OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[KnicksGadfly]

I think the big issue with "defunding" the police is that it's easily misconstrued. It's kinda like kneeling at the flag. People are going to take it the wrong way, and a lot of them are going to do it deliberately to avoid dealing with the issue.

Let’s be honest, anyone who doesn’t understand what “defunding” means In today’s context, either understands completely what it means but refuses to be on board no matter how you explain it because they’re conservative pro-cop A-holes, is simply an ignorant snowflake on the issue, or a political pussy.

Shaming Democrats in cowering before them is how Republicans have manipulated and gaslighted Democrats ever since Reagan. Smh

Mm...I agree, there's a large segment that will do what you say, but I think a large part of this is also just misinformation. Like I think studies have shown that if you remove the Obamacare-moniker, a lot of people support it more. Politicians are just really good at manipulating things. I don't think the average American is really well-informed...the Republicans (and Fox News) does a good job of taking advantage of that.

Anyway, I have to admit, when I first heard "defund the police," I thought it meant getting rid of all police. But now that I've dug deeper into it, it makes a lot more sense.

[HarthorneWingo]

I think the big issue with "defunding" the police is that it's easily misconstrued. It's kinda like kneeling at the flag. People are going to take it the wrong way, and a lot of them are going to do it deliberately to avoid dealing with the issue.

Let’s be honest, anyone who doesn’t understand what “defunding” means In today’s context, either understands completely what it means but refuses to be on board no matter how you explain it because they’re conservative pro-cop A-holes, is simply an ignorant snowflake on the issue, or a political pussy.

Shaming Democrats in cowering before them is how Republicans have manipulated and gaslighted Democrats ever since Reagan. Smh

No defunding the police is an idiotic tag line in terms of politics. The fact that theres no real clarity regarding what it means is the problem. The majority of people will agree with the policies behind if laid out, but people are lazy and stupid, so it’s better to be clear about policy goals than cling to a catchphrase that plays well on twitter. Just assume that the vast majority of voters in the upcoming election only read headlines to get their news.

What democrat selected that hashtag? No one to my knowledge. Yet, we're running from the debate anytime mentions that word. And now Biden wants to throw $300 million more dollars at law enforcement. No, that's wrong. There's no excuse for not being able to pivot away from "defunding" if a politician is uncomfortable with that word to discussing the redistribution of funds when things change on the ground. But we have The Walking Dead running against the Insane Clown Posse so no wonder there's such a brouhaha over this issue that that Democrats once-again have created for themselves because they just don't have the guts to stand up to the Republicans. Do you really mean to say that you haven't noticed how they've rag-dolled us for the last forty years?

[blanko]

Look at the city of chicago
Annual police budget over a billion
Paid out more than 600 mil in police misconduct settlements over 10+years
Higher murder rate than war zones
god knows how much in police pensions

If your chicago, what are you getting back for your money exactly?

I dont blamw them for look for drastic solutions

[CharlesOakley]

So the corpse of Joe Biden wants to reform police department BY INCREASING FUNDING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT BY $300 MILLION. Biden, The Architect of "The Old Deal." FOH

https://theintercept.com/2020/06/11/defund-the-police-joe-biden-cops/

“to reinvigorate community policing in our country.”

but why bother actually talking about concrete facts when you can cherry pick headlines and call him a corpse?

Seems like he is pandering to the police unions. Sure, we are going to invest in "community policing" but your budgets will go up, so you can buy more tanks if you like - is how I read that.

[robillionaire]

Let’s be honest, anyone who doesn’t understand what “defunding” means In today’s context, either understands completely what it means but refuses to be on board no matter how you explain it because they’re conservative pro-cop A-holes, is simply an ignorant snowflake on the issue, or a political pussy.

Shaming Democrats in cowering before them is how Republicans have manipulated and gaslighted Democrats ever since Reagan. Smh

No defunding the police is an idiotic tag line in terms of politics. The fact that theres no real clarity regarding what it means is the problem. The majority of people will agree with the policies behind if laid out, but people are lazy and stupid, so it’s better to be clear about policy goals than cling to a catchphrase that plays well on twitter. Just assume that the vast majority of voters in the upcoming election only read headlines to get their news.

What democrat selected that hashtag? No one to my knowledge. Yet, we're running from the debate anytime mentions that word. And now Biden wants to throw $300 million more dollars at law enforcement. No, that's wrong. There's no excuse for not being able to pivot away from "defunding" if a politician is uncomfortable with that word to discussing the redistribution of funds when things change on the ground. But we have The Walking Dead running against the Insane Clown Posse so no wonder there's such a brouhaha over this issue that that Democrats once-again have created for themselves because they just don't have the guts to stand up to the Republicans. Do you really mean to say that you haven't noticed how they've rag-dolled us for the last forty years?

Wingo, I don't even think it's about guts to stand up to republicans, or being manipulated and gaslighted by republicans. this is just how the dems seem to function, as an organization that exists as a buffer to preserve the status quo as long as possible and that has to be repeatedly dragged to the right side of history by the people out of political necessity. Both parties are running on nostalgia, the GOP to return to the confederacy and jim crow and the dems to return to the time before trump when things still weren't working for most people other than the wealthy. And of course both support right wing economics/imperialist foreign policy

this is reminiscent of how they responded years ago when black lives matter came out, the internal memo detailing how to handle the activists with platitudes and not to offer real support for their policy positions. because to support BLM (who were being portrayed as a terrorist organization) would scare off too many conservative white voters. Some leaned into the "all lives matter" thing before being scolded for it. It was like pulling teeth to get them to even say the words. Fast forward 5 years, they have been made to openly and loudly support BLM, some may say performative support (still won't support the systemic changes being demanded) Many prominent and beloved dems were critical of kaepernick for his protest which had been re-framed as an attack on the flag and military. obama called ferguson protesters thugs and doubled down on that. even with marriage equality they would not have courage to openly support until it had overwhelming support from the public and the supreme court made it happen. that had been re-framed as an assault on "traditional marriage" and no democrat presidential nominee campaigned in support until 2016 when it was already legal. medicare for all has been falsely re-framed as an attempt to defund obamacare. So yes, push for any change will be intentionally misconstrued, it's the playbook.

What's clear is that we can't wait for them to get on board on the right side of history because they won't until their hand is forced and polls show that they have to. Because elections polls and optics are always going to be top priority. very few politicians have courage enough to actually side with the people when it's been deemed unpopular to do so and those are the ones I have a modicum of respect for. But at the end of the day all we can do is keep dragging

[HarthorneWingo]

No defunding the police is an idiotic tag line in terms of politics. The fact that theres no real clarity regarding what it means is the problem. The majority of people will agree with the policies behind if laid out, but people are lazy and stupid, so it’s better to be clear about policy goals than cling to a catchphrase that plays well on twitter. Just assume that the vast majority of voters in the upcoming election only read headlines to get their news.

What democrat selected that hashtag? No one to my knowledge. Yet, we're running from the debate anytime mentions that word. And now Biden wants to throw $300 million more dollars at law enforcement. No, that's wrong. There's no excuse for not being able to pivot away from "defunding" if a politician is uncomfortable with that word to discussing the redistribution of funds when things change on the ground. But we have The Walking Dead running against the Insane Clown Posse so no wonder there's such a brouhaha over this issue that that Democrats once-again have created for themselves because they just don't have the guts to stand up to the Republicans. Do you really mean to say that you haven't noticed how they've rag-dolled us for the last forty years?

Wingo, I don't even think it's about guts to stand up to republicans, or being manipulated and gaslighted by republicans. this is just how the dems seem to function, as an organization that exists as a buffer to preserve the status quo as long as possible and that has to be repeatedly dragged to the right side of history by the people out of political necessity. Both parties are running on nostalgia, the GOP to return to the confederacy and jim crow and the dems to return to the time before trump when things still weren't working for most people other than the wealthy. And of course both support right wing economics/imperialist foreign policy

this is reminiscent of how they responded years ago when black lives matter came out, the internal memo detailing how to handle the activists with platitudes and not to offer real support for their policy positions. because to support BLM (who were being portrayed as a terrorist organization) would scare off too many conservative white voters. Some leaned into the "all lives matter" thing before being scolded for it. It was like pulling teeth to get them to even say the words. Fast forward 5 years, they have been made to openly and loudly support BLM, some may say performative support (still won't support the systemic changes being demanded) Many prominent and beloved dems were critical of kaepernick for his protest which had been re-framed as an attack on the flag and military. obama called ferguson protesters thugs and doubled down on that. even with marriage equality they would not have courage to openly support until it had overwhelming support from the public and the supreme court made it happen. that had been re-framed as an assault on "traditional marriage" and no democrat presidential nominee campaigned in support until 2016 when it was already legal. medicare for all has been falsely re-framed as an attempt to defund obamacare. So yes, push for any change will be intentionally misconstrued, it's the playbook.

What's clear is that we can't wait for them to get on board on the right side of history because they won't until their hand is forced and polls show that they have to. Because elections polls and optics are always going to be top priority. very few politicians have courage enough to actually side with the people when it's been deemed unpopular to do so and those are the ones I have a modicum of respect for. But at the end of the day all we can do is keep dragging

You’re right

[j4remi]

Wingo, I don't even think it's about guts to stand up to republicans, or being manipulated and gaslighted by republicans. this is just how the dems seem to function, as an organization that exists as a buffer to preserve the status quo as long as possible and that has to be repeatedly dragged to the right side of history by the people out of political necessity. Both parties are running on nostalgia, the GOP to return to the confederacy and jim crow and the dems to return to the time before trump when things still weren't working for most people other than the wealthy. And of course both support right wing economics/imperialist foreign policy

this is reminiscent of how they responded years ago when black lives matter came out, the internal memo detailing how to handle the activists with platitudes and not to offer real support for their policy positions. because to support BLM (who were being portrayed as a terrorist organization) would scare off too many conservative white voters. Some leaned into the "all lives matter" thing before being scolded for it. It was like pulling teeth to get them to even say the words. Fast forward 5 years, they have been made to openly and loudly support BLM, some may say performative support (still won't support the systemic changes being demanded) Many prominent and beloved dems were critical of kaepernick for his protest which had been re-framed as an attack on the flag and military. obama called ferguson protesters thugs and doubled down on that. even with marriage equality they would not have courage to openly support until it had overwhelming support from the public and the supreme court made it happen. that had been re-framed as an assault on "traditional marriage" and no democrat presidential nominee campaigned in support until 2016 when it was already legal. medicare for all has been falsely re-framed as an attempt to defund obamacare. So yes, push for any change will be intentionally misconstrued, it's the playbook.

What's clear is that we can't wait for them to get on board on the right side of history because they won't until their hand is forced and polls show that they have to. Because elections polls and optics are always going to be top priority. very few politicians have courage enough to actually side with the people when it's been deemed unpopular to do so and those are the ones I have a modicum of respect for. But at the end of the day all we can do is keep dragging

Fam this is the EXACT scenario I keep getting flashbacks too. I'm also skeptical that if the slogan were something less aggressive ("Demilitarize or "Shrink" the police) that it'd make a difference. I doubt they'd change gears at all, but that's purely spoken from my own personal biases and experience.

[Pointgod]

Let’s be honest, anyone who doesn’t understand what “defunding” means In today’s context, either understands completely what it means but refuses to be on board no matter how you explain it because they’re conservative pro-cop A-holes, is simply an ignorant snowflake on the issue, or a political pussy.

Shaming Democrats in cowering before them is how Republicans have manipulated and gaslighted Democrats ever since Reagan. Smh

No defunding the police is an idiotic tag line in terms of politics. The fact that theres no real clarity regarding what it means is the problem. The majority of people will agree with the policies behind if laid out, but people are lazy and stupid, so it’s better to be clear about policy goals than cling to a catchphrase that plays well on twitter. Just assume that the vast majority of voters in the upcoming election only read headlines to get their news.

What democrat selected that hashtag? No one to my knowledge. Yet, we're running from the debate anytime mentions that word. And now Biden wants to throw $300 million more dollars at law enforcement. No, that's wrong. There's no excuse for not being able to pivot away from "defunding" if a politician is uncomfortable with that word to discussing the redistribution of funds when things change on the ground. But we have The Walking Dead running against the Insane Clown Posse so no wonder there's such a brouhaha over this issue that that Democrats once-again have created for themselves because they just don't have the guts to stand up to the Republicans. Do you really mean to say that you haven't noticed how they've rag-dolled us for the last forty years?

Yes Democrats didn’t invent the hashtag but there’s no need to fall into the trap. I fully agree with you that Democrats need to pivot to talking about other things, that’s why there’s zero political benefit in falling into the defunding the police trap.

Instead of just reading headlines have you looked into what Biden is proposing with the 300 million in funding? Do your own research and stop letting talking heads trying to generate clicks through outrage shape what you believe.

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-300-million-for-reshaped-police-departments-in-op-ed-2020-6

"Every single police department should have the money they need to institute real reforms like adopting a national use of force standard, buying body cameras, and recruiting more diverse police officers."

"And, we need to prevent 911 calls in scenarios where police should not be our first responders. That means making serious investments in mental health services, drug treatment and prevention programs, and services for people experiencing homelessness.

Biden is advocating for a lot of things the defunding the police advocates are also aligned to. And the major police reforms need to be done at the local level. It makes no sense for anyone at the Federal level to fall into the semantics game.

Kamala Harris is a good example of how to approach the question.

Read on Twitter

[robillionaire]

Wingo, I don't even think it's about guts to stand up to republicans, or being manipulated and gaslighted by republicans. this is just how the dems seem to function, as an organization that exists as a buffer to preserve the status quo as long as possible and that has to be repeatedly dragged to the right side of history by the people out of political necessity. Both parties are running on nostalgia, the GOP to return to the confederacy and jim crow and the dems to return to the time before trump when things still weren't working for most people other than the wealthy. And of course both support right wing economics/imperialist foreign policy

this is reminiscent of how they responded years ago when black lives matter came out, the internal memo detailing how to handle the activists with platitudes and not to offer real support for their policy positions. because to support BLM (who were being portrayed as a terrorist organization) would scare off too many conservative white voters. Some leaned into the "all lives matter" thing before being scolded for it. It was like pulling teeth to get them to even say the words. Fast forward 5 years, they have been made to openly and loudly support BLM, some may say performative support (still won't support the systemic changes being demanded) Many prominent and beloved dems were critical of kaepernick for his protest which had been re-framed as an attack on the flag and military. obama called ferguson protesters thugs and doubled down on that. even with marriage equality they would not have courage to openly support until it had overwhelming support from the public and the supreme court made it happen. that had been re-framed as an assault on "traditional marriage" and no democrat presidential nominee campaigned in support until 2016 when it was already legal. medicare for all has been falsely re-framed as an attempt to defund obamacare. So yes, push for any change will be intentionally misconstrued, it's the playbook.

What's clear is that we can't wait for them to get on board on the right side of history because they won't until their hand is forced and polls show that they have to. Because elections polls and optics are always going to be top priority. very few politicians have courage enough to actually side with the people when it's been deemed unpopular to do so and those are the ones I have a modicum of respect for. But at the end of the day all we can do is keep dragging

Fam this is the EXACT scenario I keep getting flashbacks too. I'm also skeptical that if the slogan were something less aggressive ("Demilitarize or "Shrink" the police) that it'd make a difference. I doubt they'd change gears at all, but that's purely spoken from my own personal biases and experience.

I think "defund" is already fairly non-aggressive. maybe they would prefer "reduce funding" or "redirect funding" because it sounds like they'll still be funded in some capacity. But they should probably latch on to that while it's still on the table because the next slogan is abolish just like we already have been saying with abolishing ICE

[robillionaire]

No defunding the police is an idiotic tag line in terms of politics. The fact that theres no real clarity regarding what it means is the problem. The majority of people will agree with the policies behind if laid out, but people are lazy and stupid, so it’s better to be clear about policy goals than cling to a catchphrase that plays well on twitter. Just assume that the vast majority of voters in the upcoming election only read headlines to get their news.

What democrat selected that hashtag? No one to my knowledge. Yet, we're running from the debate anytime mentions that word. And now Biden wants to throw $300 million more dollars at law enforcement. No, that's wrong. There's no excuse for not being able to pivot away from "defunding" if a politician is uncomfortable with that word to discussing the redistribution of funds when things change on the ground. But we have The Walking Dead running against the Insane Clown Posse so no wonder there's such a brouhaha over this issue that that Democrats once-again have created for themselves because they just don't have the guts to stand up to the Republicans. Do you really mean to say that you haven't noticed how they've rag-dolled us for the last forty years?

Yes Democrats didn’t invent the hashtag but there’s no need to fall into the trap. I fully agree with you that Democrats need to pivot to talking about other things, that’s why there’s zero political benefit in falling into the defunding the police trap.

Instead of just reading headlines have you looked into what Biden is proposing with the 300 million in funding? Do your own research and stop letting talking heads trying to generate clicks through outrage shape what you believe.

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-300-million-for-reshaped-police-departments-in-op-ed-2020-6

"Every single police department should have the money they need to institute real reforms like adopting a national use of force standard, buying body cameras, and recruiting more diverse police officers."

"And, we need to prevent 911 calls in scenarios where police should not be our first responders. That means making serious investments in mental health services, drug treatment and prevention programs, and services for people experiencing homelessness.

Biden is advocating for a lot of things the defunding the police advocates are also aligned to. And the major police reforms need to be done at the local level. It makes no sense for anyone at the Federal level to fall into the semantics game.

Kamala Harris is a good example of how to approach the question.

Read on Twitter

blm: defund the police!

dems: give police departments more money so they can recruit more diverse cops and buy more body cameras

this highlights the the ideological divide in a nutshell doesn't it

yes these things need to be done at a local level but the goal is for the funds to be redirected to other programs and reduce the size and scope of the department, not to throw more money at the problem and expand it further, this is counterproductive

when we say want to stop wars we don't mean we want pink breast cancer awareness jets and more diversity on the battlefield we actually want to stop regime change wars. we are not asking for more rainbow police cars or more women cops etc. this is intersectional imperialism or intersectional police state repression

also the use of body cameras is still a subject of controversy, they are turned at the people and not at them and it is increasing surveillance/decreasing privacy, recently they are trying to add facial recognition software to them, and studies are showing they aren't effective reducing police violence. Most of the violence in recent weeks has been in full view of cameras, they just don't care because they don't believe they will be held accountable

to be fair some of those reforms are admittedly good common sense ideas like the use of force standards and the investments in mental health and drug treatment. But if we stop swinging for the fences we don't even get that. So you'll have to just excuse us as we keep demanding better

[j4remi]

Kamala Harris is a good example of how to approach the question.

Read on Twitter

This was really well done on her part.

[HarthorneWingo]

Kamala Harris is a good example of how to approach the question.

Read on Twitter

This was really well done on her part.

She sees that VP spot is still open. I guess she found religion all of a sudden?

[Capn'O]

To me "re-structure public safety" is both more accurate and less threatening. It's likely because there's more broad support but not passionate support that a slogan like this was not used. Everyone likes a good fight in the USofA.

[GONYK]

Interesting thread:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[HarthorneWingo]

Interesting thread:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Yascha Mounck?

Spoiler:

I'll take Chritos, Sam, and definitely Krystal Ball

The only point that really made any sense was No. 1. And yet here we are reading twitter posts.

Btw, good luck "defining" Biden (No. 4) while his hiding in the basement. Who's going to define him and how if that's the strategy?

Let's face facts, the only thing Biden has gonyking for himself is that he's not Trump and that's about it.

[HarthorneWingo]

To me "re-structure public safety" is both more accurate and less threatening. It's likely because there's more broad support but not passionate support that a slogan like this was not used. Everyone likes a good fight in the USofA.

That's great until someone decides to get into the details. Then what?

People are tired of slogans which lead to being hoodwinked. imo

[GONYK]

Interesting thread:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Yascha Mounck?

Spoiler:

I'll take Chritos, Sam, and definitely Krystal Ball

The only point that really made any sense was No. 1. And yet here we are reading twitter posts.

Btw, good luck "defining" Biden (No. 4) while his hiding in the basement. Who's going to define him and how if that's the strategy?

Let's face facts, the only thing Biden has gonyking for himself is that he's not Trump and that's about it.

Seems like that is more than enough for most Americans.

Pretty much all that matters to win an election.

But I think it's interesting that Trump supporters have strong reactions to his racial rhetoric.

That may play a factor along the margins.

[ElMelo7]

If the democratic party lets itself get too influenced by the small percent of leftist extremists it will hurt them in the long run. Abolish police? please. Reform and retrain yes. pour money into poor communities building a foundation and educating young urban youth will work wonders.

[GONYK]

Wingo, I don't even think it's about guts to stand up to republicans, or being manipulated and gaslighted by republicans. this is just how the dems seem to function, as an organization that exists as a buffer to preserve the status quo as long as possible and that has to be repeatedly dragged to the right side of history by the people out of political necessity. Both parties are running on nostalgia, the GOP to return to the confederacy and jim crow and the dems to return to the time before trump when things still weren't working for most people other than the wealthy. And of course both support right wing economics/imperialist foreign policy

this is reminiscent of how they responded years ago when black lives matter came out, the internal memo detailing how to handle the activists with platitudes and not to offer real support for their policy positions. because to support BLM (who were being portrayed as a terrorist organization) would scare off too many conservative white voters. Some leaned into the "all lives matter" thing before being scolded for it. It was like pulling teeth to get them to even say the words. Fast forward 5 years, they have been made to openly and loudly support BLM, some may say performative support (still won't support the systemic changes being demanded) Many prominent and beloved dems were critical of kaepernick for his protest which had been re-framed as an attack on the flag and military. obama called ferguson protesters thugs and doubled down on that. even with marriage equality they would not have courage to openly support until it had overwhelming support from the public and the supreme court made it happen. that had been re-framed as an assault on "traditional marriage" and no democrat presidential nominee campaigned in support until 2016 when it was already legal. medicare for all has been falsely re-framed as an attempt to defund obamacare. So yes, push for any change will be intentionally misconstrued, it's the playbook.

What's clear is that we can't wait for them to get on board on the right side of history because they won't until their hand is forced and polls show that they have to. Because elections polls and optics are always going to be top priority. very few politicians have courage enough to actually side with the people when it's been deemed unpopular to do so and those are the ones I have a modicum of respect for. But at the end of the day all we can do is keep dragging

Fam this is the EXACT scenario I keep getting flashbacks too. I'm also skeptical that if the slogan were something less aggressive ("Demilitarize or "Shrink" the police) that it'd make a difference. I doubt they'd change gears at all, but that's purely spoken from my own personal biases and experience.

You guys say all this, but it's not self-evident to people. Most people aren't as politically engaged, so they hear "defund the police" and take it at face value.

And for every AOC or Kamala explanation, there is an article like this from a place like NYT:

[Capn'O]

And then there's Joe Biden who thinks maybe more money is the solution...