This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Hunters and fishermen/women tend to be conservationists. In addition to controlling populations, they support sound forestry and fishery management on a practical and sustainable level. As a former green party member, I can't tell you that political environmentalists accomplished a whole lot other than maybe getting Bush elected over Gore. Actual conservation efforts accomplish more than political ideologies with no resulting action.
In the other Washington we've had a great deal of success from political environmentalists, often with bipartisan support. Dan Evans, a former Republican governor, is a prime example.
Same on most accounts.
Dan Evans was governor over 40 years ago.
This is where the problem is. They don't see the problem nor do they want to see the problem, that is why police and citizens will have a lot of problems.
@-fish- did a good job, but I'll provide a few more links if you are genuinely interested. FWIW I've NEVER hunted in my life and rarely have even gone fishing. I have shot guns but have never, and plan to never, belonged to the NRA.
Is it control and influence they have or is it, as they claim, support (Such as, when several enforcement agencies say we support "candidate A or b")?
Well said. I think a lot of people gloss over an extremely important aspect to this and that is that, for the person in the uniform, this is literally a matter of life and death for them and their life is potentially on the line every single day. That carries a lot of weight so when they see one candidate on any level that supports them, I have zero issues with saying let them each and every one if they want to, support them and it be known by all.
Both are not ideal for democracy. I get the police unions and groups have been endorsing candidates for awhile and there is nothing we can do about it. It's dangerous because they are the most powerful group in the country short of the military. More powerful than the politicians or lawyers or judges.
They do deserve some of the blame when it comes to the priorities of the union they belong to, however. You make a good analogy and unfortunately good LEO and good refs never get talked about, and the worst stand out and tarnish the reputation of all the rest. Unfortunately the LEO unions are prioritizing making it so difficult to get rid of bad officers rather than rewarding the vast, vast majority of officers that are great at their job and invaluable members of the community.
point taken but I'm not sure they are the most powerful (or less powerful) than others. Its dependent, I think, but there are places where teachers unions are a powerful bloc, media, labor unions, R&D blocs, etc, etc.
And it also explains why the police are expected to respond to everything under the sun even when it shouldn't really be their job to do so. If you are the only agency that hasn't been defunded already than you are who people call when ANYTHING happens.
I mean actual power. Laws and votes and court decisions are great if they are accepted and enforced. If they aren't accepted or aren't enforced, they are just talk and words on paper.
Is that known at the time in most cases? For example, a 911 call is taken and the report is "there's a man broken into a store" or "there's a woman with a bat chasing a kid down the street". Of course, thats a police matter. They respond and then, at that point, find out the person is someone who would benefit from a social worker, psychologist, etc. It's not black and white a lot of times and you can't feasibly do it the other way (got a call about a woman with a bat chasing a kid and you send a social worker because it sounds like what is probably needed? You need the law enforcement presence in conjunction with, in most cases.)
That's a bigger and different topic. I don't really want to get into police reform or social services. There are other threads for that. My only point is when the police align too closely with a political party or faction, that is very bad for Democracy, liberty and all those big ideas we like to think are core to our country.
Just as a counter-point for another perspective (not to debate)-
Is the thing about the Kentucky presentation untrue? I didn't research it but it seemed like it was facts that came out in discovery of a case.
Joe Biden does not want to defund the police. Harris is a former DA and worked closely with the police. The stance of the Democratic Party is not to defund the police. Most major cities are run by Democrats and they are heavily funding the police, not defunding them.
I agree. BLM is behind the "Defund and or get rid of police" movement. Never heard Biden say defund police.Ilov80s said:
No. My point has little to do with the current construct of the country. I don’t even know what the political breakdown is of American police. I am speaking in general terms.
I think police are underappreciated. Expected to handle everything. Domestic violence situations are dangerous.
