Defund the Police U.S or anywhere?

[Forogil]

again, explain why cops need tanks. either answer that question or don't bother responding.

WHOOOSH!

My point is that if you wanted to solve that problem you shouldn't be working towards defunding the police, but primarily towards demilitarizing it where Obama (and possibly Biden) have made progress by not allowing surplus armored tracked vehicles (not tanks) to be given freely to the police.

As stated before 'defund the police' is a bad slogan in terms of the immediate reactions it gives (Blair called it 'the worst leftist slogan since dictatorship of the proletariat') and the policies it suggests (the money to the police isn't the problem).

Why do you want to lose?

[Specialka]

WHOOOSH!

My point is that if you wanted to solve that problem you shouldn't be working towards defunding the police, but primarily towards demilitarizing it where Obama (and possibly Biden) have made progress by not allowing surplus armored tracked vehicles (not tanks) to be given freely to the police.

As stated before 'defund the police' is a bad slogan in terms of the immediate reactions it gives (Blair called it 'the worst leftist slogan since dictatorship of the proletariat') and the policies it suggests (the money to the police isn't the problem).

Why do want to lose?

Because they can't virtue signal otherwise.

[Shadowferal]

. A good example again for the USA is healthcare. When asked Americans track in the high 80% as in favor of every American having access to healthcare. But when you go into the weeds of HOW to give American access to heathcare, that shit is cleaved into literally small chunks of support for different things. Every democrat politician is gona have a different interest there, not even because of money. But because even among democrats voted area, these arent clear issues with one answer at the top. .

Embarrassingly accurate. It's why I advocate "baby steps," and any step should be seen as a win. Wide sweeping changes neither gain traction, nor well thought out as any structure for replacement is nonexistent...

[Ripster42]

Other issues involved are that other slogans do get used, but again, slogans in and of themselves don't do shit. The slogan, of course, can always be better, but if your main focus is "the slogan sucks" you probably don't know just how awful African American communities are treated by police, and are fine with that, or find it too difficult to articulate what needs to be done to people (and yes, convincing racists is hard/near impossible, but a smart slogan won't convince them either).

If you think the main focus is "the slogan sucks" you're not listening. The focus is on garnering a larger base of public support so things can actually get done, at least on my part. Instead of using messaging that harms the chances of election outcomes you need, use better messaging. It's about reaching the people who "don't know just how awful African American communities are treated by police". They don't see the police as malignant influences in their communities, they see them as a source of safety. When you attack police, you're telling those people you want them to be less safe. They're not going to be receptive to anything you have to say after that. Instead target motivations they have.

There is a reason focus groups exist. Messaging matters in a democracy. Companies and political campaigns don't spend millions of dollars a year testing messaging because it's ineffective. Deliberately handicapping yourself is an assured way to lose. Stubbornly ignoring the advice of the president who was excellent in messaging and received the biggest initial percent vote differential since '80 is counterproductive. They've seen the results of the focus groups that were done on this issue. Taking expert advice is not a sign of weakness. It's great that the slogan resonates within a group that already knows and understands the problems involved. Those aren't the people you need to reach. Preaching to the choir in this case, while alienating everyone else, is a losing strategy. That choir isn't big enough to drown out the noise from professional propaganda campaigns with billion dollar budgets.

[Specialka]

If you think the main focus is "the slogan sucks" you're not listening. The focus is on garnering a larger base of public support so things can actually get done, at least on my part. Instead of using messaging that harms the chances of election outcomes you need, use better messaging. It's about reaching the people who "don't know just how awful African American communities are treated by police". They don't see the police as malignant influences in their communities, they see them as a source of safety. When you attack police, you're telling those people you want them to be less safe. They're not going to be receptive to anything you have to say after that. Instead target motivations they have.

There is a reason focus groups exist. Messaging matters in a democracy. Companies and political campaigns don't spend millions of dollars a year testing messaging because it's ineffective. Deliberately handicapping yourself is an assured way to lose. Stubbornly ignoring the advice of the president who was excellent in messaging and received the biggest initial percent vote differential since '80 is counterproductive. They've seen the results of the focus groups that were done on this issue. Taking expert advice is not a sign of weakness. It's great that the slogan resonates within a group that already knows and understands the problems involved. Those aren't the people you need to reach. Preaching to the choir in this case, while alienating everyone else, is a losing strategy. That choir isn't big enough to drown out the noise from professional propaganda campaigns with billion dollar budgets.

They can't reach those population, they are too busy insulting them and despising them.

[Forogil]

Trying to convince elected representatives that won't give you the time of day is a waste of time. Look at the GOP. They'd spit on you sooner than they'd listen to someone like you. The first step is getting elected representatives who will listen in office, and with a vote share big enough that change won't affect their chances of getting re-elected.

True - except that you are too kind, I view the ones spewing forth that stories as worse than deplorables.

The reason is that this idea that you can just sweet-talk the representatives is to close to the conspiracy idea of a deep-state, but with the extra twist that the deep-state isn't a problem - you just have to convince it to be on your side.
That fosters a sense of voter apathy, which is clearly not what you want your side to feel in a democracy,- and worst of all: when there's a grain of truth it totally back-fires as shown below:

The Black Visions Collective is allegedly the origin of the Defund the Police:

Their not recently updated web-site https://www.blackvisionsmn.org/redistribution states

Moved a veto-proof majority of our city council to commit to dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department, so that all their future actions would be measured against this public commitment

This makes you think it works, except that when they put that to the voters it failed: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/02/p...lts/index.html

And not only did it fail once with voters, it also failed in reality as crime surged and they then back-tracked https://www.startribune.com/minneapo...des/600126143/ - notable of the four voting against the new increase only one was facing re-election; i.e. they realized that it would be toxic in terms of voter support. And some of them had by then actually understood what I have been saying all along - you can propose money to other solutions without reducing the funding for the police department.

That's what happens when activists listen to stupid shit-advice and think that they don't need to convince voters of shit.

[minteK917]

True - except that you are too kind, I view the ones spewing forth that stories as worse than deplorables.

The reason is that this idea that you can just sweet-talk the representatives is to close to the conspiracy idea of a deep-state, but with the extra twist that the deep-state isn't a problem - you just have to convince it to be on your side.
That fosters a sense of voter apathy, which is clearly not what you want your side to feel in a democracy,- and worst of all: when there's a grain of truth it totally back-fires as shown below:

The Black Visions Collective is allegedly the origin of the Defund the Police:

Their not recently updated web-site https://www.blackvisionsmn.org/redistribution states

This makes you think it works, except that when they put that to the voters it failed: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/02/p...lts/index.html

And not only did it fail once with voters, it also failed in reality as crime surged and they then back-tracked https://www.startribune.com/minneapo...des/600126143/ - notable of the four voting against the new increase only one was facing re-election; i.e. they realized that it would be toxic in terms of voter support. And some of them had by then actually understood what I have been saying all along - you can propose money to other solutions without reducing the funding for the police department.

That's what happens when activists listen to stupid shit-advice and think that they don't need to convince voters of shit.

No dont you get it, the shadow cabal can just speak to the mayor really hard and it would pass even if the majority in an area oppose the change. Its magic, shamans are who really changes society.

[uuuhname]

That's what happens when activists listen to stupid shit-advice and think that they don't need to convince voters of shit.

again, there are plenty of arguments to be made about dramatically changing society; to where we don't have cops with tanks OR the ability to just walk up in a firing squad and murder an unmarred homeless man at a bus stop in board day light. but whenever those ideas are brought up the only response I get is to have some eternally ass blasted lib relitigate 2016. so, at some point trying to convince you people of anything becomes an obvious waste of time, precisely because you don't actually want to be moved from the position you've planted yourself in.

[Shadowferal]

so, at some point trying to convince you people of anything becomes an obvious waste of time, precisely because you don't actually want to be moved from the position you've planted yourself in.

"You people" just happens to be the voting population.

[uuuhname]

"You people" just happens to be the voting population.

so answer me this:

why don't we have free healthcare?

why don't we have free college education?

why isn't the federal minimum wage 25$ an hour?

why can't we enact any meaningful gun control?

why isn't marijuana legal?

notice how all of these things have wide popularity with American voters, regardless of one's political alignment I might add, yet we don't have any of these things. I wonder where the disconnect is!? it couldn't possibly be the case that base popular support doesn't actually have the power you people love to tell me it has, half the time. not as much as I notice the thrill some of you have to point out that "no, actually this isn't a straight up democracy, stupid!"

all of the questions I listed are ways to improve society without maintaining this oh so prefect status quo some of you like to tell me we have, half of the time. and! AND, they all have popular support behind them.

but now I'm just going to wait until the next "b-b-but you fucking POS lefties let Hillary lose!" and so, the cycle spins on, uninterrupted.

[Ripster42]

so answer me this:

Because the messaging sucks and so the people who support those things don't get elected. Again, billion dollar propaganda campaigns are what you're fighting against. Shitty messaging isn't going to cut it.

[uuuhname]

also to Forogil, I keep asking why the cops should have tanks, not how the cops got tanks, maybe actually answer the question instead of sidestepping it every time it's asked.

[Forogil]

so answer me this:

why don't we have free healthcare?

why don't we have free college education?

why isn't the federal minimum wage 25$ an hour?

why can't we enact any meaningful gun control?

why isn't marijuana legal?

notice how all of these things have wide popularity with American voters, regardless of one's political alignment I might add, yet we don't have any of these things.

Do they?

Republicans don't broadly favor free tuition (it depends) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...age-education/

The support for government funded health-care is ridiculously low overall <60% https://news.gallup.com/poll/4708/he...re-system.aspx

The support among republicans for increasing the minimum wage was 52% - when it was 7.25$ last year. I doubt there's a majority among them for increasing it to 25$. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minimum...ll-09-05-2021/

The support for legalizing it depends. Overall 38% support just legalizing it, 30% for medical use only: https://emersonpolling.reportablenew...y-january-2022

For gun control it depends on what you mean with 'meaningful' - the polling is messy: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...proval-polling

I wonder where the disconnect is!?

Look in the mirror.

[uuuhname]

14% say they want to keep weed illegal, so I guess that's a majority now. wow I see how some posters LOOOVE to spin statistics.

[Forogil]

also to Forogil, I keep asking why the cops should have tanks, not how the cops got tanks, maybe actually answer the question instead of sidestepping it every time it's asked.

I'm telling you how you could try to change it, starting by realizing that they aren't tanks (afaik) - but armored track vehicles.

And I don't see the cops having tanks around here.

[uuuhname]

and I keep trying to impart why you think cops *need* military equipment to deal with a civilian population. a question you keep refusing to answer, for some bizarre reason.

[Elegiac]

Republicans

I know pedantry is kind of your specialty but I'm just gonna point out when someone says that X is popular among American voters (i.e. everyone including Democrats and independent voters) inserting the qualifier "Republicans" and then saying "well ackshually there isn't popular support" is an incredibly dishonest argument.

[Forogil]

14% say they want to keep weed illegal, so I guess that's a majority now. wow I see how some posters LOOOVE to spin statistics.

It doesn't mean that the rest want to make it fully legal

30% saying "for medical purposes" can be interpreted in various ways - opium is legal for some medical purposes; I wouldn't call that legalizing opium.
19% wanted to decriminalize it for personal use and possession - like a traffic ticket (??? for me those would be two different things); and it is even more confusing as decriminalizing traffic tickets is something many US states are considering

Your claim was that the majority favor making it legal, but only 38% are in favor of fully legalizing it.

[minteK917]

so answer me this:

why don't we have free healthcare?

why don't we have free college education?

why isn't the federal minimum wage 25$ an hour?

why can't we enact any meaningful gun control?

why isn't marijuana legal?

notice how all of these things have wide popularity with American voters, regardless of one's political alignment I might add, yet we don't have any of these things. I wonder where the disconnect is!? it couldn't possibly be the case that base popular support doesn't actually have the power you people love to tell me it has, half the time. not as much as I notice the thrill some of you have to point out that "no, actually this isn't a straight up democracy, stupid!"

all of the questions I listed are ways to improve society without maintaining this oh so prefect status quo some of you like to tell me we have, half of the time. and! AND, they all have popular support behind them.

but now I'm just going to wait until the next "b-b-but you fucking POS lefties let Hillary lose!" and so, the cycle spins on, uninterrupted.

Finally you come out and use the lies i spoke about. None of these are fucking true in the way you use them, thats why they arent happening. Healthcare 36% are in favor of Universal healthcare, 26% for a mix of private and public, 30% for keeping the current medicare system, 6% for removing any government involvement. Yeah nice majority.

I have no idea where you find wages $25 an hour support lmao. $15 is winning out, but not anywhere for $25.

Those are also all more popular then abolishing police. Abolishing the police is in the dumpster compared to full free healthcare and that gets 36%.

[uuuhname]

Your claim was that the majority favor making it legal, but only 38% are in favor of fully legalizing it.

yeah, the majority that aren't strictly fucking republicans lmao.