ChiGoose

No, you should take my words by the actual words I used instead of making up new things I never said. When this country was founded, only landed males could vote. It took many years and a lot of effort to expand the franchise first to all men, and later to women and minorities. LOL. Some of us have lives and don’t spend every minute refreshing a message board. Sorry if that’s inconvenient for you

Our founders didn’t envision a country where non-landed males could vote. Not to mention women or black people. So maybe they didn’t get everything right on the first try.

What you see in a one party district is that there are variations within that party. It’s not a monolith. We saw that in the recent Chicago mayoral race. Brandon Johnson and Paul Vallas had VASTLY different platforms, but they both ran as Democrats. Similarly, there is a world of different between a Rahm Emanuel and a Chuy Garcia. I wouldn’t assume that just because people identify as Dems means that they agree with everything. You should look up the Council Wars, a really interesting period of political conflict where all the players were Dems. If a Republican ran in Chicago with an alternative, moderate platform, they potentially could make some hay. Trump has made the brand toxic here, but we do have one or two GOP aldermen in the city. However, when there’s a GOP candidate for mayor, they tend to be far right, which is never going to fly. I would love to end the two party national system and one party districts. I’d love to see the end of both the GOP and the Democratic Party. But people can only vote for who is on the ballot. This time, they had a choice between someone whose only solution for crime was to throw more cops at it (despite us already having more cops per resident than other large cities) and someone who wants to look at root causes. I don’t think Johnson is going to succeed on everything solely because I don’t think *anyone* could solve our crime problems from the mayor’s seat alone (and definitely not in a single term), but I think it’s telling that the areas with the worst crime in the city switched to Johnson in the runoff.

I feel bad for you.

Obvious falsehood, but never let the facts get in the way of your feelings.

“Stop the Steal” Organizer Apologizes After Being Accused of Asking Teen Boys for D*ck Pics “In 2017, Aidan Duncan—a 15-year-old boy in Colorado interested in right-wing politics—sent Alexander nude pictures after Alexander asked him for them, according to an account Duncan gave in a March 2023 podcast appearance.” Looks like the grooming was coming from inside the house…

FBI investigating GOP Okla. officials caught on tape talking about lynching Black people, murdering newspaper reporters “The transcript suggests that the group first started discussing a recent fire which killed a woman and her two dogs. The group joked about the woman’s body parts falling off her body, and that it is similar to eating barbecue. “So we get her in the body bag and Kyler goes, ‘You do know what we gotta do right?’ Faith goes, ‘No, what?’ He goes, ‘You gotta pre-heat the oven 350 degrees, leave her in there for 15 minutes,’” said Clardy.” “I’m gonna tell you something. If it was back in the day, when that when Alan Marshton would take a damn Black guy and whoop their ass and throw him in the cell? I’d run for f—ing sheriff,” Jennings said. After Clardy said things aren’t like that anymore, Jennings continued. “I know. Take them down to Mud Creek and hang them up with a damn rope. But you can’t do that anymore. They got more rights than we got.” Jennings supposedly went on to say that he knows of two large pre-dug holes “if you ever need them,” referring to disposing the remains of Bruce Willingham and his son, Chris, also a Gazette-News reporter. Jennings also said that he knows of “two or three hit men, they’re very quiet guys.” Manning chimed in and claimed nobody would care if two of the Gazette-News’ reporters were harmed. “Yeah, but here’s the reality,” Manning allegedly said. “If a hair on his wife’s head, Chris Willingham’s head, or any of those people that really were behind that, if any hair on their head got touched by anybody, who would be the bad guy?” The trio was supposedly frustrated with the Gazette-News portraying the sheriff’s office unfavorably in their reporting.”

I don't think it's simply a matter of "toughness". Chicago has almost twice the ratio of police to residents as other big cities. If more police meant less crime, Chicago would be the safest city in the world. When you have these kids shooting at each other, I don't think they are weighing the potential consequences of their actions. Before they pull the trigger, are they thinking about whether they are risking 20 years in jail? 25? life? I doubt it. There isn't a panacea that's going to fix all of the issues, but if the past has shown us anything, it's that we need to be smarter about crime. We need to support the police to get the criminals, but we cannot rely on them to prevent crimes because policing is generally reactive, not proactive. Community policing and patrols can't drive the substantial reduction in crime that we need. We are asking far too much of the police. We need to make it so that some poor kid growing up in a bad neighborhood doesn't see gangs as the easiest or only way to make it and be successful. We need to find some way to stop the flow of guns from Indiana and Wisconsin. We need to make it easier to access mental health care. We need more or better detectives and resources to fix our abysmal homicide clearance rates. And we need to think about things like better after school programs or even year round schooling (we tend to see crime increase in the summer when CPS is out for summer break). Honestly, we really need to replace the lead lines too. Being "tougher" on crime isn't going to fix this. There isn't a single thing that will. It's going to take a variety of initiatives tackling the different aspects of crime from the root causes to actually closing cases and everything in between.

Interesting that citing your own logic back to you is considered a goal post pivot. You said Illinois was dying because of declining population and poor immigration growth. I pointed out that your own source showed that Wyoming was doing worse than Illinois in one of those metrics and asked if that meant it was dying too. California is losing population faster than Illinois. Does that mean that the 6th largest economy in the world is dying? Unless you have some new secret definition of the word, dying would mean that both Chicago and Illinois are going to cease to exist. As I have previously stated, that is ludicrous.

Is Wyoming dying? It's doing the worst with international immigration, something you cited as a reason Chicago / Illinois are dying. What is your definition of dying?

Yup, absolutely no capacity for nuance or details. No need to listen to anyone who actually lives through the thing you are talking about. Just take a top line number, jam it into your narrative and declare victory.

It's easy to buy the scaremongering narrative because it feels good to rag on people you don't seem to like. Actually trying to get to the facts and details requires work and might prove the scaremongering narrative wrong or misleading, so why put in the effort, right? The idea that Chicago and/or Illinois are dying is ludicrous. The narrative is hard to square with what people who examine cities seem to think, like Chicago being voted as the #1 big city in the country six years in a row, or the second best city in the world, or the number three food city in the US, or the number one city for corporate expansion. If anyone is interested in a more nuanced look at what's happening in Chicago (from a pro-business media outlet) here is an article from Crain's Chicago Business on the demographic trends. It's long but it gives a really good explanation of the good, the bad, and what the future looks like from people who actually know Chicago. "If you watch and read the news about Chicago, then dig into recent census data, it's difficult to believe they're about the same town. Mass shootings, the most homicides in the U.S., unruly youth creating havoc in the streets, carjackings by 12-year-olds, a homeless man set afire, neighborhoods hiring private security, corporate headquarters fleeing—all suggest a city in chaos. On the other hand, judging from the census numbers, you might think Chicago was a boom town. Hundreds of thousands of college graduates settled here over the last decade. The number of households is nearing the all-time high. More homes were built than at any time since the 1950s. Poverty is declining. How can these starkly different portrayals be reconciled? One way is to say Chicago had a good run up till 2020, but after that, due to a pile-on of crises—the pandemic, rising crime, racial strife, deteriorating finances—the wheels came off. Some believe COVID has changed the world irreversibly, and Chicago and other cities won't ever be what they were. We don't buy this defeatist argument. On the contrary, our analysis of long-term trends, and a deep dive into 2020 demographic detail released in March, suggests the city has more resources than it used to and is far better equipped to weather difficult days. First, the good news. Change your metric to households, and Chicago grew at the fastest rate in modern times. The extent to which Chicago boomed during the 2010s isn't widely recognized, since public attention focuses on population change, and the city added just 51,000 people. In fact, however, Chicago grew at a rate probably not seen since the 1920s: Households increased by 97,000—the largest 10-year gain in modern recordkeeping—and will soon surpass the 1960 peak. Population hasn't risen at the same rate due to declining household size, a trend throughout the developed world. However, households acquire housing, accumulate wealth and purchase goods and services, and so are an equally if not more important measure of economic potential than population. The city—population 2.7 million—added 68,000 homes, the most since 1960. Dwellings here are at an all-time high. In contrast, during the same period, the San Francisco Bay Area added 83,000 dwellings for the entire region—population 4.7 million—despite gaining 464,000 people, one reason housing prices are so much higher there than here According to the Brookings Institution, the residential population of downtown Chicago exceeds 110,000 and since 1980 has grown at the fastest rate of any U.S. city by a wide margin. Downtown Chicago jobs rose by 153,000 between 2010 and 2020, the largest increase for any 10-year period in the modern record, reaching 632,000 before the pandemic. The total has since dropped, but still The number of college graduates in Chicago increased by 203,000 between 2010 and 2020, more than any other U.S. city except New York and Los Angeles, and higher than both on a percentage basis. College grads are the chief source of immigration to Chicago and the main driver of population growth. Chicago's college grads aren't usually thought of as immigrants, but, like traditional immigrants, they're primarily newcomers. According to the census, 55% weren't born in Illinois, and based on reasonable assumptions, the share of city-living graduates who are Chicago natives may be just 10%. The point is worth stressing: Most of Chicago's college graduates came from elsewhere. They made a conscious choice to live here, presumably knew what they were getting into, and so are less likely to bolt at the first sign of trouble. That, plus their education and higher lifetime earnings potential, make them a formidable asset. Other features of this fast-growing group: The 203,000 gain outstripped the combined increase in Asian residents (45,000), Hispanic residents (41,000) and white residents (9,000). It rivals the Hispanic population surge of 210,000 in the 1990s, the largest recent instance of traditional immigration to Chicago. If not for the additional grads, Chicago's population would have fallen by 150,000. The grad influx explains why white flight ended in 2010. In the 2000s, the loss of white residents without degrees exceeded the gain in grads. The white population fell. In the 2010s, the reverse was true. The white population grew. The city's four major ethnic groups all saw increases in college graduates during the 2010s: 29,000 of the newcomers were Asian; 23,000 Black; 37,000 Hispanic; 103,000 white, and the balance something else. The urban core, where most Chicago college graduates live, includes half of city residents. Chicago neighborhoods in which college grads exceed the U.S. average constitute a distinctive area we call the core, since it encompasses the central part of the city. Economically, the core is the most dynamic part of the city: It has grown steadily since at least 1980, and as of 2020 it was a mostly contiguous area of 83 square miles, taking in virtually all the lakefront between Evanston and 67th Street, and including half the city's population: 1.37 million people. The core accounted for 85% of new-home construction, 69% of new households and all net population growth in the city during the 2010s. Its population density is 16,500 per square mile vs. 9,100 for the rest of the city. The core is diverse by Chicago standards: 10% Asian, 14% Black, 18% Hispanic, 53% white and 4% other. The Black population in the core increased despite dropping elsewhere in the city. The core includes almost all neighborhoods we define as gentrified—that is, where the median home value is 150% or more of the regional median—and has become more affluent over time. That said, not all the core is wealthy. Most of its residents—723,000 people—live in neighborhoods where home values are in the middle range or lower. Now for the not-so-good news. Violent crime is down, scary crime is up. The paradox is that violent crime here has plummeted. What has increased, especially since 2019, are frightening crimes. In 2000, Chicago recorded 48,000 violent crimes. By 2014, that fell to 24,000, a 50% decline. By 2021, violent crimes had ticked up to 26,000, still well below historical levels. The drop isn't confined to affluent neighborhoods. As the maps show, communities throughout the city, including the West and South sides, are safer: The long-term improvement notwithstanding, several frightening types of crime increased during the pandemic, including: Homicides, up from 508 in 2019 to 806 in 2021 (all numbers drawn from the city's data portal). Carjackings, which tripled from 422 to 1,346. Violent crime involving guns, up 50% from 8,260 to 12,495. In addition, scary crime has spread into neighborhoods once considered safe. For example, in West Town, carjackings jumped from 24 in 2019 to 111 in 2021, the highest of any neighborhood. On the Near North Side, violent crimes involving guns doubled in a single year, from 117 in 2020 to 230 in 2021. Meanwhile, there have been well-publicized instances of crime associated with social media—most notoriously, the killing of a young man during a meetup near the Bean in May, and the looting of Michigan Avenue stores in August 2020. We're not aware of any systematic attempt to track or study flash mob-type crime, which has been reported in cities around the U.S. since at least 2010. Still, it contributes to the sense of lawlessness. Bad as this sounds, a closer look reveals a more nuanced story: The increase in homicides, with some exceptions, has been confined to the West and South sides. Homicide is up nationwide due to the pandemic, the obvious explanation for the spike in Chicago. While carjackings are up, robbery—of which carjacking is a subset—has been flat for the past three years and has trended down over the past decade. Robbers aren't committing more crimes; they've changed their modus operandi. Despite the jump in crime involving guns, violent crime overall has risen just 6% since 2019 and over the past decade has been flat. It's just that more crimes involve guns. What's up with the guns? Partly, it's the quantity. A University of Chicago Crime Lab study suggested that, based on the number of firearms confiscated by police, Chicago may have six times as many illegal guns per capita as New York due to lax gun laws in surrounding states. Why gun crime has increased over the past two years is less clear. An optimist might say that, to the extent it was driven by the pandemic, it'll drop as the pandemic recedes. That may be true of homicide. But even if it falls, the city will continue seeing a lot of people shot to death. The murder rate here isn't the country's worst; it's well below St. Louis and New Orleans, and substantially less than Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Nonetheless, due to Chicago's size, murders will likely remain the most among U.S. cities, and we'll continue to be the poster child for crime. So there we are: Crime is lower, but worse. Chicago's future depends on a steady stream of talented newcomers. If fear of crime chokes that off, we're hosed. As ethnic neighborhoods go, so goes Chicago. Chicago exemplifies what's been called demographic inversion, in which once-poor inner-city communities become affluent, while some outlying middle-class neighborhoods decline. Nonetheless, neighborhoods outside the core remain a critical part of the urban ecosystem, serving as home to successive waves of newcomers and providing a path to the middle class. The exception has been much of the Black community. However, our analysis suggests a way forward has emerged. We'll start with a look at how the ethnic mix in Chicago has changed over the past 20 years. Chicago's traditional white communities are fading. Chicago's white population is in the late stages of a long-term process we believe all major ethnic groups will eventually follow: The initial arrivals move up and out of the city, and a subset of their descendants graduate from college and move back. Second-wave arrivals eventually outnumber first-wave departures. The white population reached that point in 2010. Older non-Hispanic white ethnic enclaves continue to shrink. For example, the Northwest Side, where a large Polish community once extended along Milwaukee Avenue, has become increasingly Hispanic. Nonetheless, the exodus of non-college-educated white residents has slowed, no doubt partly because fewer are left. On the Northwest Side, the neighborhoods north of Irving Park Road have largely been absorbed into the core. A sizable non-Hispanic white presence seems likely to remain. That's less certain on the Southwest Side. Garfield Ridge and Clearing, portions of which were more than 90% white 20 years ago, are now mostly Hispanic. On the Far Southeast Side, Hegewisch has also transitioned from white to Hispanic. Despite these changes, Chicago is one of the few places in Cook County where the white population is growing. In contrast, suburban Cook lost 378,000 white residents between 2000 and 2020. Hispanics are heading for the suburbs. Chicago's Hispanic residents are following the classic immigration path, as seen not only in their improving economic status but also in the extent to which many are leaving—or being pushed out of—the now-wealthy central city. The community's future increasingly lies in the suburbs. Over the past 20 years, 91% of the region's Hispanic population growth—679,000 of 745,000 people—has taken place in the suburbs, where two-thirds of Hispanics now live. In Chicago, Hispanic residents are moving en masse from areas near the core to the city's periphery. Long-established areas like Logan Square, Pilsen and West Town are losing Hispanic population. The number of Hispanic residents in Logan Square fell 30% during the 2010s. Chicago neighborhoods with the greatest Hispanic growth include Austin, Garfield Ridge and Ashburn on the city's border, which collectively saw an increase of 23,000 over the decade. Some Hispanic residents are moving into contracting Black communities, such as Englewood, Auburn Gresham and West Garfield Park, all of which had Hispanic population gains of more than 50%. Other indications of the demographic maturing of the Chicago Hispanic community include the declining percentage of immigrants—35% today, compared to 45% two decades ago—and rising education levels. In 2020, 16% of Chicago Hispanic residents had a bachelor's degree, up from 5% in 2000. On the other hand, their slowing rate of increase in the city—5% in the 2010s—means Hispanic residents aren't likely to be a major source of population growth. Asian immigrants, from China in particular, are having a disproportionate impact. Unlike Chicago's Hispanic community, three-quarters of whom are of Mexican origin, no single nationality accounts for a majority of the city's Asian population. However, ethnic Chinese, the largest Asian nationality with about a third of the total, have had an outsize influence for two reasons. The first is their concentration in and around Chinatown, said to be one of the few, if not the only, growing traditional Chinese communities in a major U.S. city. The second is their high level of educational attainment: 60% of Chicago's Asian residents have a bachelor's degree, up from 38% two decades ago. Chinese immigrants and their children are helping invigorate Bridgeport and McKinley Park, while those with college degrees are a noticeable presence in the core. Asian residents are early in the immigration cycle. Their numbers grew by 31%, the most among the city's major ethnic groups. They're still mainly foreign-born at 67%, down from 73% two decades ago. To date, there has been no wholesale movement of Asian residents away from central Chicago; 37% were in the same five community areas in 2020 as in 2010. On the other hand, due to their higher levels of income and education, coupled with a high rate of intermarriage, many Asian newcomers settle in the core to start with. Chicago's Asian population is up in all central community areas. Chicago's Black community is headed in three different directions. On the whole, the 2020 census showed Chicago's Black community making modest progress economically. The Black poverty rate fell from 34% to 26%, and Black college graduates increased by 23,000, despite the loss of 85,000 Black residents overall. However, a closer look reveals three diverging narratives: The West Side is in transition, with departing Black households giving way to those of other ethnicities, primarily Hispanic residents. The five Far West Side community areas—Humboldt Park, Austin, East and West Garfield Park and North Lawndale—shifted from 81% Black and 14% Hispanic in 2000 to 67% Black and 26% Hispanic in 2020. Total households and dwellings increased during the 2010s. Interior South Side Black neighborhoods remain in decline. The bulk of Black population loss during the 2010s—61,000 people—occurred in this area. An influx of Hispanic residents is offsetting the loss of Black community members in some sections, but a cluster of eight communities stretching south and east from Englewood and West Englewood collectively lost 1,200 households and 3,000 dwellings, suggesting the area is emptying out. The south lakefront is becoming integrated into the core, with increasing population, income and educational attainment. As we've previously reported, this area, consisting of eight communities extending from the South Loop to South Shore, is becoming more like the north lakefront, with growing numbers of college-educated professionals who work downtown. It's becoming more diverse but remains predominantly Black. We believe this development is of critical importance. At first glance, a scattered but growing band of Far South Side neighborhoods with above-average numbers of college graduates suggests the old middle-class Black communities stretching from South Shore to Beverly are starting to revive. On closer inquiry, the apparent increase is more a function of subtraction than addition. Many of the college grads are aging holdovers from the 1970s and '80s, when the communities were Black professional enclaves; younger Black families without college degrees are leaving. Still, the area did gain 5,000 grads and remains largely middle income, so there's hope. Realistically, though, the south lakefront is going to have to redevelop first. We can't emphasize enough: What Chicago's Black community needs above all is to attract more college graduates. The surest way to do that is to establish a lively Bronzeville commercial district to serve as a gateway, drawing in talented kids from elsewhere and, eventually, funneling them into other South Side neighborhoods. That's what the north lakefront does for North Side neighborhoods. Decades will pass before Black grads arriving outnumber non-college grads leaving. But that's the path forward, make no mistake. Chicago is still mostly middle class. Some analyses have purported to show Chicago's middle class has almost vanished, but census data indicates these claims are exaggerated. Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan research group, defines middle class as having household income between two-thirds and 200% of the regional median—in metro Chicago's case, $50,000 to $149,000 for 2020. By this standard, 62% of city households were middle income; 34% were lower; and 4% upper. Ten years earlier, the numbers were 62% middle; 37% lower; and 1% upper. The citywide poverty rate—20% in 2000—rose to 24% in 2012, and has since fallen to 16%. The city's median household income still lags that of the region, but the gap is narrowing. In 2010, the city's median income was 77% of the region's; in 2020, it was 83%. In sum, we find grounds for cautious optimism. Still, if the numbers tell us one thing, our eyes tell us another. Chicago has a thriving, dense core; some prosperous communities on the outskirts; and a vast, mostly poor, less-populated hinterland in between. Bridging that gap may not be impossible, but there's much work to be done.

Illinois has open primaries, which is great. You walk in and tell them which ballot you want. No extra bureaucracy.

Anyone ever think about why it is that Chicago is the boogeyman city instead of NYC, which is also a big blue city? Or St Louis, New Orleans, Kansas City, Mobile, Cleveland, Memphis, Milwaukee, or Cincinnati, which all have higher rates of violent crime? It’s just classic right wing scaremongering. They need an “other” to demonize and stoking the rural vs urban polarization in our society is a good way to do that. If the thesis was that cities or even just democrat run cities, were all hellholes, they’d be shouting about NYC. But NYC’s crime rate is actually fairly low, so that doesn’t work (also disproves their theory but they never let facts get in the way of a good scaremongering). But that’s ok, they could use St Louis, which has a violent crime rate more than three times as high as Chicago. If you’re looking for your hellhole, you could look there. But St Louis is smaller, so the raw totals aren’t as big and scary. Plus it’s in a red state, so that complicates things politically. So it has to be Chicago. It’s dishonest and the national news is almost always wrong when reporting on what it’s like to live here, but it gets the right people scared and parroting the propaganda, so it works.

This is going to be the most ignorant thread on this entire site. Which, honesty, will be quite the accomplishment.

I honestly don’t understand trying to blame them for the demise of Roe. Mississippi enacted an unconstitutional law that harmed JWHO, so they sued to stop it. It’s what literally anyone would and should do. Instead of upholding the constitutional standard, or alternatively, awarding the state of Mississippi the relief they sought (ruling their law as actually constitutional), SCOTUS decided to go beyond the case at hand and undo almost 50 years of law. If you’re looking for someone to blame for the end of Roe, judicial activism disguised as “originalism” is staring you right in the face. You’re asking why they didn’t eschew the legal process and play politics instead, and in the process of doing so, bring harm upon the people they serve. I think your question answers itself.

No, I don’t think JWHO had much of a choice. I don’t think it’s their fault that SCOTUS decided to go beyond the remedy requested. If it wasn’t leaked, the opinion would have come out in the summer, closer to the election. There would be less time for the issue to fade. In fact, there was concern by some on the left that Dobbs news would be too old to make a big impact in November.

I think that the liberal leaker was the obvious assumption off the bat. However, I do not believe Roberts would cover for a liberal clerk if it damaged the court to do so. Knowing that, it’s hard to square the idea that the investigation didn’t ask the justices to sign statements and didn’t turn up the leaker with the idea that it was a liberal clerk. At this point, it seems more likely that a Justice was involved than not. We also know of at least one Justice who has previously shared draft opinions with people outside the court before their release.

You like to make a lot of assumptions, don’t you? Why leak it to a NatSec reporter and not someone on the SCOTUS beat?

No, it doesn’t. Unless you believe that someone would only leak it to a media outlet they viewed as being on their side. Do you think that if it was a conservative leaker, they’d only give it to an outlet like National Review or Fox?

The article showed some pretty good faith debate.

The article you cite literally starts with the agreed upon standard. The fact that there is good faith debate around the standard doesn’t mean that there are multiple standards. The medical community as a whole generally accepts a standard of care for trans youth. We should not criminalize that. There should be a presumption of the government not interfering with widely accepted medical care. The government should not criminalize widely accepted Medicare care. Any instance of the government intervening on behalf of a minor patient should be exceedingly rare and require a very high burden, including a judicial ruling.

I mean, that’s dumb and not true. So no, I’m not going to agree with an obviously false claim.

What part of “the burden should be very high” was confusing to you?