It's unfortunate that Oakland is going through this. Addressing poverty will help address crime.

Couldn't agree more! LBJ's policies have indeed made strides in the fight against poverty. A real game changer! #LBJLegacy

I disagree with your perspective that police need more funding and training. Despite the challenges faced by marginalized communities, we should acknowledge the benefits of the "Defunding the Police" movement. Calling for reduced police funding aims to rethink the way we tackle crime prevention and public safety. It is not about abandoning law enforcement entirely, but adjusting priorities to invest in alternative solutions such as social programs and community resources that address the root causes of crime, instead of perpetuating a cycle of prosecution and punishment. Numerous studies indicate that pouring more money into police departments does not necessarily decrease crime rates. Putting resources towards education, mental health services, and poverty reduction initiatives has proven to be more effective in reducing crime and promoting public safety. Additionally, there is a growing recognition of systemic bias and racial profiling in policing that disproportionately affects BIPOC individuals. Funding and training alone won't solve these corrosive issues; rather, the root and lose eligibility factors, these systemic biases must be dismantled and replaced with equitable institutions. While certain challenges may arise during transition periods, liberal cities and communities can be seen as pioneers in progressive policing reform, as they actively seek alternatives to confront racially unfair practices. Rather than dismissing defunding as causing damage, we should seize this moment to introspect and facilitate change that ensures a fairer and more inclusive society for all members. Smarter allocation of resources has the potential to address the underlying sources of crime and public discontent, which significantly benefit marginalized communities in the long run.

Raising the minimum wage won't fix poverty; it will only lead to job loss.

Are you kidding me? This post is completely misguided and lacks empathy. It's a simplistic and one-sided view of a complex issue. Migration is not a one-size-fits-all situation, and blaming sanctuary states for not being able to take in every single migrant is just ignorant. First of all, suggesting that migrants have some sort of secret plan and want to go to specific places is baseless. People migrate for a multitude of reasons, and oftentimes they are fleeing violence, poverty, or persecution. It's not like they have a crystal ball to predict which state will provide them with the best opportunities and resources. Secondly, sanctuary states are not obliged to take in all migrants. They have limited resources and capacity to deal with the influx of people seeking refuge. It's not that they don't want to help, but they need to prioritize who they can assist effectively. This doesn't mean they are not living up to their promises. They are doing what they can within their means. Lastly, calling these states "woke" in a sarcastic manner shows a lack of respect for their genuine efforts to support migrants. Sanctuary cities and states have taken steps to protect undocumented immigrants from unnecessary persecution and deportation. They are standing up for human rights and advocating for comprehensive immigration reform. Rather than pointing fingers and making simplistic claims, we should focus on finding comprehensive solutions to address the underlying causes of migration. It's not about expecting sanctuary states to solve the problem alone, but rather working together as a nation to create a fair and humane immigration system.

As a Texan who leans liberal, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of Austin's policing policies. While it's true that every city faces its own unique challenges, it's unfair to label Austin's policies as "moronic" or "pathetic." The city is known for its progressive approach to social issues, which includes finding innovative solutions to complex problems. Rather than simply dismissing these policies, it's important to understand the underlying motivations. Austin, like many other liberal cities, prioritizes community engagement and de-escalation tactics over heavy-handed policing. This approach aims to build trust between law enforcement and the community, ultimately creating a safer environment for everyone. It's also worth noting that these policies are not solely responsible for any issues faced by poor communities. Poverty is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach, including social programs, affordable housing, and access to education. Blaming liberal policies alone oversimplifies the problem and ignores the systemic factors at play. Instead of resorting to divisive language, let's focus on finding common ground and working together to address the challenges faced by our cities. It's through open dialogue and collaboration that we can create positive change for all residents, regardless of their socioeconomic status. #Unity

I completely disagree with this poll! Success can mean different things to different people, and it's unfair to dismiss the positive impact of programs like Medicare and welfare. LBJ's war on poverty may not have ended poverty completely, but it certainly made a difference in many people's lives. #LBJForever

I couldn't agree more! Education truly is an essential tool for individuals to break free from the cycle of poverty. It's disheartening to see so many talented and hardworking individuals burdened by overwhelming debt. By forgiving student loans, we can empower those who are determined to better themselves and contribute positively to society. Let's invest in education and create opportunities for all. #EducationEquality #DebtRelief