2020 Election Thread

[Orange]

53 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

 

You can support police reform, demilitarization, and re-allocation of funding without getting pulled into the silly debate over whether "defund" is the right word to use.

One thing I've learned from Republicans is that messages need to be short, and trite.

If we get into the weeds with words like "reallocation of funding," NO meaningful change will happen, because no one knows what the fuck those words mean.

Unless of course we're not interested in meaningful change, and we only want democrats re-elected.  

[Scscsc89]

One thing I’ve learned from 30 years as a communications professional is that’s not true.  Just focus on the doing the right thing, building consensus, doing the work, & don’t get distracted with trying to find the perfect three words that will magically change everyone’s minds.

A thread:

This guy lays it out well and doesn’t even TOUCH on the people trying to actively undermine your cute & pithy slogan before you have a chance to position it correctly.

[Scscsc89]

And yes, authoritarians can and do get away with it because cults don’t ask questions.  The slogan is enough for their audience.

And yes, that’s not fair.  Add it to the list.

[Quack 12]

Yes, it's not about eliminating police, it's about re-allocating  some funding. "De-Fund" is a stupid term, it should be "Re-Fund" communities.

[Orange]

The degree to which we have OVER funded the police over the past 50 years has not been recognized by the community at large.  The degree to which we've relied on police to solve EVERY public problem has not been properly communicated to people.

How do we do that?  How do we give history lessons to 200 million voters (or even 20,000 voters in a small city where this debate is going to be tangible; police funding and organization is a local matter, not national) who have no interest in learning?  Even Democratic voters don't do their homework on this.  

As a practical matter, it's not about shaving money from the police departments.  It's about disbanding them, forcing cops to be re-vetted upon rehiring, and cutting their budgets by more than 50%.  As far as I'm concerned, "defund the police" is pretty apt, and the more we see cops brutalizing citizens, and then clapping eachother on the back for these crimes, the more I see people getting on board with that "slogan".

If the "pithy messaging" only works on the cultists, why can't we get a fucking democrat in the White House?  Why can't we win the Senate majority?  Why can't we win state houses?  Our messaging is fucking PATHETIC as compared to Republicans, and that has to do with the fact that nuanced, intelligent description of policies is lost on the vast majority of voters.

[Scscsc89]

49 minutes ago, Orange said:

As a practical matter, it's not about shaving money from the police departments. 

 

49 minutes ago, Orange said:

As far as I'm concerned, "defund the police" is pretty apt,

I have a hard time reconciling your two statements here.  
 

You can use whatever slogan you want — I’ll just support “police reform” & move on from what I still consider a waste of important momentum.

[Orange]

1 hour ago, Scscsc89 said:

 

I have a hard time reconciling your two statements here.  
 

You can use whatever slogan you want — I’ll just support “police reform” & move on from what I still consider a waste of important momentum.

"Shaving" implies just cutting here and there, or implementing half-measure reforms.  

Given that policing is and has been built on white supremacy and militarization, I'm for breaking off gigantic chunks of it.

[Scscsc89]

Got it — it is weird that many of the same people that ‘support the police‘ status quo are against high municipal budgets, unions and pension obligations.

 

[Orange]

1 hour ago, Scscsc89 said:

Got it — it is weird that many of the same people that ‘support the police‘ status quo are against high municipal budgets, unions and pension obligations.

 

Yeah, and democrats will have to reckon with fighting this particular public-employee union.  Unfortunately, because they currently control the protection of communities, they amount to a protection racket that can target/withhold services based on council members who oppose their tactics.  they're mafioso.  This is why "defund the police" has become synonymous with reform, because the unions and the cops do not give a single fuck about community policing and safety.  They care about their own members being paid the most money to do the least amount of good.

[Scscsc89]

56 minutes ago, Orange said:

This is why "defund the police" has become synonymous with reform,

 

that was fast

[Orange]

On 6/10/2020 at 2:10 PM, Scscsc89 said:

 

that was fast

Okay, but "reform" is not the proper word.

Another cop shoots a black guy in Atlanta while he was running away, unarmed.

 

Frankly, the police need to be taken COMPLETELY out of the traffic-stop business.  They need to stop enforcing any drug laws.  They need to stop criminalizing sex work and interacting with sex workers.  We need them off the streets, to the maximum extend possible.   They're the worst gang in America right now.

The word "reform" doesn't capture that level of sea change.

[Scscsc89]

1 hour ago, Orange said:

The word "reform" doesn't capture that level of sea change.

Okay, but If you believe that, then you’d have agree that “defund” doesn’t either.  You are talking about re-inventIng policing.

 

It’s almost as if this is a silly debate.

[Orange]

51 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

Okay, but If you believe that, then you’d have agree that “defund” doesn’t either.  You are talking about re-inventIng policing.

 

It’s almost as if this is a silly debate.

It kind of does.  In Camden, they defunded.  Defunding is necessary first thanks to the ruthless thuggery of the police unions.  In Minneapolis, they're defunding.  That had to be done because the union is a thug and a trumper and the only way to get around their mafia mentality is to rid ourselves of them.  Then remake whatever comes after.

[azgreg]

Camden was far more a reform than defund. 

 

[Orange]

2 hours ago, azgreg said:

Camden was far more a reform than defund. 

 

They fired the entire police force. They literally abolished the city police and put it under the county.

[Mano]

Re-form as in remake.

Would remake be a better word for you? Or re-imagine?

[azgreg]

3 hours ago, Orange said:

They fired the entire police force. They literally abolished the city police and put it under the county.

Is there any evidence they are spending less on their police force now?

 

[HLB]

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 10:37 AM, Orange said:

The degree to which we have OVER funded the police over the past 50 years has not been recognized by the community at large.  The degree to which we've relied on police to solve EVERY public problem has not been properly communicated to people.

How do we do that?  How do we give history lessons to 200 million voters (or even 20,000 voters in a small city where this debate is going to be tangible; police funding and organization is a local matter, not national) who have no interest in learning?  Even Democratic voters don't do their homework on this.  

As a practical matter, it's not about shaving money from the police departments.  It's about disbanding them, forcing cops to be re-vetted upon rehiring, and cutting their budgets by more than 50%.  As far as I'm concerned, "defund the police" is pretty apt, and the more we see cops brutalizing citizens, and then clapping eachother on the back for these crimes, the more I see people getting on board with that "slogan".

If the "pithy messaging" only works on the cultists, why can't we get a fucking democrat in the White House?  Why can't we win the Senate majority?  Why can't we win state houses?  Our messaging is fucking PATHETIC as compared to Republicans, and that has to do with the fact that nuanced, intelligent description of policies is lost on the vast majority of voters.

99.9% of police officers are good officer.  And you want to completely restructure "everything" about police forces on the basis of the .1%.

No matter what you do, there will always be .1% of the force that will function below acceptable standards.  It will never be 100% perfect.

[Orange]

15 hours ago, azgreg said:

Is there any evidence they are spending less on their police force now?

 

Indeed, the county cops who patrol Camden are making far less because the union deal was ripped up.  Strikes me as defunded, but whatever.  Just like SC89 and others here don't like "defund" and/or think the argument is "silly" about messaging, I feel the same.  If it's silly, why argue with defund?   

[Orange]

11 hours ago, HLB said:

99.9% of police officers are good officer.  And you want to completely restructure "everything" about police forces on the basis of the .1%.

No matter what you do, there will always be .1% of the force that will function below acceptable standards.  It will never be 100% perfect.

Hey fuckstick, the "good cops" who refuse to stand up to the "bad apples" are also bad apples.