Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
You wouldn't fix potholes in the road by cutting infrastructure funding.
You don't solve problems with public schools with outdated textbooks and oversized classrooms by cutting their funding.
Edited by ScubaWolf on Dec 11th 2020 at 11:26:27 AM
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"They aren't overfunded at all. The problem is that what money they do get is being spent with Skewed Priorities.
Heck, police funding is actually a miniscule portion of government spending.
And as mentioned before, police are not killing people with these military weapons.
They're using regular old sidearms. Heck, sometimes they don't even use weapons.
Remember that the protests' catalyst was a man being choked to death by a cop's knee.
Edited by M84 on Dec 12th 2020 at 12:35:56 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedTo me, that sounds like at least partly a problem of that money being used to buy weapons and not for something more constructive like better training and screening procedures to weed out white supremacists (I assume that things have to be more complicated than that, but still). I think it's unacceptable that police have access to military equipment (and to be clear I'm not against diverting money from the police to fund other programs), but I don't think the money is the core of the problem, the priorities, culture, and unaccountability of the police are and giving them less money isn't necessarily gonna fix that.
Activism that actively harms the electoral chances of the party most likely to do what you want is not effective activism.
The idea that anything is a slogan "for activists against politicians" is tripe. The American public does not distinguish between elected officials, activists, or any other category of political actor. They distinguish between Left and Right. Left wing activism is as much a part of the face of the political Left as left wing politicians, and they will be linked in the public consciousness, whether those politicians personally use the activists' slogans or not. This is exactly what the 538 article about "Defund the Police" negatively impacting Democrat candidates regardless of whether they ever personally used the slogan shows us.
"Reform the police!" sounds like a plausible slogan to me, honestly.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."At its time, the Civil rights act had 58% approval rating
Funny enough, similar to current support for BLM, slogan or not. Riots or not.
And on average, same sex unions too, to boot
And sure. No one directly said that "Oh slogans are the only thing that matters" but here we are discussing how unviable it is for the umpteenth time, and even criticizing the politicians and groups that lead that movement and use that idea because god, AOC, can't you fucking say something more amenable, you goddamn fucking commie?
Conservative politicians don't support or enact policies based on the popularity of them: they are by definition defenders of the status quo. Progressive policies pass because enough people are moved to vote the politicians who will, at government level, bring those changes to fruition despite the existence of the status quo paladins. Sometimes, it involves overthrowing the government but that's not within the scope of what the U.S is going through.
Progressive political movements seek a change that will, regardless of how beneficial it will possibly be, be considered harrowing. Transitions are not pretty. No political movement was gained without very direct, often (if not always) violent civil confrontations. It will never be massively popular.
Now, I am remiss to call BLM, or the "Defund" movement a succesful political movement itself, or call out its inevitable success as some sort of "right side of history" argument. If I could predict the future I'd probably have a lot more money.
I just find the focus on the slogan strange as bulletproof evidence for how it is tanking not just the popularity, but the opportunities of a civil movement. There are relevant leaders up and coming such as Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, Obama, and Sanders which have made a significant difference in making the more conservative leaning Democrats open to considering some ideas about economics, healthcare and racial integration. And they are swayed and concerned by these movements to varying degrees and that's the wedge that is necesary.
Obergefell v Hudges came during Obama. Yes, I am aware it did not begin during his time but stretched all the way back to 2012, but there was certainly a benefit to having Sotomayor and Kagan there.
I see this and raise you the fact Florida, who elected Donald trump and is consistently republican, elected to raise the minimum wage to 15$
as well.
I am perfectly aware of this but you gotta know who the propaganda is aimed for. The defund the Police movement is not a movement made by white people for white people - it's by those affected the most by the police. Which isn't white people. The goal of it is to get it to be discussed on legislative level, and to get it to the hands of the party most likely to hear you out (Hint: It's not the party that's supported by the KKK and the Taliban.)
Now, I understand your concerns of "Hold on. But isn't it bad strategy to have riots, a phrase I can't market on a mug, to get the attention of politicians if it means I scare the heck out of the poor innocent centrists?". To which I say well I don't know. Would Florida have ever even considered the 15$ minimum wage had Sanders not brought it to fruition at a national level? What of the violence during th civil rights movements, or the Suffragettes literally throwing hatchets at people?
His campaign certainly seems to have brought the question to several ballots on states. Look at the times.
when some states began to consider it began in 2014. That is not to say, I want to congratulate Sanders on single handedly bringing this issue to national acqaintance: Several democratic parties (All democrat) have long attempted to have the minimum wage change achieved way before Sanders ran it as a campaign issue. But we can't ignore his impact either.
Ultimately, when the question poised by the movement is brought to vote, it won't be presented as a binary "DEFUND THE POLICE YES NO!???!?!" but something a tad more organically written, such as "Divert funding of police on psychological attention for police emergencies".
Which more people, like people confronted with the question "Do you want healthcare?" and "Do you want higher wages?", are likely to say yes to, as the Floridians, and the Obamacare examples mention.
I hope the mods do notice all of my examples are pretty damn relevant to the United States' current political landscape by mentioning their actors and examples. I know it's a slightly broad theoretical subject, but they all are being played out right now on the US political battlefield.
Edited by Aszur on Dec 11th 2020 at 11:13:32 AM
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesAt its time, the Civil rights act had 58% approval rating
Funny enough, similar to current support for BLM, slogan or not. Riots or not.
And on average, same sex unions too, to boot
And sure. No one directly said that "Oh slogans are the only thing that matters" but here we are discussing how unviable it is for the umpteenth time, and even criticizing the politicians and groups that lead that movement and use that idea because god, AOC, can't you fucking say something more amenable, you goddamn fucking commie?
Yes, we are discussing it, after an election where it may have hurt Democrats downballot. Not sure why this is getting lost. BLM is a good movement and good slogan. Defund the Police is a good idea behind a terrible slogan that repels voters right off.
This isn't comparable to the advocacy for same sex marriage which was also intensely pragmatic and targeted.
No, it isn't. Because eventually you're going to need to win people over not already predisposed to being on your side something AOC and Bernie Sanders have shown absolutely no ability to do right now. "It's not FOR you" works when we're talking about bad movies, not when we're talking about societal activism on an issue that affect everybody.
It leads to a question more people need to be asked: do you actually want change or do you want to just believe in your own righteousness?
As for firing the cops and starting over? Well, that's what Camden did.
Edited by Lightysnake on Dec 11th 2020 at 9:20:24 AM
I'm not really sure that's true about AOC and Bernie. They have shown an ability to vote with the establishment. It's their rhetoric that is fiery. Putting aside whether or not that is good or bad, I will say reform the police doesn't have to mean replace and rebuilding police departments, but I am not at all opposed to that being an end result for some police departments.
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midThat reminds me, Clyburn compared "Defund the Police." to the Watts Riot slogan, "Burn, Baby, Burn!" as phrases that decreased support for their movements.
538 also talked about how Carl Stokes, the first Black mayor of Cleveland, actually asked MLK not to come help him win reelection because he would scare off some of the white voters Stokes needed to win. Which he fully acknowledged was stupid, but nothing good would come from Stoker not winning at all. They eventually compromised and King was able to talk to certain groups but the two couldn't be seen associated together.
In the interes of fairness, it did take a few years of activism and more high-profile deaths for BLM to become broadly popular. It got met with a lot of bad faith arguments at first or people just not understanding (or not wanting to understand) what it was about.
This I grant you, but nobody outright opposed the slogan in any high profile setting. Nobody wanted to say "Black Lives Don't Matter," whereas "Defund the Police" is easier to oppose. BLM was opposed with disingenuous bullshit about "Oh, you're saying ONLY Black Lives matter and ALL lives matter"...it's a reason BLM is a good slogan...it tells you everything up front.
I'm not really sure that's true about AOC and Bernie. They have shown an ability to vote with the establishment. It's their rhetoric that is fiery. Putting aside whether or not that is good or bad, I will say reform the police doesn't have to mean replace and rebuilding police departments, but I am not at all opposed to that being an end result for some police departments.
"Voting with" isn't the same as "working with." AOC was supporting primaries against colleagues before she was even sworn into office and she has a way of airing every grievance she has on twitter. It's no secret she's gotten into a lot of tiffs with her colleagues and some of that is honestly on her. Bernie decided to base two presidential campaigns around the Democratic establishment being corrupt and is kinda infamous for being incredibly difficult to work with.
I'd say it's harder for him to work with Hillary not with Biden. He was very quick to endorse him. Anyway AOC recently went through a staffing change, because as she says she's averse to conflict . It's why she didn't way in on the Shahid-Buttar vs Pelosi thing even before the whole sexual harassment allegations. Link to the article that goes into more detail
.
I definitely agree with that. One of the reasons he lost the primary this time around is that the establishment got spooked and they quickly rallied around Biden. Keep in mind I'm not saying the primary was stolen from him; I'm saying when a lot of major democrats endorsed Biden a lot of the rank and file followed their lead, cause endorsements matter.
Edited by jjjj2 on Dec 11th 2020 at 12:58:20 PM
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midIt's not that they can't. Both Bernie and AOC have notably been in lockstep with the rest of the Democrats on several issues. AOC was notably more open to compromising on healthcare between Expanding Medicare and Medicare for All. Bernie donated some of his money to state and local Democratic parties.
It's just sometimes they won't. Bernie's last few months campaigning became increasingly anti-Democratic establishment probably because he got cocky and assumed the moderate factions were too disunited to actually oppose him. Ironically the rhetoric caused enough concern for them to do just that. The race might have been tighter if he played the olive branch and took on the air of a graceful winner.
I really want a book about the 2020 primary. Looking back at all the emotions we had going through it, it's going to be amazing seeing the race from insiders perspective all gathered together.
Biden had a record to Hillary's right. There is no excuse for Berni's behavior on 2016, none. He lost and his campaign became increasingly bitter, desperate and delusional. He did the right thing earlier this year, to his credit, but if not for Clinton's surprise loss, there would be no way he was remembered fondly.
I don't buy AOC being conflict-averse, either. She actively seeks conflicts out. But she was jumping into other primaries and has continued to do so, with Markey vs. Kennedy being a complete display of hypocrisy.
I really do not want to recap 2016 so I'm not, however nobody came out looking good in Markey vs Kennedy. That was hypocrisy all around. I'm of the opinion that nobody should endorse anybody during primaries. I think the DNC should fully throw their weight behind a candidate after the primary is done. The fact of the matter is I felt like Pelosi was far more of a hypocrite given that she's been doing this for far longer and she just decides to endorse the non-incumbent which is against her own rules, whereas AOC endorsed a progressive candidate; as opposed to all the other races where she just stayed out.
Edited by jjjj2 on Dec 11th 2020 at 1:08:35 PM
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midThe thing was with Markey...the Senators endorsed him. Chuck Schumer endorsed him. House Reps endorsed Kennedy, even one of Bernie's most high profile surrogates. Imagine if Kennedy was supported by Bloomberg and bragged about deregulating the Telecoms industry, he voted for Iraq and the crime bill and things I was told for years were unforgivable sins.
AOC is simply among the last peeople on the planet who gets to complain about a primary and her throwing herself behind Markey was ridiculous. Pelosi endorsed one of her own caucus against another incumbent. The idea Markey was more progressive than Kennedy is based off little but AOC's personal preference. Markey's a bog standard center-left liberal an always has been.
Edited by Lightysnake on Dec 11th 2020 at 10:13:18 AM
![]()
Hopefully anything but the spending bill getting passed with that stupid law a GOP senator put in that makes online streaming or something like that a felony misdemeanor. A shutdown is bad but the effects of that law on the bill would be even worse.
But plenty of progressives endorsed Markey. I don't understand you're problem. He had more support from progressives than Kennedy did. I feel like this vox article points out their strengths and weaknesses
, I felt like this line was the crucial one: " since House leadership has taken a hard line against challengers to incumbents, making her backing of Kennedy appear hypocritical"

Regarding Gabbard continuing to be awful, isn't she out of Congress as of January.
Sounds like she's bumping her resume for when she becomes right-wing media outlets token Democrat...
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.