www.westernjournal.com
Homocides aren’t the only violent crime. Crime is going down as a whole. I literally posted an article from an independent research team that wants to know why Chicago’s violent crime (which includes more than homocides) has not fallen at the same rate as other cities in the US. Either Chicago has a problem other municipalities don’t have or other municipalities are misclassifying crimes like DC, which makes honest Chicago look worse than it is. Stats have issues. DC is part of those stats. DC has been caught misclassifying to lesser crimes, so including DC in violent crime rates corrupts the data.
realtimecrimeindex.com
wirepoints.org
There are like tens of thousands of reporting entities.
Crimes other than homicide don’t rise and fall as fast as homicide. Compare the murder graph with the violent crime graph on the real time data (it lags a few months to actually compile the numbers).
Real-Time Crime Index | Nationwide Crime Data & Trends
Stay informed with the Real-Time Crime Index. Access up-to-date crime data and visualizations.
Separately if you want to track crime in Chicago, here’s the site. Every type of major crime is down this year, quite a few substantially down.
Chicago Weekly Crime Tracker
Weekly crime statistics from the Chicago Police Department: Report through 8/10/25
I believe the history of crime in the US is always the result of National trends. When crime fell in NY during Giuliani's time he got much credit, but the National trend was similar, even Chicago which did not follow any of NY's policies. I heard from NYers when de Blasio was elected that crime would skyrocket and the city revert back to pre-Giuliani days. Of course it did not, crime continued to drop as it did nationwide. Covid increased crime nationwide, it has nothing to do with policing. Now crime is dropping nationwide, it has nothing to do with policing or any specific city.
I suspected that much, what I'm not familiar with is all the rules governing how much of SS is taxable. I'd always thought that 85% was the maximum portion of SS that could be taxed. I hope you're right it's really 80%. What's not clear to me is the specifics of what income figure (AGI? MAGI? total taxable income?) is used to determine how much of SS is taxed, and how the $6000/$12000 is classified. That is, if it's a deduction it does not lower AGI, but does lower total taxable income. To me it doesn't much matter. I won't turn 65 until after the "over 65" deduction expires. If the Dems win the legislature in 26 then it probably won't be extended nor will any bill to make SS nontaxable make it though. That's why I've not more thoroughly educated myself on the details.
That’s just his default response when he’s wrong about something. You’re wasting time trying to reason with him.
If by that you mean not doing a good job sticking the needle in the right place and/or not verifying it wasn't stuck in a blood vessel instead of in muscle fiber, then yes, that's probably correct. I think a lot of people were pressed into service giving the injections who didn't have a lot of hands on experience giving injections.
My understanding is that what Semi-elite said. JJ I think had its own problems, but it wasn't an mRNA-based injection. The issue with it was it seemed in some instances to cause blood clotting issues (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia per an AI response to a Google search). I remember hearing stories of undertakers finding gloppy blood in individuals while they were embalming at orders of magnitude higher rates than they were used to seeing. At the time it wasn't clear whether that was an effect of covid-19 itself, or something else (like the JJ vaccine). I'm sure there was some reason the JJ vaccine was pulled. I have no idea if that partly clotted blood is still a more frequent observation than it was pre-pandemic, or more specifically whether there is any suspected potential latent risk for people who had the JJ shot.
Exactly. The mRNA vaccines were supposed to be aspirated when administered. There were emergency policies in place that allowed administration by healthcare workers with zero prior experience. Especially early in the roll out. I can almost guarantee there was very little aspiration happening because it causes discomfort, requires some skill, and slows down the process.
Urban areas worldwide, through history have had far higher crime rates than rural towns or small towns. Whether poverty, immigration, congestion etc. it is the subject of many sociology tomes.
Hopefully that was the case in the sense the errors are happening less frequently. I also think it's valid to question the wisdom of injecting a liquid into the body that will turn any cell it touches into a target of the immune system--liquids flow. And I think it's wise to continue to pursue alternatives that don't carry the risks (assuming the risks eventually prove true). The biggest problem is that the whole issue became politicized and as far as I can tell there's never been a credible and transparent effort free of conflicts of interest to look at the range of outcomes the mRNA stuff produces. DHHS has stated an intent to do that. Hopefully it happens. It's the dishonesty/obfuscation from the entities that are supposed to have the safeguarding role that churns out "anti-vaxers". True vaccines are a good thing and have perhaps done as much to increase human lifespan as any other single intervention. But when it comes to the mRNA stuff, I suspect an honest risk reward analysis would relegate it's use to only the most starkly vulnerable. Fortunately they've already backed off to only recommending to those covid is at least somewhat more likely to create a life threatening situation in. I'm also not sure it's wise to stick so many vaccines into infants and young children. I think a thorough examination of the "schedule" will show a lot of vaccine products on it with dubious safety data. For children, only the most rigorously and thoroughly tested products should even be considered.
There are plenty of good people in these areas. They are stuck. Only loudmouths on the left want to defund the police. Semi-R2D2 didn’t understand the point I was making when posting polling data regarding Sydney Sweeney and AEO. This is the point. Only loudmouths and morons want to defund the police. Poll after poll shows people living in blighted areas want more police presence, not less. I am more than happy to have my taxes go to more police in urban areas of my city. Kids deserve to walk home from school without concern of getting beat up by gangbangers just because they aren’t in the gang. Until there is improved safety in blighted urban areas, there is no reason to address certain behavioral issues.
They didn't get the point you were making BECAUSE you referenced Sydney Sweeny. She kind of distracts from this discussion of law and crime.
Agree. There’s a reason the mRNA platform has never been used before. Pharma used the pandemic and EUAs to push through an experimental new platform that they’ve been itching to release for awhile now. It would’ve never passed the current FDA approval process.
Most of the cities with low murder rates have strict gun laws. Almost all have stricter gun laws than the US.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
