Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Endus]

You don't get that kind of confusion with the word reform. It might be a little too milquetoast of a slogan for you, but like Felya said, it's the details of those reforms that count. Reallocate all of the funds and rebuild policing from the ground up. Also, let's remove qualified immunity and abolish police unions while we're at it. It's not that I disagree with the outcome, I'm just arguing that we avoid these scenarios because of sloppy language altogether.

You don't get that kind of confusion because "reform" is meaningless. It means all things, and nothing, to everyone, simultaneously. It's a semantic void on which you can project whatever you want to believe.

It could mean the things you say. It could also mean expanding immunity, granting the police the right to pass summary judgement and implement capital penalties (killing people, Judge Dredd style). It could mean giving them a fancy new uniform and a new ranking system going from "Sheriff" to "Lord Protector" to "Master and Commander of the Defense of the City".

In your rush to avoid offending anyone, you said something that could offend no one, because it says nothing. It's "thoughts and prayers", in policy form.

This isn't about "sloppy language", at all. It's about using brutally honest and open language, and presuming that anyone who takes issue with it is clearly opposed to what must be done. It gives them nowhere to rhetorically hide.

It's kind of like "Black Lives Matter", in that respect. If you disagree with that movement, you're implicitly stating that you do not agree that "black lives matter", in some respect. The bluntness of the phrasing forces you to either agree with it, or disagree, and disagreement provides a very clear window into your motivation.

Edit: I also think you're expecting way too much from a three-word call for action. It isn't a fully-detailed policy framework. Expecting it to be is . . . ridiculous. Of course there will be further details, and expecting to intuitively understand what all those must be from the call for action itself, that's silly as hell.

[starlord]

Edit: I also think you're expecting way too much from a three-word call for action. It isn't a fully-detailed policy framework. Expecting it to be is . . . ridiculous. Of course there will be further details, and expecting to intuitively understand what all those must be from the call for action itself, that's silly as hell.

if you find yourself constantly telling people that they are misunderstanding your slogan, that makes it a bad slogan.
if i run around yelling "Ban Avocados!!" and people think i mean ban avocados instead of a nuanced protest against crop monoculture and how it wastes water and decimate the environment, and we can keep avocados but just implement better farming practices, its not their fault for being "ignorant."

[downnola]

You don't get that kind of confusion because "reform" is meaningless. It means all things, and nothing, to everyone, simultaneously. It's a semantic void on which you can project whatever you want to believe.

It could mean the things you say. It could also mean expanding immunity, granting the police the right to pass summary judgement and implement capital penalties (killing people, Judge Dredd style). It could mean giving them a fancy new uniform and a new ranking system going from "Sheriff" to "Lord Protector" to "Master and Commander of the Defense of the City".

In your rush to avoid offending anyone, you said something that could offend no one, because it says nothing. It's "thoughts and prayers", in policy form.

This isn't about "sloppy language", at all. It's about using brutally honest and open language, and presuming that anyone who takes issue with it is clearly opposed to what must be done. It gives them nowhere to rhetorically hide.

It's kind of like "Black Lives Matter", in that respect. If you disagree with that movement, you're implicitly stating that you do not agree that "black lives matter", in some respect. The bluntness of the phrasing forces you to either agree with it, or disagree, and disagreement provides a very clear window into your motivation.

Edit: I also think you're expecting way too much from a three-word call for action. It isn't a fully-detailed policy framework. Expecting it to be is . . . ridiculous. Of course there will be further details, and expecting to intuitively understand what all those must be from the call for action itself, that's silly as hell.

It's not honest and open, if it were it would clearly imply what the goal is. Just defunding the police doesn't say anything other than stop funding them. Ok, but by how much? Completely? It's pretty clear that even you have a different idea by how much. That's how we got into this conversation to begin with. Maybe I am expecting too much from a three word slogan, but defund is doing some pretty heavy lifting it seems.

I'm saying people should clearly state what they mean and what goal is. I do also worry about the optics because it has a hint of anarchist philosophy to it. Despite the rhetoric that you're either with the movement or against it depending on this particular talking point, the idea of lawlessness will turn people off from it who are otherwise for sweeping changes.

I'm for defunding the police full stop. I'm just pointing out the obvious because it's the United States of Yokel Haram we're talking about here.

[Deja Thoris]

...

I disagree, I think its a bad slogan and those people that don't bother to get more than soundbites will be against it because they think it means removing law and order or something equally mad.

"Reform" means whatever the audience wants it to mean. So it can easily mean "Hell, they need to stop killing people" in someones mind. Even though thats not the end intent, its a good sentiment and therefore it will get support.

It's why Trumps MAGA resonates. People have different ideas of what great means and they all adapt it to fit the picture in their head.

I think no matter how good the sentiment is behind "defund the police" it will never gain traction because it has branding problems.

[Thelxi]

You just criticized the movement of being being too aggressive and not politically correct. Meanwhile we're looking at a police state that has no problem with labeling you an enemy if you dare exercise your First Amendment. A government and a machine that no longer cares if the cameras off before they let the batons.

So why should I care about being politically correct when it's used against me?

No more of this 'let's keep the segregationist happy' nonsense. No more 'he was a good buy living in a backwards time'. Step up shut up. Trump isn't going to be on the ticket in 2024.

Ok, this is just too rude and disgusting so I will take the bait so to speak.

You are wrong right off the bat; I am not criticizing any movement, I am criticizing the slogan. The premise of your passionate post is already faulty. Your second mistake is wrongly assuming my position on the matter, and then attacking it in a disgusting manner.

Your biggest mistake is trying to get me to use the phrase "politically correct" yet again, probably because you have had a lot of practice taking swings at that and are eager to repeat your performance. I am not telling you to be anything, because I don't think you are important, informed or representative of any movement whatsoever. If anything I think you are doing more damage to a cause you are trying to support, because if I were a low information Joe or Jane I might've made the mistake of assuming that you are representative of the movement and condemned it on the spot.

Take your attempts at semantic argument, assumptions and misguided attacks elsewhere, I won't play nice with you.

[JohnBrown1917]

Nothing like some ol' fashioned monarchy.

[Thekri]

Trump isn't the only GOP candidate in an absolute free fall in the polls right now. For about 6 months, I have been working hard in a group targeting Lindsey Graham and...

Here is the 538 page for South Carolina.

In February, Graham led Harrison 54-37. They are now tied at 42-42, with Grahams disapproval rating at 56%. Harrison has plenty of room to grow, Graham really doesn't. This is how colossally the GOP is screwed this election. One of the most nationally recognized GOP senators, in a deep red state, is now on the ropes to an almost unknown Democratic challenger. Even if Graham pulls this out, the GOP is being forced to throw massive amounts of outside resources into South Carolina right now. And it isn't working, at all. 17 points disappearing in 3 months is just historically bad.

The Senate is looking increasingly in play. In Arizona, McSally is about to achieve the rather impressive feat of somehow managing to lose BOTH of Arizona's senate seats to Democrats. It is quite amusing the GOP thought they should run a candidate that already lost once, and the democratic candidate is even stronger this time. In Colorado, Cory Gardner could not be more doomed, he is down 18 points as an incumbent. Even the Turtle himself has finally officially fallen behind in the polls, and McGrath is gaining momentum.

Yes, Alabama is going to go back Red, although if Sessions pulls out a win, that won't be doing Trump many favors. Georgia is going to be a horrendously expensive effort for the GOP, as they try to defend two plutocrats at the same time. This is going to be rough fall for the GOP, cheating only gets you so far.

[fwc577]

Yes, Alabama is going to go back Red, although if Sessions pulls out a win, that won't be doing Trump many favors. Georgia is going to be a horrendously expensive effort for the GOP, as they try to defend two plutocrats at the same time. This is going to be rough fall for the GOP, cheating only gets you so far.

Lets call this "The rough fall of the GOP" I kind of like the sound of that. May there be many sharp, jagged rocks at the bottom to break that fall.

[ati87]

Not sure if this sad, funny or both

The Trump campaign spent $400,000 on largely pointless TV ads in DC just so the president and his allies would see them, report says

The Trump campaign has been running ads in the DC area largely in the hope of alleviating the president’s bad mood as he watches cable news, The Daily Beast reported.

Pre Corona there was talk about how the money advantage of Trump would give him a major edge, but if you are spending money in Texas and now in Washington to ''cheer'' up your guy then you are definitely not going to ''destroy your opponent with an barrage of adds''.

[Felya]

Not sure if this sad, funny or both

The Trump campaign spent $400,000 on largely pointless TV ads in DC just so the president and his allies would see them, report says

The optics... Trump stands with American people! Wait... not that close... few more feet back... few more feet... okay... how about... Trump stands with American people, behind a fence, within a block radius... Nailed it!

[Thekri]

Not sure if this sad, funny or both

The Trump campaign spent $400,000 on largely pointless TV ads in DC just so the president and his allies would see them, report says





Pre Corona there was talk about how the money advantage of Trump would give him a major edge, but if you are spending money in Texas and now in Washington to ''cheer'' up your guy then you are definitely not going to ''destroy your opponent with an barrage of adds''.

That is absolutely hilarious. It is possibly the dumbest use of campaign spending I can imagine, but I also understand why it is necessary for his campaign staff to keep their jobs.

This is the sort of thing I would really like to see the President's hype men come defend. It isn't any sort of moral outrage situation, this isn't actually harming anyone, I just want to see them come acknowledge the level of Snowflake that has to be treated this way.

This just so many things about the President, and they are all bad (But we knew them all).

1) He watches a staggering amount of TV. Seriously, how does he have this much time to binge watch TV?
2) He even watches the commercials. Like, wtf. How does the President have time to watch through Commercial breaks?
3) He needs to be pampered in everything he does, because going a single commercial break without hearing someone saying nice things about him is too much apparently.

[cubby]

If she is so well known and your exaggerated favorite pick, why are they interviewing Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms. Same state. Why a new person instead of the woman you think should rule the United States behind the puppet that is Joe Biden? I mean you really have a hard on for someone who has no big experience above state congress.

Why is Biden's team keeping their options open, you mean? You know they are vetting 10+ people for the spot, right? Do you really not understand how the VP process works....

I mean you really have a hard on for someone who has no big experience above state congress.

At least she hasn't bankrupted casinos, laundered money, committed multiple crimes, and colluded with foreign governments to affect an election...right? Oh, and she has infinitely more experience in government than our Deplorable-in-Chief did when he started. Or is inexperience a bad thing...
(see how fucked you Trumpkins are when reality crashes down on your little bullshit parties?)

I understand polls just fine.

You actually don't. You consistently confuse them with focus groups - as multiple people have pointed out to you.

As far as other topics go, I stop talking about stuff because you guys are a circle jerk that talks and talks and talks yet do nothing, kinda like Joe Biden for the last 40 years. Democrats in major cities have run systemic racism governments....but NOW is time for change. Not the last 89 years in Chicago, or almost 40 years in Minnesota...NOW Joe Biden is going to fix everything...but he has not said how.

You stop talking about stuff because you're categorically wrong about most topics. Worse, your Dear Leader lies even more than you do, and you're stuck trying to back that lie.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/sand...democrats.html

Sanders is signaling the Biden isn't quite as hardcore a centrist as Sanders base appears to believe. This is good if true, and good that Sanders is still firmly behind Biden.

[PfeffermintShake]

Bernie is back out in public. Votes and interviews!
Bernie in the New Yorker interview, comes off as a bit skeptical with the "Defund the Police" branding...

[Endus]

Bernie is back out in public. Votes and interviews!
Bernie in the New Yorker interview, comes off as a bit skeptical with the "Defund the Police" branding...

Wherein he agrees with the points of Defund The Police (reduce funding levels to spread that to mental health and social work professionals to take up appropriate responses, remove bad cops from employment en masse, etc), but still tries to misrepresent it as "abolish all police forever", in exactly the same dishonest way that Republicans supported the individual points of the ACA, but hated Obamacare because of the name.

You should fucking expect more from your politicians.

[DarkTZeratul]

Wherein he agrees with the points of Defund The Police (reduce funding levels to spread that to mental health and social work professionals to take up appropriate responses, remove bad cops from employment en masse, etc), but still tries to misrepresent it as "abolish all police forever"...

Because he understands that that's what most people think of when they hear "Defund The Police." That's why it's a terrible brand, because it sounds like it means something extreme that would be objectionable to most people, and you're relying on the masses to proactively educate themselves about why it's actually not what it first sounds like. This is exactly why so many of us have been arguing for the last few pages that it's a great message to push but absolutely not with that name.

[PfeffermintShake]

Because he understands that that's what most people think of when they hear "Defund The Police." That's why it's a terrible brand, because it sounds like it means something extreme that would be objectionable to most people, and you're relying on the masses to proactively educate themselves about why it's actually not what it first sounds like. This is exactly why so many of us have been arguing for the last few pages that it's a great message to push but absolutely not with that name.

Ya, that could be a very Vermont take on the situation.
Weird that politicians understand their electorate better than very serious people on the internet.

[Endus]

Because he understands that that's what most people think of when they hear "Defund The Police." That's why it's a terrible brand, because it sounds like it means something extreme that would be objectionable to most people, and you're relying on the masses to proactively educate themselves about why it's actually not what it first sounds like. This is exactly why so many of us have been arguing for the last few pages that it's a great message to push but absolutely not with that name.

And yet, there's been no explanation for why you leap to that conclusion, because nothing about the word "defund" translates as "abolish forever". If anything, it's an odd word to use in that context, which invites examination.

And no alternative has been presented, either. No, empty, meaningless rhetoric is not an adequate replacement for a meaningful call to action. Such rhetoric exists to remove all contextual demand from a movement, leaving it toothless and directionless, because something like "Reform the police" could mean anything, and thus, it means nothing.

I get that the idea of dropping police funding by 50-70% or more, and removing a majority chunk of officers from duty permanently (and with cause), that's all intimidating. But let's not pretend it's crazy. Cities have already done this; Camden NJ was already cited. Minneapolis is drafting plans as we speak.

So what this comes off as is less "the mantra is bad", and more "the mantra intimidates me because it suggests the action required is severe". And well, to be blunt as fuck, that's the truth. Doing less only allows the problems to continue.

[kaelleria]

Defund: prevent from continuing to receive funds.

If that's not what you're proposing... stop using defund.

[Endus]

Defund: prevent from continuing to receive funds.

If that's not what you're proposing... stop using defund.

That's a major component of what's being proposed, yes. And?