angry Fox News grandpa.
There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
You've been misled. There are lots of unreported crimes in the cities.
Yeah all we need are a few million more “migrants,” inflation, and price controls to really get this country moving. Or something.
Indeed. How many more young women have to be violently raped and murdered by violent Venezuelans.
A few more takeovers by violent Venezuelan gangs an sheit.
And Springfield, Ohio could use another twenty thousand subhuman Haitians.
But, but, it was a fraaaud! We wuz raaawbd!
Harris would be far more convincing if the country wasn’t already living the nightmarish hell of Biden Harris and their open border insanity. And their economic insanity. And energy policy insanity. And their specialty, foreign policy insanity, with a dash of goading WWIII insanity just for some flavor.
Republicans buy foreign politicians with your money and order them to send cops out to shoot kids and brown folks who stray from the path of Marlboros and gin. Suddenly the economy collapses, people flee as they fled the US when beer was a felony, and crowds gather at the border. How did FDR Dems cause that?
What the a actual fuck? Are you having a stroke?
Wow, Tulsi did a great job with that debate prep.
This was stupid the first time you posted it. Doubly so for doing it under Nelson who is no fan of Trump.
Most leftists do double down on stupid. So it’s not surprising.
The nightmarish hell of watching violent gangs take over apartment complexes in Aurora, Co.
Young women raped and murdered
All of them victims of
Biden's
Broken
Border
Bloodbath
Trump loves Venezuelans. One of his last acts as Pres was to grant them TPS.
Did you come here to showcase your gibbering idiocy?
Did you come here just to showcase your ad hominem attacks. Why would Trump grant TPS to all these Venezuelan gang members?
He didn't. Trump didn't want them in. He's not responsible for the current immigration crisis! You are lying.
Oh come now, Mr. Ciamarella. Facts and statistics don’t matter. We “know” crime is rising “through the roof” because some guy on Facebook had his car broken into, and that proves that crime is out of control. Oh and the perpetrator was a brown guy so that utterly proves that it was an illegal immigrant violent thug who probably also eats cats.
CATS ARE BEING BEHEADED!
All part of the kitchen prep.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Why would people want an assault weapons ban if they disagreed that crime wad rising through the roof?
A majority of people do support a ban on assault weapons.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811842/support-distribution-for-banning-assault-style-weapons-in-the-united-states/
Yet the number one selling rifle is an AR-15. Millions of AR-15 type rifles are owned.
Most of the people that support an "assault weapons" ban use fancy features as a way to describe assault.
I’m shocked that most people don’t know that assault weapon is a bullshit term. Shocked!
Facts are leftist. Besides, the crime are happening where governors and mayors are Democrats. So Democrats. It’s true for Democrats. Democrats. Reason voted for Democrats. Reason wants this. Reason is leftist.
Facts are leftist
Sarc truly believes this. That's why he won't believe his own lying eyes and ears.
Do you wave your hat around when you make declarations like this?
You bring it on yourself with your worship of the left.
Do I need to give you the articles even in Reason about the changes to FBI reporting and the fact they aren't complete?
Nah. Forget it. Your beliefs in liberal corporate media is all that matters.
Nor the fact that leftist, Soros owned D.A.s and hug a thug judges are simply returning violent thugs back out onto the streets.
The fact that people are no longer reporting crimes, even violent ones as the police have been hamstrung, with no community support, so why should they go out of their way to investigate either.
Don't believe your lying eyes, peasants! If we don't report the crimes, and if we revolving door the criminals, then it's not really crime!
And unsurprisingly, JeffSarc is in here ranting and raving about how great crime stats are, when we all know they’re not.
We don't call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.
Just because there’s lots of crime in your goddamn rural shithole doesn’t mean there’s crime everywhere you stupid fucking redneck. That’s called an anecdotal fallacy.
I know you are too much of a backwards, ignorant, Romish cowfucker to understand that, but I tried.
Didn't you just say the other day that you lived in a rural shithole?
No. You must have me confused with someone else.
Nope. No way to confuse a fucked-up pile of shit like you with anything else.
FOAD, asshole
Good morning Sevo
You probably said that you want to go to a rural area to get multiple fillings of your shithole. So that would explain any confusion.
So that’s what you hillbillies are up to!
You can't get your story to be consistent. All that points to you being a dishonest liar.
ML is the one who is lying. Please site where I claimed to live in a rural shithole?
Except New York City deployed the national guard to the subway due to rampant crime issues. We saw the videos and articles about mass theft in west coast cities, including organized raids which took effectively everything, which ended with stores completely closing. We saw the articles about pharmacies closing, creating "pharmacy deserts". If crime is improving so much, why are these happening?
Let's talk. NYC has public crime statistics. So does Houston. The Houston reported crime level is three times that of NYC per person. Now, I'm not one to believe that my city is some Utopia. We have our problems. I would believe that we were equal, or even a bit higher. However, I cannot believe that a city that's quite safe to walk down any street after dark has thrice the crime. That's just not a reasonable conclusion. Therefore, there has to be a different explanation, and that's reporting.
Language, Kar.
I’ve told you repeatedly I would watch my language if you stopped your bigotry. However, you can’t fucking help but be an ignorant fucking bigot. Your Romish pedo church has conditioned you to believe patently false things.
Fuck your Romish pedo god and fuck your Virgin Mary you goddamn fucking idolater!
You’re the one expressing bigoted views here. As all leftists do.
He’s labeling everyone who doesn’t hate gay or trans people as pedos.
I’m pointing out he CHOOSES to belong to a church known for protecting and enabling sex abuse.
I don't belong to the LGBT. You do.
I’m a heterosexual male.
You’re a papist pedo.
No, you're a pedophile. You've admitted as much multiple times.
Note to foreign readers: mystical fanaticism causes the gullible to see things that are not there. When Dramamine users do it, it's hallucination. When the gullible believe it, those are faith-inspired visions that ought to be included in official statistics and legislated with guns drawn.
No readers here, foreign or domestic, pay attention to your inane, idiotic Marxist ramblings.
You’re a pathetic joke Hank. So die already. No one will miss a used up old deranged pinko like you.
Father, forgive him, for he knows not what he does.
Truthfulness: are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
“from 2015 to 2019 prior to the surge in murder in 2020.””
Oh, so crime has been rising significantly, and its higher this decade than it was last, but because we had a manufactured civil unrest in 2020-2021, we should bury our heads in the sand and look away. The climate cherry pickers are creaming their pants over this data molestation.
“Please sir, dont notice that when you walk into Walgreens that nearly everything is locked behind metal bars, just purchase goods and continue to purchase more goods, without notice, please and thanks! Everything is fine!”
Once again, statistics can show what the person citing the statistics wants them to show. Manufacture a large jump in crime (and spending) in 2020 by over-reacting to a pandemic and encouraging less-than-peaceful mass protests, and crime comes down a bit in the years after that (unlike spending, which only ever goes up).
No one feels safer than they did 5 years ago. The drop in the murder rate is real (once you pick your starting point), but other crime rates are falling due to businesses shutting down (due to crime) in Democrat-run cities, some crimes not being prosecuted at all, many crimes going unreported, and people avoiding areas that have become dangerous (that they used to frequent).
All-American girl Taylor Swift just endorsed Kammy.
Donnie angry! Throwing his food!
Cripes, Dick Cheney AND Taylor Swift.
Congratulations.
Who's next? Vladimir Putin? Oh wait...
Kammie has all the warmongers on her side
How nice of slithering Dick to worm his way out from under a slime covered rock.
He can't die soon enough.
Hey buddy. Actual phone calls to police about those Haitian immigrants and geese. You know what you said wasn't happening. Because of Rolling Stone. Lol.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/10/exclusive-police-audio-report-confirm-haitian-goose-hunting-in-ohio-they-all-had-geese-in-their-hands/
lol, did Bushplug actually cite Rolling Stone?
He cited Rolling Stone?
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Looks like the fifty centers (and Sarckles) are getting overtime tonight.
Anyway folks, puzzled as to why Ciaramella accuses Trump of lying but ignored Kamala’s fabulations and batshit nuttery?
Well:
C.J. CIARAMELLA
Criminal Justice Reporter
Who do you plan to vote for this year? Joe Biden. The nationalists said the libertarian-conservative consensus is dead, and I take them at their word. Also, Stephen Miller is a white nationalist.
https://reason.com/2020/10/12/how-will-reason-staffers-vote-in-2020/?comments=true#comments
Yep. We all knew they would have hit pieces against Trump ready to go. Reason (plus JeffSarc) have to prop up that retarded bitch Harris.
That retarded bitch just steam rolled your boy. Maybe it's time for the Rs to pull a switcheroo too.....
Sad there are retarded leftists who believe this. Lol.
You probably believe the fine good people and bloodbath lies she told too. Or she was never for gun control. Or her economy lies. Her tracking lies. Etc. Etc.
Even on a 3 v 1 it was a wash at best which is why her camp quickly pivoted to a 2nd debate after she refused the FOX debate.
Did the moderators make Trump say the things he said the way he said them? Because it was his angry, rambling, sometimes incoherent speaking that was the problem.
That was a pretty angry, rambling, incoherent post, but that's to be expected from a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.
Is that what CNN told you to believe?
She didn’t. Case closed. The only difficulty Trump had was with the moderators.
No, that was a montage of Trump campaign videos you were watching. On TV, Trump got his ass handed to him ... well, honestly, mostly by Trump. As usual, he's his own worst enemy.
No. Trump handled the 3v1 situation quite well. You clearly didn't watch the debate.
If anyone else wants to refute Nelson, be my guest.
Even weirder given that all of their hatred for problems with the criminal justice system are personified in her.
Very true. Trump should have said something like that. Her time as DA and AG are vulnerabilities with segments of her coalition. But instead, after Harris said he would be an angry, grievance-filled, insecure old man with thin skin he was ... exactly that.
If Trump could stay on message and stop focusing on his own insecurities he would be in the lead. Harris isn't a very good candidate, but Trump is a master at letting his thin skin sabotage his effectiveness.
If this goes the D's way, it will be Trump losing the election rather than Harris winning it.
At least Harris had some accomplishments as AG and DA, and was somewhat tough on crime back then (before she began bailing out looters, vandals, arsonists and rioters). She is distinctly lacking in any notable accomplishments as Senator or VP, unless you count the most progressive voting record in the Senate as an accomplishment.
Most of her ‘accomplishments’ involved civil rights violations and outright prosecutorial misconduct. She should have been disbarred and prosecuted. Not holding elected office.
Nelson will never understand that.
I gave up about halfway through. Kamala stopped being relevant because it was Trump against the moderators. To be fair, Trump was letting himself get baited a ton, but moderators kept "fact-checking" Trump and responding to him, and not fact-checking Kamala on any of the clear bullshit she was saying. Trump knew the border was his best issue but he went on it too hard and came off a bit crazed on it, constantly harping on it in response to almost everything.
Kamala was well-prepped. She threw a few little hooks into her answers to get Trump chasing random issues, like claiming Trump's rallies are sparsely attended and people leave early, or claiming he inherited $450 million. These are things completely irrelevant that Trump's ego can't let pass and he jumped on them. Meanwhile she's able to throw out the "Bloodbath" lie, the "Fine people on both sides" lie, she's able to claim he's a criminal who's been indicted for 60 felonies, and the moderators don't have any response on pushback on those.
Kamala probably won, but she was in a 3-on-1 tagteam.
This is called a persecution complex. It's a mental illness you should seek professional help for.
You aren't paranoid if people really are out to get you
And we can say with absolute certainty that people are definitely out to destroy Trump's career, finances, and even murder him. So he has every right to be defensive.
Get over yourself. He has dug his own hole, now he has to lie in it. He never learned the First Rule of Holes, as he amply demonstrated last night.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, shitstain.
Nope. You’re just a vacuous leftist shill who is as retarded as Harris. Which is why you’re a democrat. You’re similar to the retards in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Xe3SGUH6A
But you’re too smug and stupid for self awareness.
I'm a split-ticket-voting independent. I've never been a Democrat (or, for that matter, a Republican). Right now the Republican Party is insane, so I end up supporting more Ds than Rs these days.
But in Delaware's general election for Governor, I will be voting R. Last time they nominated a AQnon-sypporting election denier, so I voted D. This time they are running a pro-business, pro-LGBT, pro-choice businessman who wants to limit spending. His name is Mike Ramone and he would be a great Governor.
1. Did the mediators fact check Trump without fact checking Harris?
2. Did Harris bait Trump?
3. Was Harris well prepared?
2) No, she never said anything completely untrue. Some things, like the "fine people on both sides" quote, are vehently disputed by the right, but he said there were fine people in a pro-Confederacy, Nazi-organozed event. Finding a fine person on Richard Spencer's side would be a Hurculean task.
2) Yes, very effectively. Given that Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, is much better at manipulating people than Harris ever will be, it reinforces the point that he would play Trump like a violin.
3) Yes, very. Harris isn't as insecure and thin-skinned as Trump, but she's known for getting defensive and curt when aggressively challenged. She managed to overcome that weakness. Her debate prep obviously was more rigorous than Trump's.
Even Snopes admits that the fine people thing is false.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
Well, there goes any shred of credibility you might ever have had.
GTFO you dumb bitch.
OK, what demonstrably untrue thing did Harris say? The "fine people" thing isn't it. I'm talking about something that rises to the level of "immigrants eating pets" (no evidence) or "Trump won the election" (massive evidence of his loss).
"Trump knew the border was his best issue but he went on it too hard and came off a bit crazed on it, constantly harping on it in response to almost everything."
That is because he views immigrants as scapegoats.
"she’s able to claim he’s a criminal"
Trump is just as much of a criminal as your team claims illegal immigrants are. In fact more so, since he was actually convicted in a court of law, while your team is quick to declare all of the illegal immigrants as "criminals" with no due process whatsoever.
You have zero credibility with pathetic statement slime that. Why don’t you just clear out? Everyone here knows you’re a lying Marxist. So there’s no point to you.
Just go back to eating yourself to death while you chat with your NAMBLA buddies. And I assume you got Shrike into your NAMBLA cell by now. How is that working out? You two trading lots of child porn?
Did you hear his nonsense ? D's are letting doctors kill babies after they are born ? Is he going senile ? Immigrants are eating your pets ? What the heck is he smoking ?
There are 5 states that don't require palliative care dumbass. 5 states that allow doctors to continue to kill the child post birth. Trumps response was about abortions in the 9th month. This eas another Candy Crowley false fact check retard.
The only clip I saw of the whole debate was of her talking about a pregnant woman bleeding out in the parking lot.
It's the same tired, shitty, dishonest, backhanding to women, appeal-to-emotion bullshit that Clinton played in 2016. The same tired, shitty, dishonest, backhanding to women, appeal-to-emotion bullshit that Megyn Kelly played against Scott Walker in 2016. The same tired, shitty, dishonest, backhanding to women and minorities that probably every 'feminist' and 'leftist' has played on men, Republicans, and normal people of all stripes since time immemorial: that blacks are too stupid to know where their local DMV is an no women could possibly get to the end of their pregnancy, face adversity, and *expect* medical care to save both of them.
There is no woman bleeding out in a car anywhere. The hospital is required to treat women bleeding out whether they're pregnant or not. Moreover, there is no situation where a woman bleeding out is good for the baby. It's, as indicated, a dishonest appeal to emotion to court low-information voters into supporting her overtly anti-federal and anti-democratic authoritarian take on abortion. Trump freed policy to develop 50,000 potential solutions to 50,000 different rape issues. Kamala doesn't care, which is why she highlights a fake woman bleeding out in a parking lot rather than a pre-teen girl raped by her immigrant father or by a teacher. She doesn't want people to be free to decide these things for themselves within themselves, within their family, or within their community. She wants them to simply obey her.
Lady, I've been steeped in my own blood. Arguably through my own fault. If you think you can scare me into deciding to murder someone or making someone else's decisions for them with a cheap scare tactic like "A woman bleeding out in a parking lot." you really are a spineless politician and a shitty human being.
Democrats always lie. They have to. They have no positions that are defensible through honest debate.
"There is no woman bleeding out in a car anywhere."
https://people.com/health/oklahoma-woman-with-non-viable-pregnancy-told-she-had-to-woa/
Please.
There is no woman bleeding out in a car anywhere. The hospital is required to treat women bleeding out whether they’re pregnant or not.
You left out the next sentence. You're treating the situation as an everyday common occurrence. It is not. In that aspect, mad.casual is correct.
Jaci Statton, a 25-year-old mother of three from Oklahoma, was expecting her fourth child when she noticed she was bleeding during her third trimester. At an appointment with her OB-GYN, she learned she had a partial molar pregnancy that was non-viable and potentially cancerous.
When she tried to seek treatment for the life-threatening condition, in a state where abortions are banned, she was told by doctors to wait in the hospital parking lot until she was “bleeding out” for them to legally treat her.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/jaci-statton-oklahoma-abortion-ban-pregnancy-b2333380.html
There is no woman bleeding out in a car anywhere. The hospital is required to treat women bleeding out whether they’re pregnant or not.
Notice the next sentence. You're treating the situation as an everyday common occurrence. It is not. In that aspect, mad.casual is correct.
"There are 5 states that don’t require palliative care"
That isn't "killing a baby after it's been born". Not even close. In every single state in America, killing a baby that has been born alive is murder. Every. Single. One.
Not with the new laws passed in those five states. That's the part you omitted.
You Trump nuts keep spouting out the same lies. That palliative care bull-hockey is pure misrepresentation by right-wingers. It isn't true and has never been true. You are delusional.
https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2023-07-25/desantis-false-claim-post-birth-abortions
Not with the new laws passed in those five states. WLRN deliberately misread what the law actually says. If you actually read the measure, it makes way for post-birth infanticide.
DeSantis and the "Trump nuts" were correct.
It was more than the false fact checking by Muir that was an issue. Half the questions to Trump were framed as criticism of Trumps actions and corporate narratives rather than discussing policy people actually care about.
What fact checking was false ?
For one, claiming that crime is lower than before. It isn't.
I detest Harris and her more/bigger/stronger government approach [as an end in itself], but you are correct in that no one can tell Trump anything, and his ego is his biggest weakness and he got played for it. Yes, the moderators were biased, and they and Harris missed no opportunity to use this against him. The debate was about as bad as I feared it would be.
Dysfunction all around.
Both looters were too cowardly to face Chase Oliver.
ABC News: Chase who now?
Nope. Just Harris. Trump isn’t the one avoiding debates. But it would kill your drooling pinko ass to admit that.
Actually, Trump's campaign just refused an offer to have another debate. Apparently they think, as bad as he was, he could be worse a second time.
This isn't true. Trump offered a debate at Fox, and he was declined.
You are being dishonest.
Kamala did win and in part because she kept her ego in check when Trump call her everything he could get away with. Also, the fact that the moderators weren't in the tank for Trump and weren't throwing him softballs doesn't mean they were against him. The moderators did good follow-ups and they kept the debate moving, as they should.
Not even close. But we all knew you would come here and lie, just like you do every day.
When you don't arrest anyone for committing crimes, and you massage the stats in such a way that would make the cops in The Wire blush, and you refuse to report your stats to the FBI so they get to 'guess' what your crime rates are, of course the numbers go down. From the perspective of the average person however, crime is most definitely up.
Yup.
Crime is so bad in America ML can see it from all the way up in Prince George!
It will be funny when you’re murdered by some MS-13 thugs because of the way you vote.
It’ll be funny when you lose your military benefits for being a traitor.
Get him arrested for treason then, if you're so inclined. Go! You know that's the government you want.
What the actual fuck, Woodchipper?
If what KARtikeya says is true, than what Woodchipper says will be accurate. But what KARtikeya says is not true. Do you believe that person's words?
Are you a Mormon?
In other words, facts are leftist. Got it.
No you dishonest cunt. Ignoring reality, letting people harm others and fantasy are Leftist.
Now you’re parroting Sarc’s dumb drunk ass. That’s just fucking sad.
Except none of that is actually happening. Violent crime in the 50 largest cities is down. Three year trends in individual cities of all sizes is down. Rural, exurb, suburb, and urban areas all report less violent crime.
The crimes you are talking about, the ones that police supposedly "don’t arrest anyone for committing" are nonviolent crimes. Personally I think they should all lead to arrests, but pretending violent crimes aren't leading to arrests (or that nonviolent crimes are the same as violent crimes) is completely untrue. No one is conspiring to "massage the stats". The measures are consistent over time and are reported in a consistent fashion.
What you really should be complaining about is that crime stats (violent and otherwise) are completely unconnected to the Presidency. They are mostly unconnected to public policy, period. The 90s were the peak of violent crime in America, but the decreases across the country .irrored each other regardless of the type of policing or public policy the communities employed. Tough-on-crime and community policing models yielded startlingly similar results. Adding officers saw roughly the same i.pact as not adding officers. Violent crime went up around the country, for no identifiable reason, then after a couple decades went down, also for no identifiable reason. It just isn't something that a President can affect, so claiming Trump's policies made it go up is plain false.
A. Compare the numbers to 2019, not the peak retard.
B. Multiple dem blue cities have even defunded police lines. With multiple blue jurisdictions telling stores and citizens to not report crimes. A city in California even threatened target for reporting shop lifting for fuck sake.
If you look at theft and assault numbers reported by citizens the crime is up. Police are telling then to not report. This is well documented but idiots like you prefer narratives.
"Compare the numbers to 2019, not the peak retard."
Why would anyone honestly assessing crime statistics ignore an entire year?
"Multiple dem blue cities have even defunded police"
No, they haven't. Unless you have some funding numbers that support your assertion? Not opinion pieces or Zerohedge nonsense, actual budget figures.
"With multiple blue jurisdictions telling stores and citizens to not report crimes."
So after I point out that conservatives dishonestly conflate violent and violent crime, you ... dishonestly conflate violent and nonviolent crime. If you read my post, I agree that nonviolent crimes should be reported and prosecuted. That is a fair and important criticism of cities like San Francisco that have let petty theft and shoplifting run amok. But it has absolutely nothing to do with violent crime, which is down.
"A city in California even threatened target for reporting shop lifting for fuck sake."
And I said, and believe, that that's wrong. Why are you pretending otherwise. It still isn't violent crime, which is down.
"If you look at theft and assault numbers reported by citizens the crime is up."
So if you look at anecdotal stories by individuals instead of actual figures for the entire area, violent crime is up? Do you truly not see the problem with that? Actual crime statistics (which captures all reports, not just the ones that get airtime) show violent crime is down.
"Police are telling then to not report."
No one is telling anyone not to report violent crime. It is a right wing fever dream. Unless you are dishonestly conflating violent and nonviolent crime again? Yes. Yes you are.
"This is well documented but idiots like you prefer narratives."
No, it is well documented that violent crime is down. It is you who are ignoring facts in favor of a narrative. A false narrative, but that's par for the course.
Not sure if this is peak retard, but it'll do until something worse comes along.
He is a peak retard.
So I post a detailed response and you ad hominem.
I can't see Sevo because he makes Jesse and Mother seem well-adjusted so I blocked him.
Perhaps you're talking about him, not me, in which case I apologize.
If not, would you like to put some substance behind your opinion?
““Compare the numbers to 2019, not the peak retard.”
Why would anyone honestly assessing crime statistics ignore an entire year?”
I believe his point was to not compare it to the spike, but to the time before the spike.
Again, why would anyone do that? Saying "let's pretend 2020 didn't exist" isn't how analysis works.
Because if it was at 9, 10, 9, and 8 the previous years, spiked up to 15 and came down to 11, that would be a decrease from the spike but still an increase from the previous trend?
That’s not ignoring the spike, it’s acknowledging that it’s an anomaly and that while things have trended down, they haven’t trended down to the “norm”.
Now maybe the stats have actually gone down to below 2017 levels as you claimed elsewhere. This is really what people should be focusing on as that would paint a much better picture of the continuing trend, instead of getting in the weeds comparing to a bad year.
Well good news! It turns out that violent crime is lower than 2019, which was lower than 2018, which was lower than 2017. So now we don't even have to pretend an entire year doesn't exist. Violent crime is lower now than when Trump was President, period. Doesn't that make you joyful?
https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-mid-year-2024-update/
You left out the part where people are not reporting crimes compared to 2017-19. Why did you ignore that point? Because it destroys your narrative. You can't handle the truth.
For the like fifth time: I’m not ignoring a year.
If violent crime is below 2017 levels, that’s great news and shows that despite an anomalous year, the downward trend continues.
A city in California even threatened target for reporting shop lifting...
What are you trying to do Target, make us look bad here?
"Except none of that is actually happening..."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
FOAD, asshole.
3 year trends.... why not 5 year trends, or 10 year trends?
If the paleocons here want to see stats that aren't any of their usual complaints (incomplete data, no cities, includes 2020, yadda, yadda, yadda), here it is.
https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-mid-year-2024-update/
Violent crime is not only lower than 2020, it's lower than 2019. Should we eliminate 2029 as well, since it says what you don't want to hear,
And it's down for three, five, and ten year measures as well.
Violent crime, after a spike in 2020, has gone down the last 3 years. It's now lower than in 2019, continuing the decades-long trend since the peak in the 1990s. I don't know why conservatives are so adamant that it's up, but that's just factually wrong
You left out the part where people are not reporting crimes compared to pre-2019. Why did you ignore that point? Because it destroys your narrative. You can’t handle the truth.
Right. And if you're part of the political machine that needs to massage the figures, appease police unions, support #defund activism and self-imprisoning minority narratives, you pay and/or lean on friendly media to run "Nah! It's fine!" and "Don't believe your lying eyes." stories to make up the difference.
Sure, just last year Hyundai and Kia settled with the State of California over car thefts but if you report that crime is up, then CA, in order to be the least bit honest about the whole affair, actually has to use that money to fund policing... because crime isn't up.
"And if you’re part of the political machine that needs to massage the figures"
Do you have any evidence of manipulated figures? Artificial or false stats being reported? People caught faking crime stats? Or is this just your deeply held desires making you say things like "The violent crime stats are fake" even with no evidence?
"car thefts"
I feel like you don't understand the difference between violent and nonvient crime. Smashing a car window and exploiting a security failure by a car manufacturer isn't violent crime. If it was a carjacking or a mugging to steal car keys or any other violent crime, it would be reported as such, not as a car theft.
Can you truly not understand the difference between violent and nonviolent crime?
""Can you truly not understand the difference between violent and nonviolent crime?""
It's like people who can't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
I can't read what's behind the gray box but, lemme guess, it's one of those quizzical idiots who thinks they're successfully passing themselves off as "crypto-libertarians" or even normies by advertising the thought that violent crime is bad but property crime is A-OK.
Like anyone except corrupt police officers and their own sociopathic peers would show up after a robbery and say, "Well, no one got stabbed, shot, or beaten so, nothing to see here."
No one has said property crime (or non-violent crimes of any sort) are OK. In fact, I very specifically pointed out that it wasn't and policies preventing arrest and prosecution for crimes will result in more people doing that crime. Especially retail theft, where it's simple to steal something and sell it on the internet. You don't even need a fence any more.
Yet that goes against your point that crime is down. The court case is telling otherwise. Your statistics are inaccurate.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/apr/08/ron-desantis/are-more-half-felony-charges-manhattan-downgraded/
Click on the handle and read birdshriek's law diploma, transcripts and blog analyzing recent decisions.
That has nothing to do with the fact that crime has not come down, contrary to what Ciaramella and allies claim.
If the crime issue is all you can come up with, you either really hate Trump or were not paying attention.
And try focusing on all crime, not just murder. Of course from the disaster of BLM in 2020, it may be coming down, but still compare all violent crime to 2019.
Your belief is that the spike in violent crime in 2020 was because of BLM? That's ... bizarre. Crime stats don't back you up, but I guess you can just sense these things, right?
They actually do back.it up why they keep comparing to the peak 2020 and not the prior year 2019 retard.
Why would anyone ignore an entire year of crime stats? And violence at BLM protests can't even cover a small slice of the surge in violent crime in 2020.
It's almost like you want to create the illusion of a violent crime surge. There's a Presidential candidate who is making the same false ... oh, right.
Many people don’t feel safe.
https://archive.md/mgil3
Some tenants also backed the warrantless searches, saying they would prefer the sweeps to random gunfire that made it dangerous to stand near windows or venture outside.
“Mothers put kids in their bathtubs in fear of their lives,” CHA chairman Vincent Lane said before the hearing.
I’m guessing you never had to have your child sleep in the bathtub!
No wonder people want to ban the gang member’s tool of the trade!
"Many people don’t feel safe."
What people feel and what is true are often at odds. Emotional responses drive behavior, but they can't change reality. Saying "people in high-crime areas don't feel safe" is a "Well, duh." thing to say. That doesn't change the larger reality about violent crime.
It actually does. People pointed that out to you. Crime is worse than it was compared to before 2020. You and the author of the article are being dishonest.
It covers a huge surge in cities where BLM was present. We didn’t tolerate them where I live. But you democrats love to let them riot and rage. Just lie, your vice overlord Walz did for days under his governance as he let Minneapolis burn for days.
Thats what democrats have to offer.
First, not a D, never have been, never will be. Their fiscal policies are indefensible. Slightly better than the supply-side boondoggle, but still awful. I'll vote for anyone whose issue profile lines up with mine, to a greater or lesser degree. No one is ever going to be pro-individual-liberty and pro-balanced-budget, so I'll never have a perfect match.
As I pointed out above, if you took every single violent crime in every single city where a BLM protest occurred and ascribed every single one of them to BLM (an absolutely ridiculous premise, but we'll put it 100% on your side of the ledger), that wouldn't account for even a single percentage the 2020 spike.
BLM had nothing to do with the 2020 spike. If you believe otherwise, it's only because you want to.
BLM played a large part in the spike. They were instrumental during the riots. Your stupid revisionism doesn't change that.
Kyle Rittenhouse would love to have a word with you.
You mean we should ignore over $2Billion in damages, BLM overrunning a police precinct in Minneapolis, attacks on the Federal Court House in Portland, desecration and looting on the Magnificent Mile in Chicago, the murder of David Dorn and other police officers and civilians killed, etc.
And crime stats do back it up, as the comparison is always to the spike in 2020.
"BLM overrunning a police precinct in Minneapolis ..."
No.
"And crime stats do back it up, as the comparison is always to the spike in 2020."
Yes, because 2020 existed. Why would anyone ignore an entire year of data?
Because comparing to a spike is bad faith?
Not if you're analyzing in good faith. If a spike happens, it happens. If it doesn't, it doesn't. You can't just ignore data because you don't like what it says.
And violent crime is also down from 2019, 2018, and 2017. What's your reason for ignoring those years?
You were talking about bad faith ...
I’m not ignoring anything.
My focus was on the disingenuousness of comparing current data to a spike. In fact my whole point was that we should be comparing to those years because spikes don’t tell us anything about multi-year trends (unless the spike plateaus and becomes the new baseline) except that there was a bad year in the mix.
Lucky for you, violent crime is lower now than in 2019, so you don't need to contort yourself trying to find a way to ignore inconvenient facts.
https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-mid-year-2024-update/
You left out the part where people are not reporting crimes compared to 2019. Why did you ignore that point? Because it destroys your narrative. You can’t handle the truth.
CJ (and the majority of the media in general) keep comparing the data to a spike. That’s their argument, I’m rebutting that. If they were comparing it to 2019 (as in your link) I wouldn’t feel the need to rebut.
Something I found interesting in those crime stats: they show that shoplifting is up 24% and carjacking is up a whopping 68%. That may have just a small bit to do with people’s perception of crime being up, even with the trend of violent crime going down.
So, no explanation for the apparently random spike in crime in 2020? Nothing to do with BLM riots or pandemic lockdowns?
I believe the pandemic seems to have played a part in it, according to those who analyze these things. BLM didn't, since even if you included every single violent crime for BLM cities at the time of BLM marches, even that wouldn't even become a rounding error. It's statistically insignificant, and that's attributing 200% of violent crime to BLM, which is bonkers.
The cycles of violent crime seems to be immune to analysis. No one can say, for sure, why violent crime peaked in the 2990s and has been trending down ever since. Broken-windows policing had the same impact (or lack thereof) as community policing. Plaecs that hired new officers saw essentially the same drip as thise who didn't. Rates fell across the country and across communities, regardless of size. There doesn't seem to be any explanation. As far as I know, no variable that has been examined has correlated to a better (or worse) rate of decline.
I actually find it fascinating. After so much time, you'd think someone would have been able to identify a strong corrolation with some policy that was implemented or some size of community that did better.
Kyle T pointed out the damages caused by those that supported BLM's cause. It is clearly shown in photos and footage. Quit downplaying it, your revisionism doesn't alter the facts.
Who was president in 2020?
Your using the faulty logic of blaming the president. That is entirely on the blue cities.
""Your belief is that the spike in violent crime in 2020 was because of BLM? ""
How do you define violent?
Mobs smashing windows is an act of violence.
I agree. But even ascribing every single one of the violent crimes perpetrated by anyone in the same cities where BLM marches took place doesn't account for even a percent of the uptick. Claiming BLM caused the higher violent crime numbers is idiocy.
You tell enough people they are due reparations, and some of them start to collect.
I think the pandemic lockdowns are more to blame for the spike in crime though. Many young people with marginal jobs were suddenly told to stay home and do nothing, which is always bad for crime rates. On top of that, police and other government agencies were in semi-lockdown as well, patrolling less or working from home. My wife’s driver’s license expired in 2020 but no one even answered the phones at the DMV. They just gave everyone a grace period to renew in 2021. (Of course, DMV workers were still getting paid, just working even less than usual.)
"I think the pandemic lockdowns are more to blame for the spike in crime though."
I believe that is the consensus from those who looked into it. I'm not sure how strong the corrolation was, but I think it was strong enough to be identified as a factor.
Where those acts of violence included in the crime statistics?
2020 was the year of protests that included a lot of violence. Shouldn't it have up ticked the crime rate?
"Where those acts of violence included in the crime statistics?"
Yes.
"2020 was the year of protests that included a lot of violence. Shouldn’t it have up ticked the crime rate?"
No. There wasn't the level of violence that conservatives seem to believe.
You're heavily mistaken. Look at what happened to Kyle Rittenhouse. There are hundreds of individuals that were injured or killed in the riots. Stop downplaying what really happened.
Read this:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1956007024/reasonmagazinea-20/
The only thing I can say about murder is that focusing on that eliminates the "it's reporting" counterpoint. People report murder. Every time. People cannot be dissuaded due to disillusionment or lazy cops. Because someone is dead and there are serious things that must be done. To compare, assault or theft, you often get a "what's the point" response to reporting. When I was robbed in New Orleans, I filled out the online form and might have well sent it into the void.
But with murder, you can at least trust that everything was put in.
There are lots of unresolved murders and missing persons out there. So no, it's not all reported.
Family emergency led to dashing out the door and spending a few nights in lovely Bakersfield California. Didn’t have time to pack, and haven’t been here since Covid.
Went to Walmart to get some supplies. No less than five security guards in body armor patrolling store. I bought a $12 Wrangler T shirt that was fucking locked up behind plexiglass, required finding a Walmart worker to unlock and take to the cashier with me. Same thing for a $15 phone charger. I shook my head at all this, and an employee (a senior citizen, of course) said “tell the crack heads to quit stealing everything”.
…former President Donald Trump repeated his false claim that crime is rising
The fucking DOJ is lying for the incumbent party they are allies of, and Reason is full of shit.
Yup. Your anecdote proves the statistics are wrong.
“Sacramento City Attorney’s Office warned Target it could face fines for retail theft calls”
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article289624876.html
Yes we know. An article about one threat against one store, which was not acted upon and dropped, proves all the national statistics are fake and manipulated and made up .
From the article linked above:
A Sacramento police spokesman confirmed the location — a site that prompted heavy ire from Land Park residents due to repeated crimes — when asked about the apparent warning. The alleged warning issued by Sacramento city officials — and similar actions by other cities across the state — prompted lawmakers to add an amendment to a retail theft bill that would outlaw such threats made by authorities. Pursuing legal actions against businesses for reporting crime brought heavy criticism from law enforcement.
How many other warnings? What were the nature of these warnings? Were they acted upon, or dropped as in the current case? How many potential crimes did these other warnings lead to, if any? Was the number statistically significant?
Or, is it sufficient in your view to fond an article about one bad thing happening somewhere to 'prove' that all the statistics are wrong?
“You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” J Swift
Your position, apparently, being to trust government statistics on crime. During an election year no less.
And yours is to distrust it ... if it says what you don't want to believe. When your acceptance of data depends on what the data says, it's a you problem.
I tend to believe my own eyes. Perhaps like this chemjeff person, you would need the gov to provide a hockey stick shaped graph to believe that retail crime is off the hook in US cities.
Don't need to believe cops or people for retail theft. You can look at financial statements from the company where more than a doubling of retail theft is expensed off books.
"I tend to believe my own eyes."
You understand that is the textbook definition of anecdotal evidence, right? Which is useless in a statistical analysis of large-scale trends.
"retail crime is off the hook in US"
Yet again I have to point out that retail theft isn't a violent crime. If there is violence involved, it is reported as such. Retail theft, by definition, is a nonviolent crime. Are you dishonestly conflating violent and nonviolent crime again?
Except, Nelson, the DOJ has already shown political bias against Trump. To the point of almost comical differential prosecution of Trump and his direct opponents accused of the exact same crime. Is this really beyond believability?
Secondly, I know I tend to harp on "pharmacy deserts", but that's a clear indication of a large-scale trend across multiple companies that have found themselves unable to operate convenience stores due to criminality. It's not just an anecdote at this point. It's not one-off. It's an indicator of a large-scale trend that flies directly in the face of the claimed trend.
"Is this really beyond believability?"
Yes.
"It’s not one-off. It’s an indicator of a large-scale trend that flies directly in the face of the claimed trend."
Sure, if you pretend that there is one, and only one, explanation for why a business would choose to locate a store somewhere. Otherwise, it's you indulging your priors.
@Nelson
Why else are other business leaving or closing down? You haven't provided an alternate explanation. You and Jeff are not coming off with any credibility.
Like the initial unemployment reports? Why would anyone doubt those?
His position is usually to give the government the benefit of the doubt, unless it’s a Republican controlled one.
My position is that huge traunches of data gathered on crime, from hundreds of different sources and gathered the same way for decades, are more reliable than "this guy said that crime is up".
And government should never get the benefit of the doubt, regardless of who is running it.
I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about Jeff.
And stores locking up everyday items, reported a hundred percent increase in theft, or shutting down whole stores because formerly popular downtown areas are unsafe are just odd anecdotes I guess. And since those crimes are not violent, the areas must still be safe?
Another anecdote: my sister's company was on work from home for a couple of years. They were told to go back to the office in 2022, but made it optional again after someone was murdered outside their office on the first day back.
Fair enough, Nate. My fsult.
When you uncover a pattern, you can doubt the pattern if you want (must be a one-off). But usually it's just the tip of the iceberg.
“How many other warnings? What were…..blah, blah, blah”
How many other gang rapes? How many more women murdered? Did one of them *just* jack off on the child while the others raped her? Did he feel bad about it? How much more of other peoples money do you want spent on illegals?
Chemjeff selectively nuanced defeatist, asking the tough questions, as always.
Just give us a number, Jeff.
"Pursuing legal actions against businesses for reporting crime brought heavy criticism from law enforcement."
As it should. If the police complain that they are asked to do their job too much, that's insane. You're the police. Responding to crime is literally your job.
Another anecdote: my company had a valuable piece of test equipment (like 100K) stolen. I reported it to the police and they said "just file the insurance claim, we don't investigate thefts."
That's my point. If you don't prosecute crimes like that (whether the things stolen cost $100 or $100k), more and more people will commit them.
Sooooo……. Crime really is up, then?
Violent crime is down. Lower than 2019, as it turns out.
@Nelson
Moving goalposts.
And no, crime rate is not down compared to 2019 and earlier. You left out the part where people are not reporting crimes like before. Why did you ignore that point? Because it destroys your narrative. You can’t handle the truth.
I don't post much, I don't read the comment section (the best part) as much as I should...I'm too busy...
But
GOD.
DAMN.
Even I can see the name "chemjeff" and realize the absolute cuck post to follow...
Let me be more clear- you're an asshole.
Hey! LET'S BE FAIR! There were also apocryphal statements, curbside observations and Bible homilies offered in evidence, just like at Long Dong's Senate confirmation hearing.
And the evidence points to the government’s statistics lacking credibility, less so than the Bible. Oof!
Can we all agree that Trump was a rambling, unfocused, ineffective debater? No one else made him struggle to be coherent or stay on topic. He did that all by himself.
You probably clapped at Muir not fact checking any Kamala lie. From project 2025 to fine young people hoax.
Lol. ABC was getting trashed by viewers. But you retarded leftists loved it.
Did David Muir climb inside Trump's body and make him say things? Because he was largely rambling and unfocused the whole night. No one else could use Trump's mouth. Unless you think the MSM uses mind control to make politicians say stupid and untrue things?
On the Project 2025 thing, since most of contributers were former Trump officials who are still in his good graces, why would anyone believe he has no idea what it is or what it says? His problem is that it is a quite toxic document in a close election and he can't afford to be connected to it. Unfortunately for him, that's just not credible.
"Lol. ABC was getting trashed by viewers."
Oh, I'm sure there was a specific group of people who were trashing them. You know the election won't be decided by those people, right? We already know who they're going to vote for, just like we already know who the far left is going to vote for. But the small slice of people in the middle? Those people saw what happened last night. Do you really think angry, rambling Uncle Don was appealing to them?
What about not fact checking Harris?
If Fox news treated Harris the way Trump was treated, I'm sure you would have an issue with it. And rightly so.
What, specifically, did she say that is demonstrably untrue? Not "what did she say that people disagree about". Things like the pet-eating immigrants, which has no basis in reality.
Fact-checkimg in real time will only address complete fabrications and falsehoods. Trump flailed his way into a few. Harris was disciplined enough to stick to things that were differences of opinion, not untrue facts.
Politicians always say untrue things. It's what they are good at.
The host shouldn't be fact checking anything. I haven't seen that in debates before. That's for the viewers to decide.
Give an example of what she said that wasn't true. Not some vague "they all do it" , boaf sides, general statement.
That Trump will institute a federal sales tax of 20%.
Okay, I’ll take that. Trump has gone on record as saying tariffs of varying degrees , but hasn’t firmly said what he actually will commit to as he doesn’t have a plan … just a “concept of a plan”. He also focused in on tariff, it was Harris that said it was practically a tax on common goods.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/10/will-trumps-tariffs-raise-prices-what-to-know-as-kamala-harris-slams-policy-at-debate/
That was a good article. Explaing why tariffs are bad not just in the short term, but in the long term, is often hard.
@Nelson
@Liberty_Belle
You two left out the fact that 1) you committed the fallacy of moving goalposts and miscontruing Jefferson Paul's post, and 2) Kamala Harris also supports such taxes, at least from a political positioning standpoint.
You two are being dishonest. Knock it off.
"Politicians always say untrue things."
Not really. They present a narrative about things that support or enhance their positions, but very few politicians outright lie.
Even something like saying Trump's tax cuts didn't increase the deficit can be massaged into being somewhat true if you point out that revenue increased the next year. Granted, the budget still ran a deficit and the cuts were disastrous to revenue, but relative to the overall revenues of the previous year, the federal government slightly increased net revenue.
By any conventional definition of "lie", it is a lie. But factually, it isn't. That's what politicians do.
"The host shouldn’t be fact checking anything."
Why should baldly untrue things be ignored? There aren't immigrants eating pets in Ohio.
In the past it hasn't been necessary because politicians understand and stay on the bright side of the dividing line between spin and baldfaced lying. Trump is perfectly willing to say fact-free things.
Not really. They present a narrative about things that support or enhance their positions, but very few politicians outright lie.
That's still a form of lying and you know it. Yet you still downplay it if it means it'll hurt Trump more. But that doesn't change the fact that you've been very dishonest in this comment page
By your fruits, we know you are a dishonest and evil person. Repent of your erroneous lifestyle.
Yeah, ABC was on clearly on Harris’s side. It wasn’t fair and I could see that. But so what?
“It’s not fair! It was an ambush!” – George Custer
“But they ganged up on me! Three, no really six on one!” – Napoleon
Those are weak, loser excuses. A president that can be defeated by a couple mean reporters can't face the likes of Putin, Xi, Khamenei.
But it was clear that ABC was on Harris's side.
And they made Trump say the things he said the way he said them ... how? Mind control?
The problem was the words coming out of Trump's mouth and his inability to focus and remain on task. The whining and grievances didn't help.
""And they made Trump say the things he said the way he said them ""
If ABC hosts a contest, and fact checks only one side. Isn't that alone a sign of bias?
Not if there's only one person saying completely false things. Bias would imply they said "that isn't even a little bit true" about something that was just a difference of opinion. They didn't. They said "that isn't even a little but true" about something that wasn't even a little bit true.
The most skillful liar with the most credulous followers shouldn't be left to lie to the American people with impunity.
Not if there’s only one person saying completely false things.
Yet that wasn't the case and you know it:
https://youtu.be/IdeFZZg0spw
You are willfully dishonest with your words. Again, knock it off and repent of your lies.
Also Custer: "I could ride through the whole Sioux Nation with the Seventh Cavalry."
Crazy Horse: "Wanna bet?"
LOL!
“Crime in this country is through the roof”
“Akshuallyyyy violent crime is down from the high in 2020.”
You realize the second statement doesn’t disprove the first, right? (Whether or not the first is true is a separate matter.)
People who buhlieve thuh Baby Jesus waved his little hand and Lazarus spring up from the maggots are nobody's fool, kid! Pastor Don said it, the Jesus Caucus repeated it, we buhleave it, that SETTLES it!
The flying goose traces darkness.
So, no reason for an assault weapons ban?
No, there never has been. But accountability for irresponsible gun ownership is valid, wouldn't you say? The goal is to have responsible, law-abiding citizens be able to protect themselves and their families without creating a danger for their neighbors. Agreed?
They want to prevent responsible gun owners from owning guns the government doesn't want them to own.
They do not see validity with any gun owner, thus the name "Gun nut".
And that's wrong. I agree with you.
But accountability for irresponsible gun ownership is valid, wouldn’t you say?
Like punishing murders and robberies and drive-by shootings?
Yes, exactly like that. And giving your disturbed minor a gun. Or access to a gun. Or even the slight possibility that he might get a gun.
Does the author of this propaganda realize there is more crime (even violent) categories than just murder?
They do not. Many of the editors here push the blind narratives of corporate media and the left.
Wah Hail yes. There's the wrawng kind of seeds in a shoebox!!
“more crime (even violent) categories than just murder?”
And the other categories of violent crime are also down. What’s your point?
They're not down, that's the thing. You left out the part where people are not reporting crimes compared to prior to 2019. Why did you ignore that point? Because it destroys your narrative. You can’t handle the truth.
I'm not sure that the FBI is credible anymore. It seems to be that the FBI is a suspect organization in that there seems to be a faction within the FBI that is very political. I would not be surprised if the numbers were revised like so many other numbers are.
Even if you didn't think there was a faction within the FBI that was very political, the other known gaffes and illegal-but-unlitigated actions by the FBI should *massively* undermine its credibility.
Imagine if Reuters effectively entrapped people in a plot to kidnap a US Governor. Imagine if NPR participated in a raid on a former President to retrieve allegedly stolen documents.
Even if these were just honest mistakes, the responsible organization would/should be less trusted than Bernie Madoff and Arthur Andersen.
"I would not be surprised if the numbers were revised like so many other numbers are."
Got anything to back that up? Or are you just sharing an alternative reality with us?
They literally have revised the jobs numbers almost every month for something like the last two years.
Its not outside the realm of possibility that the bureaucrats massage all the numbers.
"They literally have revised the jobs numbers almost every month for something like the last two years."
No, they have revised jobs numbers every month since they first started recording them. Literally. There is exactly nothing unusual about that. Sometimes they are adjusted up and sometimes down. And several of the main sources of employment data are for-prifit companies like ADP, who have no incentive to change numbers.
Readjustments are common. Pretending they aren't, or that they've only happened over the last two years, or that the payroll companies are conspiring with the Biden administration to artificially inflate numbers, just doesn't hold water.
Now you're being disingenuous. When's the last time we had the numbers revised down so consistently? In the last couple years, last I checked, the numbers were revised down something like 18 times, and only revised up maybe 2 times. Sure, it could be a total coincidence but that kind of disparity points to more than coincidence.
So you are saying that the for-profit payroll companies, whose data the initial numbers are derived from, are intentionally lying and changing their numbers? Why would they ever decide to do such a thing?
You do know that the initial numbers mostly don't come from the government, right? Only the data on federal employees does. The rest come from payroll companies who automatically send their monthly numbers in.
The "for-profit payroll companies" have shareholders and others they hold accountable to. The same is not true with the FBI.
You also missed the part where there are many unreported crimes, along with how the government is selective with their numbers. Again, they don't have anyone they are accountable to, unlike businesses.
Amusing seeing the Trumpsuckers pretending that Trump is a more reliable data source than, well, every official data source. Perhaps they have an argument about why inflation was "really" the worst ever. or how Trump wiped the floor with Kamala.
The official data source is flawed, that's the thing.
Crime being down from the peak during 2020 doesn't change the fact that it's still higher than it was before 2020. Yet you and Ciaramella seem incapable of seeing the big picture.
Inflation being down from the peak during 2021-2022 doesn't change the fact that prices are still way up than they were before those years. No matter how much you and the media tries to gaslight us, the economy remains in a bad shape.
Trump is indeed more credible than the government in this situation. So why stay as a pawn of the government? You're only fooling and deceiving yourself like this. Wake up.
"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact." --Vice-President Henry A Wallace
You are the Henry Wallace of commentiors Hank
I didn't realize you identify as an American fascist, Hank.
Chicago to date:
Shot and killed: 382
Shot and wounded: 1788
Total Shot: 2170
Total Homicides: 433
More than twenty people were murdered during the DNC week of joy.
Venezuelan gangs are taking over apartment complexes in Aurora, Co. Gang activity is spreading elsewhere. It is obvious young men from that country are violent criminals.
Towns like Springfield, Ohio were invaded by twenty thousand sub human Haitians, thanks to the border czar krazy kamaltoe. Local wildlife is being killed and even people's pets are under threat as pet owners found their pets hanging from trees after being slaughtered.
Thank you democraps and your brain damaged senile old man Biden and near literate barely functioning V.P. for the mess we are now in.
You voted for it, now you are reaping what you have sown.
Enjoy...oh and shut your mouths you have no right to complain.
Question for the more reasonable Trump supporters here. Which do you think is more likely:
1. JohnZ is a Trump opponent trying to make you look bad through a heavy-handed parody.
2. JohnZ is genuine example of the people you are reluctantly and strategically making common cause with.
JohnZ is explaining why people support bans of assault weapons, the gang member's tool of the trade!
You don't believe in the 2nd Amendment... nor do you believe in the principle of self-defense. Your proposition means that Kyle Rittenhouse should've died or been thrown in prison.
So your only response is to ignore reality? Typical Leftist behavior.
Reality, as seen by people who sometimes spend time off the Internet and go out into the physical world, and who buy their own stuff with their own money:
– My pets spend most of their time outdoors. No one has eaten them, despite living in a border county that is about 25% immigrant, and liars like you claim is a “disaster”. Even if there was a pet-eating incident in Springfield, pretending that it’s some kind of national epidemic is very, very stupid.
– We go for walks in the evening in any part of the county. It’s safe. It’s friendly. No one is terrified, no one is even a tiny bit afraid. Got family all over the country, DFW, DC, Sacramento and none of them are scared either. They go where they want and crime is just not a big factor in how they live.
– Prices? Gas spiked for a while but is back down. Groceries keep inching up, but they’ve been doing that my whole life regardless of who is in charge, and my income has kept up. Living better than ever, actually. It’s a chronic problem, but not a crisis. There’s no need for a strongman to come to the rescue.
– Cars and houses have gotten a bit out of control (although I’m not personally in the market for either, own my house outright and drive cars till they’re ready for the crusher). Unfortunately Trump wants to slap a 20% increase on cars and Harris want to inflate housing by giving buyers federal money.
The people who are terrified and think they live in a failed state? They’re bedwetting drama-queens that read the news for the same reason teenage girls go horror films. They just like being scared. They get off on it.
If you have family in DC they ought to be scared. It’s up there with Baltimore and Detroit as the worst cities for violent crime.
Many people in California don’t even go to San Francisco any more. A member of the San Francisco football team was just robbed and shot in broad daylight, in a recently high-end popular shopping district, by a juvenile who had brandished a gun at his reform school just 2 weeks previously.
I've walked through Chicago, Philly, and (tomorrow) Baltimore on the last two weeks. All three after dark. Never once did it feel unsafe. The per-capita crime rate in rural communities and small cities is higher than that in large cities. But when you have a city like Chicago, which is larger than 8-10 rural states combined (depending on which states you want to choose), the raw numbers will always be higher. That's how math works. It doesn't mean the cities are dangerous to live, work, or walk in.
That isn't true. You left out the fact that statistics have shown the crime rate has always been highest at those cities you visited, and not some rural red state area; crimes at those states are largely at the cities which is more often than not ran by blue mayors. Thus, you were not safe from a statistical standpoint despite claiming otherwise.
There's no dealing with people who ignore reality. They are totally brainwashed.
BTW, there was nothing I wrote had anything to do with parody. The statistics regarding Chicago are true and accurate.
The situations in Springfield, Oh. and Aurora, Co. are true and backed up with factual evidence.
This has nothing to do with Trump.
"The situations in Springfield, Oh. and Aurora, Co. are true and backed up with factual evidence."
Really? Did the voices on your head tell you that? Because there has been the exact opposite: the pet-eating story has been shown to be complete nonsense. I don't know what the Colorado thing is, but considering the source it's probably another "this guy on the internet said" thing.
"This has nothing to do with Trump."
I agree completely. The crime rate is something that no President has any chance of impacting. Pretending a President has caused crime to rise or fall is just not true, unless he/she criminalizes previously legal behavior.
JohnZ has the evidence to back up his claims. You don't. It's that simple, really.
Or, I guess, when weed is finally decriminalized federally. Or other restrictive moral-panic laws get repealed.
You left out the fact that there were an increase of incidents as a result of the repeals.
Grocery stores in metro D.C. have only one entrance and exit, having closed the others, due to gangs coming in and stealing higher priced items for resale. Not violent crime, but disturbing, nonetheless.
I agree 100%. If you stop arresting people for a crime, especially one that nets the criminals valuable items that are easily resold, that crime will skyrocket. The sort of policies that San Francisco implemented regarding retail theft are Exibits A through S. Maybe even more. It's a terrible policy.
And shoplifting is a gateway drug to more severe crimes.
Nonsense.
There's a reason why many murderers have had a history of less severe and petty crimes. CE is correct.
What you are talking about is property crime, which are important but are harder in some ways to address. We don't want property crimes, but we are also don't want to throw the book at people for simple property crimes. We don't want to fill up courts and jails with people stealing a few hundred dollars of stuff. I think the answer to property crimes is really in the community more than with law enforcement. If a store is important to a community, the community must support the store and not let it be ripped off.
The problem is the alternative to clogging up the courts with petty crimes like shoplifting is this: if you stop arresting people and prosecuting them for a crime, more and more people will commit that crime. Especially when it nets loot that is easy to resell.
The current state of farebeating in the NYC transit is a great example of what happens when you stop arresting people.
I thought we were supposed to ignore what Trump says and focus on what he did last term.
Yeah, that not really going to work either.
It's about being consistent, and ABC failed to do this. There's good evidence that their "fact checks" against Trump are inaccurate and/or misleading.
The fact that you two are incapable of understanding that is not surprising.
CLAIM: During Tuesday’s presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Donald Trump claimed the FBI’s report of lower violent crime is a “fraud.”
VERDICT: True. The FBI’s reports do not include thousands of police precincts that are not reporting crime data to the federal agency. . .
more than 6,000 law enforcement agencies were missing from the FBI’s national crime data last year, representing nearly one-third of the nation’s 18,000 police agencies.. . .
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/10/fact-check-trump-claims-fbis-report-lower-violent-crime-fraud/
And yet all the ones that consistently reported show ... a drop in violent crime. Across the board. Rural to urban, red states and blue states, they l show a consistent drop.
The problem with your "It's fraud!" Atgument is that you want everyone to assume that the "missing" data is vastly different than the rest of the data. Only an idiot or a fool would claim that.
When there's a nationwide trend, claiming isolated reporters within tha whole are radically different than the data you have is mathematically and logically flawed.
It's things like this that erode confidence.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/apr/08/ron-desantis/are-more-half-felony-charges-manhattan-downgraded/
Wait, prosecutors overcharge defendants? No way!
There was no "overcharge" to begin with, dimwit. It was within the law. You are objectively wrong in this case.
The GOP schtik was exposed last night. Trump brought up migrants eating pets and was called out for it because what is his evidence? A social media post. That's it folks. His whole anti-crime platform has no evidentiary support. Even if it did he wouldn't know how to interpret it or analyze it. He has a pre-planned narrative and he will spout it despite what the evidence says. In the case of Springfield, OH it is dangerous and disrespectful.
Your lying is exposed every time you post here.
FOAD, TDS-addled pile of shit,
There was a thing at New York City called a migrant crisis. Have a look at it, Heraclitus.
"" Trump brought up migrants eating pets and was called out for it because what is his evidence?""
There are people in the world that eat dog and cat. That is real.
It's still stupid to bring up.
Uh, like beef in India? Like that?
"At the Presidential Debate, Trump Again Falsely Claimed Crime Is Rising."
That's bullshit.
Ciaramella is using Biden's DOJ stats.
Only a complete idiot would believe anything that comes from them.
You failed to mention in this article that in 2021 the FBI changed its reporting methods and as a result about 40% less agencies reported their data to the FBI. That shows none of the data from the FBI should be used as it is extremely incomplete and misleading.
And yet, every state and city that have consistently reported their statistics show ... wait for it ... violent crime dropped.
Just because data collection methods change, it doesn't mean the individual data points aren't accurate.
Data collected from the same cities over time all show the same thing. In fact, violent crime isn't just lower than the 2020 spike, it's lower than the other three years of the Trump Presidency.
That said, a President can do virtually nothing to impact crime rates.
https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-mid-year-2024-update/
This is data from sources that have consistently reported over at least 6 years. So what's your argument about why it isn't valid? Because I know you will manufa cure one without researching first, like you did with this one.
"And yet, every state and city that have consistently reported their statistics show … wait for it … violent crime dropped..."
And yet the TDS addled shit pile Nelson seems to:
1) Believe the (unexamined) data.
and
2) Count only "violent crime" as the only category which matters.
Stuff your TDS up your ass so your head has company and then make your family proud and your dog happy:
FOAD, asshole, but please tell me only where they buried your pathetic ass so I don't have to stand in line to piss on your grave
"Violent crime dropped in 2023 and appears to be on track for another large decline this year."
Of course, "violent crime" (as defined by those reporting the data) is the only crime that matters.
FOAD, asshole.