Democrats New Strategy: No More SJW Party

[SpecialFNK]

they want reduced police.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...eans-defunding

Ocasio-Cortez dismisses proposed $1B cut: 'Defunding police means defunding police'

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said New York City’s proposed $1 billion cut from the police department budget tiptoes around demands from activists who are asking for a reduced police presence.

Though the plan proposed by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) cuts one-sixth of the New York Police Department (NYPD) budget, activists note that much of it would be transferred to other city departments, including the Department of Education, where it could pay for police in schools. Activists have advocated for removing officers from schools altogether.

“Defunding police means defunding police,” the congresswoman said in a statement. “It does not mean budget tricks or funny math. It does not mean moving school police officers from the NYPD budget to the Department of Education’s budget so the exact same police remain in schools.”

this from August..

https://saraacarter.com/gallup-81-of...neighborhoods/

Gallup: 81% of Black Americans Want Police To Spend The Same Or More Amount Of Time In Their Neighborhoods

New data from Gallup shows high numbers of Black Americans wanting police to spend the same or increased amount of time in their neighborhoods — while few of these individuals feel an interaction with local police will go well.

The report shows 61 percent of Black Americans want the police presence to remain the same while 20 percent desire the police to spend more time in their area — just 19 percent want the police to spend less time.

Notably, the number is similar to the 67 percent of all U.S. adults preferring the status quo, including 71 percent of White Americans.

Black Americans were the second-highest group to want more police presence — just behind Hispanic Americans at 24 percent.

[GGGGG-Men]

when people do not want police to be the people that respond for situations like this, then they shouldn't call the police for situations like this.

They haven’t defunded the police though. They haven’t changed anything (hence the continued protests). So the police are who to call and they still will be for altercations. Again I think you’re missing something in how this works.

There are a few good articles out there on what they did in Camden, NJ and that’s the standard or close to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SpecialFNK]

They haven’t defunded the police though. They haven’t changed anything (hence the continued protests). So the police are who to call and they still will be for altercations. Again I think you’re missing something in how this works.

There are a few good articles out there on what they did in Camden, NJ and that’s the standard or close to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

what is it that you think they want? I've seen them say what they want, they do not want police to be the people that respond to certain situations. just like the recent shooting of a black man by police that clearly had a mental health problem, these people would rather a mental heath professional respond and not the police.

[GGGGG-Men]

what is it that you think they want? I've seen them say what they want, they do not want police to be the people that respond to certain situations. just like the recent shooting of a black man by police that clearly had a mental health problem, these people would rather a mental heath professional respond and not the police.

It’s not they don’t want them to respond they also want someone there who’s qualified to handle that situation.

“Defund” was a poor word choice and nearly cost them an election. “Rebuilding” is a better angle. Again if you see what was done in Camden, it’s a nice prototype for how it could go.

The first step is changing the role of officers and when the unions fight it, you release the officers and start new. They should be trained as guardians not aggressors. The training and qualifications should be raised to de escalate rather than grab a gun. In precincts where this was done properly there’s a huge improvement. It places where it’s ignored and there are repeated violations that are not addressed, you get Breonna Taylor.

Diverting funds away from the insane amount some cities spend (millions of which goes to legal cases against officers and settlements) on police and actually building a society that needs less policing (invest in schools, after school programs, shelters, crisis centers, etc).

What’s happening now is a system that profits off prisons and perpetuates more and more criminals, and more acts of police violence (justified or not). We can fix it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[browski234]

It’s not they don’t want them to respond they also want someone there who’s qualified to handle that situation.

“Defund” was a poor word choice and nearly cost them an election. “Rebuilding” is a better angle. Again if you see what was done in Camden, it’s a nice prototype for how it could go.

The first step is changing the role of officers and when the unions fight it, you release the officers and start new. They should be trained as guardians not aggressors. The training and qualifications should be raised to de escalate rather than grab a gun. In precincts where this was done properly there’s a huge improvement. It places where it’s ignored and there are repeated violations that are not addressed, you get Breonna Taylor.

Diverting funds away from the insane amount some cities spend (millions of which goes to legal cases against officers and settlements) on police and actually building a society that needs less policing (invest in schools, after school programs, shelters, crisis centers, etc).

What’s happening now is a system that profits off prisons and perpetuates more and more criminals, and more acts of police violence (justified or not). We can fix it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He’s not going to understand what defunding means no matter how much you explain it to him, and make it clear that it benefits his side in the end. He has his marching orders to denounce racial justice in a country he can’t vote in, and supports a party that actively defunds education, climate response, etc. “police good black man bad” is his blind follower mantra. Tucker told him so lol

He literally thinks “defunding” means police no longer exist. It’s not worth reaching out to someone who chooses lies over proven facts.

[SiteWolf]

"Restructure the police"

[dbroncos78087]

"Restructure the police"

Can we agree on stopping the militarization of the police? What do police need with weapons of war like the troops use in Afghanistan?

I feel like this has to be something like 1+1=2 or water being wet.

[Crovash]

As far slogans go (and unfortunately slogans, sound bites or very short talking points are about the limit as to what many Americans can handle at any given time before their brains overheat) “defund the police” has its problems, but it does identify an issue that is significant: police budgets, which in many cases are overblown because of powerfully embedded expenditures and expectations (once money is allocated, for whatever reasons, people and organizations are loathe to let it go).

“Restructure”, “reform” and/or “reorganize” the police do not address the money issue.

Personally, I like “defang the police” (yeah, I know that has nothing to do with the finances either — it just sounds good).

[SpecialFNK]

He’s not going to understand what defunding means no matter how much you explain it to him, and make it clear that it benefits his side in the end. He has his marching orders to denounce racial justice in a country he can’t vote in, and supports a party that actively defunds education, climate response, etc. “police good black man bad” is his blind follower mantra. Tucker told him so lol

He literally thinks “defunding” means police no longer exist. It’s not worth reaching out to someone who chooses lies over proven facts.

nobody is a bigger troll here than browski234, and that includes spliff(TONE), and that is saying something.

I've said before I don't even watch Tucker Carlson, and yet people still say something ****ing stupid like this.

the Idiocracy level here is ridiculous.

[GGGGG-Men]

As far slogans go (and unfortunately slogans, sound bites or very short talking points are about the limit as to what many Americans can handle at any given time before their brains overheat) “defund the police” has its problems, but it does identify an issue that is significant: police budgets, which in many cases are overblown because of powerfully embedded expenditures and expectations (once money is allocated, for whatever reasons, people and organizations are loathe to let it go).

“Restructure”, “reform” and/or “reorganize” the police do not address the money issue.

Personally, I like “defang the police” (yeah, I know that has nothing to do with the finances either — it just sounds good).

Ha nice. I like that too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WES445]

Once again the conservatives have set the table on "Defunding the police" to deflect from the need to examine how we police our community. It has become about "No police" which only a small percentage on the left support. But that is the boogie man that the conservative frame the discussion. Most calls for defunding police come from the police's inability to deal with a wide range of social problems. When a mental patient or mentally disadvantage person acts up for example. The problem of cities to manage their budget with a large policing bill while not being able to correct social problems that cause the increased crime. More supervised activities, that was cut during the 80's and '90s, for kids. That would be a safe environment for them to defeat gang recruitment. Police misconduct that cost cities millions in civil court decisions.

We have major problems with our policing and criminal justice,

but all of this gets buried under some cultural bs about whether or not to have police. They have flipped the script again, and the progressive lack the abilities to maintain the public focus on these problems so now police misconduct is being moved to the back burner once again.

It is so predictable how serious problems are always dealt with this way, buried under bs until it out of the public mind until next time. Yes, we can run in circles really well.

[SiteWolf]

Not that a slogan should make or break what happens, but from the public's standpoint, a more positive term than defunding would go a long ways towards helping people wrap their head around the fact that virtually nobody is talking about abolishing police. That's why I used the term restructure...since, basically, that's what we're needing- restructure what roles they continue to take on while adding some that they have been taking on to other groups.

[spliff(TONE)]

nobody is a bigger troll here than browski234, and that includes spliff(TONE), and that is saying something.

I've said before I don't even watch Tucker Carlson, and yet people still say something ****ing stupid like this.

the Idiocracy level here is ridiculous.

Truth hurts, ay?

[statquo]

Can we agree on stopping the militarization of the police? What do police need with weapons of war like the troops use in Afghanistan?

I feel like this has to be something like 1+1=2 or water being wet.

So they can defend themselves from citizens who are armed with weapons of war like the troops use in Afghanistan?

[nastynice]

nobody is a bigger troll here than browski234,

I think SpecialFNK might have something to say about that..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk