Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is going to be a total debacle. Hopefully it won't spread, because it will set back progressive politics in this country by 10-20 years. It's just the kind of pie-in-the-sky thinking the liberals of yesteryear would have come up with. God, I hope this idea dies. Reform yes, abolish/defund, though, is silly.
Abolishing slavery is a ridiculous pie-in-the-sky idea that some ridiculous liberals came up with. Yes, we agree that it can be a bit cruel, but we think that moderates will get on board with a book to ensure that the number of bearings and rapes is limited to a reasonable amount.
I really hope this was posted by a troll.
It was the prevailing attitude during slavery. Ok, the last part was made up to show how ridiculous a moderate compromise can be.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here's a Washington Post piece on the movement/ideas. I think that addresses a lot of the concerns brought up here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/07/defund-police-heres-what-that-really-means/
With all due respect to Professor Lopez, she's using words like "defund" and "abolish" to describe what are fundamentally reforms to the police and idea of policing. Words matter. Most Americans are not going to engage in a thought exercise to understand words like "defund" and "abolish" in ways that seemingly run in contradiction to their conventional definitions.
Defund: prevent from continuing to receive funds.
Abolish: formally put an end to.
Again, words matter. There are significant political implications for how these concepts around the police are understood and received by the broader American public.
In absolute terms, "defunding" or "abolishing" the police is going to cost the Democrats votes in November.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Quote from WaPo article today:
"Homicides in the District are up 11 percent from this time last year, when the city recorded a decade-high number of killings."
Sounds like policing isn't working.
Anonymous wrote:Quote from WaPo article today:
"Homicides in the District are up 11 percent from this time last year, when the city recorded a decade-high number of killings."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here's a Washington Post piece on the movement/ideas. I think that addresses a lot of the concerns brought up here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/07/defund-police-heres-what-that-really-means/
With all due respect to Professor Lopez, she's using words like "defund" and "abolish" to describe what are fundamentally reforms to the police and idea of policing. Words matter. Most Americans are not going to engage in a thought exercise to understand words like "defund" and "abolish" in ways that seemingly run in contradiction to their conventional definitions.
Defund: prevent from continuing to receive funds.
Abolish: formally put an end to.
Again, words matter. There are significant political implications for how these concepts around the police are understood and received by the broader American public.
In absolute terms, "defunding" or "abolishing" the police is going to cost the Democrats votes in November.
It's terrible marketing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Police unions are the problem.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/05/871298161/police-unions-and-police-violence
Other trade unions hate police unions.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here's a Washington Post piece on the movement/ideas. I think that addresses a lot of the concerns brought up here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/07/defund-police-heres-what-that-really-means/
With all due respect to Professor Lopez, she's using words like "defund" and "abolish" to describe what are fundamentally reforms to the police and idea of policing. Words matter. Most Americans are not going to engage in a thought exercise to understand words like "defund" and "abolish" in ways that seemingly run in contradiction to their conventional definitions.
Defund: prevent from continuing to receive funds.
Abolish: formally put an end to.
Again, words matter. There are significant political implications for how these concepts around the police are understood and received by the broader American public.
In absolute terms, "defunding" or "abolishing" the police is going to cost the Democrats votes in November.
Anonymous wrote:Here's a Washington Post piece on the movement/ideas. I think that addresses a lot of the concerns brought up here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/07/defund-police-heres-what-that-really-means/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Eliminating the police WILL finally halt gentrification! It’ll stop it in it’s tracks.
Not too mention instantly boost home prices in the close-in suburbs by a couple hundred thousand bucks overnight.
I predict we’ve now passed the high-point in home values in the city.
Anonymous wrote:Eliminating the police WILL finally halt gentrification! It’ll stop it in it’s tracks.
Not too mention instantly boost home prices in the close-in suburbs by a couple hundred thousand bucks overnight.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do people want anarchy? Cause that’s what happens when there is no police.
Could you point me to evidence or studies that support this?