OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[j4remi]

honestly that would be a pretty damn good statement Wingo

Or, if he didn't want to answer the question he simply give the non-answer answer, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a storm right now. We are going to look hard to see how we can address these problems. I'll be working with community leaders and experts in law enforcement ... etc."

But by saying "No, I'm against it" to "defunding" the police, any attempt to do that in the future (and that time will come) will be met with "But you said you wouldn't." That's the problem with what Biden said.

He can do whatever he needs to after he's elected.

Right now, his statement prevents Trump from using an ill-defined policy against him, and doesn't allow himself to be painted as radical when his whole platform is being moderate.

My two concerns with this kind of thinking:
1. Does it really make a difference what Biden says? He's gonna be "the radical who has given in to the crazies of the party" no matter what stances he takes. The people who fall for it won't need "Defund the police" to turn them any more than the All Lives Matter crowd needed to see a marijuana charge to dismiss the Floyd protests and talk about something else. How many voters are going to say "well now that Joe Biden says defund the police, I'm going with the far less extreme Donald Trump" really?

2. If Biden wins the election by avoiding discussions about police reform rather than informing the public about those changes; and his logic is that police reform will hurt his chances to win. What does that make the electoral mandate when he wins?

[GONYK]

Or, if he didn't want to answer the question he simply give the non-answer answer, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a storm right now. We are going to look hard to see how we can address these problems. I'll be working with community leaders and experts in law enforcement ... etc."

But by saying "No, I'm against it" to "defunding" the police, any attempt to do that in the future (and that time will come) will be met with "But you said you wouldn't." That's the problem with what Biden said.

He can do whatever he needs to after he's elected.

Right now, his statement prevents Trump from using an ill-defined policy against him, and doesn't allow himself to be painted as radical when his whole platform is being moderate.

My two concerns with this kind of thinking:
1. Does it really make a difference what Biden says? He's gonna be "the radical who has given in to the crazies of the party" no matter what stances he takes. The people who fall for it won't need "Defund the police" to turn them any more than the All Lives Matter crowd needed to see a marijuana charge to dismiss the Floyd protests and talk about something else. How many voters are going to say "well now that Joe Biden says defund the police, I'm going with the far less extreme Donald Trump" really?

Why take the risk? The inverse is true. Are people going to vote for Trump now because Biden says that he does not support a nebulous policy that nobody really has an agreed definition of?

2. If Biden wins the election by avoiding discussions about police reform rather than informing the public about those changes; and his logic is that police reform will hurt his chances to win. What does that make the electoral mandate when he wins?

There is literally no way he can go until November without speaking about his stance on police reform in great depth.

[Clyde_Style]

Or, if he didn't want to answer the question he simply give the non-answer answer, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a storm right now. We are going to look hard to see how we can address these problems. I'll be working with community leaders and experts in law enforcement ... etc."

But by saying "No, I'm against it" to "defunding" the police, any attempt to do that in the future (and that time will come) will be met with "But you said you wouldn't." That's the problem with what Biden said.

He can do whatever he needs to after he's elected.

Right now, his statement prevents Trump from using an ill-defined policy against him, and doesn't allow himself to be painted as radical when his whole platform is being moderate.

My two concerns with this kind of thinking:
1. Does it really make a difference what Biden says? He's gonna be "the radical who has given in to the crazies of the party" no matter what stances he takes. The people who fall for it won't need "Defund the police" to turn them any more than the All Lives Matter crowd needed to see a marijuana charge to dismiss the Floyd protests and talk about something else. How many voters are going to say "well now that Joe Biden says defund the police, I'm going with the far less extreme Donald Trump" really?

2. If Biden wins the election by avoiding discussions about police reform rather than informing the public about those changes; and his logic is that police reform will hurt his chances to win. What does that make the electoral mandate when he wins?

Did you watch Biden's speech in Philadelphia?

I don't see someone afraid to talk about police brutality there.

We're parsing sound bites and debating what's the best campaign rhetoric because that is the world we live in.

Don't you see the irony of wanting things expressed how you want it while arguing it won't really matter to others (and how they vote) how he expresses himself?

If how Biden addresses this matters that much to you, then it probably also matters to Democrats who are not on the same part of the political spectrum as you.

I see lots of residual apprehension over this notion that somehow you're going to be given empty promises by an establishment figure and then left at the altar once they get elected. But most of us here want the party to move left regardless of our take on campaign rhetoric and that is definitely happening.

It can be counter-productive to over-litigate the Democratic party nominee to goad them to speak in semi-radical tones when the best expectation is still a broad reform movement that will require lots of coalition building and heavy lifting for YEARS ahead. He is running for president and the protests are just two weeks old so even if he does issue a highly granular platform statement on police reforms before November he should not be expected to say yes to questions lacking nuance on these explosive issues.

The last thing we need now is Biden being obsequious and overly conciliatory to every demand thrown at him. There are strident people with bullhorns out in the streets who think they get to set national agenda with a single confrontation and I don't want to see our next president saying things to soothe people gratuitously. He should respond thoughtfully and with things he can back up so he doesn't sell you a false bill of goods as you may fear he will do.

When leftists seize the day, a fair percentage of them sound like zealots and it does potentially affect Biden's results if more moderate voters think he can be forced to say anything in the heat of the moment. He has said plenty already and it is well on the side of justice and reforms.

I'm not so sure all of the leftists even know what Biden has said on these topics to be frank and that could be their problem, not Biden's.

[Clyde_Style]

Michigan Poll now has Biden up by 12 points

Spoiler:

Not getting cocky. Keep the pedal to the metal

[j4remi]

He can do whatever he needs to after he's elected.

Right now, his statement prevents Trump from using an ill-defined policy against him, and doesn't allow himself to be painted as radical when his whole platform is being moderate.

My two concerns with this kind of thinking:
1. Does it really make a difference what Biden says? He's gonna be "the radical who has given in to the crazies of the party" no matter what stances he takes. The people who fall for it won't need "Defund the police" to turn them any more than the All Lives Matter crowd needed to see a marijuana charge to dismiss the Floyd protests and talk about something else. How many voters are going to say "well now that Joe Biden says defund the police, I'm going with the far less extreme Donald Trump" really?

Why take the risk? The inverse is true. Are people going to vote for Trump now because Biden says that he does not support a nebulous policy that nobody really has an agreed definition of?

2. If Biden wins the election by avoiding discussions about police reform rather than informing the public about those changes; and his logic is that police reform will hurt his chances to win. What does that make the electoral mandate when he wins?

There is literally no way he can go until November without speaking about his stance on police reform in great depth.

1. I think you inferred the wrong idea here. When I ask "does it really make a difference what Biden says" that's meant to apply both ways. I don't think he needs to say "defund police" to win the issue or whatever. I just simultaneously don't believe that it hurts him any to acknowledge "defund the police" either.

But because I feel that this is true both ways, I don't think it would have been bad to try and define the concept of defunding the police for a broader audience. He could point to Camden as an example or the community policing concepts that Obama's DOJ worked with police on in places like Baltimore. More funding for community policing efforts is already part of his plans anyway. Would this have any electoral benefits? Idk, it might actually win over some of the holdouts that wouldn't vote. But I'll repeat, I don't think this makes a big shift in either direction electorally and it just seems like a great opportunity to introduce reform concepts. As overused as the term has become, I'm thinking more about shifting the Overton Window here.

2. Okay, good, I thought "he can do whatever he needs to after he gets elected" was an allusion to playing prevent defense rhetorically while planning to do more after the fact. I'm highly skeptical of the idea that he intends to do more than he's letting on. He is what he is imo.

[HarthorneWingo]

Or, if he didn't want to answer the question he simply give the non-answer answer, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a storm right now. We are going to look hard to see how we can address these problems. I'll be working with community leaders and experts in law enforcement ... etc."

But by saying "No, I'm against it" to "defunding" the police, any attempt to do that in the future (and that time will come) will be met with "But you said you wouldn't." That's the problem with what Biden said.

He can do whatever he needs to after he's elected.

Right now, his statement prevents Trump from using an ill-defined policy against him, and doesn't allow himself to be painted as radical when his whole platform is being moderate.

My two concerns with this kind of thinking:
1. Does it really make a difference what Biden says? He's gonna be "the radical who has given in to the crazies of the party" no matter what stances he takes. The people who fall for it won't need "Defund the police" to turn them any more than the All Lives Matter crowd needed to see a marijuana charge to dismiss the Floyd protests and talk about something else. How many voters are going to say "well now that Joe Biden says defund the police, I'm going with the far less extreme Donald Trump" really?

2. If Biden wins the election by avoiding discussions about police reform rather than informing the public about those changes; and his logic is that police reform will hurt his chances to win. What does that make the electoral mandate when he wins?

Thank you. Can I hire you as my lawyer?

[j4remi]

Did you watch Biden's speech in Philadelphia?

I don't see someone afraid to talk about police brutality there.

We're parsing sound bites and debating what's the best campaign rhetoric because that is the world we live in.

Don't you see the irony of wanting things expressed how you want it while arguing it won't really matter to others (and how they vote) how he expresses himself?

If how Biden addresses this matters that much to you, then it probably also matters to Democrats who are not on the same part of the political spectrum as you.

We're not just speaking on campaign rhetoric here. This is about practical policy discussions and what Biden centers as policies to look for from his administration. Philly speech was a nice speech, by my recollection it offered nothing that suggested reallocation of police budgets towards other services that might supplement first responders in any way. We got "ban choke holds" and "increase federal reviews of police department practices that the Obama DOJ instituted." Are those good suggestions? Yes. Can we discuss how much more is feasible? I think so,

And That's the discussion I'd like to have with my presidential candidate. Not one about his rhetorical spin. But one about what he has practically planned and whether or not more is feasible. Joe Biden said he does not support defunding the police, cool. He can own it, it's a discussion to have. But let's not inject electoral fearmongering into the discussion as a way to hamstring the conversation is all I'm getting with my two concerns.

I see lots of residual apprehension over this notion that somehow you're going to be given empty promises by an establishment figure and then left at the altar once they get elected. But most of us here want the party to move left regardless of our take on campaign rhetoric and that is definitely happening.

It can be counter-productive to over-litigate the Democratic party nominee to goad them to speak in semi-radical tones when the best expectation is still a broad reform movement that will require lots of coalition building and heavy lifting for YEARS ahead. He is running for president and the protests are just two weeks old so even if he does issue a highly granular platform statement on police reforms before November he should not be expected to say yes to questions lacking nuance on these explosive issues.

You're making some assumptions here.
1. I'm not apprehensive about Biden giving empty promises, I'm apprehensive that his promises are milquetoast on issues that I'd like to see more fight. That held Obama back even with his super majority and then until the last couple of years of his presidency, it continued to hold him back from bold action.

2. The idea that a broad coalition can't be achieved if Biden offers support for "defund the police" concepts is just speculation. I'd argue that most people will be more receptive to the concept if they understand what it actually means. It'd be great for a presidential candidate to be out there explaining such.

3. You mention that he should not be expected to say "yes to questions lacking nuance" and I agree whole heartedly. I think he should be able to offer a nuanced response without "but Trump" being the excuse for why he isn't being bolder. He has some nice proposals, he doesn't seem interested in cutting police funding though. That's fine. But let's not provide him cover he hasn't remotely earned and let's have an honest conversation about the policies.

The last thing we need now is Biden being obsequious and overly conciliatory to every demand thrown at him. There are strident people with bullhorns out in the streets who think they get to set national agenda with a single confrontation and I don't want to see our next president saying things to soothe people gratuitously. He should respond thoughtfully and with things he can back up so he doesn't sell you a false bill of goods as you may fear he will do.

When leftists seize the day, a fair percentage of them sound like zealots and it does potentially affect Biden's results if more moderate voters think he can be forced to say anything in the heat of the moment. He has said plenty already and it is well on the side of justice and reforms.

I'm not so sure all of the leftists even know what Biden has said on these topics to be frank and that could be their problem, not Biden's.

Ehhh...I think lefties have seen what Biden has to offer and would like to see more. This whole passage paints a pretty cartoonish concept of the left. It's definitely not something I'll entertain beyond letting you know...that ish was patronizing as hell

[HarthorneWingo]

He can do whatever he needs to after he's elected.

Right now, his statement prevents Trump from using an ill-defined policy against him, and doesn't allow himself to be painted as radical when his whole platform is being moderate.

My two concerns with this kind of thinking:
1. Does it really make a difference what Biden says? He's gonna be "the radical who has given in to the crazies of the party" no matter what stances he takes. The people who fall for it won't need "Defund the police" to turn them any more than the All Lives Matter crowd needed to see a marijuana charge to dismiss the Floyd protests and talk about something else. How many voters are going to say "well now that Joe Biden says defund the police, I'm going with the far less extreme Donald Trump" really?

Why take the risk? The inverse is true. Are people going to vote for Trump now because Biden says that he does not support a nebulous policy that nobody really has an agreed definition of?

2. If Biden wins the election by avoiding discussions about police reform rather than informing the public about those changes; and his logic is that police reform will hurt his chances to win. What does that make the electoral mandate when he wins?

There is literally no way he can go until November without speaking about his stance on police reform in great depth.

Biden wins the election by hiding in his closet. USA USA USA!

What risk? And what's nebulous about discussing police reform. I think what you really risk is alienating your own constituency. How are black folk going to feel about this weak tea?

[Clyde_Style]

Did you watch Biden's speech in Philadelphia?

I don't see someone afraid to talk about police brutality there.

We're parsing sound bites and debating what's the best campaign rhetoric because that is the world we live in.

Don't you see the irony of wanting things expressed how you want it while arguing it won't really matter to others (and how they vote) how he expresses himself?

If how Biden addresses this matters that much to you, then it probably also matters to Democrats who are not on the same part of the political spectrum as you.

We're not just speaking on campaign rhetoric here. This is about practical policy discussions and what Biden centers as policies to look for from his administration. Philly speech was a nice speech, by my recollection it offered nothing that suggested reallocation of police budgets towards other services that might supplement first responders in any way. We got "ban choke holds" and "increase federal reviews of police department practices that the Obama DOJ instituted." Are those good suggestions? Yes. Can we discuss how much more is feasible? I think so,

And That's the discussion I'd like to have with my presidential candidate. Not one about his rhetorical spin. But one about what he has practically planned and whether or not more is feasible. Joe Biden said he does not support defunding the police, cool. He can own it, it's a discussion to have. But let's not inject electoral fearmongering into the discussion as a way to hamstring the conversation is all I'm getting with my two concerns.

I see lots of residual apprehension over this notion that somehow you're going to be given empty promises by an establishment figure and then left at the altar once they get elected. But most of us here want the party to move left regardless of our take on campaign rhetoric and that is definitely happening.

It can be counter-productive to over-litigate the Democratic party nominee to goad them to speak in semi-radical tones when the best expectation is still a broad reform movement that will require lots of coalition building and heavy lifting for YEARS ahead. He is running for president and the protests are just two weeks old so even if he does issue a highly granular platform statement on police reforms before November he should not be expected to say yes to questions lacking nuance on these explosive issues.

You're making some assumptions here.
1. I'm not apprehensive about Biden giving empty promises, I'm apprehensive that his promises are milquetoast on issues that I'd like to see more fight. That held Obama back even with his super majority and then until the last couple of years of his presidency, it continued to hold him back from bold action.

2. The idea that a broad coalition can't be achieved if Biden offers support for "defund the police" concepts is just speculation. I'd argue that most people will be more receptive to the concept if they understand what it actually means. It'd be great for a presidential candidate to be out there explaining such.

3. You mention that he should not be expected to say "yes to questions lacking nuance" and I agree whole heartedly. I think he should be able to offer a nuanced response without "but Trump" being the excuse for why he isn't being bolder. He has some nice proposals, he doesn't seem interested in cutting police funding though. That's fine. But let's not provide him cover he hasn't remotely earned and let's have an honest conversation about the policies.

The last thing we need now is Biden being obsequious and overly conciliatory to every demand thrown at him. There are strident people with bullhorns out in the streets who think they get to set national agenda with a single confrontation and I don't want to see our next president saying things to soothe people gratuitously. He should respond thoughtfully and with things he can back up so he doesn't sell you a false bill of goods as you may fear he will do.

When leftists seize the day, a fair percentage of them sound like zealots and it does potentially affect Biden's results if more moderate voters think he can be forced to say anything in the heat of the moment. He has said plenty already and it is well on the side of justice and reforms.

I'm not so sure all of the leftists even know what Biden has said on these topics to be frank and that could be their problem, not Biden's.

Ehhh...I think lefties have seen what Biden has to offer and would like to see more. This whole passage paints a pretty cartoonish concept of the left. It's definitely not something I'll entertain beyond letting you know...that ish was patronizing as hell

1. Biden will get compared to Obama, but he's inherited a vastly more ripe context for change. Obama is actually a fairly conservative guy in my experience and I never heard him say the things Biden is saying now. You may be skeptical, but there are already differences and what looks like it will be a far more diverse coalition in terms of political orientations forming to assemble in the White House than Obama's cabinet.

2. "Defund The Police" is such a chit phrase that Biden has no choice but to distance himself from it. It is such an inept phrase and politically toxic that he has to sidestep that and re-address it on his own terms without being bullied by such an easily misconstrued use of language.

3. This is is still litigating his way of answering when the fruitful action is to push the dialogue past weak languaging and ecourage left wing interrogators to ask him more well constructed questions. You put the onus on him instead of the bad semantics you want to skewer him for dodging.

And I said a fair percentage of leftists are zealots and they express themselves that way. This is not true?

There are people who cheer over molotov cocktails as if that is a coherent revolutionary action and people demand instant public answers in the most confrontational fashion (i.e. you're either our ally or our enemy depending on whether you satisfy my answer) on issues that are not binary.

I was very careful to phrase my whole post to say there are people doing that without saying you are doing that. And I argue against reasoning that will feed into the less productive instincts of the left wing response.

This is all a very lengthy thread section now on how and why Biden's response was or was not expressed properly. It was wise to not say yes to a question that will be used against him by the right. I sure as heck am not living in fear of their contempt. I'm just looking to see that Biden doesn't end up gifting the kind of material that produces a Willie Horton commercial that costs him the election. That's my bottom line. And Biden did the right thing whether you like his languaging at this specific moment or not.

[GONYK]

My two concerns with this kind of thinking:
1. Does it really make a difference what Biden says? He's gonna be "the radical who has given in to the crazies of the party" no matter what stances he takes. The people who fall for it won't need "Defund the police" to turn them any more than the All Lives Matter crowd needed to see a marijuana charge to dismiss the Floyd protests and talk about something else. How many voters are going to say "well now that Joe Biden says defund the police, I'm going with the far less extreme Donald Trump" really?

Why take the risk? The inverse is true. Are people going to vote for Trump now because Biden says that he does not support a nebulous policy that nobody really has an agreed definition of?

2. If Biden wins the election by avoiding discussions about police reform rather than informing the public about those changes; and his logic is that police reform will hurt his chances to win. What does that make the electoral mandate when he wins?

There is literally no way he can go until November without speaking about his stance on police reform in great depth.

Biden wins the election by hiding in his closet. USA USA USA!

What risk? And what's nebulous about discussing police reform. I think what you really risk is alienating your own constituency. How are black folk going to feel about this weak tea?

Biden wasn't asked about "police reform". He was asked specifically if he supports defunding the police. Major difference.

Just like I support the Knicks getting new ownership. I don't support the Knicks achieving that new ownership by setting the Dolan family on fire.

I'm not saying defunding the police is that extreme, but it's a fact that a lot of people see it as that radical of a concept, because it's an unfamiliar one to what we've known as our way of life forever.

Biden has made it clear he's on board with police reform, and it will be impossible for him to move through this election cycle without going more in depth on that.

[Stannis]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

I got no doubt in my mind if Atlanta had better than usual voter turnout, Georgia would be blue.

But it's almost impossible when they always have issues like this.

[HarthorneWingo]

Why take the risk? The inverse is true. Are people going to vote for Trump now because Biden says that he does not support a nebulous policy that nobody really has an agreed definition of?



There is literally no way he can go until November without speaking about his stance on police reform in great depth.

Biden wins the election by hiding in his closet. USA USA USA!

What risk? And what's nebulous about discussing police reform. I think what you really risk is alienating your own constituency. How are black folk going to feel about this weak tea?

Biden wasn't asked about "police reform". He was asked specifically if he supports defunding the police. Major difference.

Just like I support the Knicks getting new ownership. I don't support the Knicks achieving that new ownership by setting the Dolan family on fire.

I'm not saying defunding the police is that extreme, but it's a fact that a lot of people see it as that radical of a concept, because it's an unfamiliar one to what we've known as our way of life forever.

Biden has made it clear he's on board with police reform, and it will be impossible for him to move through this election cycle without going more in depth on that.

[Phish Tank]

The reason Biden said not to defund the police is less because he previously stated against that, but mainly because the CBC said no. The CBC is a powerful arm of the Party, whether many of us like it or not. Karen Bass - the head of the CBC - said no. Jim Clyburn - perhaps the 3rd most powerful African American in Politics after Obama & Clarence Thomas - said no. Harris & Booker said no. They're pushing Biden on this, not vice versa.

Best believe, tho, if the CBC ever pushed to defund the police, any democratic candidate for president, including Biden, would be on board.

[HarthorneWingo]

The reason Biden said not to defund the police is less because he previously stated against that, but mainly because the CBC said no. The CBC is a powerful arm of the Party, whether many of us like it or not. Karen Bass - the head of the CBC - said no. Jim Clyburn - perhaps the 3rd most powerful African American in Politics after Obama & Clarence Thomas - said no. Harris & Booker said no. They're pushing Biden on this, not vice versa.

Best believe, tho, if the CBC ever pushed to defund the police, any democratic candidate for president, including Biden, would be on board.

Links please!

Why would the CBC be against reforming law enforcement? Let's face it, all we are talking about redistribution of resources away from law enforcement on particular issues which they've proven they are not equipped to handle, e.g. homelessness and mental illness, gangs and drug related violence, domestic violence (I know for a fact that police HATE responding to these because 95% of the time the couples have make-up sex before the court hearing and don't show; I guess you know what happens to the other 5%), etc. Why would the CBC take that position? Isn't there a Progressive Black Caucus or at least a Progressive Caucus that included black congresspeople? I'm sure Minnesota AG Keith Ellison is on board with "redistribution" of police resource and reshaping the local law enforcement model.

I need proof, dawg.

[Phish Tank]

The reason Biden said not to defund the police is less because he previously stated against that, but mainly because the CBC said no. The CBC is a powerful arm of the Party, whether many of us like it or not. Karen Bass - the head of the CBC - said no. Jim Clyburn - perhaps the 3rd most powerful African American in Politics after Obama & Clarence Thomas - said no. Harris & Booker said no. They're pushing Biden on this, not vice versa.

Best believe, tho, if the CBC ever pushed to defund the police, any democratic candidate for president, including Biden, would be on board.

Links please!

Why would the CBC be against reforming law enforcement? Let's face it, all we are talking about redistribution of resources away from law enforcement on particular issues which they've proven they are not equipped to handle, e.g. homelessness and mental illness, gangs and drug related violence, domestic violence (I know for a fact that police HATE responding to these because 95% of the time the couples have make-up sex before the court hearing and don't show; I guess you know what happens to the other 5%), etc. Why would the CBC take that position? Isn't there a Progressive Black Caucus or at least a Progressive Caucus that included black congresspeople? I'm sure Minnesota AG Keith Ellison is on board with "redistribution" of police resource and reshaping the local law enforcement model.

I need proof, dawg.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/defund-police-democrats-307766

A lot of what I mentioned is in this article. They all want to reform law enforcement, but they're shying away from the phrase "defunding the police" because they all know it's political suicide. It'll energize more republicans to vote or force independents who may have wanted to vote for you not to. It'll turn into attack ads. Just look at how republicans use "GND" to scare away those progressive candidates in red states back in 2018? Same thing will happen.

None of what you're proposing is wrong. CBC's doing what they can to get a true majority support. As for a progressive caucus, there's a congressional progressive caucus. But there are members of that caucus - Jerry Nadler, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Hakeem Jeffries, Pramila Jayapal - that have all expressed some sort of caution when it comes to using the term "defund the police"

The list of members in the caucus are below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

FWIW, remember that Minneapolis - where Ilhan Omar represents - is really a supremely progressive town outside of its crummy police department. Keith Ellison was the rep before Omar. Ellison was the first Muslim to be elected into Congress.

So what's happening in Minneapolis - and what we'll see in NYC, Los Angeles, and maybe a few other cities - are only happening because they're super duper safe progressive cities. Now once they do defund on a city level, you can then assess their performance to see whether it'll work statewide or nationwide. Note that Camden didn't truly defund their police since their budget didn't change on a net-to-net basis.

[HarthorneWingo]

I just saw Biden’s recorded message to the Floyd family. His voice was so thin and fragile. I understand the circumstances calls for a soft touch but that wasn’t it. He had trouble articulating his words. There is no way he’ll be able to handle the stress and meet the physical demands of the job. Yeah, I know, “He’s better than Trump!”

[HarthorneWingo]

The reason Biden said not to defund the police is less because he previously stated against that, but mainly because the CBC said no. The CBC is a powerful arm of the Party, whether many of us like it or not. Karen Bass - the head of the CBC - said no. Jim Clyburn - perhaps the 3rd most powerful African American in Politics after Obama & Clarence Thomas - said no. Harris & Booker said no. They're pushing Biden on this, not vice versa.

Best believe, tho, if the CBC ever pushed to defund the police, any democratic candidate for president, including Biden, would be on board.

Links please!

Why would the CBC be against reforming law enforcement? Let's face it, all we are talking about redistribution of resources away from law enforcement on particular issues which they've proven they are not equipped to handle, e.g. homelessness and mental illness, gangs and drug related violence, domestic violence (I know for a fact that police HATE responding to these because 95% of the time the couples have make-up sex before the court hearing and don't show; I guess you know what happens to the other 5%), etc. Why would the CBC take that position? Isn't there a Progressive Black Caucus or at least a Progressive Caucus that included black congresspeople? I'm sure Minnesota AG Keith Ellison is on board with "redistribution" of police resource and reshaping the local law enforcement model.

I need proof, dawg.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/defund-police-democrats-307766

A lot of what I mentioned is in this article. They all want to reform law enforcement, but they're shying away from the phrase "defunding the police" because they all know it's political suicide. It'll energize more republicans to vote or force independents who may have wanted to vote for you not to. It'll turn into attack ads. Just look at how republicans use "GND" to scare away those progressive candidates in red states back in 2018? Same thing will happen.

None of what you're proposing is wrong. CBC's doing what they can to get a true majority support. As for a progressive caucus, there's a congressional progressive caucus. But there are members of that caucus - Jerry Nadler, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Hakeem Jeffries, Pramila Jayapal - that have all expressed some sort of caution when it comes to using the term "defund the police"

The list of members in the caucus are below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

FWIW, remember that Minneapolis - where Ilhan Omar represents - is really a supremely progressive town outside of its crummy police department. Keith Ellison was the rep before Omar. Ellison was the first Muslim to be elected into Congress.

So what's happening in Minneapolis - and what we'll see in NYC, Los Angeles, and maybe a few other cities - are only happening because they're super duper safe progressive cities. Now once they do defund on a city level, you can then assess their performance to see whether it'll work statewide or nationwide. Note that Camden didn't truly defund their police since their budget didn't change on a net-to-net basis.

Typical Democrat hysteria. The Republicans have them so gun shy. It’s like at a UFC weigh in and we meet on stage for the state down and our opponent suddenly fakes a punch and we flinch. Except we flinch at every stare down. Always.

Do you know that Democrats easily outnumber Republicans in America. The reason we don’t win is because Democrats don’t vote. Why don’t they get out and vote? I believe because Democrats don’t really offer anything much different, usually. Trump, while an insane outlier, was still the natural progression beginning with Reagan and getting A little crazier with each passing election while offer passive resistance.

So now Americans of all races, religions, and sexual orientation are out on the streets protesting and getting beaten, tased, tear-gassed, Maced, and arrested while the CBC is afraid of Trump riling up his white supremacist/alt-right lunatic base? Fck ‘em. Time to show some balls. Biden has increased his lead in the swing states because Trump continues to show his ineptitude and weakness. Even Obama is talking about using this opportunity to bring about much needed police reform which means redistributing resources from police to other underfunded programs WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IMPROVING COMMUNITY SAFETY.

It’s nothing to be afraid of. Fck the police and fck the Republicans. We need to make them bend to our will. Period. Play time is over. Pelosi needs to go. Buttar has to beat her in the primary. Elliot Engel has to go. He’s also being challenged by a black progressive. A black progressive in Kentucky is (Booker) is running against the self-proclaimed “Trump-Democrat,” Amy McGrath. They are not in line with the CBC. And fck James Clyburn too. He can’t tell people who to vote for. Black folk need to make up their minds if they’re going to follow this leaders who have already secured their ticket into The Club or realize that those who have “made it” in the last four decades are not interested in changing things up for you. They don’t want to change anything in meaningful ways that actually make a difference.

What DOES Clyburn believe in? Free in state college tuition? College tuition debt forgiveness? Green New Deal? Medicare for all? Can you tell me - without researching it - what Biden’s big programs are if he wins because - other than lowering the Medicare qualifying age to 60 (whoopee!) - I have no idea what he stands for.


Sorry.

[Phish Tank]

Links please!

Why would the CBC be against reforming law enforcement? Let's face it, all we are talking about redistribution of resources away from law enforcement on particular issues which they've proven they are not equipped to handle, e.g. homelessness and mental illness, gangs and drug related violence, domestic violence (I know for a fact that police HATE responding to these because 95% of the time the couples have make-up sex before the court hearing and don't show; I guess you know what happens to the other 5%), etc. Why would the CBC take that position? Isn't there a Progressive Black Caucus or at least a Progressive Caucus that included black congresspeople? I'm sure Minnesota AG Keith Ellison is on board with "redistribution" of police resource and reshaping the local law enforcement model.

I need proof, dawg.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/defund-police-democrats-307766

A lot of what I mentioned is in this article. They all want to reform law enforcement, but they're shying away from the phrase "defunding the police" because they all know it's political suicide. It'll energize more republicans to vote or force independents who may have wanted to vote for you not to. It'll turn into attack ads. Just look at how republicans use "GND" to scare away those progressive candidates in red states back in 2018? Same thing will happen.

None of what you're proposing is wrong. CBC's doing what they can to get a true majority support. As for a progressive caucus, there's a congressional progressive caucus. But there are members of that caucus - Jerry Nadler, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Hakeem Jeffries, Pramila Jayapal - that have all expressed some sort of caution when it comes to using the term "defund the police"

The list of members in the caucus are below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

FWIW, remember that Minneapolis - where Ilhan Omar represents - is really a supremely progressive town outside of its crummy police department. Keith Ellison was the rep before Omar. Ellison was the first Muslim to be elected into Congress.

So what's happening in Minneapolis - and what we'll see in NYC, Los Angeles, and maybe a few other cities - are only happening because they're super duper safe progressive cities. Now once they do defund on a city level, you can then assess their performance to see whether it'll work statewide or nationwide. Note that Camden didn't truly defund their police since their budget didn't change on a net-to-net basis.

Typical Democrat hysteria. The Republicans have them so gun shy. It’s like at a UFC weigh in and we meet on stage for the state down and our opponent suddenly fakes a punch and we flinch. Except we flinch at every stare down. Always.

Do you know that Democrats easily outnumber Republicans in America. The reason we don’t win is because Democrats don’t vote. Why don’t they get out and vote? I believe because Democrats don’t really offer anything much different, usually. Trump, while an insane outlier, was still the natural progression beginning with Reagan and getting A little crazier with each passing election while offer passive resistance.

So now Americans of all races, religions, and sexual orientation are out on the streets protesting and getting beaten, tased, tear-gassed, Maced, and arrested while the CBC is afraid of Trump riling up his white supremacist/alt-right lunatic base? Fck ‘em. Time to show some balls. Biden has increased his lead in the swing states because Trump continues to show his ineptitude and weakness. Even Obama is talking about using this opportunity to bring about much needed police reform which means redistributing resources from police to other underfunded programs WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IMPROVING COMMUNITY SAFETY.

It’s nothing to be afraid of. Fck the police and fck the Republicans. We need to make them bend to our will. Period. Play time is over. Pelosi needs to go. Buttar has to beat her in the primary. Elliot Engel has to go. He’s also being challenged by a black progressive. A black progressive in Kentucky is (Booker) is running against the self-proclaimed “Trump-Democrat,” Amy McGrath. They are not in line with the CBC. And fck James Clyburn too. He can’t tell people who to for. Black folk need to make up their minds if they’re going to follow this leaders who have already secured their ticket into The Club or realize that those who have “made it” in the last four decades are not interested in changing things up for you. They don’t want to change anything in meaningful ways that actually make a difference.

What DOES Clyburn believe in? Free in state college tuition? College tuition debt forgiveness? Green New Deal? Medicare for all? Can you tell me - without researching it - what Biden’s big programs are if he wins because - other than lowering the Medicare qualifying age to 60 (whoopee!) - I have no idea what he stands for.


Sorry.

Democrats outweighs Republicans nationally. Do Democrats outweigh Republicans electorally? That's the real question.

[HarthorneWingo]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/defund-police-democrats-307766

A lot of what I mentioned is in this article. They all want to reform law enforcement, but they're shying away from the phrase "defunding the police" because they all know it's political suicide. It'll energize more republicans to vote or force independents who may have wanted to vote for you not to. It'll turn into attack ads. Just look at how republicans use "GND" to scare away those progressive candidates in red states back in 2018? Same thing will happen.

None of what you're proposing is wrong. CBC's doing what they can to get a true majority support. As for a progressive caucus, there's a congressional progressive caucus. But there are members of that caucus - Jerry Nadler, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Hakeem Jeffries, Pramila Jayapal - that have all expressed some sort of caution when it comes to using the term "defund the police"

The list of members in the caucus are below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

FWIW, remember that Minneapolis - where Ilhan Omar represents - is really a supremely progressive town outside of its crummy police department. Keith Ellison was the rep before Omar. Ellison was the first Muslim to be elected into Congress.

So what's happening in Minneapolis - and what we'll see in NYC, Los Angeles, and maybe a few other cities - are only happening because they're super duper safe progressive cities. Now once they do defund on a city level, you can then assess their performance to see whether it'll work statewide or nationwide. Note that Camden didn't truly defund their police since their budget didn't change on a net-to-net basis.

Typical Democrat hysteria. The Republicans have them so gun shy. It’s like at a UFC weigh in and we meet on stage for the state down and our opponent suddenly fakes a punch and we flinch. Except we flinch at every stare down. Always.

Do you know that Democrats easily outnumber Republicans in America. The reason we don’t win is because Democrats don’t vote. Why don’t they get out and vote? I believe because Democrats don’t really offer anything much different, usually. Trump, while an insane outlier, was still the natural progression beginning with Reagan and getting A little crazier with each passing election while offer passive resistance.

So now Americans of all races, religions, and sexual orientation are out on the streets protesting and getting beaten, tased, tear-gassed, Maced, and arrested while the CBC is afraid of Trump riling up his white supremacist/alt-right lunatic base? Fck ‘em. Time to show some balls. Biden has increased his lead in the swing states because Trump continues to show his ineptitude and weakness. Even Obama is talking about using this opportunity to bring about much needed police reform which means redistributing resources from police to other underfunded programs WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IMPROVING COMMUNITY SAFETY.

It’s nothing to be afraid of. Fck the police and fck the Republicans. We need to make them bend to our will. Period. Play time is over. Pelosi needs to go. Buttar has to beat her in the primary. Elliot Engel has to go. He’s also being challenged by a black progressive. A black progressive in Kentucky is (Booker) is running against the self-proclaimed “Trump-Democrat,” Amy McGrath. They are not in line with the CBC. And fck James Clyburn too. He can’t tell people who to for. Black folk need to make up their minds if they’re going to follow this leaders who have already secured their ticket into The Club or realize that those who have “made it” in the last four decades are not interested in changing things up for you. They don’t want to change anything in meaningful ways that actually make a difference.

What DOES Clyburn believe in? Free in state college tuition? College tuition debt forgiveness? Green New Deal? Medicare for all? Can you tell me - without researching it - what Biden’s big programs are if he wins because - other than lowering the Medicare qualifying age to 60 (whoopee!) - I have no idea what he stands for.


Sorry.

Democrats outweighs Republicans nationally. Do Democrats outweigh Republicans electorally? That's the real question.

Not the away Democrats allowed Republicans to gerrymander the hell out of a lot of states. Typical Democratic ineptitude and weakness.

[Phish Tank]

Typical Democrat hysteria. The Republicans have them so gun shy. It’s like at a UFC weigh in and we meet on stage for the state down and our opponent suddenly fakes a punch and we flinch. Except we flinch at every stare down. Always.

Do you know that Democrats easily outnumber Republicans in America. The reason we don’t win is because Democrats don’t vote. Why don’t they get out and vote? I believe because Democrats don’t really offer anything much different, usually. Trump, while an insane outlier, was still the natural progression beginning with Reagan and getting A little crazier with each passing election while offer passive resistance.

So now Americans of all races, religions, and sexual orientation are out on the streets protesting and getting beaten, tased, tear-gassed, Maced, and arrested while the CBC is afraid of Trump riling up his white supremacist/alt-right lunatic base? Fck ‘em. Time to show some balls. Biden has increased his lead in the swing states because Trump continues to show his ineptitude and weakness. Even Obama is talking about using this opportunity to bring about much needed police reform which means redistributing resources from police to other underfunded programs WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IMPROVING COMMUNITY SAFETY.

It’s nothing to be afraid of. Fck the police and fck the Republicans. We need to make them bend to our will. Period. Play time is over. Pelosi needs to go. Buttar has to beat her in the primary. Elliot Engel has to go. He’s also being challenged by a black progressive. A black progressive in Kentucky is (Booker) is running against the self-proclaimed “Trump-Democrat,” Amy McGrath. They are not in line with the CBC. And fck James Clyburn too. He can’t tell people who to for. Black folk need to make up their minds if they’re going to follow this leaders who have already secured their ticket into The Club or realize that those who have “made it” in the last four decades are not interested in changing things up for you. They don’t want to change anything in meaningful ways that actually make a difference.

What DOES Clyburn believe in? Free in state college tuition? College tuition debt forgiveness? Green New Deal? Medicare for all? Can you tell me - without researching it - what Biden’s big programs are if he wins because - other than lowering the Medicare qualifying age to 60 (whoopee!) - I have no idea what he stands for.


Sorry.

Democrats outweighs Republicans nationally. Do Democrats outweigh Republicans electorally? That's the real question.

Not the away Democrats allowed Republicans to gerrymander the hell out of a lot of states. Typical Democratic ineptitude and weakness.

Republicans took the state houses away from Democrats in 2010. A certain subsection of Democratic voters (mainly young voters) didn't care about state and local elections and are paying the price for it now.