OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[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.

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:

Well here’s what AOC said on the topic, which I just looked up now and read for the first time, and it turns out that it mirrors a lot of what I was really trying to explain but in a better way. So we are just doing our part is all

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[GONYK]

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:

Well here’s what AOC said on the topic, which I just looked up now and read for the first time, and it turns out that it mirrors a lot of what I was really trying to explain but in a better way. So we are just doing our part is all

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I don't disagree, but activists don't have to worry about being elected. That's the biggest difference in how each role proceeds.

That's why I said someone like AOC will always be a better messenger.

It's also why someone like Mariame Kaba can author an op-ed like the one I posted without any regard to the damage she's doing to the movement.

Consensus building is not part of her agenda.

[HarthorneWingo]

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:

Well here’s what AOC said on the topic, which I just looked up now and read for the first time, and it turns out that it mirrors a lot of what I was really trying to explain but in a better way. So we are just doing our part is all

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Of course. What liberals don’t seem to understand is that it doesn’t make ANY difference how you couch it. They would shriek to the high heavens no matter how you characterize it. “Oh so what you’re REALLY SAYING is that you want to defund the police.” ... which is probably how the whole term began in the first place. Republicans know how to define liberals bc we normally shrink from a fight. The status quo is the group that cowered immediately over this bc they are very comfortable right where they’re at and they don’t want us to make waves for them. James Clyburn, I’m talking to you!

If you really want to squelch all this talk, then put out the fcking plan! I can come up with a reasonable one if I had the budget numbers to work with. But Nancy, James Clyburn, Joe Biden, and Barack don’t embrace bold change. This is what leadership is all about. This is why it is vital to have a candidate who has the energy, passion, and the guts to take a stand and talk some straight talk. The American people are craving for it. So much so, that they elected a crazy man just bc they thought he’d change the status quo.

[HarthorneWingo]

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:

Well here’s what AOC said on the topic, which I just looked up now and read for the first time, and it turns out that it mirrors a lot of what I was really trying to explain but in a better way. So we are just doing our part is all

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I don't disagree, but activists don't have to worry about being elected. That's the biggest difference in how each role proceeds.

That's why I said someone like AOC will always be a better messenger.

It's also why someone like Mariame Kaba can author an op-ed like the one I posted without any regard to the damage she's doing to the movement.

Consensus building is not part of her agenda.

That’s just plain wrong. Just look at the poll numbers on the issues.

Medicare for All? Yes!

Green New Deal? Yes!

Black Lives Matter? Yes!

Tax the rich? Yes!

Wealth income redistribution? Yes!

All of these issues championed are by progressives. They are what is most popular with the American people according to the polls. But you have the corporate media and the Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers all resisting and sending the wrong and confusing signals to Americans.

[GONYK]

Well here’s what AOC said on the topic, which I just looked up now and read for the first time, and it turns out that it mirrors a lot of what I was really trying to explain but in a better way. So we are just doing our part is all

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I don't disagree, but activists don't have to worry about being elected. That's the biggest difference in how each role proceeds.

That's why I said someone like AOC will always be a better messenger.

It's also why someone like Mariame Kaba can author an op-ed like the one I posted without any regard to the damage she's doing to the movement.

Consensus building is not part of her agenda.

That’s just plain wrong. Just look at the poll numbers on the issues.

Medicare for All? Yes!

Green New Deal? Yes!

Black Lives Matter? Yes!

Tax the rich? Yes!

Wealth income redistribution? Yes!

All of these issues championed are by progressives. They are what is most popular with the American people according to the polls. But you have the corporate media and the Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers all resisting and sending the wrong and confusing signals to Americans.

So it's only polling that matters?

In that case...

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Strong majorities of Americans oppose the movement to "defund the police" and some of its most significant goals, specifically reshuffling funding away from law enforcement to support mental health, housing and education programs, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday finds.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose calls for defunding police departments, compared to 34% who back the movement, and 60% specifically oppose reducing the budget for police to reallocate it to other public health and social programs, while 39% support that move.

So even when people have the issue explained to them, they still don't want it.

So why should any politician trying to get elected trip over themselves to adopt this as a major part of their platform without any equivocation or attempts to ease the public into it?

[HarthorneWingo]

I don't disagree, but activists don't have to worry about being elected. That's the biggest difference in how each role proceeds.

That's why I said someone like AOC will always be a better messenger.

It's also why someone like Mariame Kaba can author an op-ed like the one I posted without any regard to the damage she's doing to the movement.

Consensus building is not part of her agenda.

That’s just plain wrong. Just look at the poll numbers on the issues.

Medicare for All? Yes!

Green New Deal? Yes!

Black Lives Matter? Yes!

Tax the rich? Yes!

Wealth income redistribution? Yes!

All of these issues championed are by progressives. They are what is most popular with the American people according to the polls. But you have the corporate media and the Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers all resisting and sending the wrong and confusing signals to Americans.

So it's only polling that matters?

In that case...

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Strong majorities of Americans oppose the movement to "defund the police" and some of its most significant goals, specifically reshuffling funding away from law enforcement to support mental health, housing and education programs, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday finds.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose calls for defunding police departments, compared to 34% who back the movement, and 60% specifically oppose reducing the budget for police to reallocate it to other public health and social programs, while 39% support that move.

So even when people have the issue explained to them, they still don't want it.

So why should any politician trying to get elected trip over themselves to adopt this as a major part of their platform without any equivocation or attempts to ease the public into it?

What were the polls on Obamacare when he signed that bill into law? People seem to like it now. Just like their socialist Medicare and Social Security programs.

Camden NJ fired its entire police force. It then rehired most of them back under new training and with new CBA which reduced the power and influence of the local police union. The results, from what I understand, have been impressive.

If this is the level of leadership that we can continue to expect from Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi, then yes we’ll lose the messaging war. Again. Like we always do.

So unless you have anything else, I’m goink back to bed.

[GONYK]

That’s just plain wrong. Just look at the poll numbers on the issues.

Medicare for All? Yes!

Green New Deal? Yes!

Black Lives Matter? Yes!

Tax the rich? Yes!

Wealth income redistribution? Yes!

All of these issues championed are by progressives. They are what is most popular with the American people according to the polls. But you have the corporate media and the Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers all resisting and sending the wrong and confusing signals to Americans.

So it's only polling that matters?

In that case...

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Strong majorities of Americans oppose the movement to "defund the police" and some of its most significant goals, specifically reshuffling funding away from law enforcement to support mental health, housing and education programs, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday finds.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose calls for defunding police departments, compared to 34% who back the movement, and 60% specifically oppose reducing the budget for police to reallocate it to other public health and social programs, while 39% support that move.

So even when people have the issue explained to them, they still don't want it.

So why should any politician trying to get elected trip over themselves to adopt this as a major part of their platform without any equivocation or attempts to ease the public into it?

What were the polls on Obamacare when he signed that bill into law? People seem to like it now. Just like their socialist Medicare and Social Security programs.

Obamacare polled negatively for 7 years before the public finally started to show appreciation for it. You want Biden to risk his campaign on changing public opinion on defunding the police by November?

The Obamacare that was signed into law was a far cry from the plan Obama ran on. Good thing he was already elected before he enacted something so unpopular.

Camden NJ fired its entire police force. It then rehired most of them back under new training and with new CBA which reduced the power and influence of the local police union. The results, from what I understand, have been impressive.

Good for Camden. Not everyone wants to be Camden, nor do they have Camden's problems.

This brings up a bigger issue though. You haven't even addressed that this is not something that even happens on a federal level. It would have to happen county by county. Biden can't just waive his presidential pen and dissolve every police force in America. So, what is it that he should be putting his neck out for exactly? What is the policy?

If this is the level of leadership that we can continue to expect from Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi, then yes we’ll lose the messaging war. Again. Like we always do.

The presidential pulpit is a much more powerful position than the candidate one. I have more faith in what a President Biden will pivot to on this issue than I do a president Trump.

So unless you have anything else, I’m goink back to bed.

Sweet dreams!

[robillionaire]

I don't disagree, but activists don't have to worry about being elected. That's the biggest difference in how each role proceeds.

That's why I said someone like AOC will always be a better messenger.

It's also why someone like Mariame Kaba can author an op-ed like the one I posted without any regard to the damage she's doing to the movement.

Consensus building is not part of her agenda.

That’s just plain wrong. Just look at the poll numbers on the issues.

Medicare for All? Yes!

Green New Deal? Yes!

Black Lives Matter? Yes!

Tax the rich? Yes!

Wealth income redistribution? Yes!

All of these issues championed are by progressives. They are what is most popular with the American people according to the polls. But you have the corporate media and the Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers all resisting and sending the wrong and confusing signals to Americans.

So it's only polling that matters?

In that case...

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Strong majorities of Americans oppose the movement to "defund the police" and some of its most significant goals, specifically reshuffling funding away from law enforcement to support mental health, housing and education programs, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday finds.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose calls for defunding police departments, compared to 34% who back the movement, and 60% specifically oppose reducing the budget for police to reallocate it to other public health and social programs, while 39% support that move.

So even when people have the issue explained to them, they still don't want it.

So why should any politician trying to get elected trip over themselves to adopt this as a major part of their platform without any equivocation or attempts to ease the public into it?

I looked up the poll and it also goes on to say

A majority of Democrats (55%) support the movement, yet just one in ten Republicans (9%) agree. Also 57% of black people supported it. So it’s another example of them not doing what their voters want them to do because they want republicans and white people over age 65 who are perceived as the ones who actually vote to vote for them

They don’t have to make it a major part of their platform either, but they could at least acknowledge this is what looks like more than half of their party want them to be fighting for and if local politicians mayors etc.to know the federal ones have their back instead of opposing their efforts. Since it’s a local issue maybe they should have polled individual cities instead of a nationwide poll and take it from there

[GONYK]

That’s just plain wrong. Just look at the poll numbers on the issues.

Medicare for All? Yes!

Green New Deal? Yes!

Black Lives Matter? Yes!

Tax the rich? Yes!

Wealth income redistribution? Yes!

All of these issues championed are by progressives. They are what is most popular with the American people according to the polls. But you have the corporate media and the Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers all resisting and sending the wrong and confusing signals to Americans.

So it's only polling that matters?

In that case...

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Strong majorities of Americans oppose the movement to "defund the police" and some of its most significant goals, specifically reshuffling funding away from law enforcement to support mental health, housing and education programs, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday finds.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose calls for defunding police departments, compared to 34% who back the movement, and 60% specifically oppose reducing the budget for police to reallocate it to other public health and social programs, while 39% support that move.

So even when people have the issue explained to them, they still don't want it.

So why should any politician trying to get elected trip over themselves to adopt this as a major part of their platform without any equivocation or attempts to ease the public into it?

I looked up the poll and it also goes on to say

A majority of Democrats (55%) support the movement, yet just one in ten Republicans (9%) agree. Also 57% of black people supported it. So it’s another example of them not doing what their voters want them to do because they want republicans and white people over age 65 who are perceived as the ones who actually vote to vote for them

It could also be that they are catering to older black voters, which is Biden's base. Most of the respondents to the poll were in the 18-29 yr old range, which is the most unreliable voting bloc.

I wish we could see the breakdown of the crosstabs in more detail.

They don’t have to make it a major part of their platform either, but they could at least acknowledge this is what looks like more than half of their party want them to be fighting for and if local politicians mayors etc.to know the federal ones have their back instead of opposing their efforts. Since it’s a local issue maybe they should have polled individual cities instead of a nationwide poll and take it from there

Your point about a local poll being more representative is a good one. Local politicians don't need federal support to do this. Whether Biden says he's for it or against it, they can do what they want.

That's why Democrats who aren't up for election should be the ones making the case for it. Then you are covering both bases.

[KnicksGadfly]

That’s just plain wrong. Just look at the poll numbers on the issues.

Medicare for All? Yes!

Green New Deal? Yes!

Black Lives Matter? Yes!

Tax the rich? Yes!

Wealth income redistribution? Yes!

All of these issues championed are by progressives. They are what is most popular with the American people according to the polls. But you have the corporate media and the Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers all resisting and sending the wrong and confusing signals to Americans.

So it's only polling that matters?

In that case...

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Strong majorities of Americans oppose the movement to "defund the police" and some of its most significant goals, specifically reshuffling funding away from law enforcement to support mental health, housing and education programs, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday finds.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose calls for defunding police departments, compared to 34% who back the movement, and 60% specifically oppose reducing the budget for police to reallocate it to other public health and social programs, while 39% support that move.

So even when people have the issue explained to them, they still don't want it.

So why should any politician trying to get elected trip over themselves to adopt this as a major part of their platform without any equivocation or attempts to ease the public into it?

What were the polls on Obamacare when he signed that bill into law? People seem to like it now. Just like their socialist Medicare and Social Security programs.

Camden NJ fired its entire police force. It then rehired most of them back under new training and with new CBA which reduced the power and influence of the local police union. The results, from what I understand, have been impressive.

If this is the level of leadership that we can continue to expect from Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi, then yes we’ll lose the messaging war. Again. Like we always do.

So unless you have anything else, I’m goink back to bed.

You're right. So what I think basically is that...just get this **** done.

Whatever it takes. And make sure we take back Congress and the Presidency.

[robillionaire]

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.

you know abolition of slavery was once considered an "extreme" position in this country and there are people who would have rather pushed for slow and steady political reforms and then you had activists such as john brown who said these men are all talk, what we need is action. even lincoln who gets the credit distanced themselves from abolition and said they would not interfere, at least until secession. It was viewed as extreme because slavery was a normalized institution and a common accepted fact of life for generations.

Now we are still dealing with the evolved form as we fight to try to dismantle the prison industrial complex, a racist criminal justice system, and police that have been given carte blanche to execute black people as the judge jury and executioner. Now none of that is ever considered "extremist" here in the US, no, this is all just a completely normal and acceptable way to do things. Just an accepted fact of life that we have the largest prison population in the entire world or that it's an industry that profits from targeting poor and black communities and putting them in cages disproportionately or that black skin is considered a weapon and you could die in a police encounter. If you think it's unfair to mention these things in the same breath as chattel slavery read the new jim crow and learn how slavery never ended read the thirteenth amendment carefully and see the new form it has taken today and the process that got us here and read about the origins of policing in the US.

When terrible things are normalized it's always been considered extreme to oppose them. It's almost like any progress humanity has ever made was at some point considered extreme. Maybe the politicians need to worry about short term political expediency and that's understandable but In the long run history will look positively on the so called extremists who are starting to rise up and challenge this system

[Knickfan1982]

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:

Well here’s what AOC said on the topic, which I just looked up now and read for the first time, and it turns out that it mirrors a lot of what I was really trying to explain but in a better way. So we are just doing our part is all

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I love AOC. I can't wait to vote for her again this month.

[j4remi]

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.

This is why the BLM comparison is so poignant. I had to deal with this same logic when BLM popped. It was unclear what their demands were, many people had different ideas or at least different main goals attached to the movement and party leaders didn't know how to deal with it at all.

- They called the demands nebulous, I'd direct them to Campaign Zero
- They mistook the slogan's meaning (kinda like defund vs abolish) and I had to explain Black Lives Matter matter did not come at the expense of any other Lives.
- Leadership didn't bother trying to understand it, they just passed around a memo essentially saying "humor them."

This is par for the course. Misunderstood ideas and Unpopular Ideas get conflated for the sake of convenience all the time in politics. We've seen the hard conversation shift to common sense on a myriad of issues just in the last 20 years. Marijuana legalization and Gay Marriage moved from super fringe to majority support by sheer force of culture. These past few weeks are the first time that I feel comfortable saying BLM is actually gaining that type of acceptance. I think the concepts and ideas behind defund the police have a good chance to have a similar arc.

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

I think this once again comes down to scope. Far be it from me to take away from someone like Kaba who is about that life and has been talking prison abolition since before this recent zeitgeist; but her reach isn't the same as a top VP candidate and the most recognizable new representative in the country. Now let's imagine that the messaging from AOC and Harris is echoed by the next Democratic candidate for president; the leader of the progressive movement (keeping Bernie's feet to the fire to for you) and also the Congressional Black Caucus...

I don't think you'd have nearly as much confusion. Because that's all of the biggest voices in the room centering the message. M4A is free stuff; BLM only cares about black people; Marriage is between a man and a woman; Weed is a gateway drug...this sort of obfuscation is commonplace and the conversations change only after broad exposure to the underlying ideas. We can speed up that exposure if there's actual political willpower to speak to the truth of the issues instead of the misunderstandings.

[Pointgod]

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:

Well here’s what AOC said on the topic, which I just looked up now and read for the first time, and it turns out that it mirrors a lot of what I was really trying to explain but in a better way. So we are just doing our part is all

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I don’t disagree with what she’s saying, but there’s no need to fall into the defund the police trap. Especially as a Federal politician since it’s a local issue. The whole point is to get enough Democratic politicians to get into positions of power to influence change and the activists need to be there to hold them accountable.

[GONYK]

New polls dropped today

Read on Twitter

[HarthorneWingo]

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:

Well here’s what AOC said on the topic, which I just looked up now and read for the first time, and it turns out that it mirrors a lot of what I was really trying to explain but in a better way. So we are just doing our part is all

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I don’t disagree with what she’s saying, but there’s no need to fall into the defund the police trap. Especially as a Federal politician since it’s a local issue. The whole point is to get enough Democratic politicians to get into positions of power to influence change and the activists need to be there to hold them accountable.

It’s only perceived as a trap to more centrist/conservative Democrats.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[robillionaire]

Well here’s what AOC said on the topic, which I just looked up now and read for the first time, and it turns out that it mirrors a lot of what I was really trying to explain but in a better way. So we are just doing our part is all

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I don’t disagree with what she’s saying, but there’s no need to fall into the defund the police trap. Especially as a Federal politician since it’s a local issue. The whole point is to get enough Democraotic politicians to get into positions of power to influence change and the activists need to be there to hold them accountable.

It’s only perceived as a trap to more centrist/conservative Democrats.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

the word trap seems to imply that BLM activists have some insidious ulterior motive and it's really dismissive of the issue as well, could just say we don't support this because we don't think there's a problem or that we agree there's a problem but can't support this because we don't think it polls well with a different group of people whose votes we do not take for granted, but it has to be portrayed as someone trying to set them up

[GONYK]

"Defund the police" is deeply unpopular from a semantics standpoint. To pretend that doesn't matter is to forget that politics is a persuasion game.

That's why Dems are going to start shifting the rhetoric like this:

In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Clyburn firmly opposed embracing the concept amid Democrats’ push for criminal justice reform legislation.

“I would simply say, as I have always said, nobody is going to defund the police,” he said. “We can restructure the police forces, restructure, reimagine policing. That is what we are going to do. The fact of the matter is, the police have a role to play. What we have got to do is make sure that their role is one that meets the times, one that responds to these communities that they operate in.”

Clyburn went on to say that growing up he didn’t fear the police, but that “all of a sudden now I do fear police.”

“The fact of the matter is this is a structure that has been developed that we’ve got to deconstruct. So I wouldn’t say defund. Deconstruct our policing,” he said.

[Pointgod]

New polls dropped today

Read on Twitter

What’s the margin of error in the polls?

[GONYK]

New polls dropped today

Read on Twitter

What’s the margin of error in the polls?

Most are +/- 4