What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Berkut]

The simple fact is no one knows what to do.  If there were a simple solution we would have done it already.

For sure. So we need non-simple solutions. Where should we go?

We should talk about it, openly and honestly.

But apparently, saying "abolishing the police is a bad idea, and further, saying that is a terrible way to convince voters to support you. And no matter WHAT the solution is, winning elections is a necessary condition to implementing any of them - so that is kind of important"

is "white people" code for "playing the race card" so that centrists can continue to fight tooth and nail to make sure racism doesn't get fixed.

[Sheilbh]

In other words BLM outrage is just going to be a fact of life for a long time to come.

But doesn't that basically divorce BLM outrage from the cause of the outrage which is (predominately) black people being killed by the police? I don't think the protests are entirely sort of abstract/in the ether - I think they have a cause.

And you may absolutely be right. From the outside it seems like the US, as a society, has decided that mass shootings are going to be a fact of life because that is more tolerable than the political cost or willingness to take measures that reduce the likelihood or the scale of mass shootings. It may be that, in a similar way, the US basically decides to tolerate a higher level of killings by the police.

[Admiral Yi]

But doesn't that basically divorce BLM outrage from the cause of the outrage which is (predominately) black people being killed by the police? I don't think the protests are entirely sort of abstract/in the ether - I think they have a cause.

I feel like you cropped out the part of the post that was in essence my answer to this question.

And you may absolutely be right. From the outside it seems like the US, as a society, has decided that mass shootings are going to be a fact of life because that is more tolerable than the political cost or willingness to take measures that reduce the likelihood or the scale of mass shootings. It may be that, in a similar way, the US basically decides to tolerate a higher level of killings by the police.

If by lacking political will then you mean a constitutionally protected right to bear arms and a blocking minority that favors gun ownership over eliminating mass shootings, then yes.  If by lacking political will you mean something different, then no, it's not about political will, it's about a constitutional right and a blocking minority.

[viper37]

I wonder, to what degree should people a little further towards the centre try to build bridges, try to reach out, try not to alienate their allies? Is this only supposed to be a one way street?

we do try.

not just to the hard left, but to the hard right too.  But making compromises with the far right makes you look weak in their eyes and evil for compromising on your ideology by the left wing of your party.

Fringe types seem more content in having a reason to whine than truly fixing things, left or right.

[Sheilbh]

I feel like you cropped out the part of the post that was in essence my answer to this question.

Is it? I thought it was the explanation of why it'd carry on for a while. There'd be a sort of let a thousand flowers bloom approach to policing which means that police killings of (mainly) black people will continue for a long time to come, so will BLM protests.

Do you think it's more likely that after the policy experimentation in all these local jurisdictions that an answer will be found, or there'll just end up being a sort-of tolerance for these killings?

If by lacking political will then you mean a constitutionally protected right to bear arms and a blocking minority that favors gun ownership over eliminating mass shootings, then yes.  If by lacking political will you mean something different, then no, it's not about political will, it's about a constitutional right and a blocking minority.

A fairly novel constitutional right developed by a politically appointed court - and an elected blocking minority. Both of those are political things, but also there's never been a polital movement strong to significantly change or pressure that situation. Neither of the things you've described are divorced from politics - they could act otherwise if they so chose - or voters could change them.

[Admiral Yi]

OK Shelf, then maybe I didn't parse that question correctly.  Please rephrase it in a way that I can understand.

As to the second part, you mention voters, which I thought was directly rebutted by the blocking minority.  As to installing Supreme Court justices with more liberal views on gun control, sure, we could do that.  If they could sneak past the blocking minority that dominates the Senate.  So I still don't see how "political will" has much to do with anything.

Frankly, political will just seems like a more highbrow way of saying "fight harder!"  The progressive tendency is to say that the solution to all difficult political issues is to fight!

Problem!
Outrage!
Fight!
Profit!

You can substitute political will into that flow chart and it would mean exactly the same thing.

[Admiral Yi]

That was maybe a little more aggressive than I intended.

[Sheilbh]

As to the second part, you mention voters, which I thought was directly rebutted by the blocking minority.  As to installing Supreme Court justices with more liberal views on gun control, sure, we could do that.  If they could sneak past the blocking minority that dominates the Senate.  So I still don't see how "political will" has much to do with anything.

Frankly, political will just seems like a more highbrow way of saying "fight harder!"  The progressive tendency is to say that the solution to all difficult political issues is to fight!

Problem!
Outrage!
Fight!
Profit!

You can substitute political will into that flow chart and it would mean exactly the same thing.

Let me re-phrase it: political choice or political agency. It is not a Newtonian law to which politics must adhere - political actors such as the Supreme Court, Republicans, some Democrats and many voters (who elect the blocking minority) have agency and the ability to choose otherwise. They don't - so despite, from what I've seen, polls of up to 80% supporting various gun control measures the political will is lacking to actual change the situation (for a variety of reasons: sincere belief in an untrammelled right to hold arms regardless of the consequence, fear of commies, mainly caring about x other issue so this is on the backburner) and instead there is (from the outside) almost a resigned acceptance of mass shootings.

I suppose my point is do you think that the US will end up choosing your suggestions, or DGs, or Jakes, or any of thousand flowers - or is it more likely that the root case of BLM protests will continue and, like mass shootings, there will just be a number of black people being killed by cops that has minimal effect on politics and will basically be tolerated? However many bodycam videos come out.

That was maybe a little more aggressive than I intended.

No worries

[Admiral Yi]

Please explain what you mean root cause of BLM protests.  That's sort of burying a premise.

I think I get what you mean by political will now.  It means gun nuts change their minds.  So yes, gun nuts are not changing their minds, and by that definition we "lack political will."

[Sheilbh]

Please explain what you mean root cause of BLM protests.  That's sort of burying a premise.

This was the point I was making about your post - you were sort of saying BLM protests will be something that you kind of just have for a while. My point was that they are caused by something - they're not some event conjured out of the ether - and what they're caused by (or the root cause) is (predominately) black people being killed by the police.

So just living with BLM outrage also means ultimately just living with black people being killed - which causes the BLM outrage. As I say, I think that's possible - it could be like mass shootings.

I think I get what you mean by political will now.  It means gun nuts change their minds.  So yes, gun nuts are not changing their minds, and by that definition we "lack political will."

Not gun nuts - they're a given. But everyone else who enables the gun nuts to have a block on the Supreme Court and legislation.

For me, Sandy Hook changed my opinion utterly - if that didn't cause change then nothing would. And it wasn't enough to shift the calculation for gun moderates (gun legumes?) or for people who aren't gun nuts but are in a coalition with gun nuts to re-evaluate/shift/make demands of the comrades.

If some gun control measures have 80% support - I don't think we can credibly blame the 20% of people for blocking them because they're still a small minority. It's the other 20-30% who are allied to that 20% and decide that political coalition which delivers in other policy areas is worth it.

[Admiral Yi]

"Just living with black people being killed" makes no distinction between justified killing and unjustified killing.  I suspect we will have people protesting what I consider to be justified killings for eternity.  I suspect we will have people protesting what I consider to be just sentences for unjustified killing for eternity.

I agree with you about gun nuts and fellow travellers.  That was the basis of my proposal way upstream for a technological solution that would alllow us to grant licenses on some sort of psychological test that could predict whether a person would shoot up Walmart or not.

[Admiral Yi]

And we certainly didn't "just live" with the death of George Floyd.  Chauvin was charged, prosecuted and convicted.

[Sheilbh]

"Just living with black people being killed" makes no distinction between justified killing and unjustified killing.  I suspect we will have people protesting what I consider to be justified killings for eternity.  I suspect we will have people protesting what I consider to be just sentences for unjustified killing for eternity.

Yeah - and I did think about specifying unlawful killings, but my understanding is very few are found unlawful.

Justification is ultimately in the eyes of the public and subjective and not particularly relevant except in forming perceptions which shapes the politics around this. If there were fewer killings there would be fewer protests/less "outrage" even if there were still events where there was bodycam of police dealing with a situation without violence, where you might think it would be justified/appropriate for them to kill someone.

I agree with you about gun nuts and fellow travellers.  That was the basis of my proposal way upstream for a technological solution that would alllow us to grant licenses on some sort of psychological test that could predict whether a person would shoot up Walmart or not.

Not to get sidetracked - but doesn't that go to whether or not this is an unfettered constitutional right? If it is, which other constitutional rights should be conditional on psychological tests? If it's not then that expands the realm of the possible.

I also feel like we're proably nowhere near that technological solution being developed. One simple change I'd look at is ban who have domestic abuse convictions/convictions for violence against women - the number of mass shooters and terrorists who have those previous convictions is really startling.

[Admiral Yi]

Sure, if there were fewer shootings there would be less protesting.  Hence the hypnotic pull of simple, end point solutions.  We could eliminate all shootings by cops by abolishing police forces.  We could disarm all cops.  We could institute the death penalty for any cop that shoots a black man, justification be damned.  Those would all address the outrage.  Obviously that might inconvenience some of us.  Especially the executed cops..

That's where the divorce between the outrage and the issue comes in, which might get us back to your original question.  "The issue," as I see it, is how do we eliminate, or greatly minimize shootings of black people consonant with the populations's need for police protection, the value of officer's lives, and their right to not be punished unjustly.  That's the conundrum my personal proposals have been aimed at solving.

[alfred russel]

The question is....why? What is the purpose for responding to the debate about whether some prominent politician should be calling to abolish the police with these comments about race?

LOL. She is only prominent because she is one of the most left wing members of the democratic caucus and makes provocative statements that republicans like to use it ads to scare people. She is just a backbench activist.