***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

You didn't have the evidence that backed up your point because the polling data you had was before the election

My main argument against you was not that I just disagreed, but that the evidence your were presenting couldn't back up your claim like you were arguing.

So it was conjecture plain and ****ing simple.

yah clearly I don't agree, I obviously thought they were reasonable conclusions to draw, hence why I wrote them. the future is hard to predict so maybe as we get more data perhaps ill be proven wrong definitively.

 

[RustyShackleford]

yah i don't agree with your characterizations or the mind reading. but ill agree this has gone on too long.

I'm not mind reading Osh

You refuse to reflect on your actions in an honest way.

You are complaining about straw-manning people when turning around and do it too.

You think you have the high ground in this argument but that hill you are standing on is built on a ton of hypocrisy.

 

[junglejim]

1. camden increased the total size of the dpartment after they disbanded it.
2. yah but i didn't say give the police a blank check.

Camden is the precipice of what many are looking to as the blueprint for "defund the police". No one in here is talking about actually getting rid of ******* police departments altogether. Everyone understands that police serves a vital role in society. No one wants to get rid of them entirely. Everyone in here is talking about making them more accountable. You chose to interpret that literally as "get rid of the police" without actually looking at what evidence people are point to then telling people their position is stupid, untenable, and a lazy argument.

The biggest step in "defunding the police" is holding the police accountable for their spending and actions so you can do more things such as pay for additional educational trainings, hiring QUALIFIED people to help de-escalate certain situations, and prevent many unnecessary deaths at the hands of police officers that are largely held unaccountable for their actions due to unions and laws which currently shield them. A lot of people want to hire social workers IN ADDITION to police officers so they can help de-escalate situations. In no instances are people talking about getting rid of police departments entirely and not replacing them with something new. Minneapolis is looking at going toward the Camden model and so are many other big cities. The issue with simply "funding the police more" is we cannot currently hold them accountable due to unions and such. We give them money and the do whatever the **** they want with it. That money grows every single year and is not used on things to actual improve policing in most neighborhoods. Its previously been posted how much certain overtime was getting paid by police departments and you took issue with it as people wanting to cut officers salaries, while ignoring that people wanted to use those funds more efficiently. Instead of paying one officer the salary of two officers, it makes more sense to just hire more officers and cut overtime hours but WE LITERALLY CANT DO THAT BECAUSE OF POLICE UNIONS.

You have yet to provide evidence that our exponential increase in spending on police departments in the US over the last decade and a half has led to a substantial decrease in violence because its convenient for you to ignore the fact that police spending has increased 100-200% in some areas and crime has not seen a similar reduction. You have chosen to take issue with a slogan and ignore the very real case studies that people are pointing to when they refer to "defunding the police" because you tag a slogan as lazy and stupid while also being lazy and not looking at factual evidence provided by those people.

The truth of the matter is police spending is completely out of control in a lot of cities and its only been increasing which is causing extreme strains on state and local budgets. It has not produced significant benefits and some of the very things you are arguing for are things that people are arguing for as well, but you ignore it because you dislike a three word slogan and refuse to look at it any other way than literally. In the instances where people want to get rid of police departments, it is because they want to replace it with something new that is better trained and more accountable and hopefully leads to a reduction in budgetary spending because it has more oversight. What you are arguing for is more training and qualified officers and it isn't new or any different than the slogan in which you despise.

You have repeatedly claimed that its a stupid policy but you don't even know what the ******* policy is. Its pretty clear you are much smarter than this but don't want to take time to look at any of the details other than your preconceived notion of a three word slogan which you have made plenty clear that you dislike.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I'm not mind reading Osh

You refuse to reflect on your actions in an honest way.

You are complaining about straw-manning people when turning around and do it too.

You think you have the high ground in this argument but that hill you are standing on is built on a ton of hypocrisy.

yah i don't agree. you don't know what i've have and haven't reflected on. to me that's mind reading.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Camden is the precipice of what many are looking to as the blueprint for "defund the police". No one in here is talking about actually getting rid of ****ing police departments altogether. Everyone understands that police serves a vital role in society. No one wants to get rid of them entirely. Everyone in here is talking about making them more accountable. You chose to interpret that literally as "get rid of the police" without actually looking at what evidence people are point to then telling people their position is stupid, untenable, and a lazy argument.

The biggest step in "defunding the police" is holding the police accountable for their spending and actions so you can do more things such as pay for additional educational trainings, hiring QUALIFIED people to help de-escalate certain situations, and prevent many unnecessary deaths at the hands of police officers that are largely held unaccountable for their actions due to unions and laws which currently shield them. A lot of people want to hire social workers IN ADDITION to police officers so they can help de-escalate situations. In no instances are people talking about getting rid of police departments entirely and not replacing them with something new. Minneapolis is looking at going toward the Camden model and so are many other big cities. The issue with simply "funding the police more" is we cannot currently hold them accountable due to unions and such. We give them money and the do whatever the **** they want with it.

You have yet to provide evidence that our exponential increase in spending on police departments in the US over the last decade and a half has led to a substantial decrease in violence because its convenient for you to ignore the fact that police spending has increased 100-200% in some areas and crime has not seen a similar reduction. You have chosen to take issue with a slogan and ignore the very real case studies that people are pointing to when they refer to "defunding the police" because you tag a slogan as lazy and stupid while also being lazy and not looking at factual evidence provided by those people.

The truth of the matter is police spending is completely out of control in a lot of cities and its only been increasing which is causing extreme strains on state and local budgets. It has not produced significant benefits and some of the very things you are arguing for are things that people are arguing for as well, but you ignore it because you dislike a three word slogan and refuse to look at it any other way than literally. In the instances where people want to get rid of police departments, it is because they want to replace it with something new that is better trained and more accountable and hopefully leads to a reduction in budgetary spending because it has more oversight. What you are arguing for more training and qualified officers isn't new or any different than the slogan in which you despise.

You have repeatedly claimed that its a stupid policy but you don't even know what the ****ing policy is. Its pretty clear you are much smarter than this but don't want to take time to look at any of the details other than your preconceived notion of a three word slogan which you have made plenty clear that you dislike.

i appreciate the time you put into this argument. it's not unreasonable some of it I agree with.

Im not going to respond because ive responded to similar points people have made already.

 

[RustyShackleford]

yah i don't agree. you don't know what i've have and haven't reflected on. to me that's mind reading.

I am drawing a conclusion to your post, what you wrote.

if someone points something out to you, you claim you know, and then you still continue with the *******, then it is mind-reading for them to draw a conclusion from that behavior.

And like I said, you been in here acting like a massive hypocrite. Complaining about straw-manning while you do it yourself.

So from where I stand, looking at your actions, you aren't reflected on ****. Maybe you have, but it doesn't show.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I am drawing a conclusion to your post, what you wrote.

if someone points something out to you, you claim you know, and then you still continue with the ****ery, then it is mind-reading for them to draw a conclusion from that behavior.

i can reflect on something and still come to a different conclusion.

look draw whatever conclusions you want, if you think I'm an *** hole, that's certainly your right.

 

[RustyShackleford]

i can reflect on something and still come to a different conclusion.

look draw whatever conclusions you want, if you think I'm an *** hole, that's certainly your right.

It is not that I think you an *******.

It is more the general hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness you have shown I was calling out.

But I guess, if you have reflected on your hypocrisy and think is principled for you to still do it and complain about others doing it, then do you. I mean *******s are often hypocrites and lack self-awareness anyway so you can call it

 

[RustyShackleford]

Self awareness: not even once.

Yah, Osh is reflected on his and came to the conclusion that being flippant and straw-manning other people is only a problem if he perceives it is happening to him

It is not a problem when he does it to others.

 

[Comparison Ford]

Yah, Osh is reflected on his and came to the conclusion that being flippant and straw-manning other people is only a problem if he perceives it is happening to him

It is not a problem when he does it to others.

"yah i don't agree."

 

[junglejim]

We're sitting here telling you that the police are administered like the military procedurally and in many instances are heavily militarized. We're the ones that witness and experience it firsthand. Especially over the past six months. Disagreeing with that in your position ain't in your repertoire.

I wouldn't expect an American to try and tell you how the Canadian health care system moves.

Not to mention a lot of the equipment that police departments have is provided from the military so we are effectively paying federal taxes to militarize US police forces for free without any oversight. This is my favorite one:

The fatal arrest of George Floyd has sparked nationwide protests demanding an end to police brutality and restructuring of police departments. Many of those protests were met with drastic measures and responses from local police departments armed with military gear. Equipment more commonly used on battlefields, like flash-bang grenades, tear gas, rubber bullets, helicopters and armored vehicles were witnessed numerous times at the scenes of protests.

It’s not the first time the issue has come under the spotlight. The militarization of police forces first came to attention during the Ferguson, Missouri, protests in 2014. It is a trend that’s grown for decades and now takes up a significant portion of the domestic homeland security market, estimated to be worth more than $20 billion in goods and services.

“Certainly vendors, people, and companies that manufacture the technology that the police are purchasing are profiting from this,” said Thomas Nolan, a former senior policy advisor for the Department of Homeland Security. “The police obviously are not in the business of profiting from private acquisitions.”

Many of this militarized equipment is transferred through two federal programs: the 1033 and the 1122 initiatives. The 1122 program allows the police to purchase new military equipment using their own funding with the same discounts enjoyed by the federal government. The 1033 program allows the Department of Defense to transfer excess military equipment to local law enforcement agencies free of charge, as long as they pay for shipping and maintenance.

Since its inception, more than 11,500 domestic law enforcement agencies have taken part in the 1033 program, receiving more than $7.4 billion in military equipment. After the Ferguson protests, several attempts were made to amend the 1033 program but were either met with opposition or rescinded in later years.

“One of the really troubling developments about the involvement of the federal government in the direct subsidy of purchases of militarized equipment is that this is really about creating a new market for defense contractors rather than really putting questions of public safety first,” said Alex Vitale, the Policing and Social Justice Project Coordinator at Brooklyn College.

What makes both 1033 and 1122 programs so powerful is the apparent lack of clear oversight and accountability. The 1122 program, for instance, is not a grant or transfer program and thus is not required to be monitored by the federal government. Meanwhile, the 1033 program has put lethal weapons in the hands of officers who have no justifiable need for such equipment. “We’ve seen instances reported of some small towns, even some college and university police departments that were acquiring military-grade weapons without any demonstrable need for the use of these or the acquisition of these weapons,” according to Nolan.

In some cases, equipment transferred through these programs has simply vanished due to what appears to be a lack of oversight and poor bookkeeping. “There have been a number of situations where there have been audits of local police departments to try to figure out what they’ve done with this equipment,” said Vitale, “And these departments have been unable to provide adequate records.”

How police militarization became an over $5 billion business coveted by the defense industry

The defense industry has become a major player in the domestic homeland security market, estimated to be worth more than $20 billion in goods and services. Their contributions play a major role in maintaining a steady flow of militarized equipment to local law enforcement agencies. However, lack...

www.cnbc.com

But I would like to hear more about how the police and military aren't intertwined

 

[elpablo21]

 

[itshlittt]

popcorn.gif

 

[Belgium]

I strongly believe Preet Bharara is the best man for this job

 

[IATT]

Smmmmmttttttttt

 

[dinyc3st]

Smmmmmttttttttt

First of many for former Trumpers

 

[gry60]

And he faces zero critics, from that intercept esque clique & rose Twitter folks for this

Propaganda during the Trump years was turned up to 11. "Lie until they repeat what was said"

I got people outside the US telling me that there were no new wars under Trump, and I didn't even know where to start because they're in their own information bubble.

Contrast that with the hyperbole of the main post-Obama criticism (drone program) of the Obama era. Trump stopped reporting the activities and casualties of the drone program in 2017, and nobody batted an eye because we were all showered with daily scandals.

We have to protect Information. It's paramount if democracy is to survive.

 

[dinyc3st]

 

[gry60]

I will just never understand why America should ever care about what is going on in the middle east.
beyond just like hamartian aid.

you got all these middle east experts on tv, people learning farsi and arabic so they can be booked on cable news shows
to tell you why the US must intervene in X middle east country.

why??? who cares????

Like Nigeria has oil, Nigeria has Islamic terrorists.
but I don't see any Nigeria experts on CNN???

I don't see any smart pants elite college people learning igbo and moving Lagos to burnish their resumes
so they can get a sweet think tank job and then Nat sec job with the biden administration.

Geopolitical interests that extend beyond oil procurement:
Protecting and partnering with a local scientific powerhouse (Israel) to deny neighbors possible access to that knowledge.
Denying Russia the ability to grow their own influence in the region.
Ensuring that the Suez canal stays open to facilitate trade between Europe and SE Asia (hence why the US is also in Djibouti).

Not to mention that that particular region is of Africa is a more of a UK/France thing than an American one.

 

[gry60]

Trump and Rudy can host a "breathe with us" event in this case.
Preferably indoors. They can die together leave the rest of us alone once and for all.

 

[IATT]

 

[Brownstone]

ill only say, yes theres a brek even point, but given the recent uptick in crime in cities I don't think we've reached it.

Based on what statistics are you claiming recent uptick in crime is based on lack of police presence?

 

[elpablo21]

One man should not have this much power

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]