Literally no one has told you that you shouldn't call for voter initiatives demanding police reforms if that's what you want to do.
I've been staring at this for several minutes now and I can't understand how this is in any way a response to what you quoted.
You complained that voters had to create an initiative because the politicians didn't give them what they wanted.
I said they are free to do the same in regards to voting.
It's not like the a city Mayor can legalize marijuana on their own if the state doesn't want them to. And legalizing it at the state level is susceptible to gerrymandering, which is a separate issue.
Yeah....you offered up a nonsequiter.
Argument: Politicians are captured by special interests and do not reflect the public in matters of criminal justice and policing. For instance, marijuana policy.
Counter argument: Voters have gone past politicians to direct ballot measures. (How this does anything other than support my argument is not clear). Voters could ballot measure policing changes too. (.....ok?)
This has been several pages now of you going "no you're wrong and here's this thing that either has nothing to do with anything or directly supports your claim".
Sorry Schrodinger... your argument here is... most people aren't even clear on what the term means or aware that the practice exists, and therefore there is no room for elected officials to demonstrate leadership because they just have to be where the people are at and where that is is "I don't care to think about this"?
Lots and lots of people care about police reform and racial justice. Good politicians listen to what people want them to work on, then pick good ways to make change practically, and sell people on those policy positions.
Sometimes this is the case, yes. Sometimes it's not, as the Lee Carter example above demonstrates. But sometimes an electorate is so dumb/racist/brainwashed/whatever that they will vote against anyone who they think is a reformist, whether they are or not.
Sorry Schrodinger... your argument here is... most people aren't even clear on what the term means or aware that the practice exists, and therefore there is no room for elected officials to demonstrate leadership because they just have to be where the people are at and where that is is "I don't care to think about this"?
Lots and lots of people care about police reform and racial justice. Good politicians listen to what people want them to work on, then pick good ways to make change practically, and sell people on those policy positions.
Sometimes this is the case, yes. Sometimes it's not, as the Lee Carter example above demonstrates. But sometimes an electorate is so dumb/racist/brainwashed/whatever that they will vote against anyone who they think is a reformist, whether they are or not.
Seems like a good argument for just being a reformist then.
I have no idea of what one single election you're singling out here as evidence, but actually you're the one saying stupendously obvious things and then acting like you're "explaining" to people. Yes, I agree there is a power of "spin". Maybe.... we should hold elected officials accountable for using it for good ends?
I'm citing Seattle because Seattle represents a best case scenario where a lot of the standard excuses for why the progressive candidate lost don't apply, and because it's been featured in a lot of national headlines.
We have the politicians that we have. People saying "all y'all suck shit on this issue" is the only thing that will induce them to change, and also the only thing that could incentivize new politicians to get started by making this their personal issue.
That's why the Seattle mayoral race is a good example. They didn't even have to induce the candidate to change -- the incumbent was already resigning, and already being replaced. People were free to vote for whoever they wanted, without any fear of "wasting" a vote or "spoiling" the election. Seattle has an open primary system where you can (and did) have two members of the same party in the general election.
Moreover, one of the top candidates was a staunch social justice advocate who continues to be incredibly active in the Seattle BLM movement. The only reason she lost is because she didn't get enough votes, period. The only reason Durkhan won is because she had the support. In the two-way general election, voters willfully chose the more conservative pro-police candidate.
This is a city where Hillary won 87% of the vote, compared to 8% for Trump, which puts it far to the left of the rest of the country. But even there, pro-police propaganda is very persuasive.
Schrodinger on
+6
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Ok I think I understand your argument:
1) America does not currently want real police reform or any measure of abolition (I tend to agree)
2) Therefore smart candidates, not morally right but strategically right candidates, don't support meaningful police reform (I tend to agree)
3) If you are a person who does want meaningful police reform up to and including abolition, you should vote for and support the existing politicians closest to your ideals (I tend to agree)
4) And the best way to do that is to keep your trap shut and not criticize democrats until some hypothetical future day at which magically, without any democrats pushing for it, and without the people who want it doing anything to hold them accountable, there is suddenly popular support for the idea? (I assume you do not need this parenthetical to tell you this is where you've lost me)
Like you're saying that pro-police propaganda is effective. Ok well, let's have some anti-police propaganda, from lots of people, including politicians who want us to believe they mean it when they say they care about racial justice. If you want that too you could demand it from your politicians.
Sorry Schrodinger... your argument here is... most people aren't even clear on what the term means or aware that the practice exists, and therefore there is no room for elected officials to demonstrate leadership because they just have to be where the people are at and where that is is "I don't care to think about this"?
Lots and lots of people care about police reform and racial justice. Good politicians listen to what people want them to work on, then pick good ways to make change practically, and sell people on those policy positions.
Sometimes this is the case, yes. Sometimes it's not, as the Lee Carter example above demonstrates. But sometimes an electorate is so dumb/racist/brainwashed/whatever that they will vote against anyone who they think is a reformist, whether they are or not.
Seems like a good argument for just being a reformist then.
I guess the question is did these Dems (I think that's what this current discussion is about) run as reformist or pro status quo? What does their electorate say they want, and what do they really want? Lots of people say they want justice and equality yet will vote against those very concepts.
1) America does not currently want real police reform or any measure of abolition (I tend to agree)
2) Therefore smart candidates, not morally right but strategically right candidates, don't support meaningful police reform (I tend to agree)
3) If you are a person who does want meaningful police reform up to and including abolition, you should vote for and support the existing politicians closest to your ideals (I tend to agree)
4) And the best way to do that is to keep your trap shut and not criticize democrats until some hypothetical future day at which magically, without any democrats pushing for it, and without the people who want it doing anything to hold them accountable, there is suddenly popular support for the idea? (I assume you do not need this parenthetical to tell you this is where you've lost me)
Like you're saying that pro-police propaganda is effective. Ok well, let's have some anti-police propaganda, from lots of people, including politicians who want us to believe they mean it when they say they care about racial justice. If you want that too you could demand it from your politicians.
The magic part is to build bottom up support amongst voters, not politicians. Politicians do not change people's minds. Protest and demonstrations do.
1) America does not currently want real police reform or any measure of abolition (I tend to agree)
2) Therefore smart candidates, not morally right but strategically right candidates, don't support meaningful police reform (I tend to agree)
3) If you are a person who does want meaningful police reform up to and including abolition, you should vote for and support the existing politicians closest to your ideals (I tend to agree)
4) And the best way to do that is to keep your trap shut and not criticize democrats until some hypothetical future day at which magically, without any democrats pushing for it, and without the people who want it doing anything to hold them accountable, there is suddenly popular support for the idea? (I assume you do not need this parenthetical to tell you this is where you've lost me)
Like you're saying that pro-police propaganda is effective. Ok well, let's have some anti-police propaganda, from lots of people, including politicians who want us to believe they mean it when they say they care about racial justice. If you want that too you could demand it from your politicians.
Can you point to where I said #4?
Here's my earlier summary of my position: "If you're a vegan trying to reduce total meat consumption, then it's a complete waste of time trying to convince fellow vegans that meat eating in America isn't popular when it clearly is, or by complaining about the tautology. Instead, you should look for ways to convince meat eaters to eat less meat."
My point is that it's a waste of time to argue with people who already agree with you on most things, and you already acknowledged that you mostly agreed with me. But then you had to invent another point just to disagree with me again -- thus wasting time.
Did I ever say you shouldn't make demands from your politicians? Nope. But those demands would carry a lot more weight if they had the voters to back them up, and that's where you ultimately need to put your efforts. Because changing the mind of a politician won't matter if the politician ends up losing, or if the police simply ignore them because they don't have the political capital to back it up.
How do you convince your co-workers and family members and neighbors to change their stance on the issues? That's a much harder question, but it's the one we need to answer if we want meaningful change.
Sorry Schrodinger... your argument here is... most people aren't even clear on what the term means or aware that the practice exists, and therefore there is no room for elected officials to demonstrate leadership because they just have to be where the people are at and where that is is "I don't care to think about this"?
Lots and lots of people care about police reform and racial justice. Good politicians listen to what people want them to work on, then pick good ways to make change practically, and sell people on those policy positions.
Sometimes this is the case, yes. Sometimes it's not, as the Lee Carter example above demonstrates. But sometimes an electorate is so dumb/racist/brainwashed/whatever that they will vote against anyone who they think is a reformist, whether they are or not.
Seems like a good argument for just being a reformist then.
I guess the question is did these Dems (I think that's what this current discussion is about) run as reformist or pro status quo? What does their electorate say they want, and what do they really want? Lots of people say they want justice and equality yet will vote against those very concepts.
Its hard to say that when there are dozens of issues and 2, if they're lucky, choices that their vote says much of anything about what they think about given topic X.
1) America does not currently want real police reform or any measure of abolition (I tend to agree)
2) Therefore smart candidates, not morally right but strategically right candidates, don't support meaningful police reform (I tend to agree)
3) If you are a person who does want meaningful police reform up to and including abolition, you should vote for and support the existing politicians closest to your ideals (I tend to agree)
4) And the best way to do that is to keep your trap shut and not criticize democrats until some hypothetical future day at which magically, without any democrats pushing for it, and without the people who want it doing anything to hold them accountable, there is suddenly popular support for the idea? (I assume you do not need this parenthetical to tell you this is where you've lost me)
Like you're saying that pro-police propaganda is effective. Ok well, let's have some anti-police propaganda, from lots of people, including politicians who want us to believe they mean it when they say they care about racial justice. If you want that too you could demand it from your politicians.
The magic part is to build bottom up support amongst voters, not politicians. Politicians do not change people's minds. Protest and demonstrations do.
There also needs to be much better messaging to put everything into context. Because right now, we're starting to enter the point where all the scandals are blurring together and nobody can keep track anymore. As the saying goes, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
One place where the alt-right is absolutely killing it right now is social media engagement. They've learned to game the algorithms in a way that people on the left simply haven't, and it's letting them take over the narrative. Right now, there is no left wing equivalent of Ben Shapiro in terms of popularity.
There also needs to be much better messaging to put everything into context. Because right now, we're starting to enter the point where all the scandals are blurring together and nobody can keep track anymore. As the saying goes, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
One place where the alt-right is absolutely killing it right now is social media engagement. They've learned to game the algorithms in a way that people on the left simply haven't, and it's letting them take over the narrative. Right now, there is no left wing equivalent of Ben Shapiro in terms of popularity.
There also needs to be much better messaging to put everything into context. Because right now, we're starting to enter the point where all the scandals are blurring together and nobody can keep track anymore. As the saying goes, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
One place where the alt-right is absolutely killing it right now is social media engagement. They've learned to game the algorithms in a way that people on the left simply haven't, and it's letting them take over the narrative. Right now, there is no left wing equivalent of Ben Shapiro in terms of popularity.
Could you elaborate on this?
Social media algorithms are designed to reward engagement, and it turns out that hyper-conservative misinformation is really, really good at driving engagement. Ben Shapiro is a right wing troll who has more engagement than the New York Times, despite producing a lot less content on a much smaller budget.
When Candice Owens produced her anti-George Floyd video, she got 50 million views on facebook within the first two days. And you see people repeating her talking points all the time, even if you've never heard of her directly. My youtube recommendation list is full of attempts to recruit me to the alt-right, despite me actively selecting the option to block them. So I can't imagine how bad it must be for a normal user.
A big problem right now is Qanon. Liberals who are into things like alternative medicine were sent to Qanon conspiracy groups by the algorithm, and now you have people who hated Trump a few months ago buying into the conspiracy that Trump is the only person who can save our children from cannibal pedophiles.
If you haven't seen this in your own feed, it's because facebook is also highly segregated. So you might be seeing lots of posts supporting BLM on your own feed, while your neighbors are only seeing articles from Alex Jones and Breitbart. Trevor Noah had a great bit on Tomi Lahren a few years back, "So, anyway, Tomi is basically like a super famous actor in a foreign country, except the foreign country is your country."
And that's why it's important not to underestimate the power of police propaganda. Because the general population has been hugely pro-police until very very recently, and while things have gotten better in recent months, we still have a long way to go before the general population changes their views.
Isn't there more to it than just gaming the algorithm though? Isn't that an easy handwave for others? "Oh, that's just what the algorithm does!" I mean that's like, Zuckerberg's excuse to why Facebook is quite the rightwing site, innit?
Dee Kae on
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
1) America does not currently want real police reform or any measure of abolition (I tend to agree)
2) Therefore smart candidates, not morally right but strategically right candidates, don't support meaningful police reform (I tend to agree)
3) If you are a person who does want meaningful police reform up to and including abolition, you should vote for and support the existing politicians closest to your ideals (I tend to agree)
4) And the best way to do that is to keep your trap shut and not criticize democrats until some hypothetical future day at which magically, without any democrats pushing for it, and without the people who want it doing anything to hold them accountable, there is suddenly popular support for the idea? (I assume you do not need this parenthetical to tell you this is where you've lost me)
Like you're saying that pro-police propaganda is effective. Ok well, let's have some anti-police propaganda, from lots of people, including politicians who want us to believe they mean it when they say they care about racial justice. If you want that too you could demand it from your politicians.
Unfortunately this is true, but in regards to the question of what Democratic leaders (mayors in this instance) can do, I'm not even asking for any sort of police reform. My ask was specifically that the mayors attempt to apply some sort of control over the police to limit the amount of violence that they're inflicting on the protesters on a nightly basis. This is a pathetically weak request and the fact it isn't being done isn't just some sign that police reform is a loser issue, it points to a complete lack of spine on the part of the elected officials that they're unwilling to say word one about the way the police are dealing with the protests.
I mean, what's the counterargument here, that these mayors weren't elected on a platform of police reform so it's A-OK if they look at the current situation and go ThisIsFine.gif?
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Unfortunately this is true, but in regards to the question of what Democratic leaders (mayors in this instance) can do, I'm not even asking for any sort of police reform. My ask was specifically that the mayors attempt to apply some sort of control over the police to limit the amount of violence that they're inflicting on the protesters on a nightly basis. This is a pathetically weak request and the fact it isn't being done isn't just some sign that police reform is a loser issue, it points to a complete lack of spine on the part of the elected officials that they're unwilling to say word one about the way the police are dealing with the protests.
I mean, what's the counterargument here, that these mayors weren't elected on a platform of police reform so it's A-OK if they look at the current situation and go ThisIsFine.gif?
Easier said than done if the public isn't already on your side. The problem is that police unions are usually a lot more powerful than the mayor is. Mayors get replaced all the time, and are considered far more expendable than the entire police force. Which means that the police force can always threatened to go on strike, knowing the mayor will take the blame. You should also keep in mind that police control the crime statistics, which means that they can also exaggerate the number of crimes that happen as a result of any action taken against them.
This is the guy who is the current union president in Seattle. It looks like a dystopian hit piece parody, but it's not, it's his actual campaign ad. This is how he chooses to present himself, as a guy who openly attacks protesters and brags about being able to shift the public narrative. And the sad thing? It's working. He's an ultra conservative who knows exactly how to manipulate Seattle voters, and he won his election with 70% support.
In regards to inflicting protesters, the police can simply lie and exaggerate the amount of property damage that happens in order to justify their actions. Or they can turn a blind eye while the white supremacists do those things, knowing that the protesters will take the blame. Which, you know... they're already doing.
My opinion is that more politicians should do things that don’t necessarily have popular support.
Popular support for good things tend to go up after they happen, and not necessarily in the conceptual stages, because it becomes easier to recognize them as good, or better than what came before once people start actually observing the effects, even if it’s very difficult to comprehend the sheer scope of the problems of the current system. People discount switching to MFA or a similar single payer system by pointing to the ACA as an indication of a satisfaction with the current system and it’s popularity, but the ACA took a decade to become popular itself. It did not have popular support when it was being argued for or passed. But they passed it anyway. I think there would be a similar arc for lots of things that should happen, but don’t, due to hiding behind the current lack of popular support.
My opinion is that more politicians should do things that don’t necessarily have popular support.
Popular support for good things tend to go up after they happen, and not necessarily in the conceptual stages, because it becomes easier to recognize them as good, or better than what came before once people start actually observing the effects, even if it’s very difficult to comprehend the sheer scope of the problems of the current system. People discount switching to MFA or a similar single payer system by pointing to the ACA as an indication of a satisfaction with the current system and it’s popularity, but the ACA took a decade to become popular itself. It did not have popular support when it was being argued for or passed. But they passed it anyway. I think there would be a similar arc for lots of things that should happen, but don’t, due to hiding behind the current lack of popular support.
That’s ultimately great for the country, but the backlash against Obama and the ACA is one reason why the president is currently an insane petty fascist.
Donald Trump Jr., the son of President Donald Trump, likened 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse’s alleged killing of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin to teenage antics on Tuesday.
“He’s a young kid. I don’t want 17-year-olds running around the streets with AR-15s,” Trump told Lindsay.
“Maybe I wouldn’t have put myself in that situation, who knows? We all do stupid things at 17,” he added.
“I think that’s a little bit beyond stupid,” Lindsay pointed out.
“Really stupid, fine,” Trump conceded. “But we all have to let that process play out and let due process take its course.”
Civil Forfeiture is not popular and stands on very shaky legal ground.
I already asked you for your citation of this. Specifically, your citation with dates.
Most Americans don't even know what civil asset forfeiture is, much less a strong opinion against it.
OTOH, American media in the 1980s and 1990s were full of depictions of wealthy violent crime bosses who used their money to escape the law. And civil asset forfeiture was sold as a tool to prevent that from happening. And any politician who spoke against the practice could easily be painted as being in the pockets of drug dealers.
Moreover, most Americans still believe that most police officers are good and honest people. So even when you try to explain what CAF is, they still want to believe that CAF would only be used in the above scenario.
Why, when so few people really care about minor marijuana usage is it pulling teeth to get a lot of governments to move on it?
This has already been explained. Marijuana has generally been legalized through state voter initiatives, not by politicians. It's pretty much an example of direct democracy.
I had to go all the way to wikipedia to find this on civil forfeiture:
Critics
Critics include citizens, defense attorneys, and advocates for civil rights.[13] They point to serious instances of abuse in which innocent owners have been victimized.[42] Critics are from both sides of the political spectrum, from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and right-leaning groups such as The Heritage Foundation.[15] The main criticisms of civil forfeiture proceedings are as follows:
The fucking Heritage foundation is against it. It's not popular.
My opinion is that more politicians should do things that don’t necessarily have popular support.
Popular support for good things tend to go up after they happen, and not necessarily in the conceptual stages, because it becomes easier to recognize them as good, or better than what came before once people start actually observing the effects, even if it’s very difficult to comprehend the sheer scope of the problems of the current system. People discount switching to MFA or a similar single payer system by pointing to the ACA as an indication of a satisfaction with the current system and it’s popularity, but the ACA took a decade to become popular itself. It did not have popular support when it was being argued for or passed. But they passed it anyway. I think there would be a similar arc for lots of things that should happen, but don’t, due to hiding behind the current lack of popular support.
That’s ultimately great for the country, but the backlash against Obama and the ACA is one reason why the president is currently an insane petty fascist.
We can't not do good things because we're afraid they'll have unforeseen consequences. Not every attempt to do good works perfectly but that doesn't mean we should give up.
If we're too afraid to act the only people acting will be those who don't care about what the consequences might be.
My opinion is that more politicians should do things that don’t necessarily have popular support.
Popular support for good things tend to go up after they happen, and not necessarily in the conceptual stages, because it becomes easier to recognize them as good, or better than what came before once people start actually observing the effects, even if it’s very difficult to comprehend the sheer scope of the problems of the current system. People discount switching to MFA or a similar single payer system by pointing to the ACA as an indication of a satisfaction with the current system and it’s popularity, but the ACA took a decade to become popular itself. It did not have popular support when it was being argued for or passed. But they passed it anyway. I think there would be a similar arc for lots of things that should happen, but don’t, due to hiding behind the current lack of popular support.
That’s ultimately great for the country, but the backlash against Obama and the ACA is one reason why the president is currently an insane petty fascist.
We can't not do good things because we're afraid they'll have unforeseen consequences. Not every attempt to do good works perfectly but that doesn't mean we should give up.
If we're too afraid to act the only people acting will be those who don't care about what the consequences might be.
Agreed. Obama was right to pass the ACA and the voters were wrong to punish Democrats for it.
Democrats also ran away from the ACA as quickly as they possibly could, which very much vindicated the voters reactions and the Republicans doomsaying first a long time.
Civil Forfeiture is not popular and stands on very shaky legal ground.
I already asked you for your citation of this. Specifically, your citation with dates.
Most Americans don't even know what civil asset forfeiture is, much less a strong opinion against it.
OTOH, American media in the 1980s and 1990s were full of depictions of wealthy violent crime bosses who used their money to escape the law. And civil asset forfeiture was sold as a tool to prevent that from happening. And any politician who spoke against the practice could easily be painted as being in the pockets of drug dealers.
Moreover, most Americans still believe that most police officers are good and honest people. So even when you try to explain what CAF is, they still want to believe that CAF would only be used in the above scenario.
Why, when so few people really care about minor marijuana usage is it pulling teeth to get a lot of governments to move on it?
This has already been explained. Marijuana has generally been legalized through state voter initiatives, not by politicians. It's pretty much an example of direct democracy.
I had to go all the way to wikipedia to find this on civil forfeiture:
Critics
Critics include citizens, defense attorneys, and advocates for civil rights.[13] They point to serious instances of abuse in which innocent owners have been victimized.[42] Critics are from both sides of the political spectrum, from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and right-leaning groups such as The Heritage Foundation.[15] The main criticisms of civil forfeiture proceedings are as follows:
The fucking Heritage foundation is against it. It's not popular.
Since when has the Heritage Foundation had it's finger on the pulse of any chunk of the electorate?
Nobody likes civil forfeiture...when it's explained to them.
Yup.
"Do you think criminals should have their illegal gains confiscated?
Fuck yeah, I do.
"Do you know having the smallest amount of marijuana, or other very light criminal charges, INCLUDING having a not ridiculous sum of cash on hand, makes you a criminal according to this law?"
Wait, fucking what?
"Yep. And with the cash sums, burden of proof shifts, and you have to prove it was NOT for criminal use, and I hope you weren't needing it for aomething urgent, because even if you CAN justify your having it, we can delay returning t for many months with legal bureaucracy. "
What the fuck?
"Yup. Welcome to civil asset forfeiture. Oh, and we've just impounded your car."
1) America does not currently want real police reform or any measure of abolition (I tend to agree)
2) Therefore smart candidates, not morally right but strategically right candidates, don't support meaningful police reform (I tend to agree)
3) If you are a person who does want meaningful police reform up to and including abolition, you should vote for and support the existing politicians closest to your ideals (I tend to agree)
4) And the best way to do that is to keep your trap shut and not criticize democrats until some hypothetical future day at which magically, without any democrats pushing for it, and without the people who want it doing anything to hold them accountable, there is suddenly popular support for the idea? (I assume you do not need this parenthetical to tell you this is where you've lost me)
Like you're saying that pro-police propaganda is effective. Ok well, let's have some anti-police propaganda, from lots of people, including politicians who want us to believe they mean it when they say they care about racial justice. If you want that too you could demand it from your politicians.
Unfortunately this is true, but in regards to the question of what Democratic leaders (mayors in this instance) can do, I'm not even asking for any sort of police reform. My ask was specifically that the mayors attempt to apply some sort of control over the police to limit the amount of violence that they're inflicting on the protesters on a nightly basis. This is a pathetically weak request and the fact it isn't being done isn't just some sign that police reform is a loser issue, it points to a complete lack of spine on the part of the elected officials that they're unwilling to say word one about the way the police are dealing with the protests.
I mean, what's the counterargument here, that these mayors weren't elected on a platform of police reform so it's A-OK if they look at the current situation and go ThisIsFine.gif?
The counterargument which seems the most obvious is that Democratic mayors and governors agree with state violence isn't it? It doesn't seem that far fetched with Democratic legislators voting for legislation that built the current security state.
+2
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Nobody likes civil forfeiture...when it's explained to them.
Yup.
"Do you think criminals should have their illegal gains confiscated?
Fuck yeah, I do.
"Do you know having the smallest amount of marijuana, or other very light criminal charges, INCLUDING having a not ridiculous sum of cash on hand, makes you a criminal according to this law?"
Wait, fucking what?
"Yep. And with the cash sums, burden of proof shifts, and you have to prove it was NOT for criminal use, and I hope you weren't needing it for aomething urgent, because even if you CAN justify your having it, we can delay returning t for many months with legal bureaucracy. "
What the fuck?
"Yup. Welcome to civil asset forfeiture. Oh, and we've just impounded your car."
Also you're not the one being tried, the charges are brought directly against the asset in question. And property doesn't have rights.
Nobody likes civil forfeiture...when it's explained to them.
You also need to factor in cognitive dissonance.
If you asked people 6 months ago, "do you think it would be okay for people to threaten to murder peaceful protestors with an ar-15?" most of them would tell you know. And a lot of the people who said know would be defending the Missouri couple today.
Washington (CNN)A whistleblower is alleging that top political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security repeatedly instructed career officials to modify intelligence assessments to ensure they matched up with misleading public comments from President Donald Trump about Antifa and "anarchist" groups, according to documents reviewed by CNN and a source familiar with the situation.
Specifically, acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf and Acting Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Ken Cuccinelli, both Trump appointees, directed officials to change intelligence assessments based on Trump's political rhetoric, an order the whistleblower says amounted to an abuse of authority, according to the documents.
Both Wolf and Cuccinelli also tried to alter a report to downplay the threat posed by White supremacists and instead emphasize the role of leftist groups due to concerns about how the initial language would reflect on the President, according to a source familiar with the claims raised by the whistleblower.
Murphy says that he refused to modify intelligence assessments so that they more closely aligned with Trump's rhetoric about Antifa and other groups, telling Wolf and Cuccinelli that he would only report accurate information as collected by DHS, according to the complaint.
He also refused to alter the draft versions of the report warning of the threat posed by White supremacists, prompting Wolf and Cuccinelli to halt work on the document, the complaint states.
It would be hard for them to more openly side with white supremacists at this point.
Anyone surprised that the officers who shot Taylor lied their asses off?
https://www.lex18.com/news/covering-kentucky/breonna-taylor-evidence-photos-contradict-lmpds-no-body-cam-claim
"A photo of LMPD Officer Anthony James revealed he was wearing a body camera. LMPD previously said no body camera video existed as they said officers were not wearing cameras."
"Nearly a dozen shell casings are seen scattered across the apartment parking lot; dozens more in the alcove in front of Taylor's apartment which is where LMPD Officer Brett Hankinson's termination letter states he fired 10 rounds through a covered patio door and window."
+13
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Washington (CNN)A whistleblower is alleging that top political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security repeatedly instructed career officials to modify intelligence assessments to ensure they matched up with misleading public comments from President Donald Trump about Antifa and "anarchist" groups, according to documents reviewed by CNN and a source familiar with the situation.
Specifically, acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf and Acting Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Ken Cuccinelli, both Trump appointees, directed officials to change intelligence assessments based on Trump's political rhetoric, an order the whistleblower says amounted to an abuse of authority, according to the documents.
Both Wolf and Cuccinelli also tried to alter a report to downplay the threat posed by White supremacists and instead emphasize the role of leftist groups due to concerns about how the initial language would reflect on the President, according to a source familiar with the claims raised by the whistleblower.
Murphy says that he refused to modify intelligence assessments so that they more closely aligned with Trump's rhetoric about Antifa and other groups, telling Wolf and Cuccinelli that he would only report accurate information as collected by DHS, according to the complaint.
He also refused to alter the draft versions of the report warning of the threat posed by White supremacists, prompting Wolf and Cuccinelli to halt work on the document, the complaint states.
It would be hard for them to more openly side with white supremacists at this point.
White supremacists are terrorists. This coddling of white terrorism could lead to a paler 9/11 in a few years as the groups grow more powerful, extreme and more entrenched.
A lot of the right-wing extremists ARE anarchists.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what they meant, though...
It's more that everybody else likes to adopt the fashionable pose of being the REBELS versus the EMPIRE.
But then their true colors show in their actions and conduct.
I say this because it's a pet peeve of mine. It's sexy to pretend to be the anarchists, or anti-establishment,. until the actual anarchists come along and then suddenly you're aligned with the establishment to tear gas the anarchists.
How many right wing and libertarian 'Don't Tread On Me' types are fighting the police with their AR-15's? Exactly.
It is unseemly of me to say, but I feel nothing but utter hatred and contempt of them for all this empty posturing about how they represent 'freedom' and what they'd do to prove what a Joe Hardman they are if only they'd be given the opportunity to demonstrate it.
A lot of the right-wing extremists ARE anarchists.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what they meant, though...
In the sense that they’re aiming for a fall of the current political order sure, kinda. But anarchism is a specific political ideology, and there’s nothing but daylight between right wing extremists aiming for a theocratic or ethnonationalist state and left-wing anarchists.
Posts
Yeah....you offered up a nonsequiter.
Argument: Politicians are captured by special interests and do not reflect the public in matters of criminal justice and policing. For instance, marijuana policy.
Counter argument: Voters have gone past politicians to direct ballot measures. (How this does anything other than support my argument is not clear). Voters could ballot measure policing changes too. (.....ok?)
This has been several pages now of you going "no you're wrong and here's this thing that either has nothing to do with anything or directly supports your claim".
Sometimes this is the case, yes. Sometimes it's not, as the Lee Carter example above demonstrates. But sometimes an electorate is so dumb/racist/brainwashed/whatever that they will vote against anyone who they think is a reformist, whether they are or not.
Seems like a good argument for just being a reformist then.
I'm citing Seattle because Seattle represents a best case scenario where a lot of the standard excuses for why the progressive candidate lost don't apply, and because it's been featured in a lot of national headlines.
That's why the Seattle mayoral race is a good example. They didn't even have to induce the candidate to change -- the incumbent was already resigning, and already being replaced. People were free to vote for whoever they wanted, without any fear of "wasting" a vote or "spoiling" the election. Seattle has an open primary system where you can (and did) have two members of the same party in the general election.
Moreover, one of the top candidates was a staunch social justice advocate who continues to be incredibly active in the Seattle BLM movement. The only reason she lost is because she didn't get enough votes, period. The only reason Durkhan won is because she had the support. In the two-way general election, voters willfully chose the more conservative pro-police candidate.
This is a city where Hillary won 87% of the vote, compared to 8% for Trump, which puts it far to the left of the rest of the country. But even there, pro-police propaganda is very persuasive.
1) America does not currently want real police reform or any measure of abolition (I tend to agree)
2) Therefore smart candidates, not morally right but strategically right candidates, don't support meaningful police reform (I tend to agree)
3) If you are a person who does want meaningful police reform up to and including abolition, you should vote for and support the existing politicians closest to your ideals (I tend to agree)
4) And the best way to do that is to keep your trap shut and not criticize democrats until some hypothetical future day at which magically, without any democrats pushing for it, and without the people who want it doing anything to hold them accountable, there is suddenly popular support for the idea? (I assume you do not need this parenthetical to tell you this is where you've lost me)
Like you're saying that pro-police propaganda is effective. Ok well, let's have some anti-police propaganda, from lots of people, including politicians who want us to believe they mean it when they say they care about racial justice. If you want that too you could demand it from your politicians.
I guess the question is did these Dems (I think that's what this current discussion is about) run as reformist or pro status quo? What does their electorate say they want, and what do they really want? Lots of people say they want justice and equality yet will vote against those very concepts.
The magic part is to build bottom up support amongst voters, not politicians. Politicians do not change people's minds. Protest and demonstrations do.
Can you point to where I said #4?
Here's my earlier summary of my position: "If you're a vegan trying to reduce total meat consumption, then it's a complete waste of time trying to convince fellow vegans that meat eating in America isn't popular when it clearly is, or by complaining about the tautology. Instead, you should look for ways to convince meat eaters to eat less meat."
My point is that it's a waste of time to argue with people who already agree with you on most things, and you already acknowledged that you mostly agreed with me. But then you had to invent another point just to disagree with me again -- thus wasting time.
Did I ever say you shouldn't make demands from your politicians? Nope. But those demands would carry a lot more weight if they had the voters to back them up, and that's where you ultimately need to put your efforts. Because changing the mind of a politician won't matter if the politician ends up losing, or if the police simply ignore them because they don't have the political capital to back it up.
How do you convince your co-workers and family members and neighbors to change their stance on the issues? That's a much harder question, but it's the one we need to answer if we want meaningful change.
Its hard to say that when there are dozens of issues and 2, if they're lucky, choices that their vote says much of anything about what they think about given topic X.
There also needs to be much better messaging to put everything into context. Because right now, we're starting to enter the point where all the scandals are blurring together and nobody can keep track anymore. As the saying goes, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
One place where the alt-right is absolutely killing it right now is social media engagement. They've learned to game the algorithms in a way that people on the left simply haven't, and it's letting them take over the narrative. Right now, there is no left wing equivalent of Ben Shapiro in terms of popularity.
Could you elaborate on this?
Social media algorithms are designed to reward engagement, and it turns out that hyper-conservative misinformation is really, really good at driving engagement. Ben Shapiro is a right wing troll who has more engagement than the New York Times, despite producing a lot less content on a much smaller budget.
When Candice Owens produced her anti-George Floyd video, she got 50 million views on facebook within the first two days. And you see people repeating her talking points all the time, even if you've never heard of her directly. My youtube recommendation list is full of attempts to recruit me to the alt-right, despite me actively selecting the option to block them. So I can't imagine how bad it must be for a normal user.
A big problem right now is Qanon. Liberals who are into things like alternative medicine were sent to Qanon conspiracy groups by the algorithm, and now you have people who hated Trump a few months ago buying into the conspiracy that Trump is the only person who can save our children from cannibal pedophiles.
If you haven't seen this in your own feed, it's because facebook is also highly segregated. So you might be seeing lots of posts supporting BLM on your own feed, while your neighbors are only seeing articles from Alex Jones and Breitbart. Trevor Noah had a great bit on Tomi Lahren a few years back, "So, anyway, Tomi is basically like a super famous actor in a foreign country, except the foreign country is your country."
And that's why it's important not to underestimate the power of police propaganda. Because the general population has been hugely pro-police until very very recently, and while things have gotten better in recent months, we still have a long way to go before the general population changes their views.
Unfortunately this is true, but in regards to the question of what Democratic leaders (mayors in this instance) can do, I'm not even asking for any sort of police reform. My ask was specifically that the mayors attempt to apply some sort of control over the police to limit the amount of violence that they're inflicting on the protesters on a nightly basis. This is a pathetically weak request and the fact it isn't being done isn't just some sign that police reform is a loser issue, it points to a complete lack of spine on the part of the elected officials that they're unwilling to say word one about the way the police are dealing with the protests.
I mean, what's the counterargument here, that these mayors weren't elected on a platform of police reform so it's A-OK if they look at the current situation and go ThisIsFine.gif?
Easier said than done if the public isn't already on your side. The problem is that police unions are usually a lot more powerful than the mayor is. Mayors get replaced all the time, and are considered far more expendable than the entire police force. Which means that the police force can always threatened to go on strike, knowing the mayor will take the blame. You should also keep in mind that police control the crime statistics, which means that they can also exaggerate the number of crimes that happen as a result of any action taken against them.
This is the guy who is the current union president in Seattle. It looks like a dystopian hit piece parody, but it's not, it's his actual campaign ad. This is how he chooses to present himself, as a guy who openly attacks protesters and brags about being able to shift the public narrative. And the sad thing? It's working. He's an ultra conservative who knows exactly how to manipulate Seattle voters, and he won his election with 70% support.
In regards to inflicting protesters, the police can simply lie and exaggerate the amount of property damage that happens in order to justify their actions. Or they can turn a blind eye while the white supremacists do those things, knowing that the protesters will take the blame. Which, you know... they're already doing.
Popular support for good things tend to go up after they happen, and not necessarily in the conceptual stages, because it becomes easier to recognize them as good, or better than what came before once people start actually observing the effects, even if it’s very difficult to comprehend the sheer scope of the problems of the current system. People discount switching to MFA or a similar single payer system by pointing to the ACA as an indication of a satisfaction with the current system and it’s popularity, but the ACA took a decade to become popular itself. It did not have popular support when it was being argued for or passed. But they passed it anyway. I think there would be a similar arc for lots of things that should happen, but don’t, due to hiding behind the current lack of popular support.
That’s ultimately great for the country, but the backlash against Obama and the ACA is one reason why the president is currently an insane petty fascist.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/don-jr-shrugs-off-rittenhouses-alleged-murders-argues-that-we-all-do-stupid-things-at-17
Jesus Christ.
I had to go all the way to wikipedia to find this on civil forfeiture:
The fucking Heritage foundation is against it. It's not popular.
We can't not do good things because we're afraid they'll have unforeseen consequences. Not every attempt to do good works perfectly but that doesn't mean we should give up.
If we're too afraid to act the only people acting will be those who don't care about what the consequences might be.
Agreed. Obama was right to pass the ACA and the voters were wrong to punish Democrats for it.
However we are suffering greatly for it.
Since when has the Heritage Foundation had it's finger on the pulse of any chunk of the electorate?
Yup.
"Do you think criminals should have their illegal gains confiscated?
Fuck yeah, I do.
"Do you know having the smallest amount of marijuana, or other very light criminal charges, INCLUDING having a not ridiculous sum of cash on hand, makes you a criminal according to this law?"
Wait, fucking what?
"Yep. And with the cash sums, burden of proof shifts, and you have to prove it was NOT for criminal use, and I hope you weren't needing it for aomething urgent, because even if you CAN justify your having it, we can delay returning t for many months with legal bureaucracy. "
What the fuck?
"Yup. Welcome to civil asset forfeiture. Oh, and we've just impounded your car."
The counterargument which seems the most obvious is that Democratic mayors and governors agree with state violence isn't it? It doesn't seem that far fetched with Democratic legislators voting for legislation that built the current security state.
Also you're not the one being tried, the charges are brought directly against the asset in question. And property doesn't have rights.
You also need to factor in cognitive dissonance.
If you asked people 6 months ago, "do you think it would be okay for people to threaten to murder peaceful protestors with an ar-15?" most of them would tell you know. And a lot of the people who said know would be defending the Missouri couple today.
https://www.lex18.com/news/covering-kentucky/breonna-taylor-evidence-photos-contradict-lmpds-no-body-cam-claim
"A photo of LMPD Officer Anthony James revealed he was wearing a body camera. LMPD previously said no body camera video existed as they said officers were not wearing cameras."
"Nearly a dozen shell casings are seen scattered across the apartment parking lot; dozens more in the alcove in front of Taylor's apartment which is where LMPD Officer Brett Hankinson's termination letter states he fired 10 rounds through a covered patio door and window."
It's Cuccinelli. We've known for awhile.
Rochester police trying to claim they seizex items from "violent anarchists", leave multiple far-right group symbols visible.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what they meant, though...
It's more that everybody else likes to adopt the fashionable pose of being the REBELS versus the EMPIRE.
But then their true colors show in their actions and conduct.
I say this because it's a pet peeve of mine. It's sexy to pretend to be the anarchists, or anti-establishment,. until the actual anarchists come along and then suddenly you're aligned with the establishment to tear gas the anarchists.
How many right wing and libertarian 'Don't Tread On Me' types are fighting the police with their AR-15's? Exactly.
It is unseemly of me to say, but I feel nothing but utter hatred and contempt of them for all this empty posturing about how they represent 'freedom' and what they'd do to prove what a Joe Hardman they are if only they'd be given the opportunity to demonstrate it.
In the sense that they’re aiming for a fall of the current political order sure, kinda. But anarchism is a specific political ideology, and there’s nothing but daylight between right wing extremists aiming for a theocratic or ethnonationalist state and left-wing anarchists.