|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 09 2020 22:21 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 21:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd just mention that abolition is based in marxist analysis so it presupposes the accompanying social and economic changes as also necessary. Well, considering that these accompanying social and economical changes are not remotely close to happening, I assume you agree then that abolition of the police right now is not a good idea.
It was a good idea decades ago. People are in the streets because they aren't going to wait any longer.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On June 09 2020 21:49 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 09:44 Fanharijo wrote:
Is there really an appetite for policies like BLM proposes ?
I can't think of a single person I know that would even remotely vote for anything like that. Whether or not there's an appetite for it doesn't matter. There's never been an appetite for actual change in the police force in the US, that's why we're at the precipice we're at in the first place. The US police force has been left to stagnate in corruption for an absurd length of time. You can't fix this by giving them a stern talking to. Every single stage of the system is corrupt at this point, to the point that good actors are unable to influence it positively and even segments that aren't directly part of the police force are corrupted by association (the courts, which have their own set of issues admittedly, but are complicit in getting police off when they perform abhorrent deeds by deliberately accusing them of crimes that can't be proven rather than ones which can). Radical action is needed. Maybe what BLM is proposing is too radical. But better to start too radical and work down to something reasonable than not go far enough. Consider, if you will, the sheer absurdity of the amount of pressure needed just to get people to seriously consider changes. Rioting in multiple major cities, police precincts set on fire, protests worldwide. This - if it even is a chance for change - is the chance for change. Their won't be another.
They’re not entirely comparable but I am drawn back to 2008 and the crash and Occupy etc. People forget that swathes of the Tea Party were extremely angry at Wall Street two.
We had a chance with the global crash showcasing how broken that system was and to sufficiently anger people that fundamental change was possible. A generational chance really, the system needs to fail in full public view for people to be convinced it’s broken.
Unfortunately rather than change the system fundamentally, we backed away, placated with a few more checks and balances, ultimately it’s still broken. In many ways the wider finance sector is causing new damage in different ways than before as they’ll always seek new cakes.
Here we have protests and rioting on a national scale, a real anger and appetite for change. We’re teetering on the precipice but I hope we don’t back down as a society and get talked off the ledge with a few token reforms.
I’m not sure we get another shot until there’s another perfect storm of factors precipitating mass civil disobedience.
|
On June 09 2020 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 22:21 Sr18 wrote:On June 09 2020 21:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd just mention that abolition is based in marxist analysis so it presupposes the accompanying social and economic changes as also necessary. Well, considering that these accompanying social and economical changes are not remotely close to happening, I assume you agree then that abolition of the police right now is not a good idea. It was a good idea decades ago. People are in the streets because they aren't going to wait any longer.
That makes no sense. You say that the abolition of the police requires certain conditions to be met. The conditions will likely never be met but are certainly not met right now. So the abolotion of the police will not work right now. So how is it a good idea right now, let alone decades ago?
Is it that hard to admit that you are wrong?
|
On June 09 2020 23:00 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 09 2020 22:21 Sr18 wrote:On June 09 2020 21:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd just mention that abolition is based in marxist analysis so it presupposes the accompanying social and economic changes as also necessary. Well, considering that these accompanying social and economical changes are not remotely close to happening, I assume you agree then that abolition of the police right now is not a good idea. It was a good idea decades ago. People are in the streets because they aren't going to wait any longer. That makes no sense. You say that the abolition of the police requires certain conditions to be met. The conditions will likely never be met but are certainly not met right now. So the abolotion of the police will not work right now. So how is it a good idea right now, let alone decades ago? Is it that hard to admit that you are wrong?
Your main mistake is thinking they are separate efforts.
What I'm personally struggling with is how you can possibly think you're bringing up novel arguments that haven't been considered.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On June 09 2020 23:00 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 09 2020 22:21 Sr18 wrote:On June 09 2020 21:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd just mention that abolition is based in marxist analysis so it presupposes the accompanying social and economic changes as also necessary. Well, considering that these accompanying social and economical changes are not remotely close to happening, I assume you agree then that abolition of the police right now is not a good idea. It was a good idea decades ago. People are in the streets because they aren't going to wait any longer. That makes no sense. You say that the abolition of the police requires certain conditions to be met. The conditions will likely never be met but are certainly not met right now. So the abolotion of the police will not work right now. So how is it a good idea right now, let alone decades ago? Is it that hard to admit that you are wrong?
The problem is that people can say that ad infinitum, and basically have done.
We can't change this until we've changed that.
But we can't change that other thing until we've changed everything else.
And thus everything always stays the same.
You've got to start somewhere, even if it sucks for a while, and there has to be the promise of also supporting that change using other means.
Its not like its impossible to start, right now, increasing funding for things that will help keep law and order but are not police. Drug policy, education, mental healthcare policy, better homelessness programs, all this stuff takes work off the hands of the police and I'm sure there's a million other things that could be done to save the police having to do unnecessary work and put themselves and other people in unnecessary danger. This is how you defund the police.
The fact that no-one is doing that other stuff is no excuse for not starting with the police. It should never have been left this long.
|
On June 09 2020 23:13 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 23:00 Sr18 wrote:On June 09 2020 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 09 2020 22:21 Sr18 wrote:On June 09 2020 21:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd just mention that abolition is based in marxist analysis so it presupposes the accompanying social and economic changes as also necessary. Well, considering that these accompanying social and economical changes are not remotely close to happening, I assume you agree then that abolition of the police right now is not a good idea. It was a good idea decades ago. People are in the streets because they aren't going to wait any longer. That makes no sense. You say that the abolition of the police requires certain conditions to be met. The conditions will likely never be met but are certainly not met right now. So the abolotion of the police will not work right now. So how is it a good idea right now, let alone decades ago? Is it that hard to admit that you are wrong? The problem is that people can say that ad infinitum, and basically have done. We can't change this until we've changed that. But we can't change that other thing until we've changed everything else. And thus everything always stays the same. You've got to start somewhere, even if it sucks for a while, and there has to be the promise of also supporting that change using other means. Its not like its impossible to start, right now, increasing funding for things that will help keep law and order but are not police. Drug policy, education, mental healthcare policy, better homelessness programs, all this stuff takes work off the hands of the police and I'm sure there's a million other things that could be done to save the police having to do unnecessary work and put themselves and other people in unnecessary danger. This is how you defund the police. The fact that no-one is doing that other stuff is no excuse for not starting with the police. It should never have been left this long.
That doesn't sound like it supposes a marxist-leninist framework in order to be successful though.
|
On June 09 2020 23:13 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 23:00 Sr18 wrote:On June 09 2020 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 09 2020 22:21 Sr18 wrote:On June 09 2020 21:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd just mention that abolition is based in marxist analysis so it presupposes the accompanying social and economic changes as also necessary. Well, considering that these accompanying social and economical changes are not remotely close to happening, I assume you agree then that abolition of the police right now is not a good idea. It was a good idea decades ago. People are in the streets because they aren't going to wait any longer. That makes no sense. You say that the abolition of the police requires certain conditions to be met. The conditions will likely never be met but are certainly not met right now. So the abolotion of the police will not work right now. So how is it a good idea right now, let alone decades ago? Is it that hard to admit that you are wrong? Its not like its impossible to start, right now, increasing funding for things that will help keep law and order but are not police. Drug policy, education, mental healthcare policy, better homelessness programs, all this stuff takes work off the hands of the police and I'm sure there's a million other things that could be done to save the police having to do unnecessary work and put themselves and other people in unnecessary danger.
This is all very sensible. Which is exactly why I dislike emotional knee jerk reactions like 'let's abolish the police!'. They not only don't solve the issues at hand, they actively make it harder to solve them.
|
GH and others have been pushing on the defund the police plan for quite some time now, so it’s plainly incorrect to label that plan “knee jerk.” I also see no indication that this plan is any way “emotional” by comparison with competing ideas, so that’s not accurate either.
|
I realize this kind of thing doesn’t usually even raise eyebrows any more, but Trump is alleging that Martin Gugino (the 75 year old Buffalo police shoved on the ground with no apparent provocation) was aiming a “scanner” at police equipment to “black [it] out,” that he “fell harder than was pushed,” and suggests it was a set up. My first thought was of Intro’s “the people he attacks richly, richly deserve it.”
To be clear, I’m not saying Intro thinks that about Martin Gugino (I certainly hope he doesn’t!). But I wonder if Trump is harder to defend when he debases himself like this with regular people than when he does it with other powerful people.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On June 09 2020 23:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 23:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 09 2020 23:00 Sr18 wrote:On June 09 2020 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 09 2020 22:21 Sr18 wrote:On June 09 2020 21:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd just mention that abolition is based in marxist analysis so it presupposes the accompanying social and economic changes as also necessary. Well, considering that these accompanying social and economical changes are not remotely close to happening, I assume you agree then that abolition of the police right now is not a good idea. It was a good idea decades ago. People are in the streets because they aren't going to wait any longer. That makes no sense. You say that the abolition of the police requires certain conditions to be met. The conditions will likely never be met but are certainly not met right now. So the abolotion of the police will not work right now. So how is it a good idea right now, let alone decades ago? Is it that hard to admit that you are wrong? The problem is that people can say that ad infinitum, and basically have done. We can't change this until we've changed that. But we can't change that other thing until we've changed everything else. And thus everything always stays the same. You've got to start somewhere, even if it sucks for a while, and there has to be the promise of also supporting that change using other means. Its not like its impossible to start, right now, increasing funding for things that will help keep law and order but are not police. Drug policy, education, mental healthcare policy, better homelessness programs, all this stuff takes work off the hands of the police and I'm sure there's a million other things that could be done to save the police having to do unnecessary work and put themselves and other people in unnecessary danger. This is how you defund the police. The fact that no-one is doing that other stuff is no excuse for not starting with the police. It should never have been left this long. That doesn't sound like it supposes a marxist-leninist framework in order to be successful though.
Correct.
The problem with basing solutions on a marxist-leninist framework is that its an exercise in pure thought with no practical application in the US.
|
On June 10 2020 00:38 ChristianS wrote:
I realize this kind of thing doesn’t usually even raise eyebrows any more, but Trump is alleging that Martin Gugino (the 75 year old Buffalo police shoved on the ground with no apparent provocation) was aiming a “scanner” at police equipment to “black [it] out,” that he “fell harder than was pushed,” and suggests it was a set up. My first thought was of Intro’s “the people he attacks richly, richly deserve it.”
To be clear, I’m not saying Intro thinks that about Martin Gugino (I certainly hope he doesn’t!). But I wonder if Trump is harder to defend when he debases himself like this with regular people than when he does it with other powerful people.
i would be shocked to hear of any single person that won’t vote for Trump as a result of his support of felony assault on a senior citizen who ‘had it coming to him,’ to paraphrase.
some 50 officers resigned from the team in response to the felons’ suspensions. it’s a shame they didn’t just resign from the force entirely.
|
On June 10 2020 00:06 farvacola wrote:
GH and others have been pushing on the defund the police plan for quite some time now, so it’s plainly incorrect to label that plan “knee jerk.” I also see no indication that this plan is any way “emotional” by comparison with competing ideas, so that’s not accurate either.
You would assume the elapsed time would have allowed the plan to be more thought out. That doesn't seem to be the case though, evidenced by the constant dodging of questions aimed at getting even a slightly fleshed out idea of how society would function without law enforcement.
And the cries for abolishing the police are clearly emotional, as they seem based on anger and frustration, rather than reason and reality.
|
On June 10 2020 00:38 ChristianS wrote:
I realize this kind of thing doesn’t usually even raise eyebrows any more, but Trump is alleging that Martin Gugino (the 75 year old Buffalo police shoved on the ground with no apparent provocation) was aiming a “scanner” at police equipment to “black [it] out,” that he “fell harder than was pushed,” and suggests it was a set up. My first thought was of Intro’s “the people he attacks richly, richly deserve it.”
To be clear, I’m not saying Intro thinks that about Martin Gugino (I certainly hope he doesn’t!). But I wonder if Trump is harder to defend when he debases himself like this with regular people than when he does it with other powerful people.
Fairly certain my post contained a phrase like "so many of the people he attacks..."
And if you wonder why I won't make a decision until election day, this type of thing is why.
|
On June 10 2020 01:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 00:38 ChristianS wrote:
I realize this kind of thing doesn’t usually even raise eyebrows any more, but Trump is alleging that Martin Gugino (the 75 year old Buffalo police shoved on the ground with no apparent provocation) was aiming a “scanner” at police equipment to “black [it] out,” that he “fell harder than was pushed,” and suggests it was a set up. My first thought was of Intro’s “the people he attacks richly, richly deserve it.”
To be clear, I’m not saying Intro thinks that about Martin Gugino (I certainly hope he doesn’t!). But I wonder if Trump is harder to defend when he debases himself like this with regular people than when he does it with other powerful people. Fairly certain my post contained a phrase like "so many of the people he attacks..." And if you wonder why I won't make a decision until election day, this type of thing is why.
Was trying to be clear I didn’t think you would be applying it to this situation, but appreciate the correction.
I do also think shit like “making up a murder charge against Joe Scarborough” is unacceptable even if you *do* hate Joe Scarborough (I’ve got no particular love for him myself) but I guess that’s another discussion.
|
On June 09 2020 11:47 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 09:04 Dan HH wrote:On June 09 2020 08:23 Sent. wrote:On June 09 2020 08:14 Erasme wrote:On June 09 2020 06:56 Dan HH wrote:On June 09 2020 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Just as a matter of clarification there's a lot of cooption taking place on what is actually being called for. Now there's a lot of liberal and 'progressive' folks all over the chart but a brief synopsis of what "Defund the police" means can be found here: Reject any proposed expansion to police budgets.
Prohibit private-public innovation schemes that profit from temporary technological fixes to systemic problems of police abuse and violence. These contracts and data-sharing arrangements, however profitable for technologists and reformists, are lethal.
Reduce the power of police unions.
Until the police are fully defunded, make police union contract negotiations public.
Pressure the AFL-CIO to denounce police unions.
Prohibit city candidates taking money from police unions and stop accepting union funds.
Withhold pensions and don’t rehire cops involved in use of excessive force.
Demand the highest budget cuts per year, until they slash police budget to zero.
Slash police salaries across the board until they are zeroed out.
Immediately fire police officers who have any excessive force complaints.
No hiring of new officers or replacement of fired or resigned officers.
Fully cut funding for public relations.
Suspend the use of paid administrative leave for cops under investigation.
Require police, not cities, to be liable for misconduct and violence settlements.
Abolish asset forfeiture programs and laws. www.8toabolition.comIt's a good hub for a lot of other useful information about related movements as well. Doritos Deray put a more centrist version and tacked on the word "abolish" later but that's just sheepdog shit imo. Do you support that list? I find quite a few of those lines to be antithetical to basic worker rights. Which ones ? If you're thinking about the unions ones, police unions don't work the same way in the US as in the EU. I would pick those: Withhold pensions and don’t rehire cops involved in use of excessive force.
Slash police salaries across the board until they are zeroed out.
Immediately fire police officers who have any excessive force complaints.
Suspend the use of paid administrative leave for cops under investigation. Those were immediate red flags for me as well. Some very quick explanations: Whatever pension you've accrued until dismissal was already yours, not the holder's. Around these parts slashes/freezes are done for all public workers across the board in times of crisis. To single out police as the only public workers that can never get a raise sounds like it should break about 50 different laws. I'm sure we can agree that justified complaints are somewhere below 100%. You can be immediately fired for a complaint, but to have a rule that requires immediate firing upon a complaint is another thing entirely. If the investigation goes the way of the cops, assuming it was in good faith, they lost wages through no fault of their your own. Sure, you can pay them back but for all you know they could have been evicted or defaulted on a loan in that time, this opens up a can of worms. All in all, to me that list reads more like something aimed at prawns in District 9 than at people that eat and pay their bills with their labor. And this is coming from someone that finds police culture in the US outrageously toxic. What laws would it break? Public sector workers the world over get shafted on below inflation pay rates all the time, including nurses in the U.K. Not getting good pay raises? How generous are the raises vast swathes of minimum wage private sector workers get? People who are paid so badly the state has to subside their wages? Oh that’s legal? I would have an issue with the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ aspects of this, and that’s about it. It’s worth bearing in mind that police are the only ‘employees’ of the state that have the powers of initial legal enforcement and the monopoly on employing state-sanctioned violence. If they genuinely care about serving their communities, as some do, or merely want the odd extra blowjob after flashing the badge at the very least they should be held to higher standards than almost any other basic profession there is out there. As it stands the opposite is true, indeed the active resistance and abject failure to self-regulate may lead, in the current political climate to over/regulation. And who cares really at this point? Had enough time to clean house. We can split hairs on legality but you have a job that doesn’t even need a college degree, gives you legitimate force in employing violence for the state AND if you overdo it you’re effectively protected and immune from consequences.
Surely you notice the gargantuan difference between not getting a raise and codifying that the wages of a specific profession within the public sector can only go down.
I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't see any of that reflected on the list of demands. What I see is the design of a special caste for a 'lesser profession', and that should be called out especially on this forum where the ideological inconsistencies of conservatives never fail to get ridiculed.
They can raze police and redistribute their duties to their heart's content as far as I'm concerned, but demanding them to stay on as not-true workers undeserving of basic rights is some feudal bullshit, all in the name of social equality.
|
Not to mention that it would create a nightmare society where criminals roam free and the police would have to resort to violence and bribery to make a living (more than today). But somehow disbanding the police is "marxism" so it's ok (though no one can explain why).
|
Imagine a world where the community polices itself... Just like these BLM protests are policing themselves since you know, the actual police are brutalizing them.
|
On June 10 2020 01:26 ChristianS wrote:
I do also think shit like “making up a murder charge against Joe Scarborough” is unacceptable even if you *do* hate Joe Scarborough (I’ve got no particular love for him myself) but I guess that’s another discussion.
It's really not that hard to draw the line between verbal attacks/insults/combative language and outright slander/defamation.
The former is a tolerable, if unpalatable aspect of the Trump experience. The latter is unacceptable regardless of whether you think the recipient "deserves" it.
|
The thing that makes this "defund the police or "abolish police" nonsense is the that the reforms that they're asking for has no connection to their slogans. They know the wording they're using is confusing the majority of the country into misunderstanding them and they don't care.
We've gone through this exercise with GH a lot. He doesn't mean what he says and doesn't care that you don't understand why that's confusing. Even he's not an anarchist and is only being radical in order to make problems and force people in some way to the left.
Communities can't police themselves when crimes will eventually involve other communities, and when those communities are uninterested in policing themselves.
|
On June 10 2020 03:03 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Imagine a world where the community polices itself... Just like these BLM protests are policing themselves since you know, the actual police are brutalizing them.
Police *is* the community policing itself. Or at least it's supposed to be. It isn't an army controlled by the state. You even elect your sheriffs!
However you threw all oversight out the window and decided they were above the law. And hey, it turns out that power corrupts. So now you have an armed force who do whatever the hell they want under the pretense of upholding the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
