***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

You mean they took money from certain areas, reallocated to other more effective things? That's crazy.

while spending more money and hiring more police officers and increasing the size of the department?

 

[getback]

-more cops doing stuff proven to reduce crimes like patrols. (not harrassing people)

Lol.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

They basically said if you wanna be a cop in Camden you’ll take less money to do it and won’t be protected by a union..N they still had more folks sign up for the job and crime went down, seems like they didn’t have to pump more bread into the department or need all the extra bs to get the job done

Think bout it, they cut salaries and more cats signed up for the job and did it better, goes against everything yo been saying in here

again if defund the police means;

don't cut the total budget for police and increase the amount of police officers. then I whole heartedly support it!

 

[dacomeup]

well stats on violent crime and total arrests did fall.

if you find stats showing use of force was up id love to see it.



i think we can all agree we want better more accountable police, and less crime and better investment in social services.

I just think it costs money.

I mean you cherry picked one year from one city as proof that this works, without any account on how the people who live there feel and how the incidents of excessive police force were in comparison to previous years.

That’s the fundamental issue here. You’re able to just find some city with some numbers that may show a decent improvement, without having to be the Black person who actual lives in that city and can tell you how it’s actually going. We all know that police departments can juke stats to say a lot of different things, especially in a one year period.

 

[frshstunna]

again if defund the police means;

don't cut the total budget for police and increase the amount of police officers. then I whole heartedly support it!

Even if it really just was this, you would still be crying bout how the Dems shouldn’t use that type of messaging cuz it makes folks in the suburbs uncomfortable according to the polls and articles you dug up ...You already played your hand on this topic, no need for the cap

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I mean you cherry picked one year from one city as proof that this works, without any account on how the people who live there feel and how the incidents of excessive police force were in comparison to previous years.

That’s the fundamental issue here. You’re able to just find some city with some numbers that may show a decent improvement, without having to be the Black person who actual lives in that city and can tell you how it’s actually going. We all know that police departments can juke stats to say a lot of different things, especially in a one year period.

okay say no more. im not saying my prescription is 100% correct,

I just think there is much more evidence in favour of it than cutting police budgets or decreasing the size of departments.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Even if it really just was this, you would still be crying bout how the Dems shouldn’t use that type of messaging cuz it makes folks in the suburbs uncomfortable according to the polls and articles you dug up ...You already played your hand on this topic, no need for the cap

lolwut? just take yes for an answer man.

 

[Based Jesus]

Doom and gloom osh out here oddly optimistic on the cops

 

[frshstunna]

Doom and gloom osh out here oddly optimistic on the cops

“Just give em more money for doing an already terrible job, everything will be ok!”

 

[osh kosh bosh]

“Just give em more money for doing an already terrible job, everything will be ok!”

yah because that's what i said.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Doom and gloom osh out here oddly optimistic on the cops

i wouldn't describe it as optimism.

im just not gunna let my dislike of police trick me into believing things that don't make sense.

 

[dinyc3st]

Take it from someone who's related to an NYPD Detective, NYPD gets hella paid. lol

 

[KHUFU]

Take it from someone who's related to an NYPD Detective, NYPD gets hella paid. lol

Retire, buy a house on Staten Island, vote for whatever republican that keeps your pension safe.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Well

1. i don't believe in broken windows policing, and I don't believe in indiscriminately increasing the budgets. so i wouldn't be in favor of that.

ive said exactly what I would want multiple times.

-more money to recruit a more diverse force.
-money to fire or encourage older bad cops to retire.
-more money to hire and recruit more detectives. more resources devoted to solving crimes.
-more cops doing stuff proven to reduce crimes like patrols. (not harrassing people)
-and greater oversight for and accountability for departments that try to use minority communities as ATMs

and i just don't see how this wouldn't cost more money not less.

like if you could make a deal with the unions, more money but it's way way way easier to fire you you wouldn't take that deal? I would.


2. I heaped tons of praise on Black Lives Matter, people generally underrated how effect the movement has been, I've made posts to the effect before.
i just think "defund the police" specifically is dumb. i didn't say all activism is bad. I don't like defund the police because i think its a dumb idea.

-I am asking you to consider the pitfalls of your plan. Like I said before, you are not putting forward a robust policy solution. This is not really a knock, it is a massive entrenched problem that if we could solve the issues it would take a massive rework of many institutions, and realigning incentives. So you are really just saying your half-measure would work better than other people's half measure. Cool, you don't believe in this or that. I am asking you to consider how history tells us your well-intentioned plans can lead to very bad outcomes.

Now I know you are saying you don't want bad outcomes, you don't support bad outcomes, but you present little in the way of protecting citizens from bad outcomes. The union thing COULD work, but one problem....

Why would a union take that deal? Why would incumbent police officers take a deal that lowers their job security, and their earning potential through overtime? Rent-seeking by incumbent workers is a thing we observe all over the labor market. I have found this especially true of police officers. Union leadership don't have the power to make a deal their members are hostile to, and the deal could easier be bent to the police favor down the road.

-Second, you can't act like the activist in BLM circles, and the ones that pushing to defund the police (in whichever form they propose), are mutually exclusive groups. When we are talking about boots on the ground, showing up to town halls, getting signatures, working in communities, there is a lot of overlap. So I just think it is interesting how critical you were to a group that might end up being the main thing that keeps your plan from turning into Crime Bill 2.0.

You can take issue with their methods of obtaining a positive change, that's your right. But when you win in here talking about polling so much, also consider how unpopular these activist methods, including BLM, were in their infancy.

Real talk, I feel with discussion has become a whataboutism. You said weeks ago that minority communities are under policed and over policies. Even if you don't like the slogan or policy solutions behind it. It is pretty clear a lot of people's major concerns are trying to cut down on police violence and abuse against citizens, which falls into the over-policing part (probably the worst examples of over-policing). You object because you think that improving policing should be more focused on the under policing part. And when people try to address the over-policing part, you either handwave those concerns by a) Those things don't address the under-policing so therefore they are stupid, b) saying the concerns of these people in regards to misconduct is import to you too so you never really have to grapple with them.

Seems like in that area of addressing police misconduct, your solution seems to be that some black people, in some areas, may one day benefit from the benevolence of a progressive governor or police chief. And given that, I am kinda surprised how you don't realize that "solution" (the real one you are presenting to address people's concerns) might be infuriating to a group of dudes that have been victims of police. Which, if you haven't been paying attention, a lot of dude in here are.

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[RustyShackleford]

i wouldn't describe it as optimism.

im just not gunna let my dislike of police trick me into believing things that don't make sense.

I don't want to speak for Based Jesus but I think he is talking about how increasing police budgets might go bad.

Seems like you preferred policy prescription also relies on the police deciding to do right by the minority communities they serve

That is quite optimistic

 

[reformeDWS]

I don't want to speak for Based Jesus but I think he is talking about how increasing police budgets might go bad.

Seems like you preferred policy prescription also relies on the police deciding to do right by the minority communities they serve

That is quite optimistic

it seems entirely premised on the notion that increased police presence will prevent crime while completely ignoring the history of issues presented by increased police presence in minority communities ranging from stop and frisk, police brutality, and disproportionate arrests/charges/sentencing for minorities.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[KHUFU]

Michigan state representative confirms Rudy Giuliani farted during an election hearing

• After a viral video appeared to show Rudy Giuliani experiencing flatulence during a Michigan election hearing on Wednesday, a state lawmaker has chimed in to say the fart was real.
• There were two instances during the hearing in which President Donald Trump's personal attorney appeared to pass gas.
• Democratic State Rep. Darrin Camilleri said both farts did indeed happen and were not edited into the video.
• Camilleri tweeted Friday about how he was featured in the video clip of the incident shown on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" on Thursday night.
• "In normal times, using our time and taxpayer dollars to investigate illegitimate claims of election fraud would be wasteful, but in the middle of a pandemic, it's cowardly and cruel," Camilleri told Insider.

Michigan state representative confirms Rudy Giuliani farted during an election hearing

The viral clips of Rudy Giuliani experiencing flatulence on an election-hearing livestream are not fake, according to State Rep. Darrin Camilleri.

news.yahoo.com

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani admitted to hospital after COVID-19 diagnosis

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani admitted to hospital after COVID-19 diagnosis

The diagnosis comes more than two months after Trump himself was stricken with the virus in early October.

abc7ny.com

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You avoided my questions though.

-I am asking you to consider the pitfalls of your plan. Like I said before, you are not putting forward a robust policy solution. This is not really a knock, it is a massive entrenched problem that if we could solve the issues it would take a massive rework of many institutions, and realigning incentives. So you are really just saying your half-measure would work better than other people's half measure. Cool, you don't believe in this or that. I am asking you to consider how history tells us your well-intentioned plans can lead to very bad outcomes.

I think police accountability would clearly have to be a huge component of any "fund the police plan". federal funding tied to use of force complaint targets, department training guideline doption on use of force, chokeholds bands, body camera adoption, transparency of officer review,

maybe structured as some kind of "reach for the top" type program but for police departments maybe?

obviously well intentioned planed can lead to pitfalls but I also don't think perfect can be the enemy of good. ultimately i think

- I think the pitfalls of defunding the police are worse.
- the status quo isn't good either with rising crime. and low solve rates for violent crime.

Now I know you are saying you don't want bad outcomes, you don't support bad outcomes, but you present little in the way of protecting citizens from bad outcomes. The union thing COULD work, but one problem....

Why would a union take that deal? Why would incumbent police officers take a deal that lowers their job security, and their earning potential through overtime? Rent-seeking by incumbent workers is a thing we observe all over the labor market. I have found this especially true of police officers. Union leadership don't have the power to make a deal their members are hostile to. The deal could easier be bent to the police favor down the road.

Yah i agree the police union problem is difficult. but I think a deal with some carrots is more achievable than a deal that's all stick.

like a union is going to oppose defund the police even more vociferously and they will be a on firmer political ground since most people don't want to shrink police departments.

-Second, you can't act like the activist in BLM circles, and the ones that pushing to defund the police (in whichever form they propose), are mutually exclusive groups. When we are talking about boots on the ground, showing up to town halls, getting signatures, working in communities, there is a lot of overlap. So I just think it is interesting how critical you were to a group that might end up being the main thing that keeps your plan from turning into Crime Bill 2.0.

You can take issue with their methods of obtaining positive change. But when you win in here talking about polling so much, also consider how unpopular these activist methods, including BLM, were in their infancy.

I didn't say they were mutually exclusive.

i can agree when activists do something good, and disagree when they push an idea that's bad. I think fighting for black lives matter when the phrase is unpopular is good. i can accept activists have a different role, and I roll with the fact that i was too harsh in lumping them in with annoying online activists. but i think it's still fair for me to criticize stuff i think is bad on the merits.

I get that activist gotta push the edges of the overton window but naturally im never going to agree with fighting for something that I think is bad and unpopular.

I probably made too strong claims about activism and it's effect on the election given the available data. that's why I'm mostly trying to get away from the political strategy talk and focus on the merits of the policy. because that's really the biggest isue I have with it

Real talk, I feel with discussion has become a whataboutism. You said weeks ago that minority communities are under policed and over policies. Even if you don't like the slogan or policy solutions behind it. It is pretty clear a lot of people's major concerns are trying to cut down on police violence and abuse against citizens, which falls into the over-policing part (probably the worst examples of over-policing). You object because you think that improving policing should be more focused on the under policing part. And when people try to address the over-policing part, you either handwave those concerns by a) Those things don't address the under-policing so therefore they are stupid, b) saying the concerns of these people in regards to misconduct is import to you too so you never really have to grapple with them.

I can agree with this formulation. some people here are clearly more concerned with over policing vs under policing.

but I think the problem of over policing also costs money!

White officer spend less time solving crimes and more time harassing's people than black officers. making the department diverse costs money.

comprehensive reporting, body cams, things that increase accountability for over policing cost money.

there are things in terms of use of force that can have a big impact but in general better training costs money.

I just fundamentally think all of it will cost more money not less. whether you are worried about over policing or under policing.

Seems like in that area of addressing police misconduct, your solution seems to be that some black people, in some areas, may one day benefit from the benevolence of a progressive governor or police chief. And given that, I am kinda surprised how you don't realize that "solution" (the real one you are presenting to address people's concerns) might be infuriating to a group of dudes that have been victims of police. Which, if you haven't been paying attention, a lot of dude in here are.

okay I can understand taht, but I don't really know what you'd have me do. say stuff I don't believe in? endorse ideas i think are bad?

 

[dinyc3st]

Retire, buy a house on Staten Island, vote for whatever republican that keeps your pension safe.

Naw, I'm not even that close her. Distance relative. she told me she worked for NYPD during a family reunion years back. Her husband did retire 2 years ago due to injury.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I don't want to speak for Based Jesus but I think he is talking about how increasing police budgets might go bad.

Seems like you preferred policy prescription also relies on the police deciding to do right by the minority communities they serve

That is quite optimistic

I think not if the funding is tied to stronger accountability measures.

 

[KHUFU]

Naw, I'm not even that close her. Distance relative. she told me she worked for NYPD during a family reunion years back. Her husband did retire 2 years ago due to injury.

Nah, I was talking about what THEY do once they join the force. Either Staten Island or LONG OILandt.

 

[af1 1982]