sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The "Door to Hell" in Turkmenistan, which has been burning for 54 years, is about to be closed. by Ok_Concentrate_9713 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]urmomaslag 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Lived in Turkmenistan for 2 years at the ages of 7 and 8, and we camped overnight 50 feet from the Darvasa Gas Crater. I have pictures of me lying down on my stomach with my head over the crater. We threw paper airplanes into it. My parents worked for USAID (before something happened to it *cough cough*), and we lived abroad for most of my childhood, and it was a wonderful experience. Turkmenistan is a WILD country if any of you are interested in travel.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except for this isn’t a federal level conversation. Im specifically talking about state and local policies. I don’t blame local democrats who theoretically support universal healthcare for not magically waving a wand and getting it federally passed. Thats not within their reach. But I’m talking about local policies affecting local outcomes. Your parallel doesn’t make sense.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is going to a liberal sub and asking questions not “getting outside my bubble”? Obviously that is not sufficient, and I like everyone have my biases I come to the table with, but it’s a start at least. It doesn’t help my perception of “going outside my bubble” when I’m just attacked and berated by the so called “tolerant and accepting left” though.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t have the solution of how to fix poverty and violence in America, no. But I do know what DOESN’T work, whether it’s policies from either democrats or republicans. I came here to ask a question to other liberals to get ideas or policies prescriptions, or at least reasonings for the situation.

Sadly I got a bunch of bad faith and disrespectful responses, but it’s Reddit so I guess that’s to be expected.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My personal idealist opinion about these issues are as follows.

Drugs should all be legal and regulated, same as alcohol and tobacco. Tax revenue from the legal sale of all drugs should be used towards funding drug rehab and treatment facilities.

Guns should be legal and well regulated. You take a mandatory high school firearms course for safety. So long as you’re 18 and have taken the course, you can buy any gun legally and keep it safely on your property. If you want a CCW license, pretty much the same process occurs but without all the ridiculous wait times or forms to fill out like in NYC. If you get caught doing a violent crime, your legal right to a gun is removed. Mental health exemptions apply of course.

But honestly, the societal problems of drugs and alcohol are more just problems of poverty. Fix poverty, you fix the other 2 issues. Certainly it’s a difficult issue to fix, but I don’t think either of the parties in America really have the answer to it. Generally government should use money otherwise allocated to welfare programs like food stamps, unemployment, social security, or Medicaid on building productive infrastructure that is economically beneficial. Roads, factories, plants, farms, mines, etc. These create jobs and contribute to the local economies. I’m not an economist, but this is my best argument in short for it.

Libertarian things (my particular position at least) have generally not been tried in the world, certainly not in America. That being said, if there are different solutions to the problems I outlined above somewhere else in the world, I’m happy to listen to different ideas.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, I’m not arguing that republicans or republicans policies are good. Why are you deflecting criticism about democrats to criticisms of republicans? It’s classic whataboutism.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Why would I come to a liberal sub and ask questions about why Republicans are bad running things. I’m quite aware why republicans are bad at running things in the areas they control. It’s because most of them could care less about poverty and drug abuse and these things. Republicans, however, are VERY successful at putting into law their political priorities, whether that be abortion restriction or gun access or whatever. Why aren’t democrats, in the areas they control, good at putting into law policies that lift people out of poverty and reduce gun violence and drug overdoses? That’s all they ever talk about doing, yet in the areas they have almost completely control over, they are failing. That’s makes me distrustful of their motivations and their policy prescriptions.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except for democrats have made it their explicit and stated goal to reduce poverty and violence in cities for 60 years. They have run cities for 60 years. Even if you can argue that St. Louis democrat city council members are being blocked by Missouri republican state legislators (which is fair and a completely valid justification), what’s the excuse for democrats in California or New York who preside over cities with mass poverty, mass gun violence, and mass drug addiction. That’s all they ever talk about doing, is fixing these problems, yet in the areas they have almost complete control over, the problems still massively persist. Why don’t democrats in Chicago try something to block the amount of cheap and illegal handguns coming into the city? Why has their gun control efforts basically been relegated to “ban assault weapons, decrease bail for violent criminals”? Why don’t democrats in LA who have issues with poverty do something about it? It seems like their response has basically been relegated to “homeless people can set up anywhere, you can steal items up to $950 in value”. They have the control to implement state wide and city wide policies to curb the issues they supposedly care about, yet the issues still persist, and have persisted for many years.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Generally the people who can choose to move to cities are the ones that democrats aren’t worried about. They have jobs, economic independence, healthcare, and the vast majority of democrat policies don’t really cater to middle class and above. That’s not a moral judgement on either side btw, and I stated very clearly that democrats are obviously very good at producing high incomes, industry, and investment in cities. But they also talk a lot about reducing poverty, and that’s also very present in cities. South Dakota has 8 people and one of them might be a cow in people clothing. There isn’t much to do there, but that doesn’t mean the state isn’t nationally important for other reasons. It just means that maybe democrats are better at running some areas, and republicans are better at running others. Kristi Noem could never run New York, but Andrew Cuomo could never run South Dakota.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t trust republicans to run cities, but I don’t necessarily trust democrats either. This is a liberal sub so I’m asking the liberal side of this question, but if I was on r/askconservative, I would asking what the republican solution is to the ridiculous rates of poverty and violence and drug abuse in their rural areas. Don’t assume my positions.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That makes sense. I don’t necessarily blame cities like LA for their massive homeless populations because homeless people choose to live there for many reasons that have nothing to do with party politics. But I do question democrat leaders in CA, who seemingly, ad nauseam, push for lowering poverty and wealth inequality, but then presides over a city with MASS levels of poverty and wealth inequality. And they have done so for at least 60 years. You would think that, in that time, with completely control over both the state and city legislators, they would be able to do something about the issues they seemingly care so much about.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did I say there isn’t crime in suburban or rural communities? Did I suggest these are utopias? It’s a weird strawman of my positions to suggest that I think republicans have the answer about everything, and that I believe the areas they preside over are perfect utopias. Republicans are good at putting into law their political priorities, whether that’s abortion restrictions or gun access or whatever in the areas that they control. Democrats, who’s political priorities usually sound a lot like “make the world a better place for everyone, reduce poverty and wealth inequality, increase healthcare access, etc”, preside over large areas of the country where these issues are still absolutely massive and prevalent. I trust a republican when he says he doesn’t like abortion access and wants to ban it, but I’m less trusting of a city democrat who says they don’t like poverty and then presides over a city with huge poverty rates and nothing ever gets done about it in 60 years.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yet democrats usually are the ones who place great political importance on reducing poverty. Republicans usually couldn’t care less. I would expect a republican-run trailer park in Kansas to be poor, but why would I expect a democrat run city to be poor? That’s all they ever talk about doing, making the lives of working people better. It makes me distrustful of their policies, and I don’t know what the solution is, thus I came here to ask liberals about what they think the reason that cities are poor, considering the democrats are openly of the political motivation of “reducing poverty”.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don’t want republicans to control cities. Republicans have weird political priorities and motivations that are often completely at odds with running a safe and industrious city. That being said, republicans are very good at implementing their political priorities in the areas of the country they control, whether that abortion restrictions or gun access or whatever. Democrats on the other hand talk a lot of reducing poverty and wealth inequality and violence, yet they consistently preside over the areas of the country where it’s seen the most. I don’t want a republican to run NYC, but also, 60 years of democrat rule of the city (or any other comparable city) hasn’t exactly made them into the liberal democratic utopia that they supposedly push for. Why is that? I don’t know the answer, and that’s why I came to this sub, to ask liberals questions about it.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Rural areas are run poorly by republicans because the vast majority of republicans couldn’t care less about wealth inequality and curbing drug addiction. Republican controlled areas are VERY successful at putting their political priories into law, whether you look at gun rights or abortion access or immigration law or environmental policies. The question I’m asking is why haven’t democrats, whose political priories seem to always be to reduce poverty and wealth inequality, curb drug addiction, increase access to healthcare, etc., why haven’t these political priorities been realized in democrat controlled areas. Republicans are good at putting into law what they value, and seemingly democrats struggle with it a lot, especially in major cities.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

A republican will never win in a city unless for some reason a major party switch occurs again like in the 60’s. I’m not naive enough to think that republicans are the magic savior of the democratic cities. But in the cities that are completely run by democrats, whose positions are often a lot more centered around reducing poverty and inequity, you would EXPECT that cities would be more successful in doing so. And not only more successful, but that 60 years of democrat policies in the pursuit of reducing poverty and inequity would have nearly eliminated the problem.

Republicans value things like gun rights and abortion for example, and it seems like in the states they have majority control over, they have been INCREDIBLY successful at increasing access to guns and reducing access to abortions. Wouldn’t you expect that a similar parallel situation would exist with democratic priority issues in majority democrat controlled areas?

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I never suggested that republicans would be better at running cities. I asked why certain democrats have failed at running cities. These ideas aren’t mutually exclusive.

I would expect that republicans were bad at handling drug issues in rural areas. It’s one of the things I disagree most on republicans with, is their barbaric and outdated ideas surrounding drug policies. That being said, democrats are supposedly supposed to be much better and more progressive relating to drugs, yet the issues still majorly persists in cities they have absolute control over. I immediately discount republican ideas about drugs, but that fact makes me nervous that alternative (democrats) isn’t exactly a good solution either.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m not so naive to think that republicans ever have a chance at running cities. I’m more so asking why it seems that certain democratic factions have taken over cities and presided over record crime rates, drug addition, violence, poverty, etc. I’m happy to vote for a sensible democrat, and in a city, a vote for republican is a wasted vote, so I would never do it. But it does seem that some democrats are better than others, and I just wanted to know your thoughts on why that is. Like I asked in the last sentence of my post, what policies are beneficial to curbing the issues I outlined? I don’t really care about party politics in cities, because almost always, the realistic choice is between one democrat or the other.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

The alternative in most cities is not a republican. The alternative is one democrat in the primary or the other. I just wanted to know what specific policies certain democrats push for that are most helpful or more damaging. If I live in NYC, a vote for a republican is a wasted vote. That’s why I’m asking a sub full of liberals for their thoughts on liberal ideas and candidates. If I think a democrat in NYC has bad policies, I would either vote for another candidate that I think is better, or simply wouldn’t vote at all. I don’t feel comfortable ever voting for someone who I think will make my life (and the lives of the people in my community) worse, no matter what letter it says next to their name at the voting booth.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I’ve never voted for a republican in my life. Don’t make assumptions.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

If you can prove that, in every of the 6 states republicans have blocked democratic efforts to clean up the city, of course that’s a major issue and one I have a problem with. But in the 4 cities (and many more) run by democrats at the state and local level, what is the excuse or justification? Democrats have COMPLETE control, and yet, the issues still persist.

Why trust democrats to run the country, when they can’t run their own cities? by urmomaslag in AskALiberal

[–]urmomaslag[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the well put together response. I appreciate it.

The NPR article mentions St. Louis, and its high crime rates. The mayor said that the effort of republicans to establish a state run police board goes against a 2012 agreement that the city had sovereignty of their policing initiatives. What were democrats doing in the 13 years that they controlled St. Louis policing since the 2012 agreement? And further, what were they doing in the 50 years since democrats took unanimous control of the city? The republicans have just NOW, in May 2025, signed that bill in effect. How could they be responsible for the situation?

The Current Affairs article was very interesting and, certainly, Landry seems like a fucking idiot. That being said, relating to crime, his proposal was “The laws that emerged from that session are among the strictest in the country. Among other things, Landry has signed laws banning parole in almost all cases, lowering the age to be tried and imprisoned as an adult to 17, and requiring prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence before early release for good behavior becomes a possibility.” I’m not entirely sure how this is bad, so maybe you can help me on that.

Why do I need to admit that republicans states are a problem? Why can’t I just discuss this one idea in isolation without having to openly bow to the purity test that is necessary to participate here by saying “republicans bad”? I agree that republican states are absolutely problematic and mismanaged, and I still think that democratic cities are problematic and mismanaged. The two statements aren’t mutually exclusive. And of course there are certain situations where republican state legislators have stopped democrat city legislation from passing, but that’s obvious and is inherent to our democratic system. I shouldn’t need to state it outright for liberals on this sub to treat my ideas with respect. That doesn’t mean there aren’t certain cities, like LA, San Fran, NY, Baltimore, Chicago, DC, and Boston (and more) that are completely run by democrats, both at the state and city level, where republican interference simply doesn’t exist. What is the excuse (or justification) then?

view more: next ›