political hobbyist thread

[BIG APPLE CAT]

This is fascinating. I thought police reform - like gun control from - was one of those issues where there was like 92% consensus from both sides but unfortunately that 8% is comprised of pos ghouls who, unfortunately, have a tremendous amount of influence on legislation.

But here we have sys, holding the (thin blue) line, and I cannot wait to hear why he thinks it’s a stupid policy. I sincerely have not heard a good faith counter argument and I’m ready for sys to rock my world

In my opinion "defund the police" was such a bad slogan that the actual merits of associated policies are irrelevant

Absolutely it was a terrible slogan, which especially sucks bc it felt like we actually had a brief window where public outcry was such that police reform could actually have been taken on by pretty much any elected official, and maybe some kind of meaningful change could happen.

But I don’t think sys is talking about the slogan. If I’m reading his words correctly he’s saying the substance of the policy itself is stupid, and I really hope he well elaborate on why

[MakeItRain]

Most people do agree on police reform but conservatives publicly are more interested in virtue signaling. Most people who say back the blue are just as scared of a police interaction going sideways as everyone else.

I'm convinced there is no good polling data on this issue simply because bad faith actors have completely hijacked the issue. Asking someone how they feel about defending the police is a really stupid question and premise. Despite cops and cop lovers trying to act like it was ever a policy position, it wasn't, it was an activist slogan born in the heat of a very intense moment and in the eyes of democratic policy makers, it's never gone past that.

The way you know it was never a policy position is that it has not come close to happening anywhere in America, even in places with complete Democrat control. Everyone talks about Camden, NJ. You know what their "defending" looks like? They fired their entire force in 2014, restructured and rehired. Their current police budget is $70 million annually, bigger than similarly sized cities in the region. The city closest to a defending, since that term became popular in the summer of 2020 is Austin. Their defunding took the form of the police budget going from 40% of their total budget to 26%. Their budget before the defunding was $434 million, after $292 million. Of the $153 million cut, $76 million remained in public safety $77 was reallocated. To recap, Austin's defunding took the form of a mere $77 million cut from the $434 public safety budget.

It's not, nor has it ever been a policy position and those who keep talking about it are intentionally clouding up needed reforms.

[sys]

What do you think is a smart policy position regarding police funding?

i think funding is irrelevant to the problem, so talking about changing funding in any way as a solution to police brutality is inherently stupid.

[sys]

here we have sys, holding the (thin blue) line, and I cannot wait to hear why he thinks it’s a stupid policy.

i already told you why last night.  if you didn't notice, then i doubt you are waiting as anxiously as you say you are.

[sys]

In my opinion "defund the police" was such a bad slogan that the actual merits of associated policies are irrelevant

i don't recall that you thought that two years ago.

[michigancat]

In my opinion "defund the police" was such a bad slogan that the actual merits of associated policies are irrelevant

i don't recall that you thought that two years ago.

I didn't think it was as bad two years ago as I do now.

I still support many of the associated policies but don't know the best way to move them forward.

[sys]

I didn't think it was as bad two years ago as I do now.

i've always appreciated how willing you are to change your mind when circumstances warrant.

[Fedor]

I didn't think it was as bad two years ago as I do now.

i've always appreciated how willing you are to change your mind when circumstances warrant.

...but regret that it is so often necessary.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

here we have sys, holding the (thin blue) line, and I cannot wait to hear why he thinks it’s a stupid policy.

i already told you why last night.  if you didn't notice, then i doubt you are waiting as anxiously as you say you are.

tell me again slowly like i'm a child. I only saw you saying how much or how little money was irrlevant. Not really much of a stance on the substantive aspect of the "stupid policy", which is what i was anxiously awaiting.

[sys]

tell me again slowly like i'm a child. I only saw you saying how much or how little money was irrlevant. Not really much of a stance on the substantive aspect of the "stupid policy", which is what i was anxiously awaiting.

with all due respect, i don't think me saying that the level of funding is completely irrelevant to the problem to explain why i think the policy of defunding the police as a way to decrease police abuses is stupid needs a whole lot of additional explanation.

[Spracne]

You should defund yourself for constructing your sentence that way.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The police do get way too much funding. It's not like taking their tanks away will do anything to get them to stop killing people, but police tank money would still be better spent elsewhere.

[sys]

You should defund yourself for constructing your sentence that way.

i can't help myself.

[michigancat]

What do you think is a smart policy position regarding police funding?

i think funding is irrelevant to the problem, so talking about changing funding in any way as a solution to police brutality is inherently stupid.

ok what is a smart policy position regarding police brutality

[BIG APPLE CAT]

tell me again slowly like i'm a child. I only saw you saying how much or how little money was irrlevant. Not really much of a stance on the substantive aspect of the "stupid policy", which is what i was anxiously awaiting.

with all due respect, i don't think me saying that the level of funding is completely irrelevant to the problem to explain why i think the policy of defunding the police as a way to decrease police abuses is stupid needs a whole lot of additional explanation.

With all due respect, I have no idea what any of that meant. But based on that beauty of a response, the only thing that has become more clear is your intention to remain opaque. So we can just leave it alone. Unless of course you want to bust out more of that meaty prose, in which case have at ‘er.

[sys]

I have no idea what any of that meant.

i don't believe that you can't figure out why someone would think it is stupid to suggest a solution that does not address the problem.

[sys]

ok what is a smart policy position regarding police brutality

accountability.  liability.

[michigancat]

ok what is a smart policy position regarding police brutality

accountability.  liability.

does this mean eliminating qualified immunity or something else?

[Spracne]

ok what is a smart policy position regarding police brutality

accountability.  liability.

does this mean eliminating qualified immunity or something else?

I would be in favor of funding the police more if we did away with qualified immunity. It's only fair, as qualified immunity is roughly 40% of their compensation.

[sys]

does this mean eliminating qualified immunity or something else?

ending qualified immunity and killing police unions are necessary but not sufficient.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

I have no idea what any of that meant.

i don't believe that you can't figure out why someone would think it is stupid to suggest a solution that does not address the problem.

Ok I can work with this. So as was stated and restated several times, nobody is suggesting that more money or less money is going to fix the problem. The poorly named policy is about police reform. I outlined several examples but it was by no means an exhaustive list.

So to circle back to your point, those examples I outlined would be some of the “solutions”. These are not uniquely my ideas they are very clearly laid out by those advocating for it.
I’m not sure how or why you think those “solutions” don’t address the problem?

[sys]

nobody is suggesting that more money or less money is going to fix the problem.

this isn't true.  it's selective amnesia by people choosing to believe the futile attempts to sanewash the original demands, which were plainly understood to be something along a continuum between police abolition and having less police/few police responsibilities.  there's no way to make any sense of "defund" as describing anything else.
 
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/505307-ocasio-cortez-dismisses-proposed-1b-cut-defunding-police-means-defunding/

I’m not sure how or why you think those “solutions” don’t address the problem?

i think "training" can be anything from a fig leaf to an effective way to improve practices.  i think outlawing some specific practices like the use of force in some instances, or choke holds or no-knock warrants can make some limited improvements.  i think shifting police responsibilities to other agencies or reducing policing of some crimes or non-criminal infractions is ineffective to counterproductive with the possible exception of traffic stops.

accountability is the key and imo accountability without micromanaging training or practices is likely to produce far superior outcomes to mandated training and changes in practice without accountability.

[michigancat]

nobody is suggesting that more money or less money is going to fix the problem.

this isn't true.  it's selective amnesia by people choosing to believe the futile attempts to sanewash the original demands, which were plainly understood to be something along a continuum between police abolition and having less police/few police responsibilities.  there's no way to make any sense of "defund" as describing anything else.

is any significant Democratic politician suggesting that we reduce funding now? (a full election cycle later)

[BIG APPLE CAT]

ok see that wasn't so hard.

As with most things, i wholeheartedly disagree with you on most of your points, but nevertheless thank you for at least finally stating your thoughts when pressed repeatedly.

I know i'm not going to change your mind just as much as you won't change mine, but i'm still just going to leave it here for the record that I think the police are expected to be able to respond appropriately to too many situations. And quite frankly there are several circumstances where a guy with a gun that he is looking for an excuse to fire is not the person you want handling those circumstances. But when you only have one tool in the toolbox you get what you get.

Last thing, i'm not sure how you define accountability but its pretty meaningless if nothing happens as a result.  Like when a cop says "i know the bodycam footage as well as several eye witnesses who were recording will show that i did, in fact, shoot and kill that 12 year old (non white) boy because i believed his nerf gun was an actual gun. In hindsight, rather than ambushing him and yelling loudly before opening fire after less than 3 seconds, I recognize that this approach was perhaps not the most effective in avoiding killing innocent civilians that aren't breaking any laws. And you know what? that's on me. I own that mistake. I also am protected by qualified immunity so, after a couple weeks of paid administrative leave, the department is going to conduct an investigation that will conclude all of the things I just said and then i will be back patrolling the fine streets of this city. I want you all to know that I've prayed on it, and that i've learned my lesson, and that I will never make this mistake again unless I do, in which case, qualified immunity...so, ya know. Thank you for respecting my privacy during this difficult time"

[sys]

is any significant Democratic politician suggesting that we reduce funding now? (a full election cycle later)

nationally, i think it's just cori bush left.