Let's go!!!

The Atlantic:
Defund the Police
America needs to rethink its priorities for the whole criminal-justice system.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/defund-police/612682/

The Guardian:
Movement to defund police gains 'unprecedented' support across US
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/04/defund-the-police-us-george-floyd-budgets

Vox.com:
Growing calls to “defund the police,” explained
Calls to restrict police funding have grown with protests and GOP-imposed austerity.
https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21276824/defund-police-divest-explainer

Rolling Stone:
A Practical Guide to Defunding the Police
Activists are demanding cities ‘defund the police.’ Here’s what they mean
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/defund-the-police-1007254/

Newsweek:
The 'Defund the Police' Movement Is Growing. Here's What It Actually Means
https://www.newsweek.com/defund-police-movement-growing-heres-what-it-actually-means-1508761

d

and how DiBlasio has opted to bury his head in the sand with the numerous beat-downs and abuse given out to peaceful protesters by the NYPD, I will be shocked and stunned if that becomes a reality here in NYC.

I have to imagine the PBA and Patrick Lynch will battle hard to ensure that won't happen.

Time will tell.

I'm sure that will become a reality in other cities where the police union is nearly as strong as it is here in NYC. Kudos to those cities; hopefully that funding will get reallocated toward education and/or social programs.

But the fact that the concept and conversation has entered the collective consciousness is a huge first step.

Once certain areas take it seriously and implement the reform, others will be watching and assessing etc

d

but it's a very good look that L.A. is at least leading the charge with the dollars they are looking to trim.

Hopefully other large cities will take the same course of action, especially since budgets are tight due to decreased revenues as result of COVID-19.

>but it's a very good look that L.A. is at least leading the
>charge with the dollars they are looking to trim.

let's hope they follow through...$150mil is good amount of money to divert to other community initiatives that have been severely underfunded.

>Hopefully other large cities will take the same course of
>action, especially since budgets are tight due to decreased
>revenues as result of COVID-19.

exactly. It will be interesting to see cities navigate the need to pay all this police overtime while telling poor folks they don't have no money for unemployment.

d

>>but it's a very good look that L.A. is at least leading the
>>charge with the dollars they are looking to trim.
>
>let's hope they follow through...$150mil is good amount of
>money to divert to other community initiatives that have been
>severely underfunded.
>
>>Hopefully other large cities will take the same course of
>>action, especially since budgets are tight due to decreased
>>revenues as result of COVID-19.
>
>exactly. It will be interesting to see cities navigate the
>need to pay all this police overtime while telling poor folks
>they don't have no money for unemployment.
>
>d
>

bad idea....
but I'm about to read up on it.....

Good link here about local discussion BLM coordinator had with the Arlington County Police Department though....
One thing that REALLY jumps out is that ACPD doesn't have body cameras because of the high cost of data storage.....
*stares at camera*....
really????!!??? THAT'S why???
One of if not THE RICHEST county in the entire state of VA....

https://www.arlnow.com/2020/06/05/arlington-police-talk-review-panels-and-body-cameras/

to services that would improve the quality of life of the communities they serve.

get into the details.

It’s Bernie Sanders-style pie in the sky Pollyanna talk but it’s not realistic.

"When you look into the details" you aint got no details you just scared and cynical. tell the truth.

like, you just gonna come in here an boo hoo the shit, say why. provide facts.

it's funny because departments constantly whine that they are underfunded and understaffed, but we literally live in a surveillance state. that's a problem in and of itself, but what it's doing is effectively policing most of us all the time.

so, if that's the case, can we at least get rid of these storm troopin' mofos?

>get into the details.
>
>It’s Bernie Sanders-style pie in the sky Pollyanna talk but
>it’s not realistic.

Why isn't it realistic? I don't want to get into a back and forth argument with you on the matter; I want to see points of view that directly counter mine just to see what other points of view may look like.

you got critiques, but no facts or analysis.

solutions are ALWAYS complicated. you ain't saying nothing by saying that.

as usual, you're full of shit.

d

Most major cities are struggling with solutions for violent crimes WITH police? How is it going to work without police? Private security? Is everybody going to be nice to each other?

I’m honestly not trying to be a smartass but literally every other civilized society in the world has some form of people.

>Most major cities are struggling with solutions for violent
>crimes WITH police?

you gotta first gotta acknowledge there's two kinds of crime: person to person (murders, rapes, theft, drug trade etc) and white collar/corporate(insider trading, fraud, collusion, wage theft, etc).

since people generally use the word crime to only mean "person to person" (which partly explains why the other kind isn't as heavily punished even though in many ways, its worse), you must examine and address the root causes of most of that crime: poverty & lack of access to education.

How is it going to work without police?
>Private security? Is everybody going to be nice to each other?

There are other ways to address public safety without a militarized, racist, violent police force....especially one that has its origins firmly rooted in slave patrols and white supremacy.

There are no simple answers to any of your questions, but the point is to engage in community-involved dialogue to find alternatives that fit each individual community, then empower the local and state governments to use divested funds to implement them.

>I’m honestly not trying to be a smartass but literally every
>other civilized society in the world has some form of people.

yes, you hit the nail on the head. "some form" is the point. This form...this violent army of unaccountable people, isn't it for a country that hasn't yet addressed & rooted out its original sin of racism.


Read the links, and/or read this book:
https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-policing

It's so important to educate yourself away from a mindset that accepts white society's oppressive organizations. Maybe engage with more Black grassroots activists? Hella Black Podcast is excellent...two Oakland Black dudes...give it a listen if you don't iike reading.

d

p.s. once the KKK/skinheads fell out of mainstream acceptance in the 70s and 80s, guess which profession many of them chose to "hide" in?

in post #8.

as per usual.

you didn't say shit in reply 8 cuz you don't know what the fuck you talking about, as usual.

fucking coward.. 'oh booo hooo defunding the police is so complicated!'

no you're just too fucking dumb to spend a second to think about it.

go sit down somewhere and jerk off and let the adults handle this, chief.

d

... about a major issue, on multiple levels, and therefore worthy of advanced, ongoing brainstorming and consideration.

You, meanwhile, blindly dismissed the idea because "details" without offering even a single critical thought to consider. Then claimed victory.

What a strange way to operate a topic that you yourself acknowledged is complicated.

they have the most resources

>When somebody robs you who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?

programmatic and training reforms that could improve policing would probably require "more" funding/investment, not less...

Tbf, I'm not well-versed in this area at all, and would welcome being corrected/persuaded to a more comprehensive view. But I draw from what I've observed is often done to address disparities in other domains (eg. healthcare, education).

I wonder sometimes whether there's some conflation of policing issues with the military industrial complex in the discourse?? There's painfully obvious intersection for sure, not denying that... but it does seem that solutions for each might/should need to be structured differently.

But again, just the first thing that comes to mind for me..

>programmatic and training reforms that could improve policing
>would probably require "more" funding/investment, not less...

Not necessarily. Monies allocated for the hypermilitarization of police (military grade weapons, fortified SUVs & vans, riot gear etc) could be diverted toward programmatic and training reforms.



>Tbf, I'm not well-versed in this area at all, and would
>welcome being corrected/persuaded to a more comprehensive
>view. But I draw from what I've observed is often done to
>address disparities in other domains (eg. healthcare,
>education).

It's ok..the links I provided in the OP have alot of specific info. But policing can't be compared to healthcare and edcuation because the origin of policing is slave patrols and generally, white supremacy. Police forces operate in service of the ruling class...the wider the gap between the haves and the have nots, the more police are relied on. (LA, NYC, Chicago etc) Just look at who gets to weaponize the police against the masses and exactly how they do it...

>I wonder sometimes whether there's some conflation of policing
>issues with the military industrial complex in the discourse??

Yes, and its an appropriate overlap because of how the police use military equipment and tactics against the citizenry. its gotten worse and worse since the post-9/11 Patriot Act was signed into law and NYC (and other potential city targets) were able to access federal funds to help protect against a terrorist attack.

In addition, the police force feeds the prison industrial complex, as well. round up black men and women for minor offenses, railroad them into convictions, imprison them and hey look! cheap/free labor for private prisons and corporations


>There's painfully obvious intersection for sure, not denying
>that... but it does seem that solutions for each might/should
>need to be structured differently.

yes they're related but not identical...the important thing is that the ideas are even being seriously discussed/considered.

d

>
>Not necessarily. Monies allocated for the hypermilitarization
>of police (military grade weapons, fortified SUVs & vans, riot
>gear etc) could be diverted toward programmatic and training
>reforms.
>
>

100%. This definitely makes sense, and I think it's closer to where I thought the consensus was surrounding this issue... demilitarization, repurposing funds, narrowing scope of mission/operations/responsibility, etc. But after reading the articles you linked it's clear the phrase is anchored in eradicating/abolishing police altogether, which is a much more extreme measure. And what I worry is that Defund the Police would simply become the next hashtag activism fad (eg. # Abolish ICE, # GND) that kind of... rushes to package folks' dissatisfaction into a neat 2-3 word slogan but drowns out the specifics that could translate to actual change. The slogans dont have the best track record so far :(

>
>It's ok..the links I provided in the OP have alot of specific
>info. But policing can't be compared to healthcare and
>edcuation because the origin of policing is slave patrols and
>generally, white supremacy. Police forces operate in service
>of the ruling class...the wider the gap between the haves and
>the have nots, the more police are relied on. (LA, NYC,
>Chicago etc) Just look at who gets to weaponize the police
>against the masses and exactly how they do it...


I understand where you're coming from. And it's difficult to translate experiences with law enforcement in other parts of the world sometimes because of the US history/conditions you're talking about. This is a bias I can admit to, personally, because I've been lucky to witness - again, outside the US - extremely humane policing on more than one occasion involving members of my own family. In one fateful incident, humane policing even saved my family member's life (a black adult male with special needs, no less). I'm talking about a level of sensitivity, protection, care, and respect for privacy that brought us to our knees in tears. All I could think after these interactions occured was how grateful I was for the efforts made by my city to hire only the best people to staff that force and train them exceptionally, and I would rank those police interactions as high if not higher than interactions we'd had with some doctors and teachers. So while I'm not so naive to think those experiences automatically translate to every officer, police force, jurisdiction or could even be possible in the US... I feel like it's because I've experienced how good public safety *can be* that I end up concluding the neccesary transformations probably require more resources, not less.

THAT SAID, I did admit I'm not super knowledgeable in this area and I have to thank you, Buddy, and allStah for educating/reminding me of some key points I hadn't put into context. I think where I'm leaning now is I still agree demilitarization is long overdue, as well as stricter accountability and oversight... but with the current funding levels most PDs receive (I think one of the articles linked mentioned PDs receive ~50% of General Funds, on average) they could probably withstand significant budget cuts and still have more than enough money to repurpose to better screening, training, and other measures. allStahs point about the pensions and redundant income streams is particularly concerning, as I'm sure that sort of thing is rampant. PDs can't complain about funding if their mismanagement is that blatant.

I still think the Defund slogan is problematic messaging, tho. Bc even if many intend for it to mean reducing or repurposing funding, a staunch contingent also mean abolishing police altogether.. and I'd hate to see the unprecedented support for reform right now wasted because the hashtag fell on deaf ears, as others have.


>
>yes they're related but not identical...the important thing is
>that the ideas are even being seriously discussed/considered.
>

On this, we definitely agree 1000%

>100%. This definitely makes sense, and I think it's closer to
>where I thought the consensus was surrounding this issue...
>demilitarization, repurposing funds, narrowing scope of
>mission/operations/responsibility, etc. But after reading the
>articles you linked it's clear the phrase is anchored in
>eradicating/abolishing police altogether, which is a much more
>extreme measure.

In some places, that measure should also be considered. its only being called "extreme" because its a new idea that sounds impossible. so much of what we currently accept as normal was considered 'extreme' at some point (blacks & whites marrying, blacks voting, gays marrying, abolishing the death penalty)...so we gotta be careful with that language.


And what I worry is that Defund the Police
>would simply become the next hashtag activism fad (eg. #
>Abolish ICE, # GND) that kind of... rushes to package folks'
>dissatisfaction into a neat 2-3 word slogan but drowns out the
>specifics that could translate to actual change. The slogans
>dont have the best track record so far :(

again, its a new concept and its been quite effective at getting a "foot in the door" so to speak...the messaging will evolve as conversations and details evolve and that's ok...getting hung up on the message is the opposite of what's needed right now....but again, good old America stay focused on the wrong shit lol (not you, just speaking generally)


>
>I understand where you're coming from. And it's difficult to
>translate experiences with law enforcement in other parts of
>the world sometimes because of the US history/conditions
>you're talking about. This is a bias I can admit to,
>personally, because I've been lucky to witness - again,
>outside the US - extremely humane policing on more than one
>occasion involving members of my own family. In one fateful
>incident, humane policing even saved my family member's life
>(a black adult male with special needs, no less). I'm talking
>about a level of sensitivity, protection, care, and respect
>for privacy that brought us to our knees in tears. All I could
>think after these interactions occured was how grateful I was
>for the efforts made by my city to hire only the best people
>to staff that force and train them exceptionally, and I would
>rank those police interactions as high if not higher than
>interactions we'd had with some doctors and teachers. So while
>I'm not so naive to think those experiences automatically
>translate to every officer, police force, jurisdiction or
>could even be possible in the US

It is possible. You just very beautifully described exactly what the eventual outcome of defunding and/or abolishing the way we approach policing in the US could look like...well done!


... I feel like it's because
>I've experienced how good public safety *can be* that I end up
>concluding the neccesary transformations probably require more
>resources, not less.

more resources in the right places though...not on military grade weaponry etc...public safety initiatives do not have to center the police force. police should not be the go to for every situation (mental health challenges, school situations, petty thefts etc)


>THAT SAID, I did admit I'm not super knowledgeable in this
>area and I have to thank you, Buddy, and allStah for
>educating/reminding me of some key points I hadn't put into
>context. I think where I'm leaning now is I still agree
>demilitarization is long overdue, as well as stricter
>accountability and oversight... but with the current funding
>levels most PDs receive (I think one of the articles linked
>mentioned PDs receive ~50% of General Funds, on average) they
>could probably withstand significant budget cuts and still
>have more than enough money to repurpose to better screening,
>training, and other measures. allStahs point about the
>pensions and redundant income streams is particularly
>concerning, as I'm sure that sort of thing is rampant. PDs
>can't complain about funding if their mismanagement is that
>blatant.

you're welcome..this is all new to me as well and i'm constantly learning more and more.

>I still think the Defund slogan is problematic messaging, tho.
>Bc even if many intend for it to mean reducing or repurposing
>funding, a staunch contingent also mean abolishing police
>altogether.. and I'd hate to see the unprecedented support for
>reform right now wasted because the hashtag fell on deaf ears,
>as others have.

again, its gone beyond a hashtag already. The Minneapolis school district has cancelled its contract with the MPD. LAPD has committed to reallocating up to $150mil from the police force to other community initiatives. its happening..its starting. the messaging will evolve.

every community that does this will do it in a different way, which is how it should be. defund or abolish should be done on a city by city basis depending on the what the needs/challenges of that locality are.

>>yes they're related but not identical...the important thing
>is
>>that the ideas are even being seriously
>discussed/considered.
>>
>
>On this, we definitely agree 1000%
>

Cheers, mate

d

>>programmatic and training reforms that could improve
>policing
>>would probably require "more" funding/investment, not
>less...
>
>Not necessarily. Monies allocated for the hypermilitarization
>of police (military grade weapons, fortified SUVs & vans, riot
>gear etc) could be diverted toward programmatic and training
>reforms.

d

mainstream at super sudden speeds these days.

Gay Marriage.
BLM
UBI

Like you go back and look at past discussions on some of these topics even here and you can see how quickly opinions are changing.

When you read up on it, it makes soooo much sense. Police get waaaay to much of our public spend for social services when the ROI is so much better on education and other positive interventions. It really is a no brainer if you take politics out of it.

My big concern with progressives is that this should be an aspirational goal and thought leaders should be planting the seeds for it now, but it should not be a presidential platform position for 2020.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>
>Police get
>waaaay to much of our public spend for social services

like from a jurisdiction's budget you're familiar with, and in contrast to appropriations for other areas. Are PDs really swimming in cash like that, percentage-wise?

Well, I can give you an example here in Chicago.

One of the main reasons chicago is in debt is because of pension funding, especially for police officers.

Chicago has the highest sales tax in the country, and steep property taxes, as well as other ridiculous taxes that other cities don’t have. And the majority of the money from those taxes go to paying the guaranteed pension fund of police officers. It has crippled the cities ability to get out of the red, and increases it every year.

This all happened because former Mayor Daley increased the pension benefits of police officers, as well as the pension being severely underfunded in the 90s, so Chicago just keeps increasing taxes and making up new ones to cover the cost.


So taxpayers are paying astronomical amounts of money in taxes to fund police officers who are not protecting and serving the community in a just fashion.

Here is something that is even more comical, you have police officers who are getting pension payments and getting a salary! You can retire as a police officer, collect your pension, and then get rehired as a police officer, getting your pension payments and a new salary. The taxpayer pays twice!


“James Hickey retired as a police lieutenant on Sept. 30, 1999, with an annual salary of $78,312. The very next day he started collecting his pension (currently $67,500 a year) and was rehired as a civilian. He is now working as the police department’s assistant director of research and development with an annual salary of $104,232. His total taxpayer-supported income is now $171,000.”

Ya I mentioned to Damali above that you guys have definitely helped shape the way I'm going to think about this issue now, and the story you tell here is a compelling counter-argument to the way police advocates complain about funding.

Among all the other problems, the idea that there's rampant mismanagement of funds is inexcusable. If a PD can't even bother to subtract pension income from salary income for retired officers brought back in on the admin side, perhaps financial audits need to be throwm in there too with all the other reforms being suggested. Wth.

https://twitter.com/ElectRyanDorsey/status/1268868843021230086

the chart is eye popping.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I had no idea the difference was so extreme. And this is just Baltimore; in one of the articles Damali linked the budgets for bigger cities like LA and NY were in the billions.

I wonder how much of these allocations to PDs are going to operations vs pensions and other expenses??

Compelling data for sure. Touche lol

scared of the people that I'm paying to protect him. That money needs to go somewhere that would be more beneficial to the community as a whole. Why continue to throw so much support into a system that does little for me?


We can lose a few of 'em, we got enough of 'em (c) Dilla

and this "protest" kinda looks like a joke. maybe i need to go at a different time,
just seemed watered down lame. tanks are on every other street and d.c. police
// special forces // federal police are riding around like they are in gangs. the
people down there are mostly spectators looking for a show, not as many blacks.
plus dc is heavily gentrified, makes me wonder. i like the 'black lives matter'
painting on the ground, was kinda surprised bowser did that.

seems like a lame block party/something to do. they're even playing
R-E-S-P-E-C-T. i don't know. when you are in a war, there is no music
and singing. i don't know if i would take 'defunding the police'
seriously given that atmosphere in the nation's capital.

and here we are in 2020

1 protest does not define or discredit the need to defund the police.

you're making no sense.

d

type of music. maybe they played that, i just didn't hear it.
'peaceful protests' = we're afraid, don't hurt us
no justice = no peace

I don't know what is unsettling about white people screaming Black Lives Matter but not hiring black people, not advocating for policies that make blacks more equal.

Defunding the police will not help black people. Putting money in community resources is being done at the highest level in DC. Doesn't make it any easier to get a Federal job or a DC job.

I don't know what seems odd about the whole thing. But I will just sit on the sidelines until more information becomes available.

but i think i already know what's going on, looks can be deceiving.
it's easier to get things done when you put out the fire.

>
>I don't know what seems odd about the whole thing. But I will
>just sit on the sidelines until more information becomes
>available.

>Defunding the police will not help black people.

You have no way of knowing that. Defunding the police would not happen in a vacuum. The reallocated funds would go toward the very community resources that you mention below that have been severely underfunded in most major cities.

Putting money
>in community resources is being done at the highest level in
>DC. Doesn't make it any easier to get a Federal job or a DC
>job.

Therefore there are clearly other measures to put into place in conjunction with defunding the police. This does not negate it.

But I will
>just sit on the sidelines until more information becomes
>available.

Good idea. You don't know enough about it to critique it.

d

and clearly it's not a complete defunding, obviously it's partial. it
shows you where people really stand on this issue.

(plot twist) for the 2 officers who were temporarily suspended for almost killing an elderly man.

https://twitter.com/WBFO/status/1268984006110064641

(they just resigned from the specific team. they dont have enough balls to take a real stand and give up their jobs.)

the rest of the nation watched the video in horror. police apparently saw it as a rallying cry.

those few bad apples starting to look like a whole orchard.

I was kinda surprised by the headline. They're still showing how incredibly shitty they are but the taking a stand without actually taking a stand makes far more sense.

>(they just resigned from the specific team. they dont have
>enough balls to take a real stand and give up their jobs.)

its amazing what a surprisingly competitive senate race will do to you.

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1269060751207075844

lol

and he suggested that the police unions are too powerful and that’s who protects the dirty cops.

I agree, if it was like a regular job and you fuck up you just go to HR and it’s a wrap but not with unions involved and I’m not necessarily “anti-union” but in this case...

>and he suggested that the police unions are too powerful and
>that’s who protects the dirty cops.
>
>I agree, if it was like a regular job and you fuck up you just
>go to HR and it’s a wrap but not with unions involved and
>I’m not necessarily “anti-union” but in this case...

at this point law enforcement shouldn't be unionized at all.

industry it’s going to be a tough fight.

I think you’ve mentioned that you live in St Louis, the fact that in the city they have 2 separate unions, one for black officers and one for white officers even they both “officially” aren’t called that.

... necessary. But as you say, it won't be easy and it's almost hypocritical of me/us to hold both beliefs.

criminal activity. What are you even talking about?

>criminal activity. What are you even talking about?

Your screen name is applicable.

https://twitter.com/CTUL_TC/status/1269396638411481094

That footage of him walking away defeated like that? Sheesh.

not just among the general public but among the democratic party itself.

its a complete political loser.

messaging has always been an achilles heel of the left and the left of the left (ie-radicals, activists,etc) have historically been particularly myopic with it.

if you wanna squander a lot of the public goodwill that has recently been gained for the black lives matter movement and the push to reform policing...and hand the gop a potent campaign tool...keep pushing that 'defund the police' message.

>if you wanna squander a lot of the public goodwill that has
>recently been gained for the black lives matter movement and
>the push to reform policing...and hand the gop a potent
>campaign tool...keep pushing that 'defund the police' message.

spoken like a coward LOL

"don't try to dismantle the system cuz it makes you look bad and nobody is gonna join you!!"

fuck outta here with that...

do you have any idea how unpopular giving Black people the right to vote was when the idea was first introduced? what about marriage equality? or interracial marriage? or abolishing the death penalty?

people like YOU are the barriers to change...those that lack the imagination and the fortitude to push for it REGARDLESS of public opionion. the general public doesn't ever want to change shit...especially when it benefits marginalized people.

you can critique the messaging all you want...anyone needing a perfect message to fight for Black lives ain't really giving a shit anyway.

d

I know reeq doesn’t need me to defend him but this is a total “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar” situation and in trying to convince him that he is wrong you’re vinegaring the fuck out of it with your response being so...angry.

How do you expect to have a good exchange of ideas if you’re calling someone a coward simply because they don’t agree with your viewpoint?

You’re just gonna try to shame someone into seeing your side?

That’s fucked up.

>I know reeq doesn’t need me to defend him but this is a
>total “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar”
>situation and in trying to convince him that he is wrong
>you’re vinegaring the fuck out of it with your response
>being so...angry.

and there is NOTHING wrong with being angry...that's part of the fucking problem with people...its an emotion like any other.

what am i DOING with my anger? gee let's see:

killing people: no
educating people: yes
destroying property: no
destroying dumb ass logic: yes
giving money to police: no
giving money to grass roots activist orgs: yes

so fuck off w/complaints about me being angry. get your fragile ass out the paint then.

you don't like how i talk about this shit, then go read the words of folks who have a tone you like. i'm not a politician and don't need to win anyone over.

d

if everyone else can have a mature debate in here then you should be able to too.

we are all equally as passionate/mad but we can talk to each other without the hysterics.

i don't give a fuck if you think i'm juvenile or mature.

miss me with that.

d

theres no true progress without policy (civil rights act, voting rights act, affirmative action, etc).

you seem to be under the impression that theres some mystical 'change' that takes place without gaining (then using) political power.

you need to get people on your side. then all of the people on your side need to win elections to empower politicians that push your preferred policies.

you dont do that by saying/doing shit that makes *your* heart flutter but only appeals to your bubble or narrow sliver of the base. you def dont do it with sloppy slogans that can easily be hijacked and misinterpreted (at best) or are just completely unpopular/divisive among the general public *and* the majority of your political tribe (at worst).

its the reason the 'progressive' left had a generational opportunity to cement itself firmly within the soul of democratic party politics...and instead ended up alienating at least 2/3 of the mainstream party, losing every major demographic but young people who barely vote, possibly getting less than 25% of dem convention delegates and a diminished role at the party platform table, and currently eating itself alive with in-fighting and dysfunction.

in a matter of 1 presidential cycle they actually *lost* power/influence. banging their heads against the same wall youre banging yours against.

if you think thats a successful path forward and wanna continue along it...then thats your choice.

but the way you think things work? they dont really work like that.

>theres no true progress without policy (civil rights act,
>voting rights act, affirmative action, etc).
>
>you seem to be under the impression that theres some mystical
>'change' that takes place without gaining (then using)
>political power.

political power can also be leveraged on a local level since police budgets and allocations are handled locally and not federally.

nothing i said dismisses the importance of political power. i disagree with your framing of it.

>you need to get people on your side. then all of the people
>on your side need to win elections to empower politicians that
>push your preferred policies.

of course. that often does not happen with broad public support though. There are many ways to get to that end.

>you dont do that by saying/doing shit that makes *your* heart
>flutter but only appeals to your bubble or narrow sliver of
>the base. you def dont do it with sloppy slogans that can
>easily be hijacked and misinterpreted (at best) or are just
>completely unpopular/divisive among the general public *and*
>the majority of your political tribe (at worst).

look, you are firmly rooted in a "this is how you do things". and that's why i'm saying that no, it doesn't have to always be that way.

I don't agree the slogan is sloppy. just because you say it is doesn't make it so. either way, folks wanna focus there instead of digging into the details...i find this type of approach to be lazy and cowardly, personally.


its the reason the 'progressive' left had a generational
>opportunity to cement itself firmly within the soul of
>democratic party politics...and instead ended up alienating at
>least 2/3 of the mainstream party, losing every major
>demographic but young people who barely vote, possibly getting
>less than 25% of dem convention delegates and a diminished
>role at the party platform table, and currently eating itself
>alive with in-fighting and dysfunction.
>
LOL that actually is NOT the reason why. but ok.

>in a matter of 1 presidential cycle they actually *lost*
>power/influence. banging their heads against the same wall
>youre banging yours against.

yeah, you've now lost me as it has become apparent that your political analysis isn't what you think it is.

>if you think thats a successful path forward and wanna
>continue along it...then thats your choice.

yup, it is.

>but the way you think things work? they dont really work like
>that.

i guess we'll see. in the meantime, #DefundThePolice

cheers luv

d

they can point to the rise in assaults, homicide, rapes, etc


Do you realllly want to defund the police? *cue montage*

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

smh


d

Tell me how it isn't.
Does it accurately capture and disclose what the overall goals are?


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

demilitarize police.

reform police.

police police.

a ton of more effective ways to approach it.

cause....

In majority of people's minds...Defund = eliminate = delete = remove = do away with, etc....
That's a HARD sell especially given that's not exactly what the goal even is.

Those terms you listed are much better


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

and a ton of folks like you and me get that.

people on the left are stereotypically bad at messaging. thats become our brand for a reason. because we continue to do it (like right now).

and instead of taking constructive criticism (from people that wanna help us win) and improving upon that flaw...we get a whole bunch of righteous indignation and circular firesquading.

it doesn't matter to me at all. i personally find it dumb and distracting but hey, that's par for the course on okp LOL

the real conversations are already happening with grassroots organizers & community members and police departments and city government in LA and other cities

for some weird reason, they are listening and working without perfect messaging.

d

presence is appreciated....



"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

>presence is appreciated....

thank you. i appreciate your dialogue, as well.

d

So I understand that stance completely in this instance.

The slogan is difficult for some to digest but all the people railing against it don't seem to have up to date information. She posted everything one might need to get started on the topic in the original post, and this post still went the way that it did. Why keep going back and forth with people that just want to argue? Y'all don't have time to read?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/us/new-york-city-police-funding-social-services/index.html

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

It’s like we are coming up with campaign slogans for the other side.

WHY THE FUCK CANT THEY DO THIS?!?!?!

Dem messaging is atrociously bad.

of both the underlying policy demands (which Damali and other folks in this post are doing an *excellent* job unpacking, and are good ideas but perhaps not as scorched-earth as abolishing police) and the centering of black lives.


Sorry to rant, but I need to vent on this messaging issue right quick bc the mural thing in DC pissed me off.


Like, first of all, none of the most visible *black* political messaging has even alluded to abolishing police:

*not from Tamika Mallory: https://twitter.com/BET/status/1266757878762868737
*not from Killer Mike: https://twitter.com/QasimRashid/status/1266602023526506498
*Not from Kimberly Jones: https://twitter.com/KingJames/status/1269089796422463488
*Not from Al Sharpton: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/al-sharpton-geroge-floyd-march-on-washington/index.html
*Not from Darity, Moore, or Carnell, etc.

None. Rather, the consistent theme in the black political messaging has been unapologetic laser focus on Black American suffering, humanity, and rights, and immediate first steps to start resolving those issues. Which resonated strongly both domestically and around the globe.

But it's like the people that got chastised for hijacking the marches to destroy/burn down property switched to hijacking the messaging instead. And now, there's the protesters (who were *not* Black, if that matters to anyone else) painting "Defund The Police" over Mayor Bowser's (who *is* Black, if that matters to anyone else) Black Lives Matter/DC flag mural in front of the WH, which was already an unprecedented early gesture that *only* a black politician in solidarity would make:

https://twitter.com/CBCKatie/status/1269435697804574722
https://twitter.com/Terrence_STR/status/1269439717524869121

So in little more than a week, the police brutality Floyd and so many others have suffered and the resulting rallying cry **CENTERED IN BLACK HUMANITY AND RACIAL JUSTICE** has been colonized by a scorched-earth economic demand *completely sanitized* of the racial dimension that galvanized so much widespread support/sympathy in the first place. I mean:

https://twitter.com/SunriseMvmtDC/status/1269675205955325958 <--seriously?

And JUST WHEN Black America had *finally* accrued some unprecedented broad-based political support. The whole COUNTRY marching in solidarity (https://twitter.com/TomSugrue/status/1269383576245743618). The whole WORLD marching in solidarity (https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13386977&mesg_id=13386977). 45 overplaying his fascism so badly that even THE MILITARY voiced solidarity with the people (via the constitution, but still lol). Like, it might even be possible for Black Americans to get a damn reparations bill off this support, talk less of demanding the transformation of policing across america.

So fuck rebooting the narrative. Why? Like I could see if hashtag activism had a successful track record. But there's literally a graveyard of these slogans (# Abolish ICE! # GND! # M4A!) that have accomplished nothing other than lose elections and alienate the general electorate. A better strategy to get the most out of current support levels seems to be, yes, focus on the relevant policy demands - eg. stricter accountability, demilitarization, reducing and repurposing funds + better management and oversight of said funds, rigorous transformation of screening, recruitment, hiring, training, etc ALL THAT - but STILL CENTER THE MESSAGE IN BLACK HUMANITY because *only* when the most vulnerable/brutalized are ok can anyone say there was progress.

Build the necessary political support in communities, get those demands in front of city councils and other political bodies, and make them happen. In the current climate, who's voicing opposition to any of tht??? But branding the goals as Defund the Police/police abolition is problematic political messaging (at best) and inserts unnecessary debate and confusion (Abolish Police?) when there is finally *finally* majority-consensus (that Black Lives Matter). Talk about a momentum killer. The staunchest voices behind Defund the Police are definitely calling for eradicating/abolishing police, and good for them, but that *isn't* what people across the US and the world were marching for. Call it guilt, solidarity, sympathy, whatever... but people were marching for Black Lives. Period.

i just don't agree that 'abolish the police' is scorched earth or doesn't center black lives when police brutality is exactly what folks are marching against...defunding and/or abolishing police could/would be a part of larger policy agenda depending on the city and how rotten its police force or policing policies are

i think all these conversations and nuance are important

local organizers all over america are doing a really good job in leveraging this moment...

i think its a little naive to think that all movements need to be aligned around one singular idea or catch phrase...this country is far too diverse than that

there is space for very specific and very broad agendas to operate concurrently...whether that's parallel or interesecting etc

again, i'm happy to see all of this energy..all of it. Change is ALWAYS messy and jagged. We have had this momentum for just over a week so its gonna take a bit of time for folks to coalesce around exactly what's needed in NYC vs. DC vs. LA vs ATL...

alotta folks have loud voices and the attention will shift from this voice to that voice...

all of that is better than silence.

d

or energy to flesh out things here....so yes, I'm guilty of hot takes...but what you just types encompass pretty much everything that spun through my mind over the past 24hrs since this post was made.

how it's a terrible name for a movement?

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59ead8f9692ebee25b72f17f/t/5b65cd58758d46d34254f22c/1533398363539/CR_NoCops_reform_vs_abolition_CRside.pdf

d

if you gotta roll out graphics and flow charts to make sense and bring some sort of clarity to your 2 or 3 word slogan...its already a misfire.

In a really small font. Slogans and branding really do matter, as you’ve noted above. Gotta get folks through the door. I’ll still probably save this for my students.

https://twitter.com/sashabeauloux/status/1269677622163800065?s=21

If she ain’t already an okayplayer she should be lmao

they're incorrectly assuming the average person/voter is gonna read all that shit




they are really bad at politics is what is clearly the case by now

verbatim, even. Funny that.





Crying over some semantics cause it might scare whitey away. The cycle is sick.

what is your approach?

you don't seem to have one, or even the outline of one.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The complications come from covering all the variables. If you have a simple public policy, you probably haven’t thought of all the angles yet.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

the clearest infographic....



"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

so sorry the movement didnt yet hire the most banging ass graphic designer

we should probably just not push for change until that happens.

d

Stop being so angry at anyone that’s just trying to gain some knowledge and understanding. By default, you’re now the most knowledgeable source on this movement here on OKP. I trust what YOU have to say on the matter and any information that you can share and educate. I read your links and still had questions and some confusion.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

i read it and had no trouble following it.

this was just one example of a way to think about the various interventions and their potential outcomes etc.


>Stop being so angry at anyone that’s just trying to gain
>some knowledge and understanding.


First, don't tell me how to feel.

I am not the sole source of info on this. I simply made a post that introduced a new idea that others are working on. If someone wants to gain more knowledge or understanding about the it, google exists.


By default, you’re now the
>most knowledgeable source on this movement here on OKP.I
>trust what YOU have to say on the matter and any information
>that you can share and educate. I read your links and still
>had questions and some confusion.

You know what? This post has definitely shown me that and I definitely don't want to be that.

I don't want anyone to simply trust what I'm saying...i'm not a grassroots activitist. I started this post by sharing the words and articles by OTHER PEOPLE because I'M also just learning of this

I don't want to be put on some pedestal of knowledge...i'm no expert

I just know that the way we currently approach policing in this country is trash. it needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. there is no one that can argue that that isn't true. The law enforcement paradigm is literally steeped in white supremacy and racism.

Therefore any new ideas that are put forth to disrupt the evil we see right now, regardless of how clumsy or badly messaged, should be thoroughly researched, discussed and considered before dismissing them. That's my approach and doesn't have to be yours.

d

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

cuz y'all stay on this dumb cherrypicking bs

fuck outta here.

d

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

The amount of money allocated to police departments instead of other social services where they're critically needed is staggering. Reforms and new training clearly doesn't work. Minneapolis invested millions and was one of the country's leaders in efforts to retrain the police to be less racist and focus on de escalation and it didn't work at all. So defund them, send police only when necessary, and send in other specialists who know how to treat people to deal with civil disputes.

As loud as these protestors are though, the country simply isn't progressive enough to support something like this. Besides the racist conservatives who preach the need for law and order to keep people in their place, most democrats are willing to listen to the complaints and MAYBE pass some legislation to address it but they're happy enough with how things are and don't want to change the system that benefits them. You see that here as well. The typical okayplayer is now a 40+ year old conservative Democrat who believes progressive ideas are idealistic and unattainable. Many of them view social protests as a responsibility of the younger citizens and are fine with keeping the system as is because they've already invested their life in it and have reached a stable economic position. So they'll laugh progressive candidates off and ask how they'll fund their projects while supporting deals written in a week that give over a trillion dollars to the largest corporations of the country.

If you want to raise support for ideas like this, sadly you're on the wrong forum. Fifteen years ago everybody would be down for it but not anymore. These ideas will need to continue to develop and gain support with the younger generations and hopefully in 10-15 years the country will be progressive enough to change the system that wants to keep the status quo. Either that or it will be too late and we'll be further down the path of white supremacy.

So I'm totally for defunding the police but it would be the start of tearing down the system. Good luck convincing those who are content with the system and aren't being oppressed by it. Hopefully it takes off in a few cities and people can see that there are viable alternatives to overfunded and militaristic police forces.

Something that is attainable now is the abolishment of Qualified Immunity, which protects cops nationwide and allows them to violate constitutional and civil rights without fear. Bills are being introduced and maybe that could get more traction on a site like this

www.boston.com/news/politics/2020/06/05/ayanna-pressley-qualified-immunity-bill/amp

>The amount of money allocated to police departments instead
>of other social services where they're critically needed is
>staggering. Reforms and new training clearly doesn't work.
>Minneapolis invested millions and was one of the country's
>leaders in efforts to retrain the police to be less racist and
>focus on de escalation and it didn't work at all. So defund
>them, send police only when necessary, and send in other
>specialists who know how to treat people to deal with civil
>disputes.

Exactly...which is why that 8 can't wait crap is some bs

>As loud as these protestors are though, the country simply
>isn't progressive enough to support something like this.

i agree. you can't topple the giant at once...you focus in on the pressure points and find the weak spots and chip away at it. There will not be broad support for this anytime soon

but if folks find the sympathetic mayors and city councils that wanna try it, that will be something.

The typical okayplayer is now
>a 40+ year old conservative Democrat who believes progressive
>ideas are idealistic and unattainable. Many of them view
>social protests as a responsibility of the younger citizens
>and are fine with keeping the system as is because they've
>already invested their life in it and have reached a stable
>economic position. So they'll laugh progressive candidates off
>and ask how they'll fund their projects while supporting deals
>written in a week that give over a trillion dollars to the
>largest corporations of the country.

yerp.

>If you want to raise support for ideas like this, sadly you're
>on the wrong forum.

nah i posted this to spark conversation. that's it...and they've largely been good ones.
>
>So I'm totally for defunding the police but it would be the
>start of tearing down the system. Good luck convincing those
>who are content with the system and aren't being oppressed by
>it. Hopefully it takes off in a few cities and people can see
>that there are viable alternatives to overfunded and
>militaristic police forces.

exactly. those content with the system will get on board once they start seeing it crumble lol

>Something that is attainable now is the abolishment of
>Qualified Immunity, which protects cops nationwide and allows
>them to violate constitutional and civil rights without fear.
>Bills are being introduced and maybe that could get more
>traction on a site like this

yes, qualified immunity seems to be the domino that will fall first.

Proud of this city. Taking this step to get rid of a dysfunctional, expensive, and dangerous part of city administration shows a willingness to be thoughtful and brave about public policy that has characterized other parts of city government for awhile now.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/minneapolis-city-council-announces-plan-to-dismantle-police-department/89-a2260d74-4e21-4069-9b06-735aafba95cd

Minneapolis City Council announces intent to disband police department
"Our commitment is to end our city’s toxic relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department," City Council President Lisa Bender said at Sunday.

Author: Estefan Saucedo
Published: 4:51 PM CDT June 7, 2020
Updated: 4:56 PM CDT June 7, 2020
Facebook Twitter

MINNEAPOLIS — A veto-proof majority of Minneapolis City Council members announced during a rally at Powderhorn Sunday that they are planning to disband the police department.

City Council members said they will invest in community-led safety initiatives instead of the police department.

"Our commitment is to end our city’s toxic relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department, to end policing as we know it, and to re-create systems of public safety that actually keep us safe," Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender said at Sunday’s community meeting.

The council members who took part in the announcement are Cam Gordon, Steve Fletcher, Phillipe Cunningham, Jeremiah Ellison, Andrea Jenkins, Alondra Cano, Lisa Bender and Jeremy Schroeder.

The announcement comes after various entities such as the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Public Schools, First Avenue, and others decided to end or limit their relationship with the police department.

https://twitter.com/ACLUMN/status/1269738051498106880?s=20

They must have gone deeper than the slogan and seen some better infographics

given how popular this slogan is


the american people will read the fine ass print underneath the slogan


They always do

Deeply embarrassed.

understand what's what.....

Damali, we're going to defund and abolish these pigs. As someone doing this work, I see what's possible. Thanks for posting.

tell me more about the work you're doing...i'm so interested!!!

d

that are actionable and abolitionist. They are gaining a lot of traction in the city since they were published on Thursday. We can really make this happen and we need for folks to stop saying what we can't do and get on board.

https://www.facebook.com/phillydemandsfreedom/photos/pcb.102319418184997/102318804851725/?type=3&theater

this is the moment to seize on these ideas that folks like to call extreme and scorched earth

the fucking shit needs to burn.

d

since 2014. The cops killed a young man named Brandon Tate Brown here in Philly and our work popped off from there. Currently, we've been in the streets and pushing the demands I posted in the community. Philly defunded the pigs by 19 million already, removed the Rizzo statue and a mural, and a bunch of other small things. The Mayor put out a list of reforms that are not enough to address police terrorism in our city so we're gonna work on that too. We also do a bit of mutual aid, jail/court support, and other community work.

i can only imagine the toll this takes on the mental health of all the activists on the ground...

how are you taking care of you?

most importantly, thank you thank you thank you

d

And some right wing radio DJ gonna immediately make an NWA parody song called "Fund the police!"

I can hear it in my head ...

the fuck i care what the right wing says or does about it?

we already know they are corrupt as fuck and sucking trump's dick

y'all give them way too much of your concern.

d

that's actually one thing (regarding politics) that they excel at.

Using "Defund the Police" as the radio friendly title for the NWA song.

https://deadline.com/2020/06/stephen-colbert-late-show-monologue-defunding-the-police-1202955143/

Talking specifically to this new alt left staring.

The branding and messaging is awful here. The problem is they’ll never be self aware Enough to ever realize it.


There’s Also this too: https://twitter.com/sashabeauloux/status/1269839624056209410?s=21

but yea, keep focusing on the marketing.

d

that's the stupidest thing they could possibly do...

they just said fuck going at the Police Unions...just give up...

Criminals...the city is yours now...have fun.

smh

clearly your mindset isn't expansive enough to imagine a world without police.

thankfully, there's more courageous people out there who can.

d

but in the real live world?

Come on, now...

How about you send this energy to the Police Unions that make sure these Cops see no charges and always keep a job?

Fuck the la-la land bullshit.....deal with REALITY.

As long as there is crime, there will always be a need for cops.

What you WANT is cops that don't abuse their authority.

Once they make it a point to give TRUE consequences to Cops that abuse their authority, then the problem will resolve itself.

cuz it would make sense that y'all mofos can't imagine not having cops around lol

d

....don't even matter, but I'm black.

stay on topic.

black folks have a problem with CROOKED POLICE abusing their authority...not with what the Police are supposed to be about.

You a whole retard if you think crime is just gonna disappear because some idiots disbanded the police and replaced them with "community enforcement."

Fuck does that even mean?

You giving Larry and Granny a pen and a notepad and a gun?

HOA law enforcement.

lol....FOH!

You need cops like you need EMT, nurses, doctors, lawyers, firemen, etc.

This Utopia you have in your head don't exist.

Will NEVER EXIST on this level.

>black folks have a problem with CROOKED POLICE abusing their
>authority...not with what the Police are supposed to be
>about.

you know what? i got time today so imma clue you in on something:

this is not about individual police officers..its about the SYSTEM of policing and what interests it serves in this country, where it originated from (slave patrols), who it protects and who it doesn't protect.

if you can't think and discuss this issue from THAT deeper level, then you are waaaaayyyy out of your league in this discussion.

>You a whole retard if you think crime is just gonna disappear
>because some idiots disbanded the police and replaced them
>with "community enforcement."

show me where I said crime will disappear. I'll wait...

>You need cops

We don't need cops. You're just so conditioned to believe that you do that you're pea brain can't imagine anything else.

Like I said, others more courageous than you have got this, boo.

Don't be scared..you'll be ok.

d

>this is not about individual police officers..

That's exactly what this is about.

Rogue INDIVIDUALS that sully what modern day policing is supposed to be.

The underlying mindset of inherent bias and white sheets in disguise.

They know who they are...

Any record of racist behavior while on duty, get em out.

Zero Tolerance.

Don't allow them to be able to get a job on the force ever again.

There needs to be actual consequences to bad actors in uniform.

That and the Police Unions are too powerful and need a overhaul.

Shit ain't Calculus.

Hold them accountable and treat them like criminals when they behave like criminals.

Once they see there are ACTUAL consequences to bad policing, and they can't hide behind that shield anymore, these occurrences will happen less and less.

>show me where I said crime will disappear. I'll wait...

"clearly your mindset isn't expansive enough to imagine a world without police." (c) YOU

Of course you're gonna say you never said crime would stop...but in the same breath, you say we don't need police/cops.

In a crime free, utopian society, sure...

As it stands now, crime ain't going nowhere, so who's gonna supervise the communities to keep it's citizen's safe?

If there's still crime, then WHO WILL DO THE OVERSIGHT/LAW ENFORCEMENT?

This is the part you still haven't answered.

What will they be called?

Huffle Puff?

Gryffindor?

What?

>We don't need cops. You're just so conditioned to believe that
>you do that you're pea brain can't imagine anything else.

Who's gonna protect the citizens outside of citizens protecting themselves?

You!?

Captain courageous. lol

You gonna be stopping drug deals and drunk drivers from killing people?

Robberies and shit?

Domestic violence and murders and alladat?

>Like I said, others more courageous than you have got this,
>boo.

Bwahaha! Okay, Cap.

I mean, you don't have to call them "cop" or "police" if that makes you feel better, but if there's a need for any form of oversight and/or law enforcement, call 'em what you wanna, but IT'S THE SAME THING.

You spent a whole lotta time trying (emphasis on trying) to explain what "Defund the Police" means, and it sounds to me like you want to abolish them with no plan other than arguing online...haha.

A whole lotta "repeal and replace" talk.....

We need to Defund whoever came up with that dumb ass slogan and reallocate it's messaging.

Keep hope alive, Cuba...

Robocop 'n dem ain't coming no time soon, boo....

convincing you doesn't make or break this movement

everything you typed is the same shit that's been tried and failed. take the time to engage with revolutionary Black voices..those that have been out on the streets and in the city council meetings and at community forums fighting since Ferguson (is that you? probably not, judging by the bland shit you wrote LOl)

let them educate you. (but you won't cuz you think you know everything). If you want an education, listen to two Black men from Oakland who have a podcast called Hella Black Podcast.

you don't have to agree with abolishment..that's fine. the important thing tho i that if you are Black, it will benefit you.

Defund the Police is already happening. all your snark can't and won't change that.

you get to sit back and watch :)

d

the branding is always shittty


Not only is it not popular. its easy for the GOP to rebut too.

can imagine the emails LOL

every reply in here is a battle with you

>can imagine the emails LOL

nah I respect my coworkers. y'all aint shit tho so you get what you get.


>every reply in here is a battle with you

cuz fuck yall

d

but here's a 2 page chart, or something.

with the cops right there to defuse a possibly horrific situation.



We can also talk about the uptick in assault, robbery, homicide and oh yeah, rape.



this is just awful branding and optics all around.

first, they didn't paint OVER BLM in DC.

they added Defund The Police to the roadway.

i LIVE in Seattle. i have HELLA friends who not only live in the neighborhoods where the protests are taking place but also friends and relatives attending the protests there.

the police aren't helping anything.

and if you're talking about them being there to diffuse the shooting that happened last night? well, if you've seen the video then you'd know that dude got his car past the barriers, was ready to run it through a crowd of people. that crowd was the one who stopped him. to protect themselves they tried to get this guy out of his car and detain him. he shot a black man in the arm, ran around the crowd with a handgun. then, when he realized his plan had went to shit (i guess), ran through the crowd and approached the line of officers who were just there to agitate and assault the protesters, PULLED his weapon out in front of those cops, and was arrested without issue (let a black guy pull a handgun out in front of those cops). he surrendered because he realized the crowd was about to mob him.

so, what exactly did the police defuse? they were literally standing there doing nothing and made no difference in this incident except to be there for this white shooter when he got scared and wanted to turn himself in.

now, say what you want about the messaging, but i just heard a few poll numbers get reported today that had biden ahead by double digits over trump AND for this not being the right messaging to get Trump outta here, there sure have been HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE turnouts at these protests ALL around the country so people ARE coming out for this messaging.

i get it, change is scary, but something gotta give. sorry, bruh.

>first, they didn't paint OVER BLM in DC.
>
>they added Defund The Police to the roadway.




"added" is one way of putting it. A bunch of white hoodie wearing activists put an equal sign next to the BLM sign.


because they can never just sit the fuck down. They're trying to make this movement about them and Bernie too. But i digress




>
>i LIVE in Seattle. i have HELLA friends who not only live in
>the neighborhoods where the protests are taking place but also
>friends and relatives attending the protests there.
>
>the police aren't helping anything.
>
>and if you're talking about them being there to diffuse the
>shooting that happened last night? well, if you've seen the
>video then you'd know that dude got his car past the barriers,
>was ready to run it through a crowd of people. that crowd was
>the one who stopped him. to protect themselves they tried to
>get this guy out of his car and detain him. he shot a black
>man in the arm, ran around the crowd with a handgun. then,
>when he realized his plan had went to shit (i guess), ran
>through the crowd and approached the line of officers who were
>just there to agitate and assault the protesters, PULLED his
>weapon out in front of those cops, and was arrested without
>issue (let a black guy pull a handgun out in front of those
>cops). he surrendered because he realized the crowd was about
>to mob him.

>
>so, what exactly did the police defuse? they were literally
>standing there doing nothing and made no difference in this
>incident except to be there for this white shooter when he got
>scared and wanted to turn himself in.




i watched the video. Yes all that happened. And what I'm saying is had there not been a line of police standing there who knows what would have happened





>
>now, say what you want about the messaging, but i just heard a
>few poll numbers get reported today that had biden ahead by
>double digits over trump AND for this not being the right
>messaging to get Trump outta here, there sure have been
>HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE turnouts at these protests ALL around
>the country so people ARE coming out for this messaging.
>
>i get it, change is scary, but something gotta give. sorry,
>bruh.
>




And right on cue, Biden dumped this shitty messaging Monday afternoon. He and his team know how unpopular this is and the political softball it would be sending to Trump and Pascale


This new left just sucks at politics


same kids who told me Dem Socialism would win over people. in fucking AMERICA?!

carry on with this movement you created LOL

you still scurred.

Never pass up an opportunity to turn their greatest political strengths into an empty slogan that elects fascists.

Now they're declaring victory over a vague promise to replace the Minneapolis PD with something new. What'll that be? We don't know yet. But one thing we can guarantee it'll include: a new (reformed) city police force, the same thing that would have happened regardless of the slogans along the way. But you wouldn't know it from the swarm of political ads writing themselves right now to scare suburban voters back into supporting "law and order" candidates. In a state that Trump lost by 1.5 points in 2016.

if someone over 40 said it, it would fly? lmao you're an idiot

That's the point.

Politics by Instagram story is a recipe to turn important movements into niche fads.

the activists/radicals on the left are overwhelmingly young folks who push for things they dont even show up to vote for (especially in primaries where their candidates need them most). so they hang anchors around the neck of the party mainstream that they hardly help to lift up electorally.

bernie ran a campaign specifically targeted to that part of the base...and his run was virtually/functionally over on super tuesday. the very 1st day that multiple states voted.

the activists/radicals on the right are mostly social/cultural reactionary boomers who can take extreme positions and not suffer much electorally because they show up and vote like clockwork...presidential, midterms, primaries, generals. so the politicians they pressure to support these policies can always count on their backing once it comes time to defend the policies and get elected.

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

in any conversation about what's best for Black people.

d

this ain't your convo.

d

It's because the phrase "defund the police" scares the hell out of people. Hell, it scares me until I read a two page, 10pt font infographic on what it all means.

In people's minds, Defund the police=abolish law enforcement. And that means chaos and lack of security. And safety/security is too priority for most people

Trump and his folks have a raw nerve to touch on with a demographic that is ripe for the picking. And they are going to play it like a fiddle.

People talking about influencing the Minneapolis city council (and similar bodies) like it's a big win, not knowing they're setting themselves up to lose the bigger war.

they just define the slogan and attack that because lefties failed at defining the slogan themselves.

just really undisciplined politics on our part.

Turn an important priority into a political liability for no reason other than to soothe the egos of activists who insist on seeing themselves as more revolutionary than the electoral public.

lefties did all that hootin and hollerin about how great/crucial the green new deal was. repubs said okay lets put it up for a vote exactly as you want it. and everybody scattered away from it like roaches when it occurred to them they would have to go out and defend it in an election year.

you figure getting blown out in a primary...where your candidate was a fundraising juggernaut and had a 4 year headstart on a national organizing base,,,against a re-tread from 2 previous failed runs who barely campaigned...would cause the left of the left to dramatically reimagine/revamp their approach to politics (assuming they wanna win)...but here we are.

soothing their egos


dayummm

>
>Turn an important priority into a political liability for no
>reason other than to soothe the egos of activists who insist
>on seeing themselves as more revolutionary than the electoral
>public.
>

The Green New Deal and Medicare For All were massive federal proposals that had to go through Congress and the White House for any changes to occur.

This Defund the Police movement is something that ultimately will get decided on a citywide and/or statewide level, which means local mayors, governors, city and state legislate members will make the call. Unless I'm mistaken, the federal government has no say in this at all since Congress nor the White House doesn't have any control on funding for local police departments.

I'm confused as to why this is getting lumped in with those prior two proposals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/nyregion/deblasio-nypd-funding.html

it's precise. it says exactly what it means, and even with that it took how many years for people to stop purposely misinterpreting it (many still do of course, but enough to make a dent)

this one. i'm hoping it fades away before Biden has to denounce it, then defend it, then try to explain it with some story about Corn Pop

at least in one city.

it went from what is defund the police to an actual vote to do so in what a week?

i understand people saying its a dumb slogan but i wonder if anyone would be talking about it if the slogan was more friendly. black lives matter wasnt as clear as it could have been but it was effective. it got peoples attention. yes a lot of people got it twisted and complaint but it started the conversation.

so far defund the police seems to be effective. people are getting riled up but it is already leading to some proposed change. when ive tuned into cnn and msnbc and they ask people if they support defunding the police they respond with well reasoned explanations of what is wrong with the current system and some changes they think need to be seen without answering yes or no. no sound bite given to them.

big props to everyone working on this in any capacity.

And if it was called police reform it'd be something we could push in all jurisdictions, not just at the epicenter of the protest.

If we're talking about real, permanent change, it matters more how it plays on Fox than how it plays on CNN and MSNBC. If we were doing our job right, it would be hard work for Sean Hannity to convince his viewers to be afraid of police reform. Instead, we're doing his job for him.

I didn't realize. Tell us more about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Condemnation-Blackness-Making-Modern-America/dp/1541409698


please check out the 1 hour NPR: Up First Podcast w/ Khalil Gibran Muhammad called American Police

pretty much falls flat on its face.

the people anyone is pretending that would appeal to

haven't gotten out in support of police reform when it's simply been called that.

and it's not the job of protesters in the street to write the legislation

the opposition to it isn't opposing it because of what you called it.

that's just another lie.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Black Lives Matter is much better branding on the Slogan Clarity Scale but even now folks arguing in bad faith will still ask "Why should Black lives matter more than White lives?" in order to argue it down. I remember discussions online on whether it should be called "Black Lives Matter Too" or something similar post-Ferguson.

I also understand that expecting folks to read into this to know that we aren't throwing everything out the window regarding law enforcement is a risky play.

It could have a better clearer slogan but if the path for willful, meaningful reform isn't there to begin with I'm not sure what we call it matters though.

it seems to me like anything that keeps supporters energized will do the trick to some extent

but it's really about more than that.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

BLM is simple, precise and says exactly what it means. And yeah it got misinterpreted mostly by choice, but it was no fault of the wording.

Defund the Police might as well come with an asterisk if you're gonna need a bunch of charts and articles explaining what it actually means.

>I remember discussions
>online on whether it should be called "Black Lives Matter Too"

away from the opposition to it.

it really makes the point that there is no claim small enough or direct enough or even true enough to fit.

people inserting their own definition for defund is not the slogan's problem

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>people inserting their own definition for defund is not the
>slogan's problem

you won't like where it goes. but it doesn't matter because you won't address it.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

the articles in the OP:
"explained"
"Here's what they mean"
"Here's what it actually means"

good luck

>you won't like where it goes. but it doesn't matter because
>you won't address it.

en ingles por favor?

or will you run away


very simple questions.

cuz I think you'll run

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

yeah

that would be awful!

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

like if "We want Free" was the slogan for ending slavery, people would be questioning what it is they want for free exactly, and then complain that it wasn't obvious enough to them when they receive an explanation.

"You want free from what?"
"Slavery....dummy" lol

Search "Defund the police" and you get 100 different articles and 100000 tweets with 75 different takes on it. Some are like "we said what we said! Abolish the police system"
Others are like "well...not really abolish. More like cut funding a bit"
And others still are like, "we don't really mean defund. What we're really talking about is reform. Here is a two page infographic"

you can't just say "it would have consensus agreement" because that's impossible to know


and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EVER has had consensus agreement

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It's about not giving your opposition the ammunition to easily shut down your movement.

It's about not hitching your wagon to a statement/position that appeals to so very few people that it becomes toxic. Especially at a time when you have the attention of many who in the past chose to be unaware of the issues.

Even the folks who are pushing #defundthepolice make a point to try to clarify or soften the position to make it more palatable. As was said earlier, if you are explaining you are losing.

"ammunition"

tell me more about this event

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

This isn't a chess match or a marketing campaign..its our fucking lives

trying to outhink "the other side" allows them to control the narrative...it gives them more power than they deserve

y'all armchair strategists need to go sit down somewhere and let actual grassroots activists do what they do best...move the needle by leveraging mass protests to have their demands heard, considered, discussed and/or implemented

that is a happening...right now..with or without a pretty slogan.

y'all hate to see it LOL

d

or else you wouldn't have said that.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

highlighting the viral videos of police beating the shit out of unarmed peaceful protestors, and attacking trump on his failure to bring the nation together (while doing more to drive us apart).

they could also be hammering the airwaves with the fact its just been announced that the recession started in feb before the pandemic hit and every recession over the last 40 years has begun under a republican president.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1270049564846952448
https://twitter.com/katzish/status/1270051861274525698

but instead now they have to play defense on "defund the police" and fucking kente cloth.

smh cmon yall.

and fucking kente cloth.
>
>smh cmon yall.


Who greenlights this shit? Who comes up with it?

Dems need to have messaging that is succinct and to the point that cannot be left up to interpretation aka hijacked.

"Make America Great Again" is simple and to the point.

"Defund the Police" can be interpreted as 'abolish the police.'

Which falls in line with Hair Hat's messaging of saying Liberals want anarchy.

So Minneapolis just gonna get rid of police? LMAO!

FOH!

Do better.

How about you start with just holding these mofos accountable and stop letting the Unions run y'all precincts.

Jokers out here trying to go from walking to warp speed in one week.

https://twitter.com/flywithkamala/status/1270023992452268032

im glad she was the first to get the question on a network program instead of one of these marblemouth white dems who would have tried to delicately stumble and bumble through the perfectly ambiguous answer until they see polling.

but she shouldnt even have to be answering shit like that because of some dumb ass slogan that doesnt even mean what it means.

also i notice a lot of lefties who were previously calling her a cop are warming up to her as vp lately.

I don't know who told you that a perfect slogan is something that exists and/or is required to create change, but I'm interested in hearing one if you've got it and I'm going to need to see some actual impact.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I honestly don't give a fuck what it means.

I see no evidence that a slogan needs to mean anything in order to be effective, if you have some bring it and a slogan that works.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

when theyre asked to explain what defund the police actually means...either one of those is prolly a safe bet.

the word 'reform' is broad enough to allow for a lot of latitude, flexibility, and fluidity over time too. which is why people use the term for just about everything.

k.i.s.s.

because if you can't get people to march on it then you can't get anything.

at which point you've achieved less than the slogan you're deriding.

lmk how it works

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

dont see why this would be any different.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

ok so we're just going to lie now.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

trying to boil it down as one protest is silly

promoting it as an example of effective protest is asinine

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

which is the only thing I've asked for

so you gotta talk around all these examples that don't fit

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

but imo, anything you can get people behind is good, so if your slogan is effective that way then I got no qualms

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

naw...lets make it sound more teethy....

DEFUND THE POLICE!

lol...smh

Hair Hat and his crew gonna have a field day with this....

most dems/liberals are on top of it early and diffusing the usage of the phrase.

it took them like a year plus just to address 'open borders'.

Nuanced policy proposals aren't going to swing voters who don't want to be swung.

The Democrats don't have a platform problem, they have a motivating voters to vote problem.

(I straight up forgot Tim Kaine existed).

Speak boldly. Get these people who have given up on the system a reason to vote.

>Speak boldly. Get these people who have given up on the system
>a reason to vote.

Senate Republicans have guaranteed close loses are disasters and even moderate wins are just placeholders until disasters. I’m voting for Biden and all but defund the shit out of the police and put that money where it’s potentially going to do some good..

In the showdown between the Defund The Police people and the Minneapolis mayor, they were very clearly and explicitly pressuring him about abolition:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1269460338329739264

Like, no police at all. That's what got him booed away; that he said he didn't support abolishing police. In longer clips (leading up to the moment nyt reposts here) he was talking reform talk similar to what Kamala is saying here (on which Sunny reaffirmed her). But that's precisely the talk the Defund people erupted at the Minneapolis mayor over.

The single smartest thing Kamala did was ask Meghan to qualify which interpretation of Defund The Police she was asking about, tho... which at least made it clear which interpretatiion *she* supports.

I don't really think Kamala and Sunny handled this that much better than any other garden-variety Dem is going to tho (as evidenced by how the Minneapolis mayor faired).

But yes, agreed (still), that this messaging is hot garbage. Which is annoying considering the majority-consensus that was evident little more than a week ago.


>https://twitter.com/flywithkamala/status/1270023992452268032
>
>im glad she was the first to get the question on a network
>program instead of one of these marblemouth white dems who
>would have tried to delicately stumble and bumble through the
>perfectly ambiguous answer until they see polling.
>
>but she shouldnt even have to be answering shit like that
>because of some dumb ass slogan that doesnt even mean what it
>means.
>

any time kamala gets brought up...

lol j/k.

but her and sunny were tryna grapple with their interpretation of the phrase (and also not chase less radical people away from a dem police reform effort/message).

those particular protestors might have meant it the most blunt way at that moment...but now that its in 'the ether'...its gonna get adopted/expounded/deconstructed in a variety of ways.

we have already been through this with 'abolish ice'. first it was just a raw visceral reaction meaning tear it all down without regard for the fallout.

then when people were held accountable and had to actually sit down and think about it...it eventually evolved into folding different parts of the agencys functions into other existing entities like hsi and cpb and shit like that.

literally the same cycle taking place here.

Anyway, I actually see more parallels with Medicare For All/M4A.

There, too, was confusion because the only way it actually made any sense as a message was universal health coverage/UHC - which both single-payer systems and mixed-payer systems could achieve. But the left-wing insisted on making Medicare For All synonymous with single-payer, even though Medicare is not even a single-payer system.

A fucking mess. Which resulted in endless unnecessary backlash from the left even to proposals that would actually achieve universal coverage, which they're slogan actually translated to, just because some public option proposals called for cracking down on private health insurers instead of abolishing them.

And now the same battlefield is being set up again. Nothing short of abolition will satisfy the hardliners (as we saw in the confrontation with Minneapolis' mayor), and even a million and one reforms in the right direction - including divesting from PDs and investing in community supports - will not be seen as far enough.

As we've seen, so much more energy will go towards infighting. Which is unfortunate, when just a week ago everyone was marching in solidarity for racial justice and united against a militant fascist.

so

this is awkward now

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

i laid out a hypothetical scenario where a simplistic 3 word slogan like medicare for all doesnt actually mean medicare for all but is really just a set of complex improvements/adjustments that dont actually do what the slogan suggests.

id normally assume you could make the connection here but maybe i shouldnt.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

all you've done is say what won't work and complain about a slogan.

so from your perspective, what needs to be done to prevent another George Floyd? or Breonna Taylor?

d

then give you a link to a flow chart or thinkpiece describing what it actually means and it doesnt actually mean defunding the police.

imagine if medicare for all just really meant lowering the age of eligibility a few years while largely maintaining the medicare part a annual deductible and monthly premiums while raising those costs of medicare part b to account for the rise in spending on physician adminstered drugs while including new fee for service incentives to drive cms competition while modifying the income related monthly adjustment amounts for different tax brackets and so on and so on...

so medicare doesnt really cover all...just kinda gets reallocated here and there to address some of the current needs that face the system at this moment.

because if you've got the relevant experience then they need you on the front lines of this.

because "reform the police" is going to have people done protesting in about 15 minutes, and then what do you have?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

millions of people inspired to protest across the entire world this past week.

even in lily white conservative parts of the united states and in countries that dont even speak english.

only a relatively small subgroup yelling to defund/abolish the police.

but if it wasnt for that slogan to rally around then everyone would have stopped (c) your logic

I literally don't care what you do as long as it's something more than posting "that's a bad slogan" and watching cable news

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>I literally don't care what you do as long as it's something
>more than posting "that's a bad slogan" and watching cable
>news

And reposting his twitter feed on okayplayer


>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at


America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://i.imgur.com/aYUKOF6.jpg

feel free to post some of yours.

for a number of reasons.

good for you man, kick the money to the cause.

it's not really the specific thing I asked, but if you don't have an answer and don't want to talk about it I'm still happy that you're participating.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

to prevent another George Floyd or Breonna Taylor?

Follow up question: what would be the slogan for it?

d

Not sure why guys keep using that as a defense

you have nothing to compare it to because you have no alternative idea to promote.

you keep saying it's a bad slogan....what's a good one?

that's an easy question to answer.

and I know you don't want to admit you don't have an answer. but all you have to do is say "I've got nothing and I don't like this because I don't."

and then at least you'll be honest, because you aren't living up to that right now.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and this isn't about *my* arguments

I'm saying to constantly reply with "WHAT'S YOUR SLOGAN?" is some little kid shit

>and this isn't about *my* arguments

what are they, tho? just curious..

>I'm saying to constantly reply with "WHAT'S YOUR SLOGAN?" is
>some little kid shit

i first asked what do you think should be done to prevent another George Floyd or Breonna Taylor? (are you familiar with Breonna's case?)

and yes, critique should have SUBSTANCE...to simply say "i don't like it" is not a critique.

This post is about public policy and how it gets enacted

if you can't handle the intellectual discourse, then...

d

"you keep saying it's a bad slogan....what's a good one?"



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

the next second it's nobody needs slogans.

going to need some consistency here.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

the problem is you don't have any ideas.

that's cool.

so go come up with some and then when you have 'em we'll all use them

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>the problem is you don't have any ideas.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

> you'll note that your response did not contain any ideas.

Got a lot of kids chanting it, not knowing that folks
on Medicare fucking hate Medicare as much as
anyone else with insurance.

And, it wasn’t even the proposal.

So...M4A isn’t a good argument here imo.

In fact, they should have stuck to Universal Care or
zero deductable or some shit.


I’m torn on “defund the police” because I have yet
to see an alternative.

you of all people know where i stand on all of that lol.

im just giving a hypothetical example where the 'fine print' would be significantly different than the headline.

feel me?

ya mans above explained that.

that's how short statements representing larger ideas work. it's not unique.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

cuz you certainly haven't said not one meaningful or relevant thing about the problem of policing in this country.

like nothing.

i don't give a fuck what its called or what slogan is used.

i want the power that police have to end our fucking lives in broad daylight, on camera to be GONE. period. i'm for RADICAL solutions to this shit cuz liberal & moderate shit has been tried and failed

I want the fucking table SHOOK. I don't care about what Dems or the GOP think about it. Get the fucking pigs off our streets.

that's all i care about. y'all can jerk off about the slogan all day and night tho...meanwhile, watch out for the cops.

d

sounds new and fresh but, it's really just reallocating funds hoping
that the pig cops will leave. not sure how much real traction it will
receive, time will tell.

>sounds new and fresh but, it's really just reallocating funds
>hoping
>that the pig cops will leave. not sure how much real traction
>it will
> receive, time will tell.

exactly. time will tell. From what i'm seeing, reallocating funds is only step 1.

d

So instead of Biden talking about his own policies and ideals for the future...he will be explaining what "Defund The Police" is and/or what it is not....

smh

Terrible slogan...

therefore there is no reason to focus any energy on what he will or won't use against Biden

No one can control that. Trump is going to use everything at his disposal to cheat, discredit, fake, lie, corrupt

y'all really this afraid? LOL

"omg what will trump say!?!?" fuck outta here

d

that ain't the least bit clever or original.


d

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and yet, it's what you replied to.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

keep pretending though

dammit haha

not winning over a broad coalition to help enact the kind of change we want to see

the entire system is corrupt, courts, banking, politics, education, housing, food, employment, entertainment etc etc

These people are not fit to rule.

like repeal and replace.

see this is funny, because the great thing about conservatives is they can just lie.

they haven't repealed or replaced.

so as long as you're willing to make it something you can't and won't do why not make it "turn cops into frozen yogurt"



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

go pass that around, if it works and people are into it then I fuckin' love it. my personal stamp is not required

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It says a lot about the knee-jerk reaction the right wing can instill in people against their own best interests

They been defunding public education for decades but they don't call it that and so yall don't raise a fuss, I guess.

I liked Defund the Police immediately when calls were raised more earnestly a week+ ago.

Of course crimes still need to be solved, and prevented, but there are too many things that point towards the need to remove funding from policing and put it towards community initiatives

1. Law Enforcement fights the symptoms not the cause. Cory Booker had a great quote on fighting crime in Newark with the FBI, and the FBI themselves said they CAN'T stop crime, only address the symptoms not the cause.

2. A system that requires a ton of funding also requires QUOTAS to sustain itself. Just like a corporations concern themselves with the bottom line above all else, a heavily funded system concerns itself with not quality of policing or the well-being of citizens, but on numbers of collars above all else. These people are rounded up from the poorest neighborhoods in the city for non-crimes or minor infractions. They decriminalized weed, but if the main purpose is to criminalize the behavior of poor people of color because they represent the low hanging fruit that fills their coffers, they'll find a way to do it.

3. Programs like ATIs (Alternative to Incarceration) have statistically proven themselves to be a more effective and cheaper way to work with adjudicated youth. Recidivism, cost, and qualitative feedback favor the approach. The non-profit I worked with for years was able to help a couple teenagers who were adjudicated (for climbing a fence and trespassing, say) and the fact that we could do this work as unpaid volunteers, and not only that but feel great about it, and make a positive difference in the teenagers lives? That goes to show if you pay some folks even a small bit to take the mantle, it can be successful and fulfilling work. A lot of these kids are the victims of the school to prison pipeline, where instead of detention or regular school disciplinary action, having police in schools means the student is automatically arrested and is entered into the system because of a fight or even something non-violent.

of course that's not taken literally....
perspective.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

but I think two things

if this energizes people to stay out there, then that's important because that's where the pressure is coming from

and

I don't know what the best plan is, or what's ultimately achievable. I'm not here to shut down someone else's plan w/o a replacement.

that's just me tho

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>I don't know what the best plan is, or what's ultimately
>achievable. I'm not here to shut down someone else's plan w/o
>a replacement.
>
>that's just me tho

exactly. I'm liking where this plan is taking folks, so far. the Overton window is definitely shifting.

d

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaEsJa1XYAId9e1?format=jpg&name=large

good luck with "defund the police".

Defund is so broad that it allows for a LOT of things to be addressed as more evaluation is done on what needs to go and what needs to stay and what needs to change....

The first four items in that poll are so narrow that they really don't scratch the surface of the root of the problem.




"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

it means 'defund' to them lol.

which is why the slogan is already counter-productive.

words like 'reform' *are* broad and allow a lot of room for maneuvering/modifying to fit your needs (i mentioned this up above).

but the same folks who flopped and alienated 2/3 of the party alone in the dem presidential primary apparently feel qualified to be messaging strategists now.

pretty impressive legislation off the strength & momentum.

Link: (subscription required if you've exceeded 4 articles)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-police-reform/2020/06/09/c77ae6b0-aa49-11ea-a9d9-a81c1a491c52_story.html

Amid historic protests drawing attention to police misconduct, the D.C. Council passed sweeping reform measures Tuesday that prohibit hiring officers with a history of serious misconduct on other police forces and require the city to swiftly make public the names of officers who use force on citizens.
The legislation passed unanimously, with a veto-proof majority, despite a stern letter that Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) sent the Council during its meeting, in which she urged lawmakers to slow down and hold public hearings before passing the legislation.
“I am especially concerned,” Bowser wrote, that the proposals “amend laws related to issues like Body-worn cameras, laws which received significant consideration and public input when they were crafted.... Allowing for community input and vetting by our residents can only serve to refine and strengthen changes to policing in the District.”

The District joins lawmakers across the country, from the Minneapolis City Council to Democrats in the U.S. Congress, in closely examining policing, prompted by two weeks of nationwide grief and fury sparked by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody.

Even as D.C. lawmakers passed a bevy of changes, however, they also acknowledged that the bill does not address some of the core demands of demonstrators to overhaul policing.
Some of the most liberal members of the council urged their colleagues not to let the momentum of the moment dissipate. In the coming weeks, the council is set to debate the city budget with an opportunity to redirect money from traditional policing to other city agencies.
Tuesday’s vote enacts the changes for 90 days, which can be extended to 225 days with a second vote. To make the measures permanent, the council would need to hold public hearings and vote again.

The legislation bans the Metropolitant Police Department from using chemical irritants or rubber bullets to disperse peaceful protesters, additions suggested by Council member David Grosso (I-At Large), one of the Council’s most liberal members.
Among other provisions, it gives felons incarcerated in the D.C. Jail the right to vote (currently only those with misdemeanor convictions can do so) and makes it a felony for a police officer to use a neck restraint on someone.
The legislation also aims to leave the union out of the police disciplinary process; makes changes to the groups tasked with overseeing police misconduct; and requires the city to publish, within 72 hours of a serious use of force, the name of the officer or officers involved and their body camera footage.
Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D), who came up with the provision to remove the police disciplinary process from the city’s collective bargaining agreement with the police union, called that idea “arguably one of the most important provisions.”

“... It will enable quicker and more effective discipline where it’s needed,” he said.
Under his plan, the city would come up with its own disciplinary process, such as the procedure for appeals, starting when the current police contract ends this September.
For 48 hours, D.C. was gripped by chaos. Then everything changed.

The police officers’ union objected vehemently to the legislation before it passed, calling the bill “a dangerous path to unchecked violence in the District.” The labor group’s statement said the D.C. police department does not suffer from the bias or misconduct seen in some cities.
“The outcome of the current language in the Bill (as proposed) will undoubtedly result in an exponential increase in crime and a mass exodus in personnel,” the union wrote.
Other proposals did not make it into the final legislation, including Grosso’s suggestions that the city cap its police force, currently about 3,800 employees, at 3,500 members, and that the police not be allowed to participate in military training, an idea that other council members worried would prevent police from training on responding to terrorism or natural disasters.

Several council members vowed to look at further steps, including potentially reducing the size of the police department, during the city’s ongoing budget deliberations.
“We know we need to completely and radically rethink the way in which we deliver public safety,” said Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who chairs the public safety committee and introduced the legislative package.

“The outcome of the current language in the Bill (as proposed) will undoubtedly result in an exponential increase in crime and a mass exodus in personnel,” the union wrote.


it stands to reason that the people who will leave are the ones who need to leave anyway lol...you'd only leave if you fear being held to an actual standard of conduct

lol @ exponential increase in crime...will the ones who leave en masse spark that themselves? sheesh

d

when youve lost bernie...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaEv2WgX0AEYoGk?format=png&name=large

just like we saw in the primary...

theres a really loud minority of radicals on the left that sound like they represent most democrats because they dominate the discussion on places like twitter (which less than 20% of the public even uses).

people think the perspective of their online bubble embodies the outlook of most people (or even a significant portion of people). but then things are vastly different when REAL people outside the bubble start weighing in.

It won’t matter that he’s not down with the messaging. The echo chamber of a vocal minority has decided this what they want.


It sucks that the volume gets turned up on the people already screaming Their loudest in the room

i'm glad you're starting see how little the "terrible slogan" matters, ultimately.

d

I'm sure the word defund gets him wet. Not saying it will happen but I could def see him saying he's down with defunding police and people saying "see even Rand Paul gets it!" without noticing his version is some blackwater voucher program.

>theres a really loud minority of radicals on the left that
>sound like they represent most democrats because they dominate
>the discussion on places like twitter (which less than 20% of
>the public even uses).
>
>people think the perspective of their online bubble embodies
>the outlook of most people (or even a significant portion of
>people). but then things are vastly different when REAL people
>outside the bubble start weighing in.

twitter is the only place where it looks like this is wildly popular. and it's the same pounce on anyone who disagrees mindset of some in this post.

your "analysis" and polls are just so cute!

this terrible slogan is just REALLY upsetting you, isn't it?

are you going to be ok?

LOL

d

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Not sure if that's jut my boy talking or if that's out there

dating back to 2014.

https://twitter.com/dragnetizen/status/1269685533090996224

crazy how current events give these things fertile ground to catch on and create chaos/confusion/polarization.

We arguing over the wording but I think post want police to scale back on military gear and all that money they spend on different ways to fuck us up.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html

On my phone so pardon the copy and paste


(CNN)Last week, Minneapolis officials confirmed they were considering a fairly rare course of action: disbanding the city police department.

It's not the first locale to break up a department, but no cities as populous have ever attempted it. Minneapolis City Council members haven't specified what or who will replace it if the department disbands.

Camden, New Jersey, may be the closest thing to a case study they can get.


The city, home to a population about 17% of Minneapolis' size, dissolved its police department in 2012 and replaced it with an entirely new one after corruption rendered the existing agency unfixable.

Before its police reforms, Camden was routinely named one of the most violent cities in the US.

Now, seven years after the old department was booted (though around 100 officers were rehired), the city's crime has dropped by close to half. Officers host outdoor parties for residents and knock on doors to introduce themselves. It's a radically different Camden than it was even a decade ago. Here's how they did it.
Why departments dissolve police

A city's decision to dissolve its police department is often a matter of money -- and the cities that chose to do so are often quite small. Camden comes closest to Minneapolis in its size and history of misconduct.

Earlier this year, the village of Deposit, New York, dissolved its department because it cost $200,000 per year. Now, a single sheriff's deputy is assigned to the village, CNN affiliate WICZ reported. Garden City, Missouri, laid off all of its officers and suspended its police chief because, as its mayor said in 2018, the city couldn't afford to keep them employed.

The city's crime rate was among the worst in the US. Within nine square miles and among nearly 75,000 residents, there were over 170 open-air drug markets reported in 2013, county officials told CNN. Violent crime abounded. Police corruption was at the core.

Lawsuits filed against the department uncovered that officers routinely planted evidence on suspects, fabricated reports and committed perjury. After the corruption was exposed, courts overturned the convictions of 88 people, the ACLU reported in 2013.
So in 2012, officials voted to completely disband the department -- it was beyond reform.

And in 2013, the Camden County Police Department officially began its tenure. No other city of Camden's size has done anything quite like it.

How the new Camden police changed its approach
City officials had two objectives in remaking Camden's police: reduce crippling violent crime and make residents feel safer.

Louis Cappelli, Camden County freeholder director (another term for a county-level public official), said the department still has a ways to go, but its efforts over the last seven years have been largely successful.

"Back then residents of Camden city absolutely feared the police department and members of the department," he told CNN. "They (the residents) wanted that to change."
Violent crimes have dropped 42% in seven years, according to city crime data provided by the department. The crime rate has dropped from 79 per 1,000 to 44 per 1,000, the data shows.

Cappelli credits the improvement to new "community-oriented policing," which prizes partnership and problem-solving over violence and punishment.

It starts from an officer's first day: When a new recruit joins the force, they're required to knock on the doors of homes in the neighborhood they're assigned to patrol, he said. They introduce themselves and ask neighbors what needs improving.

Training emphasizes deescalation, he said, and the department's use of force policy makes clear that deadly force is the last option.

Now, police host pop-up barbecues and pull up in Mister Softee trucks to get to know residents, Cappelli said. They host drive-in movie nights -- recently, the movie of choice was "The Lion King" -- along what used to be known as the city's "Heroin Highway."

It was more of a reorganization, is what people will say.

Also, there was an increase in cops from the suburbs on the force. That has been problematic in other cities.

But overall an example of how thinking outside the box can lead to success.

The police have since formed a new union, but the increased numbers are still in effect, so doubling the number of officers was part of the effort that has led to a 95% drop in complaints.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/how-camden-new-jersey-reformed-its-police-department

with cops who look like the people they protect.. and live with the people they protect.. has a positive impact.

I know Pittsburgh had a law where you had to live in the city limits of the place you patrolled. When they rolled that back they started seeing more aggression by cops.

lol

not every city's intervention will look this way.

Why? because effective public policy has to involve the community...if their voice isn't at the table, and if they don't have a hand in shaping the new policies, they won't buy into it and reinforce it

like this is the kinda shit i literally studied in grad school lol

and mofos in hear all like "well if bernie doesn't like it, its not good" LOL

d

So “Defund the police” means “Increase the number of police and cut their pay”

The post about George Floyd's death? Sure let's discuss the tragedy.

The post asking about going to protests? Nah, we're old. Let the younger generation handle this

But a post to critique the branding of part of the movement actually getting shit done? Nearly three hundred replies of the regular peanut gallery gleefully taking shots at millenials, progressives, etc. Y'all ornery motherfuckers just want to shit on this movement from the sidelines.

Usually a high port count means 2 or 3 people are going back and forth on something trivial or having a pissing contest.

That shit a terrible way to measure a discussion.

Hell, it’s if Floyd’s post had 500 replies it would probably mean people were arguing about whether it was murder or not. Everyone agrees it’s a tragedy so miss us with that bullshit.

.

it'd be cool if they admitted they don't have one and were honest about it.

instead it's twenty replies about stuff no one said.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I'm 39 and don't feel this way at all. Shit is sad to see.

then that shouldn't have been the takeaway from it either....



"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

But it seems obvious. People are looking for disarmament of America's slave patrols. Especially when the President and the Republican party have openly adopted brutality as a welcome vice to maintain white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.



America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

the idea of police abolition has been around for decades, but the phrase Defund the Police is relatively new

d

Disinvest
Defund
Zero out
Reorganize
Reform

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

https://www.arlnow.com/2020/06/09/acpd-budget-is-five-percent-of-county-general-fund/

One thing of note....the local BLM interviewed the ACPD and they were told that the reason the force doesn't have body cams is because of budget...and the biggest portion of the camera expense was storage...cloud storage.

In this moment. Lots of semantics arguing — it’s a easy to remember and say catchphrase that basically says fuck the police in any way you can: soft, hard, sideways, from the back. In NY 50a was repealed which isn’t the end game, but just 3 weeks ago nobody would’ve imagined that.

50a isn’t actually “defunding” but has been a part of the overall rallying cry of defund the police.

KTSM

The world marched for Black lives in America. And as someone that wholly rejects the idea that "Defund The Police" was a/the rallying cry, I just think the design and delivery of policy responses to this moment should center the black community, which would in turn help all communities (bc not only was that the clear mandate demanded by these protests, but only when the most vulnerable/brutalized in a situation are ok can anyone say progress was actually made on the issue).

I can see the relevance of publicizing police officers' records (which is at least in line with repeated calls for stricter accountability and justice from black advocates), and how that could lead *directly* to either a reduction in racist/militarized policing or better accountability moving forward..

But that's a transparency reform, and technically has nothing to do with PDs' funding or budgeting talk more of abolishment. Likewise, I fail to see how the "Cop-Free Zone" Defund protesters barricaded off outside Seattle's abandoned East Precinct would help black lives:

https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1270432529581932544

again....I believe the reform can come if we can keep the same energy. This is one small step on the same roadmap imo. Allowing transparency of records does not directly oppose, derail, or undermine abolishing police.

I can imagine seeing police records and that transparency can launch a movement toward abolishing.

I really don't see it misaligned and my personal reason for hope is again, just 3 weeks ago -- i don't know if many folks knew what 50a was, and most people would've thought it was a pipe dream to pass.

By Editorial Board
June 9, 2020 at 4:20 p.m. EDT

WEEKS OF sustained anger and grief after the police killing of George Floyd have reignited a public debate over police brutality in the United States. Alongside demands for police reform, another demand has surfaced: Defund the police. This provocative slogan at its most constructive represents a welcome call to reimagine public safety in the United States.

As peaceful, impassioned protests show no signs of receding and polls show high levels of approval for police reform, the moment feels ripe to overhaul police departments and procedures. On Monday, congressional Democrats unveiled a major police reform bill, and several state and local bills are being considered throughout the country. Advocates and political leaders are right to focus on concrete reforms — especially those that don’t require massive spending increases, such as updating standards on use of force and increasing transparency around police misconduct.

But while pursuing such reforms, we also should take on the more fundamental questions posed by the “defund” movement. Police reformists and defunding advocates agree on plenty, but where the former ask how police can most effectively be improved, the latter ask: Are there non-policing solutions to society’s problems? Is this the safest America we could have?

Full coverage of the George Floyd protests

The pandemic is prompting reimagining on many fronts, from education to health care to support for the unemployed. In this context, it makes sense to reconsider our goals for public safety and the kinds of institutions we think would best achieve them. It makes sense to consider changes to ways of doing things that were never optimal but have seemed, until now, so baked-in as to be beyond questioning.

Are we really safer in a world where armed police respond to mental health emergencies, or can we imagine communities in which those struggling with mental illness are met with expert and reliable services? Are we safer when homelessness is met with criminalization, not compassion and housing? Are there ways to fund local governments so that they are less financially dependent on extracting fees from citizens? Asking these fundamental questions — and not being anchored in existing institutions for answers — is what the moment requires.

This conversation, in other words, is not just about budgets. It is true that, as the pandemic-inflicted economic crisis forces painful cuts in state and local spending, onlookers are rightly alarmed at plans to slash social services while sparing police budgets. Outrage over such priorities led the mayors of Los Angeles and New York City to pledge to shift some funding from police departments to social services. But it would make sense in many cases to invest in constructive alternatives at the same time or before existing institutions are downsized. The process should be led at the community level, because every community’s strengths and needs are unique, but a broader national conversation can expand our ideas of what is possible and what we deserve.
Subtitle Settings
Font
Font Size Font Edge Font Color Background
Opinion | The rot in policing has spread beyond just 'a few bad apples'
The police crackdown on largely peaceful protests has shown that bad cops are largely protected, covered for and shielded from liability, says Radley Balko. (Video: Radley Balko, Joshua Carroll/Photo: Robyn Beck / AFP via Getty Images/The Washington Post)

Ultimately, the call to defund the police should be understood as a call to reinvest in communities and explore new solutions. It asks us to draw on our resources and creativity and to be clear-eyed about the most problematic and painful parts of our policing history. At its core, it is an expression of relentless optimism — in response to the suggestion that things could be a little less bad, it says: We can do so much better.

"Black Lives Matter"
https://twitter.com/Q13FOX/status/1268363148026880000
-Day 6 of protests in Seattle: Mayor to meet with George Floyd protesters


"Defund The Police"
https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1270561077634297856
-Marching away from the East Precinct in the streets of Seattle, large protest crowd chants: “Defund SPD!”


lol

Disclaimer: For the purpose of this analysis, simply wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt does not in and of itself constitute being a Black Voice and is not counted as such.

In NYC at least there are movements that are able to handle the complexity of both. Black Lives Matter is still the central focus of most of the uprisings.

intersection, especially considering Black Lives Matter people (or at least people wearing Black Lives Matter t-shirts) were responsible for painting Defund The Police over the DC flag portion of Mayor Bowser's Black Lives Matter mural:

https://twitter.com/CBCKatie/status/1269435697804574722
https://twitter.com/Terrence_STR/status/1269439717524869121

But I don't see why we should ignore obvious characteristics about who seems to be pushing for police abolition so far. And perhaps they will change over time.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that the central focus of these protests has been that Black Lives Matter, this is why I don't see the need to shift the messaging to Defund The Police, personally.



>In NYC at least there are movements that are able to handle
>the complexity of both. Black Lives Matter is still the
>central focus of most of the uprisings.

>"Defund The Police"
>https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1270561077634297856
>-Marching away from the East Precinct in the streets of
>Seattle, large protest crowd chants: “Defund SPD!”

I don't think he's approaching this issue with good faith.

protest compared to all the Black Lives Matter centered demonstrations we've been seeing. I don't follow Fox or anything either.

In the interest of transparency tho, there may be a teensy bit of trolling/bad faith from me as well lol. I'll own it


>
>I don't think he's approaching this issue with good faith.

it's kind of like how someone feels trapped in an abusive relationship..

you fear life without the partner, even though its in your best interest to live without them

"our worldview has been manipulated into a distrust of our own freedom. this is a psychological violence many victims (americans) experience" - someone else's words, not mine

Because we don't know freedom from police, we assume that it would only be lawlessness and rampant crime. They've got us so terrified of governing ourselves..believing that it isn't possible, so that we end up willingly choosing oppression by supporting bandaid solutions like retraining or firing "bad" cops.

there are many accounts of enslaved Africans who mistrusted the end of slavery. having lived their whole lives as slaves, they did not all willingly leave their masters once they learned of the law change.

some were fearful and chose to stay. that's how alot of y'all sound in this post. again, its understandable and i'm honestly not judging.

therefore, let the folks who are actually doing this work, who have been doing it for decades, who are experts on it, who have studied it (fyi, not me. i'm not the expert)...let their voices educate you and guide you and comfort you...seek them out, these Radical Black Voices. Start here: https://www.hellablackpod.com/about

cuz this moment is being seized. Now is the time when the whole world is marching. the Overton Window MUST be moved.

its all in play: DEFUND, ABOLISH, DEMILITARIZE, REIMAGINE, etc etc. every word that is different than what exists now is in play.

I haven't been this energized & inspired in a good minute LOL

d

I thought defunding was about reform and community based policing.

like you, i totally understand people's fear of change.

so like you said, if you're scared, step aside and let the leaders/experts/etc. lead the change.

At first it was Defund =/= do away with...
Now it IS Defund = do away with..
I rock with the notion of better system of public safety using properly trained professionals...aka a better and properly functioning police (or whatever the fck y'all wanna call it...semantics...)

But NO police? Period? Full stop???
nah.
criminals still gonna criminal
crooks still gonna crook
robbers still gonna rob
murderers still gonna murder
etc.
etc. etc.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

https://www.mpd150.com/faq/

educate yourself.

d

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-LkpW3sZI

Figured I'd just share Irami Osei-Frimpong's short video in here if only for the title alone.
I'm not about to argue with people who claim that levels of explanation mean your point is a failure. We live in a system built on levels of deception and miseducation. Peeling the layers back is necessary and requires pages of explanation and re-education for the average person to get it.

Not salt. But beyond getting my head around that analogy, this was wonderful. Brief, clear but without sacrificing rigor. Like, I couldn't imagine making a point this difficult, that's this loaded at the moment, in six minutes without spinning into the atmosphere. Thank you so much for linking it.

I particularly liked the way he narrowed police focus to property crimes not as a way of diminishing cops (though that'd be fine) but rather as a way to show how their involvement with our safety is already:

a)conditioned by ideology
b)already pretty limited in scope

The silly, but helpful way for me to understand this works around item "b" in the sense that there are tons of people, even in fairly busy urban and suburban environments, who experience police abolition.

about how an abolitionist model would (or could) address vigilantism?? i.e. the George Zimmermans of America. People like this guy (*shudder*):

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1269486494957387776

*And I acknowledge that a traditional policing environment didn't protect or save Trayvon's life either*

I think I understand (and support) all reforms talked about so far (except total abolition), and the most convincing arguments I've seen have been similar to what Osei-Frimpong says here - that criminalization has basically supplanted social policy, and that scaling back on what's delegated to police and instead redirecting those resources to other specialized personnel, community support services, and tackling broader social determinants would result in safer communities (and less dead Black people). But I also feel like most abolitionist arguments I've seen don't paint the most honest picture of how violent, armed, and racist the US is. Like, sure police are hypermilitarized... but so are Americans (compared to other developed nations at least). There's this weird assumption that there wouldn't frequently be situations that would completely overwhelm the average social worker, mental health nurse, etc (and it looks like Osei-Frimpong may subscribe to this assumption, given the way he smugly minimized Domestic Violence calls to being "a mood"... which was shockingly chauvinist but let me not derail).

So, for example, I've seen some legitimate concerns raised about how going as far as police abolition could inadvertently result in shifting hypermilitarization to the *private* security sector and/or increase presence of state and federal law enforcement in communities, both scenarios likely being the only hellscapes WORSE than dealing with racist hypermilitarized police. Furthermore, there are scenarios like school/mass shootings, hostage situations, abductions, bomb threats, etc where certain enhanced capabilities (eg. aerial, snipers, heavy artillery) are actually in the best interest of the community. I haven't really seen any realistic explanations of what the response to such incidents could be in a jurisdiction where police are abolished. And, again, vigilantism is also a threat - especially to Black people - and could even increase in response to police abolition. So how could police abolition have helped somebody like Trayvon Martin, or prevent similar incidents? And what about the most dangerous incidents of all (examples above)?? It does seem like a "reformist" approach would be better equipped to deal with these scenarios than abolition..

https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759

Long article but I urge people to read it. It's not anything people aren't aware of, but told from the point of view (allegedly) of a former officer it takes on a different tone.

"Police officers do not protect and serve people, they protect and serve the status quo, “polite society”, and private property. Using the incremental mechanisms of the status quo will never reform the police because the status quo relies on police violence to exist. Capitalism requires a permanent underclass to exploit for cheap labor and it requires the cops to bring that underclass to heel."

This was an excellent read..thanks for posting

d

officer...but def. a great read.
thanks


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

27%-57% among all americans.

most other reform measures (like banning chokeholds and making it easier to prosecute cops) in the high 60s or 70s among all americans.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1271416860458835968
-----
Lots of support for various reforms that would save lives and improve America.

But “defunding the police” is underwater 29-49 among African-Americans (26-60 with whites).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaT65HzXQAAhErn?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaT65HyWkAEDybq?format=jpg&name=large

https://t.co/FUya4A8Lgt
-----

this means what?

matt yglesias is one of the dumber motherfuckers there's ever been

the only real question is whether or not people are aware of it, not whether they agree with it.

anyone who claims it's something different is a liar or a dumbass

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

or that matty iglesias was just reposting a poll from an independent pollster.

im not sure what your beef with him has to do with the results.

chokeholds were already banned when eric garner was killed.

your post perfectly explains why "reform" pushes are very clearly not enough

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>chokeholds were already banned when eric garner was killed.

May be exactly the drastic measure needed. Just scrap it all and start over again. Even if the midst of global outcry police can’t find a way to non lethally subdue someone, find a way to not shoot their guns and kill.???

They can’t help themselves

like the "slogan" or not

every day they make it seem less radical

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and how it was a part of the police before it spun out

if someone had said "reform the police" I likely still wouldn't know that.


https://twitter.com/JamieFord/status/1272273637173637120

https://www.ems.gov/pic/infographic.png

https://www.ems1.com/ems-education/articles/how-pittsburghs-freedom-house-shaped-modern-ems-systems-luEDCMzLZL8XfbzU/

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

nothing to add, but hadn't known that. thanks for posting.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

its making me smile today

most of us are engaging with these ideas for the first time ever

d

... giving a thunderous, rowdy applause in my head each time I come back. Everytime I consider chiming in I'm like "nvm she's got it covered lol.

Is immediate resistance to the notion that you have to actually take time to properly educate yourself to the concept of an idea.

As though the fact that the idea wasn't neatly wrapped in a bumper sticker-style slogan, is somehow a good indication that the idea itself is terrible.

One thing worse than a poorly executed slogan, are people who would rather pick apart the slogan, than the idea itself. If the idea itself sucks, so be it. Point out what's so bad about the idea.

Of course, if your criticism of that idea begins and ends with something that illustrates your refusal to engage the tenets of that idea, instead reacting solely to the immediate thoughts evoked by the slogan, you're illustrating that you're someone who is more interested in a catchy slogan than the idea anyways.

You know what a great slogan is?
One that rolls off the tongue, and works great as a tee shirt or hat?

MAGA.

It does a great job encapsulating a slew of horrible, bigoted and oppressive ideologies.

It also plays perfectly into the bigoted, oppressive ideologies of the base to which it caters.

The slogan is misleading, and should have been shined up for the sake of clarity, if nothing else. That doesn't change the fact that harping on the sloppy messaging and disregarding the ideas posed within is far more egregious.

>Is immediate resistance to the notion that you have to
>actually take time to properly educate yourself to the concept
>of an idea.
>
>As though the fact that the idea wasn't neatly wrapped in a
>bumper sticker-style slogan, is somehow a good indication that
>the idea itself is terrible.
>
>One thing worse than a poorly executed slogan, are people who
>would rather pick apart the slogan, than the idea itself. If
>the idea itself sucks, so be it. Point out what's so bad about
>the idea.
>
>Of course, if your criticism of that idea begins and ends with
>something that illustrates your refusal to engage the tenets
>of that idea, instead reacting solely to the immediate
>thoughts evoked by the slogan, you're illustrating that you're
>someone who is more interested in a catchy slogan than the
>idea anyways.
>
>You know what a great slogan is?
>One that rolls off the tongue, and works great as a tee shirt
>or hat?
>
>MAGA.
>
>It does a great job encapsulating a slew of horrible, bigoted
>and oppressive ideologies.
>
>It also plays perfectly into the bigoted, oppressive
>ideologies of the base to which it caters.
>
>The slogan is misleading, and should have been shined up for
>the sake of clarity, if nothing else. That doesn't change the
>fact that harping on the sloppy messaging and disregarding the
>ideas posed within is far more egregious.

Woman hears an intruder.. they show him creeping in the house

She calls police

Recording: we’re sorry, call back between the hours of 8am to 5PM.

—————

Can’t find it online yet but it’s going to get play til Nov.

And we can certainly trust the message of that ad.

It's not like it's a fearmongering tactic, produced and funded by people with a vested in maintaining the status quo.

while the Trump campaign still owes police departments money

he is literally already defunding them

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

When she called 911 and that recording played... I fell out.

then it went into a slow montage of cops standing strong and some riot photos.

Prolly airing in all swing states.

GOP will have fun with this Softball

I didn’t see who produced it but man.. it’s a slick ass commercial that will def play well with their base.

White woman.. check
Dark and Shadowy intruder.. check
Riot and chaos photos... check
Strong Black cop posing for camera.. check
On HGTV for all the white wives to see... check

2nd...the fkc HGTV doing accepting ads like this????

time stamp is all fucked up on OKP.

We only get like 8 channels at work and I’m tired of watching the news.

Not sure if it was a local or national commercial.

It looked like they spent good money on it too.

Hilldawg and Obama’s primary.

>Hilldawg and Obama’s primary.
>
>


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

https://youtu.be/aZ_z9Tpdl9A

I watched ZERO debates & articles & whatever...
I haven't watched a commercial (on purpose) since my first TiVO back in 2003....

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Couldn't find it anywhere except on the website of FauxNews and the conservative group who made it. So I didn't link.

I applaud the way in which they are able to create these impactful statements that require response..

But...

There need to be black think tanks. There is no concerted effort (that I know of) similar to ALEC or the RAND corporation where privately funded research is being done to vet all these ideas and construct actionable legislation that can be lobbyed or talking points to run with.

We seem to get the attention but the there REALLY needs to be there. It is the same with the reparations conversation. It has been talked about a bunch but where is the commissioned 18 month report on the outcomes of several different hypothesis on it?

I see a lot of good suggestions but none are solidly rooted in running any sort of analysis or models.

but it needs to be more than one/a few people, and efforts need to expand beyond that issue. Privately-funded black knowledge infrastructure is dangerously overdue at this point.

Not to mention, it's crazy the way public entities responsible for collecting, analyzing, and reporting certain data can literally be outlawed from doing so (eg. CDC prohibited from digging into gun violence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment). The blindspots that can emerge should said data illuminate disproportionate risks or impacts among black people are terrifying (eg. covid-19 in the US black population comes to mind).

My thing is... this is a domain where all these wealthy Black capitalists/celebrities could make significant impact, because what keeps the think tank circuit going is funding. What's stopping Jay-Z, Diddy, Bob Johnson, Oprah or whoever from endowing some organizations to lead in this area??? The most notable org I can think of - Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in DC - is going on 50 years of trying to serve in this role and it's *still* woefully underfunded, which is a total disgrace. Urban Institute has been around only 2 years longer and has a ~100M budget to work with compared to Joint Center's <5M.

TBH I don't know if everyone is thinking in this direction yet.. it is much easier to donate to funding a protest then research.

to the black billionaire class. A lot of private think tank funding comes from foundations and wealthy donors (and government contracts and grants... but just focusing on private funding sources right now). Those in the black community with means should lead more in this area. I'm not saying they each need to go as far as Bill & Melinda Gates, but some 8-9 figure endowments could go a long way and it would probably be difficult for black-centered research orgs to secure that level of funding from other sources.


>TBH I don't know if everyone is thinking in this direction
>yet.. it is much easier to donate to funding a protest then
>research.

more facts. Less feelings

the suggestion of it gets you labeled a COON

There is no concerted
>effort (that I know of)

exactly.

this work has already been done, for decades...search and ye shall find.

d

Would love to check out some if you have any links

I haven’t seen anything that resembles ALEC or the Heritage foundation. Not simply academic research but fully predicted scenarios and counters to the research the way the military would get the rand corporation to do so.

Then crafted legislation that sits on that research that can be lobbied.

>Would love to check out some if you have any links

I don't have links at the ready specifically around police abolition etc. I'd have to search to find them, which i fully encourage you to do.

The closest I could find is a newly founded org around antiracism research
https://www.bu.edu/antiracist-center/

>I haven’t seen anything that resembles ALEC or the Heritage
>foundation. Not simply academic research but fully predicted
>scenarios and counters to the research the way the military
>would get the rand corporation to do so.

I would think it doesn't have to resemble ALEC or Heritage Foundation, per se. Those orgs certainly have their flaws... I would personally question why they are considered a standard bearer as they fit squarely within an elitist/conservative paradigm.

To be clear, there may well not be anything out there that is similarly well-funded, but that certainly doesn't make the policy positions or the decades of work that's been done already less valuable and viable.

>Then crafted legislation that sits on that research that can
>be lobbied.

The one link I do have speaks to that part a bit:
https://www.d4pa.org/


d

movement.

The slogan has been the best thing that has happened to his campaign in months.

It might not be enough for him to win, but it isn't helping.

I am glad it caused the debate and informed a lot of people about the issue, but can we now start calling it police reform until November 5th?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

But saying Black Lives Matter isn't saying a policy that people can campaign on like Defund the Police.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

and then swooping in with the feds.

you ain't ready

d

t-ball even. with six run mercy rule

you'd think a gift would work differently but I'm no political expert.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Certainly someone White. I’ve been seeing trumps attack ads around that, in fact those are the only attack ads I’ve seen from trump. Makes me wonder what he would have said if that phrase had never came out.

Can’t scream socialism (as much and as effectively) since Bernie didn’t get the nod. Biden is basically so vanilla u can’t really attack him from the right until the right wing gift that is “defund the police” came about

there's gotta be a smoother but still catchy way to say "give them way less"

I swear he is trying to lose this thing on purpose.

Because Corona has him flailing, he has latched into this law and order and the Dems want to defund the police.

I didn't say its a winning strategy or will make his numbers rise, but its needlessly giving him SOMETHING to cling on to.

Yall need to be able to juggle more than one variable at once.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I've never been able to figure out where WE MUST DEBATE THE QUALITY OF THIS SLOGAN THAT I EITHER AGREE WITH OR DON'T

came from as a topic

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

"Fund them....Fund them"

They must have seen the polling

Winston Glyn

Kevin Douglas

Simon Martial (RIP Michele Alyssa Go)

Isaiah Thompson

William Blount

I used to think I was sure to return there to live, but now....

Whatever we had in the past that made us feel we could start organizations like the NAACP or the Black Panthers, uh,
if we don't have that "agency" now to start organizations, then others are going to want more police to deal with what's going on with us (especially in my hometown NYC).

A man with 44 piors needs to be locked up until we know he won't commit anymore crimes!!!!


https://meaww.com/kevin-douglas-queens-criminal-44-prior-arrests-brutally-attacked-thai-model-manhattan-subway


What I struggle with is I think everyone agrees that violent criminals should be locked up as long as necessary (right?).

So it seems like we should be doing a better job of figuring out who is violent and figuring out how not to release them until they are no longer violent. Like we don't have the means through psychological testing and studying historical patterns to figure out who will be a problem long term??!?!

Also moving murder clearance rates to like 100% and locking them f'ers up would go a long way to making the streets safer.

I've said it before, jail/prison should be less than 2 years (for non-violent) or forever (the incorrigible violent)

I appreciate the defund the police ethos, but it not a complete solution because it really doesn't address the really violent people who should not be on the streets.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://youtu.be/UL6bDLqy2ts

My hometown is clearly saying that people like:

Frank Abrokwa

Kevin Douglas

Isaiah Thompson


just got to have TOTAL FREEDOM UNTIL THEY KILL SOMEBODY.

uh....

yeah, some are going to talk about "right-wing talking points"...but at some point...


like I said in the drill rap Mayor Adams post


people just got to be honest about the situation

Can't keep avoiding reality for prides sake.

>They must have seen the polling

... which is being blamed for a crime wave that isn't very serious.

I'm curious to hear what the limit of people's appetite is for the Democrats being responsive to THE DISCOURSE rather than actual things that are happening to actual people. Because it strikes me as not only a poor way to make decisions, but inevitably, a constantly-on-your-heels way of doing politics since Democrats seem to have so little agency over the discourse themselves in spite of being well-represented in culture-forming institutions like media and education.

Police departments weren't defunded. The crimewave that people keep pointing at isn't the same in shape or size to the ones that led to our previous disastrous reactionary decisions regarding justice.

but this bullshit...in response to a GOP talking point/ right wing boogie man attack...made it in.


Democrats continue to let the other side pick the battlefield, and come across defensive and feckle as fuck.


On their heels, as you said.

from the GOP talking point

they just skipped to the "just open up the borders and let everyone in' version of immigration reform

if the culture forming institutions you speak of were gonna bring the public around on this it would have happened by now. it hasn't. if anything it's gone the opposite direction.

biden and them tried to distance themselves from this from the jump, and it still follows dems around like herpes. literally every crime story "oh, but defund the police, right?"

whether crime is actually up, or a result of policy changes doesn't really matter politically. Just matters how people feel (Trump understood this more than most) Joe's not gonna do himself any favors sitting up there trying to explain the nuances of crime statistics. Better to put as much distance from that doomed from the jump slogan as possible.

even democratic voters dont support it.

black people dont support it.

hispanics definitely dont support it.

no way to climb out of that ditch. its a complete dud.

you dont need polling when you have live electon results from 2020 and 2021.

defund the police has been a potent attack on dems just like socialism. its a political loser like most rational people in this post said it was.

dem politicians have been overwhelmingly against defunding the police since the slogan first popped up (even bernie came out strongly against). its popular among some black activists/academia on twitter and thats it.

so this isnt some pivot (or based on polling). this has been the realistic/practical dem position for 2 years.

its just that repubs had successfully branded the dem party with the attack, the media was too lazy to report actual facts, and this was the 1st time dems had a national megaphone and forced media/voters to be aware.

I don't know if it still is. They don't be talking about it as much nowadays.

When the people all in the video make it the message, it doesn't matter what the position of the rest of the party is. Unless they loudly push back.

This is the first time I've seen a loud voice prominently denounce it. Not demurring or deflecting. Straight up calling it wrong.

but I think its also an easy target so even if its a fraction of Dems the GOP is going to jump all over it because its an easy fucking target.

We could scream tax breaks for the middle class, infrastructure, $25 minimum wage and the GOP wouldn’t hear it.. but use a fucking dog whistle to say “defund the police” and GOp ears perk all the way up.

>>>its popular among some black
>activists/academia on twitter and thats it.
>

good job Biden, good job.

It's one of several shitty right wing things about him, and pretending that the "polls" are why he wants to increase funding is a crock of shit that an op would say.

Biden grows the police state. That's what he does

im bullshitting but it kinda is. made me think about that article of those blm folks splintering.

anyway i didnt like the name either but it seem like niggas are in here celebrating pyrrhic victories while fully aware they still getting they ass kicked ha. i dunno somethin bout joeys delivery didnt sit right with me, debatable necessity i suppose, but def didnt feel like a win.

>but def didnt feel like a win.
>

In OKP fantasy, all that matters is what left-wing and Black activists want.

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME:

that is not (political) reality.


Talking about "fund the police" isn't a "win" because what is going on in the community (see the NYC Mayor Adams drill rap post) ISN'T A WIN (or can be VERY EASILY "SPUN" TO THE PUBLIC AS A FULL BLOWN CRISIS)

Ahem

As long as the media (evilly or slightly exaggeratingly) can showcase or amplify the behavior of smash and grab mobs and NYC perps Luke Frank Abrowkra and William Blount and Winston Glynn and Kevin Douglas (that's just NYC) the media can always put Biden and Dems in a "FULLY FUND THE POLICE" retreat.

The media has power.

So...

People have to realize the culture we're celebrating in the media shows what we're worth (as far as taking our concerns with seriousness)


We're showing with our culture our values, that's reality - can't escape it with claims of "just entertainment"

Def not a "win" with what we're telling others with our culture.

>
>that is not (political) reality.
>
>

Political reality is co-signing the media "evil/slight exaggerations"?

>Talking about "fund the police" isn't a "win" because what is
>going on in the community (see the NYC Mayor Adams drill rap
>post) ISN'T A WIN (or can be VERY EASILY "SPUN" TO THE PUBLIC
>AS A FULL BLOWN CRISIS)
>

That means addressing the spin is the issue not buying into it and promoting it.

>
>As long as the media (evilly or slightly exaggeratingly) can
>showcase or amplify the behavior of smash and grab mobs and
>NYC perps Luke Frank Abrowkra and William Blount and Winston
>Glynn and Kevin Douglas (that's just NYC) the media can always
>put Biden and Dems in a "FULLY FUND THE POLICE" retreat.
>
>The media has power.
>

Thats not new, where do you draw the line ? Finding vs Looting, blame the unarmed person that a cop murders, blame gangsta rap for crime ? All that our fault ?

>
>People have to realize the culture we're celebrating in the
>media shows what we're worth (as far as taking our concerns
>with seriousness)
>


So people should not hold the media accountable ? People should downplay what the media is doing ?

>We're showing with our culture our values, that's reality -
>can't escape it with claims of "just entertainment"
>
>Def not a "win" with what we're telling others with our
>culture.


We are doing this not the "evil/slight exaggerations" by the media ? What about the "we" who are not doing this where are they in your narrative ?

Do you want to bring back stop and frisk ? Do you want a new crime bill ?

...and the community IS declining due to the culture, it can't be just the way left-wing Black activists want.

There is a community falling apart.

The media MAY exaggeate but the community issues can't be just nuanced explained away.

Nuanced explaining away and careful long-term solution approaches just won't work politically.

Things in the culture of the community need to be addressed.

Do you want to bring back stop and frisk ?

Do you want a new crime bill ?

I want the culture addressed.

Why do I have to say yes or no to crime bills or tactics (stop & frisk)?

I do say yes the increased presence and numbers in the NYC subway especially.

You won't answer how fighting the media will work when people like Frank Abrowkra and Simon Martial and Isaiah Thompson are doing crimes that can be EASILY PUBLICIZED BY THE MEDIA.

Scapegoating the culture is not addressing it.

The argument you are making leads to another crime bill and more stop and frisk. You are helping to lay the ground work by pushing Fox News talking points.

Here is my answer about "fighting the the media."

Instead of going along with the narrative, we pushback and hold everyone accountable, so that we are looking for real solutions that will work, not lies that mislead.

Here is an op ed on fund the police

Biden Says ‘Fund the Police.’ Well, They Aren’t Exactly Hurting for Cash.

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

“We should all agree,” President Biden declared in his State of the Union address on Tuesday:

the answer is not to defund the police. It’s to fund the police. Fund them. Fund them. Fund them with resources and training. Resources and training they need to protect their communities.

It’s not hard to understand why this paragraph was in the speech. For more than a year, moderate and conservative Democrats have been in a state of panic over the impact of “defund the police” — a controversial slogan from the George Floyd protests of 2020 — on their electoral fortunes.

Despite slim evidence of any particular impact on voters and despite even slimmer evidence that defunding the police is a priority for much more than a handful of elected Democrats, anger and consternation over the slogan continue to shape political and strategic thinking in the Democratic Party.

What doesn’t, somehow, shape political and strategic thinking about law enforcement within the Democratic Party is the reality of police budgets in this country. The president’s rhetoric notwithstanding, police departments in the United States are not actually strapped for funds.

Let’s just look at the numbers. Despite some cuts, according to a 2021 analysis of police budgets in the nation’s 50 largest cities by Bloomberg CityLab, law enforcement spending as a share of general expenditures rose slightly, from 13.6 percent in 2020 to 13.7 percent in 2021, even as many cities cut spending in other areas as a result of the Covid pandemic. And out of 42 major cities where Democrats gained votes from 2016 to 2020, more than half increased police spending for fiscal year 2021. Some cities that cut spending or pledged to cut it later reversed or restored that funding.

In 2020, for example, New York City’s mayor at the time, Bill de Blasio, pledged to cut $1 billion from the Police Department’s $6 billion budget. In the end, most of these cuts did not materialize. Instead, de Blasio approved for fiscal year 2022 a $200 million increase in police spending.
Opinion Debate Will the Democrats face a midterm wipeout?



City officials in Austin, Texas, embarked on a similar journey, cutting the city’s police budget during the Floyd protests, reversing those cuts the following year and then expanding the budget for law enforcement, including for more officers and more training. This year the Austin Police Department budget stands at $442 million, a record high.



Last year, the mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, proposed an $11.2 billion budget that increased funding for the L.A.P.D., to $1.76 billion for fiscal year 2022 from $1.71 billion for fiscal year 2021. In Baltimore, likewise, police funding grew to $555 million for 2022, a $28 million increase from the previous fiscal year.

Yes, since the start of the pandemic, there has been an increase in violent crime. It has been happening everywhere, in big cities and small towns, in Democratic strongholds and Republican ones. At the same time, there is no real relationship between crime rates and police budgets. As Philip Bump observed for The Washington Post in 2020: “More spending in a year hasn’t significantly correlated to less crime or to more crime. For violent crime, in fact, the correlation between changes in crime rates and spending per person in 2018 dollars is almost zero.”

And even if there were a connection, it is not as if there has been a peace dividend for crime. Cities spend big on police when crime is up, and they spend big on police when crime is down. They spend big when police solve crimes, and they spend big when they don’t. In 2020 the Miami-Dade Police Department — one of the largest in the country — resolved (or cleared) just over 40 percent of the violent crimes reported in its jurisdiction. Commit a violent crime in Miami-Dade County and you had a roughly 6 in 10 chance of not being caught, at least that year. Despite that low clearance rate — despite a decade of low clearance rates — the budget for the Miami-Dade Police Department has only increased, reaching nearly $800 million for this fiscal year, up from $765 million for 2021 and $707 million for 2020.


In short, there is no pressing, national need for greater police funding. If anything, police departments and their allies have skillfully used anxiety over “defund” to successfully lobby for even larger budgets, despite the striking inability of many police departments to solve crimes and clear murders.

There does remain, however, a pressing, national need for police accountability. In theory, the police are subordinate to elected officials. In practice, police departments in many areas exist beyond democratic control. That’s especially true in states where police contracts and state law make it difficult, if not impossible, to remove bad or abusive officers from their jobs.

In Oakland, Calif., for example, police simply ignored a 2018 ordinance that placed limits on police use of surveillance technology. In Asheville, N.C., the prospect of accountability for bad actors in the police department led to an exodus of officers from the force. When, in 2014, de Blasio expressed sympathy for the death of Eric Garner at the hands of the N.Y.P.D., the city’s police officers went on the offensive against him, as if this were an unacceptable breach of conduct.

In other words, Biden’s pledge to “fund the police” is divorced from the actual circumstances of police funding in the United States. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Worse, if Congress acts on this pledge and provides more money for cops, it will be funneling money to police departments that hold the people they serve — and the elected leaders they presumably serve under — in contempt.

The most memorable images from the protests of 2020 were those of civil unrest, but we should not forget the extent to which those protests were marked by police unrest as well. Police drove vehicles into crowds, assaulted peaceful bystanders, pepper-sprayed cooperative protesters and attacked journalists with so-called nonlethal rounds.

In one particularly egregious example of misconduct, police in Portsmouth, Va., charged a state senator and several public defenders with felonies over the protests in that city and then served a summons on the vice mayor, who had called for the police chief’s resignation.

Few police officers are held accountable for killings. Even fewer have to answer for more common forms of abuse and bad behavior. And too many cops act with impunity, as if they were above the laws that govern the rest of us. We don’t need to fund the police (American law enforcement has more than its fair share of cash); we need to control them.

Frank Abrowkra

Simon Martial

Isaiah Thompson

Kevin Douglas

William Blount

Winston Glynn



As long as you have no real plan to counter the effectiveness of the media PUBLICIZING WHAT MEN LIKE THAT ACTUALLY DO, you lose (despite not wanting to "scapegoat" the culture)


Losing is losing

You come up with real solutions instead of trying to solve problems that do not exist.

"Biden’s pledge to “fund the police” is divorced from the actual circumstances of police funding in the United States. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist."

Repeating Fox News is not a win.

Left-wing intellectuals

After the op-ed countered your Fund the Police argument.

You are using a Fox News tactic to go with your Fox News talking point.

NEWSMAX?

OAN?


hmmmm.....


So....

Why wouldn't MANY people RUSH TO HOLD FOX, NEWSMAX, AND OAN ACCOUNTABLE IF HOLDING THE MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE IS EFFECTIVE?


hmmm...


Will it take 15 or 20 years to see "results" of attempting to hold FOX, NEWSMAX, AND OAN accountable?

Sounds like what I said: Losing is losing.

Or more left-wing hopes

What did the "Left Wing Intellectual" get wrong about fund the police?


>NEWSMAX?
>

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/12/21/fox-news-newsmax-walk-back-election-fraud-claims-after-voting-machine-manufacturer-threatens-legal-action/?sh=2f3b0d53cfd2


>OAN?
>

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/newsmax-oann-sued-maker-voting-machines-rcna1636

>hmmmm.....
>
>
>So....
>
>Why wouldn't MANY people RUSH TO HOLD FOX, NEWSMAX, AND OAN
>ACCOUNTABLE IF HOLDING THE MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE IS EFFECTIVE?
>
>
>hmmm...
>

"MANY people" are like you, they would rather blame drill music and say fund the police then work to find real solutions.

>Will it take 15 or 20 years to see "results" of attempting to
>hold FOX, NEWSMAX, AND OAN accountable?
>

It will never happen if people roll over and repeat Fox News talking points.

>Sounds like what I said: Losing is losing.
>
>Or more left-wing hopes

Nah sounds like you are scared, and it's not just the crime causing that.

That means FUND THE POLICE - MORE OF THEM

RIP Michelle Alyssa Go

And, genius, Dominion can SUE for falsehoods/damges...

...people who ACTUALLY KILL PEOPLE CAN'T (BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DID THE CRIME.

TELL ME WHAT STOPS THE MEDIA FROM PUBLICIZING ACTUAL CRIMES?

ANSWER: NOTHING


>What did the "Left Wing Intellectual" get wrong about fund
>the police?
>
>
>>NEWSMAX?
>>
>
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/12/21/fox-news-newsmax-walk-back-election-fraud-claims-after-voting-machine-manufacturer-threatens-legal-action/?sh=2f3b0d53cfd2
>
>
>>OAN?
>>
>
>https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/newsmax-oann-sued-maker-voting-machines-rcna1636
>
>>hmmmm.....
>>
>>
>>So....
>>
>>Why wouldn't MANY people RUSH TO HOLD FOX, NEWSMAX, AND OAN
>>ACCOUNTABLE IF HOLDING THE MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE IS EFFECTIVE?
>>
>>
>>hmmm...
>>
>
>"MANY people" are like you, they would rather blame drill
>music and say fund the police then work to find real
>solutions.
>
>>Will it take 15 or 20 years to see "results" of attempting
>to
>>hold FOX, NEWSMAX, AND OAN accountable?
>>
>
>It will never happen if people roll over and repeat Fox News
>talking points.
>
>>Sounds like what I said: Losing is losing.
>>
>>Or more left-wing hopes
>
>Nah sounds like you are scared, and it's not just the crime
>causing that.
>

>That means FUND THE POLICE - MORE OF THEM
>

When Bill de Blasio was Mayor he did fund the Police.

>RIP Michelle Alyssa Go
>
>And, genius, Dominion can SUE for falsehoods/damges...
>

lol thanks for stating the obvious after I gave an example how media could be held accountable.

>...people who ACTUALLY KILL PEOPLE CAN'T (BECAUSE THEY
>ACTUALLY DID THE CRIME.
>

So those are the people you asked why wouldn't "they RUSH TO HOLD FOX, NEWSMAX, AND OAN ACCOUNTABLE IF HOLDING THE MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE IS EFFECTIVE?" lol

>TELL ME WHAT STOPS THE MEDIA FROM PUBLICIZING ACTUAL CRIMES?
>
>ANSWER: NOTHING
>

That's how it works you fund the police(again) flood the subway with cops and stop all crime so the press has nothing to publish(even if they can just go to another crime somewhere else)

Nothing Bizarro world about that argument. smh

...from PUBLICIZING..."

YOU #438 "sure it does"


....uh...


I didn't say "holding the media accountable does not stop them from PUBLISHING FALSE INFO"

True accounts of the crimes of Frank Abrowkra and Simon Martial and William Blount aren't stopped by "holding anybody "accountable"

You accused me of deflecting then you move from "sure it does" of a claim that reporting/amplifying TRUE accounts of CRIME can be stopped by bringing up media being sued for FALSE LYING.



That is something someone looking to accuse someone else of "deflecting" should know won't fly.

Like Bentagain trying to insinuate I "abandoned" the drill rap post message in this post when I eagerly brought it up in this post.

Dishonest left tendencies

>...from PUBLICIZING..."
>
>YOU #438 "sure it does"
>

I said

Sure it does"

In response to Reply # 437


You come up with real solutions instead of trying to solve problems that do not exist.

>....uh...
>
>
>I didn't say "holding the media accountable does not stop them
>from PUBLISHING FALSE INFO"
>
>True accounts of the crimes of Frank Abrowkra and Simon
>Martial and William Blount aren't stopped by "holding anybody
>"accountable"
>

You said the media slightly exaggerate. How can it be true if they exaggerate.

Being scared of news reports about crime will not help. Your no crime = no published crime utopia does not exist.

>You accused me of deflecting then you move from "sure it does"
>of a claim that reporting/amplifying TRUE accounts of CRIME
>can be stopped by bringing up media being sued for FALSE
>LYING.
>

It's dishonest to misrepresent my words that way then draw conclusions based on the lie you made up. The truth is you tripled down on that ridiculous fund the police argument. Once that weak house of cards collapsed you had to run harder and faster from the truth by deflecting, throwing out labels, and just making up lies.

>
>That is something someone looking to accuse someone else of
>"deflecting" should know won't fly.
>

If you are not deflecting then answer the question you are avoiding.

If fund the police is the answer, why is violent crime still a problem, when the police are getting more funds right now ?

>Like Bentagain trying to insinuate I "abandoned" the drill rap
>post message in this post when I eagerly brought it up in this
>post.
>
>Dishonest left tendencies


This is the problem with your Fox news talking points and tactics. When pressed you fold.

That's more example of left dishonesty

RIP Michelle Alyssa Go

The "slight exaggerate" thing is about what some have claimed here: that the ACTUAL CRIME WAVE "ISN'T" AS "SEVERE" AS ACTUAL TRUE ACCOUNTS OF ACTUAL CRIMES OF SIMON MARTIAL AND FRANK ABOWKRA ARE MAKING IT "SEEM"

THE "WAVE" CLAIM IS EXAGGERATED - THE CRIMES ARE ACTUAL/FACTUAL

Again RIP Michell Alyssa Go

is still waiting on your answer.

If fund the police is the answer, why is violent crime still a problem, when the police are getting more funds ?

The more police numbers in the subway, the more they have to be paid.

They just have to be there in greater numbers and that takes more budget money.

It is left dishonesty to try to get around that.

Asking why increased budgets for police hasn't reduced crime statistics or whatever NY Times analysis can't get around they have to be in places in greater numbers and that takes more funding.

So the 200 million increase that De Blasio gave them is not enough ?

Fund the police in NY 30 trillion so it's enough to put them in the subway and pay them ?

The dishonesty is not my question, it's your attempt to answer without answering.

When you fund something you make sure the money is going where it's suppose to go.

Me being "scared"

Hmmmm....

My toughness....

My masculinity.

My sexuality......


Hmmm....

...um...


Am I "everybody" who rides in the NYC Subway system?

Do...70 year old grandmothers ride in the NYC Subway system?

...uh...


How "tough" or "scared" was Michelle Alyssa Go on her last time in the NYC Subway system?


Y'all see what I'm getting at.

Left dishonesty HAS to make this about ME BEING SCARED..

Not ever considering...

I might be concerned about the safety of an elderly woman using the NYC Subway system or someone like Michelle Alyss Go.


More like left bankruptcy

that you are thinking twice about moving back to your hometown.

more deflection from you to avoid the questions

So the 200 million increase that De Blasio gave them is not enough ?

How much is enough ?

For things "they want" then it'll never be enough until ALL CRIME is 100% gone......and then they'll just criminalize more things.


Also, if YOU want something they're against it -- unless the solution solves 100% of it. BUT if has the effect of "helping people" that they don't deem worthy - it's money wasted *even if* it solves the problem.

For the record: Even the craziest leftie I've ever met is still against violent crime.

That's why he avoided your reply 460

I'm not concerned about people's evaluations of me in particular (who am I?)


But, as I showed here in this post, I will debate issues (in my way that - surprise - won't meet the standards of some, but hey, I had a good time)

But yeah, analyzing ME? eh...not important.

You know me - scared, that's the litmus test.

Me and only me.


What else does leftism go by?

looking for validation from other groups and people.

more deflection from you to avoid the questions

So the 200 million increase that De Blasio gave them is not enough ?

How much is enough

etc. me, me, (did I mention me?)

eh...

Nothing will change my hometown NYC experience that when riding the Subway for decades....either a police officer is there or not.

so...

For people - ESPECIALLY ME - but also a little old lady, too - to have protection MORE POLICE NEED TO BE IN MORE PLACES AND THAT TAKES MORE MOMEY

don't care DeBlasio, crime bill 1994 whatever - for a presence to be in more places - need more officers - that takes more money

I'mma keep saying that cause I been on subway trains and stations in NYC for decades (plus little old lady's be there, too)

But you want YOUR issues amplified and others suppressed.

We get it, and get you.

It's not dishonest for 'lefties' to point this out.

Yep

I thought drill rap was the problem?

I brought up the drill rap post in this post.

I don't change.

"I don't speak to provoke. I speak because I think our time on Earth is short and each moment that we are not our truest selves, each moment we say what we do not mean because we imagine that is what somebody what's us to say, then we are wasting our time

would you be okay if the movement was called something else but had all the same tenets (e.g., justice in policing - not that that did, etc.)? or do you see the name as like framework. like the name is so strong because it needs to reflect the urgency/strength necessary for the reform. made all that up i dunno. just dont get why the phrase itself is so important.


but yea wasnt trying to play you sis, just a post/thread observation. some good nuggets in here.



and ya momma corny haha.

This n word should not be locked up?

Open SmartNews and read "Freed subway poop attack suspect posts bizarre videos, returns to the scene of the crime: ‘The feces scenario should keep every female away’" here: https://share.smartnews.com/9VeMR
To read it on the web, tap here: https://share.smartnews.com/s5gQ7

Like it's nuts dude made bail.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

and he attacked a random person before.

nuanced explained away.

There has to be some effort to address this kind of situation with immediate (not just long-term) solutions.

a separate conversation from defunding or reducing police spending?

And an even bigger loser at the polls

Democrats running from "Defund the Police" don't mean shit cuz guess what else they ran from? Every single progressive idea there ever was...

you think Black Voting Rights was popular w/the Dems in the 50s & 60s? It cost them ALOT of elections and seats...it was considered extremely progressive...it took alot of time and organizing and the shit eventually got done. it was HUGE and so many Americans fucking hated the fact that Black people could legally vote. Some even still got lynched or killed for exercising their legal right to vote.

the shit ain't never easy or pretty. Policies that are in the best interest of Black folk are rarely popular w/the establishment, regardless of what party they belong to.

So?

in the last year or so, there has been progress in the movement...y'all kee kee-ing in this post will not change that.

-----

Campaigns to Defund Police Have Seen Major Wins — and They’re Not Stopping

"While policing does remain the status quo, it is not a stable one. The truth is that part of police power is the stronghold they have on our imaginations"

https://truthout.org/articles/campaigns-to-defund-police-have-seen-major-wins-and-theyre-not-stopping/
------

Here’s What the Movement to 'Defund the Police' Actually Won

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7edj3/heres-what-the-movement-to-defund-the-police-actually-won

d

"I don't speak to provoke. I speak because I think our time on Earth is short and each moment that we are not our truest selves, each moment we say what we do not mean because we imagine that is what somebody what's us to say, then we are wasting our time

during that time...the only 4 congresses that had unified one-party control were all dem governments.

since we are doing the 'facts' thing i thought id just add a few to the conversation...

>you think Black Voting Rights was popular w/the Dems in the
>50s & 60s? It cost them ALOT of elections and seats...

at the time of its passage...approval of the voting rights act went from 86% to 95% of the country.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNOMgRJXoAI2RUZ?format=jpg&name=900x900

it passed 328–74 in the house and 79–18 in the senate. overwhelming supermajorities.

the last reauthorization/amendment to the voting rights act (2006) passed 390–33 in the house and unanimously 98-0 in the senate.

it was wildly popular basically until barack obama got elected (and republicans + fox news really started attacking it).

meanwhile...

the much hyped 'defund the police' ballot measure in dark blue minneapolis replacing the police department with a public safety department in the aftermath of the george floyd shooting (the squad campaigned in the state for its passage)...the majority of minnesota voters rejected it by 13 points.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNORrsQX0AARCnD?format=jpg&name=small

shit only 28% of *black* people nationwide support the 'defund the police' movement.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3coSBQXoAYx_hw?format=jpg&name=medium
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-03/usat-ipsos_racial_injustice_topline_030421.pdf


im not sure the two things are as similar as you think they are.

Literally AT ALL! Blinded by leftist ideology


>shit only 28% of *black* people nationwide support the 'defund
>the police' movement.

Because approval rates dropped to 53% when folks were asked about voting rights in terms of states rights to control election (this is coming from the article you snagged the screenshot https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/blog/public-opinion-voting-rights-act)

>shit only 28% of *black* people nationwide support the 'defund the police' movement.
That is until you ask a different question: Take a portion of the budget for police in your community and redirect those funds to social services...now 63% of Black people approve. Versus the counter question...Fully fund the budget for police in your community at the same level is it now. Shit only 37% of *black* people nationwide support that.

Instead of coming up with a slogan and a goal that was more reasonable than outright defunding, the far left doubled down and stuck with 'defund the police'.

I'm sure most Black Americans want some sort reform and modification of how police police in America, but total defundment as a policy goal ain't it. I remember people getting mad at Obama for saying that the slogan was poorly chosen and they should change it, but he was right. This inflexible, Bern-ish style of uncompromising ultimately harms the left, and gives the savages on the right more fuel for their bigotry.

and to date, all we have is a federal ban on choke holds...NY already had that when cops killed Garner. Oh...and a push for more training.

>Instead of coming up with a slogan and a goal that was more
>reasonable than outright defunding, the far left doubled down
>and stuck with 'defund the police'.

I think folks are too caught up on what a thing is called and not on outcomes. Again, what has being "reasonable" gotten us so far?

>I'm sure most Black Americans want some sort reform and
>modification of how police police in America, but total
>defundment as a policy goal ain't it.

But who (sane) said anything about total defundment? To the point of abolishment? This is like folks who read an imaginary "only" in front of Black Lives Matters. Defund doesn't mean abolish. And it's clear from the poll that Reeq provided that 63% of Black people support <insert whatever english word makes you feel better and means lowering the budget of> their local police.

>I think folks are too caught up on what a thing is called and
>not on outcomes. Again, what has being "reasonable" gotten us
>so far?

the fallacy of liberalism, summarized.

Just about everyone who did so, knew exactly what was meant by “defund”. Some reduced funding by a little, some reduced funding by more than a little...but no one did what ever it is folks keep trying to force “defund” to mean (okay, maybe one out of what...ten?...did).

policing never has and never will be "public safety." it is protect property over lives first and foremost, and rooted in criminalizing Black people, so no matter what polish or reform measures, you will at BEST reduce the occurrence of that which police depts are notoriously bad at providing in the first place.

>and to date, all we have is a federal ban on choke holds...NY
>already had that when cops killed Garner. Oh...and a push for
>more training.
>
>>Instead of coming up with a slogan and a goal that was more
>>reasonable than outright defunding, the far left doubled
>down
>>and stuck with 'defund the police'.
>
>I think folks are too caught up on what a thing is called and
>not on outcomes. Again, what has being "reasonable" gotten us
>so far?
>
>>I'm sure most Black Americans want some sort reform and
>>modification of how police police in America, but total
>>defundment as a policy goal ain't it.
>
>But who (sane) said anything about total defundment? To the
>point of abolishment?
to reimagine public safety would not be overnight "purge" scenarios. but it would be prioritizing social services, the breakdown of which causes police to appear and often make things worse. it's not liberal at all because liberals merely want a comfortable white establishment that makes them feel good about themselves. this type of change isn't something most are willing to work that hard for, since police are an integral part of many/most of their lives.

but this involves local politics, which too many people are oblivious to. the fed will never provide a solution that will sufficiently address what's taking place in cities and states.

because the liberal media is racist as fuck, it spends little time highlighting those jurisdictions where more radical changes have been implemented and are successful. How often was Camden paraded out as a murder capital. Then they redo police/public safety, have seen a precipitous drop in violence, and barely a peep.

of course, in fairness to 12, abolishment can't just be of the foot soldiers, the court system is an unequal partner with greater influence and impact.

"nice" neighborhoods aren't like that because of the right amount of cops. it's because most of the people dont' live in desperation. since the pandemic, Fairfax County VA where I live has had a series of adult children killing their parents, yet they're not viewed as an epidemic, just tragedies.

I expected a more nuanced overall look at "crime" itself, but this IS GD after all and not Sports *shrugs*

This is like folks who read an imaginary
>"only" in front of Black Lives Matters. Defund doesn't mean
>abolish. And it's clear from the poll that Reeq provided that
>63% of Black people support <insert whatever english word
>makes you feel better and means lowering the budget of> their
>local police.

(before they fucked up the contract...and I'm not here to argue NOI messiness), than having a bunch of cops. However, I believe they (cops) still have a role.

>to reimagine public safety would not be overnight "purge"
>scenarios. but it would be prioritizing social services, the
>breakdown of which causes police to appear and often make
>things worse. it's not liberal at all because liberals merely
>want a comfortable white establishment that makes them feel
>good about themselves. this type of change isn't something
>most are willing to work that hard for, since police are an
>integral part of many/most of their lives.
>
>but this involves local politics, which too many people are
>oblivious to. the fed will never provide a solution that will
>sufficiently address what's taking place in cities and states.
>
>
>because the liberal media is racist as fuck, it spends little
>time highlighting those jurisdictions where more radical
>changes have been implemented and are successful. How often
>was Camden paraded out as a murder capital. Then they redo
>police/public safety, have seen a precipitous drop in
>violence, and barely a peep.
>
>of course, in fairness to 12, abolishment can't just be of the
>foot soldiers, the court system is an unequal partner with
>greater influence and impact.
>
>"nice" neighborhoods aren't like that because of the right
>amount of cops. it's because most of the people dont' live in
>desperation. since the pandemic, Fairfax County VA where I
>live has had a series of adult children killing their parents,
>yet they're not viewed as an epidemic, just tragedies.
>
>I expected a more nuanced overall look at "crime" itself, but
>this IS GD after all and not Sports *shrugs*

I don't disagree with anything you've written here. But I also don't see, if reformed..and this includes the courts, why the function of policing (if only having the detective/investigative/ability to humanely bring someone in for questioning part) isn't a necessary part of our community.

>(before they fucked up the contract...and I'm not here to
>argue NOI messiness), than having a bunch of cops. However, I
>believe they (cops) still have a role.
>
>>to reimagine public safety would not be overnight "purge"
>>scenarios. but it would be prioritizing social services,
>the
>>breakdown of which causes police to appear and often make
>>things worse. it's not liberal at all because liberals
>merely
>>want a comfortable white establishment that makes them feel
>>good about themselves. this type of change isn't something
>>most are willing to work that hard for, since police are an
>>integral part of many/most of their lives.
>>
>>but this involves local politics, which too many people are
>>oblivious to. the fed will never provide a solution that
>will
>>sufficiently address what's taking place in cities and
>states.
>>
>>
>>because the liberal media is racist as fuck, it spends
>little
>>time highlighting those jurisdictions where more radical
>>changes have been implemented and are successful. How often
>>was Camden paraded out as a murder capital. Then they redo
>>police/public safety, have seen a precipitous drop in
>>violence, and barely a peep.
>>
>>of course, in fairness to 12, abolishment can't just be of
>the
>>foot soldiers, the court system is an unequal partner with
>>greater influence and impact.
>>
>>"nice" neighborhoods aren't like that because of the right
>>amount of cops. it's because most of the people dont' live
>in
>>desperation. since the pandemic, Fairfax County VA where I
>>live has had a series of adult children killing their
>parents,
>>yet they're not viewed as an epidemic, just tragedies.
>>
>>I expected a more nuanced overall look at "crime" itself,
>but
>>this IS GD after all and not Sports *shrugs*
>
>I don't disagree with anything you've written here. But I also
>don't see, if reformed..and this includes the courts, why the
>function of policing (if only having the
>detective/investigative/ability to humanely bring someone in
>for questioning part) isn't a necessary part of our
>community.

Police have a "role" because society is so wildly inequitable that there is no community oriented way to manage or halt some chaotic events. But think about "nice white suburbs." The cops there aren't fixing shit, they're mainly doing clean up. It's society's current state that allows them to be justified in their current form.

Now, even if social resources were more equitable and desperation less of an issue, because of how guns have been proliferated in mainly white homes, ironically, you have to have some type of armed force because whiteys often deputize/vigilantize their environments.

That Reeq pulled up with links of what seems like an off-the-wall comparison for some random dude on the net to make...almost like he received the talking points in his email....then cherry picked from said links and glossed over context....


...all to defend a Moderate position recently championed by Joe Biden!?!?!? then never responded to you??


I'm sick...


Next thing you know he'll be defending shit happening under Joe that he was criticizing under Trumpolini...oh wait.