Salesforce CEO Says National Guard Should Patrol San Francisco
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
techcrunch.comOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
San FranciscoCrimeGovernance
Key topics
San Francisco
Crime
Governance
Salesforce CEO suggests deploying National Guard to patrol San Francisco, sparking controversy and debate among commenters about the city's safety and governance.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
12m
Peak period
15
0-12h
Avg / period
4.7
Comment distribution33 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 33 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 11, 2025 at 12:07 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 11, 2025 at 12:19 AM EDT
12m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
15 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 16, 2025 at 6:40 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45546496Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 3:47:06 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
As an example, A group has set up a website to give the "ground truth" of Portland [0].
San Francisco has always had its problems, but under the control of local authorities with domain knowledge. And the same, no doubt, for every liberal city being occupied under the false pretense that it is in ruins. People go to work, schools and even zoos normally and peacefully.
You see, in this case, rampant crime, raging fires and anarchy are to be found in the mind of the beholder.
[0] https://isportlandburning.com/
San Fran has major problems. It's under much better control now, than it was a decade ago. Admitting and realising that truth, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong in Portland.
This whole "All (red|blue) cities are (bad|good) is insane. Yet I see both sides playing it. Playing it, because one (bad|good) somehow means all are?!
Madness.
San Francisco has ranked choice voting, but it's available to only about 14 million voters, about 6% of the eligible voter population. It tends to be mostly on progressive districts, conservatives are implacably opposed to it in my experience. The federal requirements for single member districts are also part of the problem in my view. Some states have multi-member districts but the practice seems to be in decline over the last century.
I also think the strictly scheduled elections in the US are a problem. It's made electioneering into an industry and led politicians to engage in all sorts of abusive behaviors, knowing they can run out the clock. You can see the sam mindset in US-centric sports like American Football and basketball, where coaches and teams habitually exploit the clock period by retaining possession if they ahead or forcing fouls to to create turnover opportunities if not. Fouling has become part of the game and this is a Bad Thing. The same is true of politics. The US would, in my view, be far better off with parliamentary government and a little less institutional stability, so as to limit the overwhelming advantages of incumbency, and the abuses that accompany it.
Perhaps the single greatest sentence on Hacker News, for quite some time. Thank you.
Any nuanced statement, meaning out of lockstep with The Information Ministry, is attacked, and with the usual ad-hominem.
Seriously, if you disagreed on some point, say, "Portland is reduced to smoldering rubble" and came under attack via media and death threats, how would you nuance that?
We in the U.S. have not experienced what other countries have experienced, at least since the Civil War, and any outside view, presumably nuanced, comes down hard on outright lies and personal and group threats.
And other countries have fought fascism on their homelands and see the big picture.
Obviously the right is super exaggerating the state of "blue" cities to justify political grandstanding, shows of power, and increased authoritarian control.
But it's also true that a lot of these cities have major, major problems in specific areas and are a sad representation of America in 2025 (the richest country in the history of the world). And these problems are not getting effectively addressed at scale, despite many efforts and resources spent by many different groups. This is why these attacks work - you can say "PORTLAND IS NOT BURNING" (it's not!) but you can't argue with the average tourist that they visit the core tourist parts of these cities, they see horrible things that they've never seen before in their suburban lives. Many areas don't feel safe. That's why these attacks are so effective.
The saddest part is we can't talk about this seriously in the current media. You have to be on a "side". Any attempt to have a real discussion is either ignored or lambasted from one side or the other. Both sides have elements of truth which they can use to push their view.
Cities are dynamic and constantly changing. Different people have different experiences living in different neighborhoods. My experiences might not match yours. But I can say some of the most visibly terrible places for human misery in the Western world that I have seen in the last 10 years have been:
- The obvious places in San Francisco, but also anywhere at any time in the financial district
- Downtown Seattle in various areas (between 4th and Pikes Place, around various 7-11s). You want walk from the water front back to your hotel, take the public elevator, it shows up and opens, and a couple is just fully living in it. What do you do with that?
- Many parts of downtown Los Angeles
- The eastern side of downtown San Diego, around the new library and baseball stadium
- Any MacDonalds in the southern part of downtown Chicago
- The area in and around the Taco Bell on the main tourist strip in Denver
- Many parts of Manhattan
- Almost any form of public transit in any city in the US that has one, from a bus in St. Loius to the BART in SF
You probably don't live in these neighborhoods. You'll think "yeah, don't live in the bad parts - my neighborhood is delighful". But I don't think any rational person can pretend like the policies in any of these cities are working effectively, at scale.
That isn't to say things aren't bad in some cities, homelessness in particular, to a degree which should be considered extremely shameful for those living in "the richest country in the history of the world".
However, the fact that the focus of reporting crime and specifically violence is nearly exclusively limited to cities is strong evidence that the goal isn't to solve the problem: it's merely to continue stoking red vs. blue division.
The underlying cause of most of the crime and violence in this country is ultimately poverty, which is why no one with political power is interested in taking steps to fix it.
I also think you're overestimating the effort put in to help historically disinvested neighborhoods. There are policies in Chicago that are working, but they're not being done at scale, and nobody here is pretending they are.
If you replace “dangerous” with “frequented by the homeless”) you get more candidates. The now closed McDonald’s on state. The one at wells and Adam’s and (not in the south loop) the one at lake and lasalle.
Though I’d bet money that the most dangerous in terms of being involved in or witnessing violence is the “rock and roll” McDonald’s in river north because of its hours and proximity to drunks. Most people would _not_ assume it was dangerous though.
If the goal is to show how the government is exaggerating or lying why not set up webcams around federal facilities in Portland?
Seems to me that this is just the other side of the same coin. If the government is going to be dishonest and just point to where the “fires” are and pretend like there is no place that isn’t under siege…it’s just as dishonest to pretend like there are not places in Portland that are problematic.
You certainly do not see those places on that website, nor any mention of them.
Everybody has a story to tell and a perspective that they want to tell it from.
MSNBC, CNN, local Portland TV stations? All have stories detailing the ICE protests, acknowledge that there has been violence and arrests in Portland, and are easily accessible to you via a google search. But…I know y’all know this already and it doesn’t matter to you who is reporting it, you will just obfuscate, spin, or provide some stupid reason why those specific sources or story cannot be trusted.
No thanks, I don’t need to play…but y’allhave fun storming the castle!
I genuinely know nothing about Portland, but i know that the way Chicago is described is entirely unmoored from reality, and that none of the protestors in Chicago have been violent, so you can back up your claim or continue to look like you're making things up
It is annoying the residents of Broadview though, since ICE/DHS is erecting barricades and disrupting traffic flows.
It's become a bit of a strategy for Trump supporters to pull 'oh I've never heard about that, let's move on' when confronted with damning evidence of Trump's corruption or incompetence.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/03/hacking-group-claims-theft...
I wonder if the point is distraction. That's a fairly big hack, but now the news cycle re: salesforce is probably discussing this political story.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/03/hacking-group-claims-theft...
28 more comments available on Hacker News