Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Absolutely positively not a leap at all.
Not enough. He needs to come out strongly against it, even if it alienates some on the left. He needs to do it right now.
This never ends if all the resources and time is spent on the riots. In fact it only get worse. The riots are relatively tame at this time. If an incident like this happens again soon. Many lives on both sides will be lost and property will be an afterthought.
My real life friends are all in on this as reality: https://twitter.com/EamonWhalen/status/1269398760049737728?s=20
Exactly and if the police are killing people that look like you for no reason why would you trust them.
I think you can do both. You have to because if you don’t get a hold of a better political message than “defund the police”, you will have very little chance of being able to address the latter. “Defund/Abolish the police” is political suicide.
But he suggested you support it. That seems unfair (sorry).
Do you really blame him? Elected Democrat officials are showing up at these rallies and the Minneapolis City Council is pushing this. This is like political gold dropped in his lap.
That's reality though. It's how tribalism works. It's why tons of people here will lump me in with Franklin Graham or Falwell because I'm a Christian.
Biden 1994 crime bill. Why is he better? Both are awful when it comes to track record and substance.
If Democrats push this they will lose the election. If they lose the election, none of the other stuff is going to matter. This is it.
This is 100% true. All of it. @Widbil83 and I don’t agree on much but I think we both understand how politics work, how perception is everything.
If they win then what? Obama had 8 years and same stuff happened. It just seem delusional to me thinking a political party will do anything other than pander to donors in these time. They proved it over and over again.
It's an unfortunate title to the article, but I think it would be helpful to actually discuss the contents of the article. Here's just one quote from it:Except for the articles that outright are promoting Abolish...https://lifehacker.com/lets-abolish-the-police-force-1843922788
Granted. It's lifehacker. But that's a big site with a lot of readers.
Our criminal justice system is broken. What's the definition of insanity? We need fundamental change to help solve the problems of police brutality and our prison-industrial complex.
Sure. Titles are intentional though. With a zillion pieces to read every minute, most readers in 2020 won't get much past that. That's just reality.
If you don’t think you can push for some measure of change on this issue in a Dem administration vs. another 4 years of a Trump admin, I don’t know what to tell you. Too many folks in all sorts of issues constantly make perfect the enemy of good.
Yup.
I agree and that is part of the reason "Defund the Police" won't work as a slogan. It portrays the potential to disband the police which will not be widely supported.
Why will they do it now? Nothing in the past made them change. Not even a president that was brown who I voted for twice.
Well it seems to me that as a democracy we should want politicians to state their radical ideas before the election, not after.
So it’s only as simple as fix the worlds problems that have plagued us since the beginning of time? Cool, That should be easy.
Exactly. 100% this. “Defund the police” is an awful slogan and will only push people away towards wanting to support change.
No but we could be better. How many unjustified shooting of unarmed black men have you seen officers found guilty?
Yeah I know. Which is why when you said “wait until after the election” you weren’t being sincere.
We are a country of justice for some. People in power, in law enforcement and with money all are held to a different standard.
No I was. I don’t mind discussing radical ideas and debating them. I don’t want them enacted by politicians until they are part of the mainstream at which point they are no longer radical. And I certainly don’t want them promoted loudly prior to an election because it’s a sure way to lose that election.
I think he means wait until after to do anything that is internecine. Then it will get hashed out.
How do the ideas become “part of the mainstream” if we’re not allowed to talk about them?
It’s not wise to promote them before an election.
We are always less than two years away from an election. Can you provide a little more clarity on the appropriate window of time when we can talk about making big changes?
