What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[DGuller]

By throwing them under the bus I mean imposing a harsher penalty than would be fair.

So I think the way to establish what's fair is investigations and trials if a crime's been committed, possibly firing/internal disciplinaries if it's not a crime but not what we should expect of a police officer. I can see an argument where someone gets moved or assigned permanent desk duty even if it's found they did nothing wrong because there's just no trust in them/perceptions - they are a public service and they need to maintain public confidence or they can't do their job.

And I think the same goes for doctors or nurses and negligence - and there have been a number of scandals here where I think the doctors have got off very, very lightly.

What do you mean by saying you're not sure that justification matters very much?  Surely you can't mean that all police killings are unjustified, but I can't figure out how else to interpret that.

I think justification is in the eye of the beholder and its moral and a question of is it right to kill someone. I don't think that's a particularly helpful frame for looking at the police - and to be honest that is stuff I don't want the police to be thinking about, because that's not their job. To me justification applies more to a Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman sort of situation - is someone who isn't, on occasion, authorised to kill people justified in doing so.

The job of the police is protecting the public and investigating crimes. In doing that there may be times when it is necessary for the police to use force and kill people. And we've set out rules of when they can and can't do that. So for me the key questions are whether are operating within those rules and if those rules are fit for purpose (for example is there a route to deal with institutional failures like de Menezes).

I don't think there's much point in assessing each incident separately for whether it is justified or not (and, as I say, I don't think it's appropriate for the police). Rather are they within the rules of when we allow the police to kill people or not? If they are, then it seems to me that the rules are too lax.

I have to be honest, I have no idea WTF you're saying.  We have rules under which police can kill people, but if police do kill people, then these rules are too lax?     This sounds very confused.

[Zoupa]

Give me a break. Those folks could vote third party, not vote, vote D and advocate for changes within the party etc.

You do know that if those folks vote third party or not vote, that's half the effect of them voting for R, right?

Yes I know that. My point is very few people do.

Come on guys, are we really going to compare the extremes of both parties here? So Tlaib says something dumb, and people are going to vote for the party of Gaetz and Taylor-Greene?

[jimmy olsen]

I haven't paid much attention to politics since Biden was sworn in. What has he done that's convinced you guys he's not as bad?

I do like the way he's been speaking, mind, but I don't know how much of that is just listening to a guy who sounds like a normal human.

Not going for Austerity as feared. Instead he's going full LBJ and investing in the country.

[jimmy olsen]

We have to stabilize the political and economic situation then balance the budget.

He has proposed tax increases to the eye popping levels of the Clinton presidency!

They would pay for his proposed programs.

[DGuller]

Give me a break. Those folks could vote third party, not vote, vote D and advocate for changes within the party etc.

You do know that if those folks vote third party or not vote, that's half the effect of them voting for R, right?

Yes I know that. My point is very few people do.

Come on guys, are we really going to compare the extremes of both parties here? So Tlaib says something dumb, and people are going to vote for the party of Gaetz and Taylor-Greene?

Forget about people voting for R for a moment.  What about the actual consequence of people saying dumb shit on governing policies?  It seems like sometimes people forget that innocent people get killed by entities other than police from time to time.  If you shoot from the hip at police reform and get it way wrong in the excitement of it all, you're going to have a whole bunch of innocent people paying the price for your purity, not to mention that you're going to discredit the concept of liberalism, like it has been discredited after the last crime wave.

[Zoupa]

What about the actual consequence of people saying dumb shit on governing policies?

Your country elected Donald Trump my man.

He's polling around 85% in Republican voters. We don't live in a vacuum where I can just "forget about people voting Republican". Republicans are very good at disguising their motives. How many people justified their Trump vote by saying "I just can't vote for Hillary", including some posters here?

After 4 years of this shit, he gained voters. Millions of them. They weren't voting against Biden's radical agenda (lol btw). They voted FOR republicans.

So that Tlaib comment might get some traction from the usual suspects, but I don't buy that it can actually move the needle in so-called centrists. If you're really a centrist in 2021, you vote Democrat. The other side is just not even worthy of comparison.

[Admiral Yi]

I think DGuller is talking about reacting to her comment as an actual policy proposal, not a meaningless slogan.

[Zoupa]

I think DGuller is talking about reacting to her comment as an actual policy proposal, not a meaningless slogan.

Did she actually put forth a policy? Like an actual paper that lists the steps she wants to take, how to replace police with other initiatives/instances, budget allocation etc? Did she submit a bill?

Genuine question, as I thought it was a just a not well thought-out tweet.

[Admiral Yi]

Did she actually put forth a policy? Like an actual paper that lists the steps she wants to take, how to replace police with other initiatives/instances, budget allocation etc? Did she submit a bill?

Genuine question, as I thought it was a just a not well thought-out tweet.

Yes, she put forth a policy in the form of a tweet.

When Elizabeth Warren says "let's impose a wealth tax," that's a policy proposal.  When Bernie Sanders says corporations with workers who collect food stamps or other forms of welfare and who's names rhyme with Bamazon should pay additional taxes, that's a policy proposal.  It doesn't matter if they've written memos (though I suspect they have stuff on their website on it) or if they've drafted bills, or any of that stuff.  Jake, DGuller and I have batted around some ideas and we're all perfectly comfortable with calling them policy proposals.  Because that's what they are. 

Now it's very possible she didn't want it to be treated as a policy proposal, and in her true inner mind she thinks it would not be a good idea.  Which of course means that she's lying to whomever was the target of that tweet. 

Or maybe there's some inner logic of the woke community that I just don't get.  Maybe the point is to be outrageous and rattle people because it's so damn edgy?  Like the outrage is real but solving the problem is actually a big joke?

[Zoupa]

So it was just a not well thought out tweet. Not sure it warrants a deep dive like this.

I submit that a poll asking americans "Do you support abolishing police departments?" would garner about 1-3% support. As to your last paragraph, whatever. Who can tell what was in her mind when she posted it. Haven't we done enough reacting and analyzing twitter bullshit over the past decade?

[Admiral Yi]

That we have, and every time Trump said we should put alligators in the moat and later said he was joking we called him a buffoon and a liar.

Thinking about an idea before you propose it is a pretty low bar.

I've noticed you have this tendency when you realize you're defending something indefensible that you exaggerate your opponent's reactions.   Her tweet doesn't warrant a deep dive, whatever that is.  It warrants saying her idea is retarded.  Until someone comes along to defend it or spin it, then we all start diving deeper and deeper.

[Admiral Yi]

I withdraw the "whatever that means" part.  That could be construed as put down about language ability.

[Zoupa]

I'm not sure what we're arguing at this point. I'm not in favour of abolishing police, hence yes I think that idea is stupid. I'm not defending her statement/idea, not sure where you got that.

[Berkut]

So every member of congress is a prominent politician?

Prominent enough that when they lodly proclaim something really fucking stupid they are going to be noticed.

Jesus, is THIS where we are now? It was ok because she wasn't "prominent" enough? It is going to get replayed on every right wing show and plenty of non-right wing shows for, well, forever. It will, I predict, result in Democrats not being elected who might have been elected otherwise.

Democrats are also going to pretend all Republicans are Marjorie Taylor-Greene. It is just how it goes. 100% party discipline is impossible with these huge big tent parties. There are always going to be fringe members of congress saying nutty things.

What does that have to do with anything? People are going to do all kinds of things that are stupid but since we know people do dumb things, we should not note that they are dumb and suggest that perhaps we ought to do less dumb things?

[Berkut]

So every member of congress is a prominent politician?

Prominent enough that when they lodly proclaim something really fucking stupid they are going to be noticed.

Jesus, is THIS where we are now? It was ok because she wasn't "prominent" enough? It is going to get replayed on every right wing show and plenty of non-right wing shows for, well, forever. It will, I predict, result in Democrats not being elected who might have been elected otherwise.

And once again, we're back to not alienating centrists. Listen dude, people have agency. If they choose to vote R even after the display of the last 4 years, they were never going to vote D.

"Well I was going to vote D but then a congresswoman said she wants to abolish the police!!! Now I have to vote with the folks that stormed the Capitol, I have no choice! The evil Democrats made me do it!"

Give me a break. Those folks could vote third party, not vote, vote D and advocate for changes within the party etc.

That one tweet from a relatively unknown congresswoman is not what will make them vote R.

So its all hopeless, you cannot possibly convince anyone of anything, so we should not care what anyone says.

If she had said "We should probably have the state start randomly killing white people!" you would make the same argument, right? I mean, nobody ever changes their vote anyway, so what difference does it make.

Of course....we know that isn't true. Those hated centrists and others who don't look at politics the way you do (Or I do for that matter) in fact change their votes all the time, and they in fact decide elections.

You can demand that they all "be smarter" and not vote for anyone other than Team Zoupa because they just ought to be better, smarter, more w...errrh progressive. Sure. Don't bother trying to convince them because if they are not already convinced, well, they are too dumb to bother with.

That's all great if your goal is to be smugly right. If you want to actually win elections, and hence get people into power who can actually effect the change we want though...you know, actually CHANGE something instead of just sitting there feeling superior and right, you are going to have to convince some of those people you so righteously despise. And not even that many of them....but some of them.

That is where I come at this - I have to question the actual commitment to actual change from someone who clearly cares more about making signalling their position on the spectrum then they do about actually getting anything done.

If you decide that fixing problems is more important than signalling how loudly you are on the side of justice, then getting control of the message is absolutely necessary. And yeah, I know, that is going to mean not alienating "centrists". (That is such a pejorative word, used to just slander people who used the term as a positive, it kind of hurts when you say that). That is how voting and democracy works.

You do realize you just made my argument for me....right? Yes - if you want to win elections, you do in fact have to not alienate the exact people who you wish would vote for you, who might not. They are, basically by definition, "centrists".