***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[junglejim]

republicans have grown more receptive to criminal justice reform.


youd think there could be some type of deal that dems give on increases police budgets, and republicans give on sentencing reform, private prisons, demilitarizing police ect.

Its almost as if they negotiated something like this pretty recently. I think something in Minneapolis happened as a triggering event of some form and both the house and senate talked about it and nothing passed. Do you remember what happened in May? I'm drawing a blank here.

If someone getting murdered on tape for 8 minutes and 46 seconds isn't a catalyst for change then what will be? I'm genuinely curious because I really don't know at this point.

 

[Based Jesus]

 

[RustyShackleford]

yeah i understand the total of black voters increased.
but if that gets swamped by non college white turnout it seems strange to argue that extraordinary black turn out is what gave Biden the victory and that swing voters don't exist.

if anything doesn't it follow that even if you have extraordinary black turn out you need swing voters to grab the W?

-If you understood total black turnout increased, then I don't know why you went through the trouble of pushing back on aepps20 making that point about it increasing by misusing statistical data.

- Did he say swing voters don't exist, or did he says...

I disagree on this one. Most of the U.S electorate is really uninformed and susceptible to cheap political ads. Biden won because Trump's own massive track record of failure was clear to everyone to see. Only diehard cult members believed him. Swing voters that are truly swing voters aren’t a large or significant part of the U.S. electorate. You had dems in swing districts that Biden won that they lost that didn't mention defund the police and yet the Biden wave didn't help them win. Biden won because Black and Brown people turned out in massive numbers and he was competitive in the suburbs.

-Aren't you that preaches everything matters on the margin. The swing states were close elections. Whatever voters Biden did flip mattered, whatever new voters he turned out mattered, increases in black turnout matter. Biden doesn't win those swing states without them. So from my point of you, both you and aepps are putting too much weight on one part of the electorate.

 

[RustyShackleford]

republicans have grown more receptive to criminal justice reform.


youd think there could be some type of deal that dems give on increases police budgets, and republicans give on sentencing reform, private prisons, demilitarizing police ect.

Have they grown more receptive to bipartisanship? Under a Dem president? With Mitch McConnell as the head of the Senate?

 

[RustyShackleford]

do you honestly think I'm endorsing the entire 1994 crime bill?

You seem to be doing a lot of handwaving about the pitfalls of increasing police budgets though

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Have they grown more receptive to bipartisanship? Under the Dem president? With Mitch McConnell as the head of the Senate?

thats the real question.

i don't know the awnser, but i know defunding the police aint it.

 

[junglejim]

thats the real question.

i don't know the awnser, but i know defunding the police aint it.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10498#:~:text=Part%20II%20of%20Subtitle%20C,%2C%20data%20retention%2C%20and%20reporting

.

The answer is no. No they haven't. Your approach was tried literally no more than a couple months ago at a federal level under a republican president. It did not pass. Do you really think they will be more receptive to it in a divided house with a democratic president?

But thank god the 1994 crime bill did, so we still have some hope for Congress.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You seem to be doing a lot of handwaving about the pitfalls of increasing police budgets though

i wouldn't support unconditional increases in police budgets.

I would support, increases in money for certain police functions, training, conditional on diverse hiring and certain rules on choke holds, on use of force ext implemented.

 

[RustyShackleford]

no i don't agree with the incorrect distortion of what i said.

I said defund the police is unpopular, i posted polling evidence that is unpopular.

I said that it bubbles up to elected officials, which to me is obvious, it started out as an activist slogan, prominent left wing groups started forwarding the slogan and eventually reached the democratic nominee for president. Biden had to comment on it and define his opposition to it.
while you have famous left wing members adopting the language.

and then i drew an inference that given, down ballot democrat loses, the underperformance of leftwing members relative to Biden, the number of republican attack ads that fixated on the subject. the continued education polarization of the electorate.
i drew and inference that the defund the police stuff didn't help.




it's a pointless conversation,
if you don't fine the evidence compelling okay cool. if you think its a reach that's cool to. but no point in going back and forth on it.

Cool, we don't

Because frankly, I think it is tiring that you demand people only consider the **** you write after you sanitize and focus it a few times.

Seems like you only care about precision, when it benefits you

But whatever

 

[osh kosh bosh]

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10498#:~:text=Part%20II%20of%20Subtitle%20C,%2C%20data%20retention%2C%20and%20reporting

.

The answer is no. No they haven't. Your approach was tried literally no more than a couple months ago at a federal level. It did not pass.

But thank god the 1994 crime bill did, so we still have some hope for Congress.

politics is hard.

but youre not gunna convince people who shout "Medicare for all" and "defund the police" are concerned about fiscal profligacy

 

[junglejim]

i wouldn't support unconditional increases in police budgets.

I would support, increases in money for certain police functions, training, conditional on diverse hiring and certain rules on choke holds, on use of force ext implemented.

so basically you support the Justice in Policing Act passed by the House, but not taken up by the republican senate?

politics is hard.

but youre not gunna convince people who shout "Medicare for all" and "defund the police" are concerned about fiscal profligacy

I never once said they were nor are they the individuals who need to be persuaded in these types of policies. Their votes on this are already a given.

You won't be able to convince me that people are going to vote for nationwide tax increases on themselves either, because that's what you proposed so far.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

so basically you support the Justice in Policing Act passed by the House, but not taken up by the republican senate?

sure but the fact that it didn't pass does not mean I would support a policy I think is dumb and counter productive.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

"politics is hard so austerity for everyone!"

nah im not rolling

 

[junglejim]

sure but the fact that it didn't pass does not mean I would support a policy I think is dumb and counter productive.

Ok, so if we can't get federal funding passed (see bills above) and we wont get tax increases passed on everyone at a local level, how do we fund some of these other programs?

We are so close. You are on third base right now ready to run home.

Do we "defund the police" by reallocating funds at a local level if we cant get federal funding and we can't get additional local funding because people aren't voting on tax increases on themselves, or do we pretend we have monopoly money that we can throw at a burning fire and hope no one notices?

I think you are slowly realizing the choice, but don't want to admit it and keep hiding because a slogan because its easier to do that than have a productive conversation about very real alternatives.

The problem is the issue is extremely nuanced and there isn't going to be a popular proposal out there to fix it. Someone is going to lose and there is going to be a group of people who don't like that. This isn't candy land and we can't pretend things like budgets and deficits don't exist at a local level because its convenient to ignore.

 

[RustyShackleford]

i wouldn't support unconditional increases in police budgets.

I would support, increases in money for certain police functions, training, conditional on diverse hiring and certain rules on choke holds, on use of force ext implemented.

So roughly Joe Biden's position. The guy most of the activists you criticize so much voted for.

Guess you'll get an answer real soon as to whether Mitch and the GOP will be down to show Biden bipartisanship

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Ok, so if we can't get federal funding passed (see bills above) and we wont get tax increases passed on everyone at a local level, how do we fund some of these other programs?

We are so close. You are on third base right now ready to run home.

what don't you understand.

I think it would be dumb to cut police budgets.

period. its bad. doing it would be bad. all the evidence ive seen it would solve nothing and hurt people who live in high crime neighborhoods.

it is also unpopular. so it potentially would be politically difficult.

so again the argument that I should do something dumb and bad because doing something good is hard is a bizarre and totally uncompelling.

 

[Nereyda Vuelve Por Dios]

Its always how to appease white sensibilities when it comes to having our voices heard. We can have every snl, Seinfeld, chappelle show, and blackish writers on payroll at BLM l, and we still couldnt come to a digestible slogan that will translate To the simple idea of “ we want to be treated better than dogs”

obama is progressive for every issue except race. We have to meet white people in the middle yet for gay marriage, his stance shifted like a progressive and did a 180. White People dont have to do a 180. We brunt the majority of the workload, and They just have to do the bare minimum from their small town.

white people will have to be mad at the fact that the discussion we want will offend.

 

[RustyShackleford]

"politics is hard so austerity for everyone!"

nah im not rolling

 

[IATT]

Whelp, we know who about to get fired

 

[junglejim]

what don't you understand.

I think it would be dumb to cut police budgets.

period. its bad. doing it would be bad. all the evidence ive seen it would solve nothing and hurt people who live in high crime neighborhoods.

it is also unpopular. so it potentially would be politically difficult.

so again the argument that I should do something dumb and bad because doing something good is hard is a bizarre and totally uncompelling.

So your solution is a blank check then? Cut education, cut health care, cut housing, cut youth programs, don't actually try to solve the root issue, just continue in perpetuating it? Pretend we live in la-la land where we have infinite pots of gold that everyone can have and all things will be fixed by progressive taxes for which you do not understand?

With these massive budgets that keep increasing every single year, has crime gotten better? Have issues that cause crime been identified and solved? Have police departments gotten better about solving murders, rapes, robberies? Have we increased funding to other programs that would help poverty and education which would help fix some of these issues? Show me the statistics of how crime has gone down every single year as these budgets have increased every year.

Just because YOU don't agree with something and don't understand the viable alternatives doesn't make it dumb.

What you are proposing isn't a solution. It's what we have done for decades and for decades it hasn't produced results. It's time to try something new. I'd rather ask the police to be accountable for their spending so we can send money to poor communities to help with the root issue instead of writing a blank check every single year without any oversight.

 

[IATT]

But reallocation of funds is the problem

 

[wr]

Its always how to appease white sensibilities when it comes to having our voices heard. We can have every snl, Seinfeld, chappelle show, and blackish writers on payroll at BLM l, and we still couldnt come to a digestible slogan that will translate To the simple idea of “ we want to be treated better than dogs”

obama is progressive for every issue except race. We have to meet white people in the middle yet for gay marriage, his stance shifted like a progressive and did a 180. White People dont have to do a 180. We brunt the majority of the workload, and They just have to do the bare minimum from their small town.

white people will have to be mad at the fact that the discussion we want will offend.

In none of these conversations does the banks come up. We always hear about Obama the community organizer but never enough about his legacy as a banker. Coming from a banking family and his early career. That's where these careerist trajectories are set. They are beholden to corporate interest before the people. All this other talk is a distraction.

 

[RustyShackleford]

In none of these conversations does the banks come up. We always hear about Obama the community organizer but never enough about his legacy as a banker. Coming from a banking family and his early career. That's where these careerist trajectories are set. They are beholden to corporate interest before the people. All this other talk is a distraction.

Thanks for your contribution to this thread famb. Srs

 

[wr]

Thanks for your contribution to this thread famb. Srs

I just posted about the impacts banks have on this issue with data. You are still here trying to make this about your personal views once again. You love attention.
We need to include the impact banking has on police brutality. Talking about defunding departments and reallocating funds at the state level is not even half of the issues.
We need more comprehensive discussions going on in here. None of your left/right nonsense. You really think this is YOUR thread don't you?

 

[RustyShackleford]

I just posted about the impacts banks have on this issue with data. You are still here trying to make this about your personal views once again. You love attention.
We need to include the impact banking has on police brutality. Talking about defending and reallocating funds at the state level is not even half of the issues.
We need more comprehensive discussions going on in here. None of your left/right nonsense.

What did I do now?

I didn't even point out that someone working for a bank is kinda different than being plugged into the Wall St. Finacial Machine that helps create bad incentives for the criminal justice system. An argument that was wrapped up in some both sides conspiracy theory framing.

But somehow I am sure that you have pushed the conversation in here beyond the nonsense going on in here, into a more comprehensive discussion.

So again, thanks for your contribution.