Yes, President Obama, reality is of no consequence. The truth is of no consequence. They really do want to defund the police.

[NatMorton]

Former President Obama ruffled some Progressive feathers this week by lecturing activists about (what Obama thinks is) overstatement with slogans like "defund the police." For many, that's simply not a slogan. It's a warped, utterly-disconnected-from-reality objective.



Which brings me to another point. Cori Bush's mention of the Michael Brown case. The enduring impact of Ferguson is not one of civil rights but as a political litmus test. If the person whose words you are hearing or reading cannot acknowledge that A) Michael Brown was a thug and B) all the objective evidence we have at our disposal indicates that Officer Wilson did exactly what he should have done that day then you are dealing with someone who values a political narrative over the truth.

Obviously none of us reading these pages were there that day. All we can go by are the reports from the police, from eyewitnesses, from the medical examiners, and other officials involved in the case. Sifting through all that information an objective person would have to conclude the following:

1. Michael Brown was prone to violent, criminal behavior; or at least he was that day as we have video evidence confirming this.
   
   
2. Michael Brown was cognitively impaired at the time of his death. Blood tests confirmed levels of THC consistent with having recently smoked pot.
   
   
3. The eyewitnesses who claim that Michael Brown never reached into the police car, that he was shot in the back while running away, and that he was standing still with his hands in the air when shot again (the genesis of "hands up, don't shoot") were wrong on all three assertions. The forensic evidence is not consistent with any of those claims.
   
   
4. The forensic evidence is consistent with officer Wilson's account: Brown’s blood was found in the car (consistent with him reaching in and the gun going off), there were no entry wounds in Brown’s back, and the angle of the entry wounds in the front of Brown’s body were consistent with Brown leaning forward, as one does while charging and one does not do while standing still with arms raised.
   
   
5. Officer Wilson, having not been proven to have done anything wrong, lost his job as a police officer in Ferguson.

Again, if you find someone unable to at least acknowledge the credibility of these points -- like Cori Bush -- then you're almost certainly dealing with someone who puts politics and a political narrative above reality and social justice above justice.

 

[swing_voter]

Who is Cori Bush?

Does she work at Dennis? Can I get a Grand Slam?

 

[MrPeanut]

Who is Cori Bush?

Does she work at Dennis? Can I get a Grand Slam?

She is a nurse, pastor, and activist that recently dethroned a 10 term incumbent. No, she does not work at Denny's.

 

[Mr Person]

Oh look, the dishonest game of pretending one person represents a group one has identified as tribal enemies, then attacking that group based on what the one person said.

 

[NatMorton]

Oh look, the dishonest game of pretending one person represents a group one has identified as tribal enemies, then attacking that group based on what the one person said.

Nothing dishonest about it, sport. "Defund the police" is much more than just a slogan for much of the progressive left and Michael Brown is still cited by many as a BLM martyr. One would need to be rather obtuse (or dishonest) to claim otherwise.

 

[Guyzilla]

Former President Obama ruffled some Progressive feathers this week by lecturing activists about (what Obama thinks is) overstatement with slogans like "defund the police." For many, that's simply not a slogan. It's a warped, utterly-disconnected-from-reality objective.

View attachment 67307132

Which brings me to another point. Cori Bush's mention of the Michael Brown case. The enduring impact of Ferguson is not one of civil rights but as a political litmus test. If the person whose words you are hearing or reading cannot acknowledge that A) Michael Brown was a thug and B) all the objective evidence we have at our disposal indicates that Officer Wilson did exactly what he should have done that day then you are dealing with someone who values a political narrative over the truth.

Obviously none of us reading these pages were there that day. All we can go by are the reports from the police, from eyewitnesses, from the medical examiners, and other officials involved in the case. Sifting through all that information an objective person would have to conclude the following:

1. Michael Brown was prone to violent, criminal behavior; or at least he was that day as we have video evidence confirming this.
   
   
2. Michael Brown was cognitively impaired at the time of his death. Blood tests confirmed levels of THC consistent with having recently smoked pot.
   
   
3. The eyewitnesses who claim that Michael Brown never reached into the police car, that he was shot in the back while running away, and that he was standing still with his hands in the air when shot again (the genesis of "hands up, don't shoot") were wrong on all three assertions. The forensic evidence is not consistent with any of those claims.
   
   
4. The forensic evidence is consistent with officer Wilson's account: Brown’s blood was found in the car (consistent with him reaching in and the gun going off), there were no entry wounds in Brown’s back, and the angle of the entry wounds in the front of Brown’s body were consistent with Brown leaning forward, as one does while charging and one does not do while standing still with arms raised.
   
   
5. Officer Wilson, having not been proven to have done anything wrong, lost his job as a police officer in Ferguson.

Again, if you find someone unable to at least acknowledge the credibility of these points -- like Cori Bush -- then you're almost certainly dealing with someone who puts politics and a political narrative above reality and social justice above justice.

She is correct. And, Obama would agree. It is not just a slogan. IT is real lives. And he mispoke. It is a dumb phrase, but what it means is not dumb. That is her point. NOT abolish police. Twisted interpretation.

 

[NatMorton]

She is correct. And, Obama would agree. It is not just a slogan. IT is real lives. And he mispoke. It is a dumb phrase, but what it means is not dumb. That is her point. NOT abolish police. Twisted interpretation.

"Change" means one thing, "defund" another. "Defund the police" is not just a call for better policing but rather a call for better policing by policing less.

 

[ultmd]

The enduring impact of Ferguson is not one of civil rights but as a political litmus test. If the person whose words you are hearing or reading cannot acknowledge that A) Michael Brown was a thug and B) all the objective evidence we have at our disposal indicates that Officer Wilson did exactly what he should have done that day then you are dealing with someone who values a political narrative over the truth.

Obviously none of us reading these pages were there that day. All we can go by are the reports from the police, from eyewitnesses, from the medical examiners, and other officials involved in the case. Sifting through all that information an objective person would have to conclude the following:

1. Michael Brown was prone to violent, criminal behavior; or at least he was that day as we have video evidence confirming this.
   
   
2. Michael Brown was cognitively impaired at the time of his death. Blood tests confirmed levels of THC consistent with having recently smoked pot.
   
   
3. The eyewitnesses who claim that Michael Brown never reached into the police car, that he was shot in the back while running away, and that he was standing still with his hands in the air when shot again (the genesis of "hands up, don't shoot") were wrong on all three assertions. The forensic evidence is not consistent with any of those claims.
   
   
4. The forensic evidence is consistent with officer Wilson's account: Brown’s blood was found in the car (consistent with him reaching in and the gun going off), there were no entry wounds in Brown’s back, and the angle of the entry wounds in the front of Brown’s body were consistent with Brown leaning forward, as one does while charging and one does not do while standing still with arms raised.
   
   
5. Officer Wilson, having not been proven to have done anything wrong, lost his job as a police officer in Ferguson.

Again, if you find someone unable to at least acknowledge the credibility of these points -- like Cori Bush -- then you're almost certainly dealing with someone who puts politics and a political narrative above reality and social justice above justice.

Your interpretation of the interaction that lead to Brown's killing is not really the point here....but needless to say, you have a couple of the key facts wrong (like the whole "shot in the back" claim, for starters)

More to the point, you seem to be confused about the whole "Defund the Police" mantra. Neither Rep-elect Cori Bush, nor the Black Lives Matter movement are advocating to ABOLISH the police. That's not what the slogan means at all. What is meant by "Defund the Police" is reallocation of funds away from militarization of police forces...and toward other more effective interventions (like employing more psychologists, social workers and de-escalation training/mandates) so that routine interactions with black people do not result in death.

Obama doesn't disagree with any of that. He simply believes that the slogan is poorly worded and leaves too much room for misrepresentation....primarily by those who promote continued police misconduct.

Lastly, you really don't want to get into a debate about which side puts "political narrative above reality"....or about "social justice vs justice"....do you?

 

[ultmd]

"Change" means one thing, "defund" another. "Defund the police" is not just a call for better policing but rather a call for better policing by policing less.

You're making the case AGAINST your OP.

That said, no one really cares about YOUR interpretation of "Defund the Police". That's just a silly take.

Truth is, the idea isn't about "policing less". It's about policing less violently and less abusively.

The slogan is one that leads to a lot of convenient misinterpretation, primarily by white conservatives who have little/no clue about how the police behave in some communities.

 

[jnug]

"Defund the police" is THE BEST WAY to get half the audience to ignore you ever created.

That the Left of the DEM Party insists on even resisting Barrack Obama on this issue sort of tells the story. They are simply too young and too stupid to realize that Defund the Police is rotten messaging and lousy political phraseology. It is a mistake now compounded by being unwilling to admit it was a mistake. Makes me think the Left of the DEM Party is as whacked out as the Trumphumpers. Try "repurpose the Polce" you nimrods. Try "reimagine the Police" if you want something sound bite sized. Use your noodles. They are not there to take up the space between your shoulders.

Do you really want to go to the mattresses on a term that can easily be construed to mean "get rid of policing". Are you that comatose?

 

[Moi621]

She is a nurse, pastor, and activist that recently dethroned a 10 term incumbent. No, she does not work at Denny's.

YOU forgot
Black Nationalist

I am sick & tired of Black nationalist who like Obama
will always place Black interests before interests.


Moi
Voted Obama '08
I will now only vote for straight White guys
except for Tulsi Gabbard


PS I will pay a one way airfare for any Black person
so terribly unhappy with they agree to go to Africa
and live out their life there. Must be south of the Sahara

 

[NatMorton]

You're making the case AGAINST your OP.

That said, no one really cares about YOUR interpretation of "Defund the Police". That's just a silly take.

Truth is, the idea isn't about "policing less". It's about policing less violently and less abusively.

The slogan is one that leads to a lot of convenient misinterpretation, primarily by white conservatives who have little/no clue about how the police behave in some communities.

I'm sorry, but your interpretation makes no sense whatsoever.

If I said "It's time to defund public education!" would anyone have reason to believe I was seeking to make public education function better?

 

[vegas giants]

"Change" means one thing, "defund" another. "Defund the police" is not just a call for better policing but rather a call for better policing by policing less.

I absolutely support policing less. They go on way to many calls that they should not go on

 

[Cardinal]

1. "Defund the police" means moving certain duties of the police onto other more qualified professionals because not all problems require police solutions.
2. "Defund the police" is a catastrophically thought-out slogan because regardless of what it really entails, to millions of people it sounds exactly like less police protection in the event of crimes that we can all agree require a police solution.

Both of these statements are simultaneously true.

If I came up with a "Surprise Finger In Your Butt" campaign, it simply doesn't matter if I tell you that it really means free school lunch programs for poor kids. People are going to think one thing and one thing alone when they hear "Surprise finger in your butt," and no amount of explanation is going to change that.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Seems Trump wants to defund our military.....

Trump threatens to veto major defense bill unless Congress repeals Section 230

Trump threatens to veto major defense bill unless Congress repeals Section 230 12/1/20 President Trump on Tuesday threatened to veto an annual defense bill authorizing nearly $1 trillion in military spending unless Congress opens the door for Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites to...

debatepolitics.com

 

[ultmd]

"Defund the police" is THE BEST WAY to get half the audience to ignore you ever created.

That the Left of the DEM Party insists on even resisting Barrack Obama on this issue sort of tells the story. They are simply too young and too stupid to realize that Defund the Police is rotten messaging and lousy political phraseology. It is a mistake now compounded by being unwilling to admit it was a mistake. Makes me think the Left of the DEM Party is as whacked out as the Trumphumpers. Try "repurpose the Polce" you nimrods. Try "reimagine the Police" if you want something sound bite sized. Use your noodles. They are not there to take up the space between your shoulders.

Do you really want to go to the mattresses on a term that can easily be construed to mean "get rid of policing". Are you that comatose?

Generally agree.

But I don't get the meaning of the emboldened part.

"Defund the Police" isn't bad policy (at least, not as understood and intended by those who coined it), but it is very bad messaging. And the opponents are masters and exploiting semantics to foment confusion and distrust, to their benefit.

 

[ultmd]

I'm sorry, but your interpretation makes no sense whatsoever.

Well.....my interpretation is THE interpretation of those who coined the phrase. Your interpretation is a misunderstanding (or mis-reflection) of the intended meaning of the phrase.

If I said "It's time to defund public education!" would anyone have reason to believe I was seeking to make public education function better?

Not unless they bothered to ASK me exactly what I meant by the term "defund public education".

Unfortunately, few (if any) on the right have bothered to ask for any such clarification. And it's pretty clear that they don't really want any such clarification. They are perfectly content (if not thrilled) to exploit the term for maximum benefit. Anything that appeals to white fears...counts as a big "win" for that crowd.

 

[NatMorton]

You're making the case AGAINST your OP.

That said, no one really cares about YOUR interpretation of "Defund the Police". That's just a silly take.

Truth is, the idea isn't about "policing less". It's about policing less violently and less abusively.

The slogan is one that leads to a lot of convenient misinterpretation, primarily by white conservatives who have little/no clue about how the police behave in some communities.

You care. Otherwise why make the effort reply?

As for it being a silly take, Barack and I beg to differ.

 

[ultmd]

You care. Otherwise why make the effort reply?

Of course....deflection as a response. Not surprising.

If you're not prepared to argue about the facts, argue about semantics.

As I said, "Defund the Police" has NEVER been a call to abolish policing....nor necessarily even about "policing less"....but about policing less violently. Armed officers, trained to violently suppress certain communities are not needed in those communities. It's as simple as that.

Now, you can avoid a substantive debate about that reality if you wish. It's your choice. But I see your argument for what it is.

As for it being a silly take, Barack and I beg to differ.

Actually, President Obama and I beg to differ with you (and people like you).

I see that your understanding of Obama's point is as shallow as your understanding of the meaning of "Defund the Police".

 

[NatMorton]

Of course....deflection as a response. Not surprising.

If you're not prepared to argue about the facts, argue about semantics.

As I said, "Defund the Police" has NEVER been a call to abolish policing....nor necessarily even about "policing less"....but about policing less violently. Armed officers, trained to violently suppress certain communities are not needed in those communities. It's as simple as that.

Now, you can avoid a substantive debate about that reality if you wish. It's your choice. But I see your argument for what it is.


Actually, President Obama and I beg to differ with you (and people like you).

I see that your understanding of Obama's point is as shallow as your understanding of the meaning of "Defund the Police".

Words have meaning. The word "defund" was chosen and not words like "reform," "improve," or "redirect."

Since you seem to consider yourself and expert on that phrase, please explain to us why "defund" was chosen and not some word that would imply "policing less violently."

 

[vegas giants]

Words have meaning. The word "defund" was chosen and not words like "reform," "improve," or "redirect."

Since you seem to consider yourself and expert on that phrase, please explain to us why "defund" was chosen and not some word that would imply "policing less violently."

Money should be removed from the police budget

 

[jnug]

Generally agree.

But I don't get the meaning of the emboldened part.

"Defund the Police" isn't bad policy (at least, not as understood and intended by those who coined it), but it is very bad messaging. And the opponents are masters and exploiting semantics to foment confusion and distrust, to their benefit.

Yes, those of us that know that "defund the police" if it means anything means what was done in Camden NJ. There the Union Contract had the community so tied in knots they could no longer even determine what they wanted for policing in their community. Hence they completely abandoned their existing Police Dept to get rid of the Police Union and start over from scratch. Quite the desperate move that but apparently justified.

Other communities that feel so disposed can take that route if they wish. It is a totally local decision which makes for another bone to pick. What the hell do national political figures have to do with what is a local decision to abandon an existing Police Dept as a means to get rid of the Police Union and regain determination by the local community for what policing should look like going forward.

Obama was within his rights to point out the disaster of political phraseology that was "Defund the Police". But when Congresspeople comment in support of "Defund the Police" which Police Dept are they actually musing over? Is it the Police Dept in their community they want to defund? Is it all Police Departments? Frankly unless they want to show up at a City Counsel meeting in their own community and make a statement, they don't have a dog in that fight as congresspeople. Senators don't have a dog in the fight, congresspeople don't, Presidents don't, the AG doesn't.

 

[What if...?]

Nothing dishonest about it, sport. "Defund the police" is much more than just a slogan for much of the progressive left and Michael Brown is still cited by many as a BLM martyr. One would need to be rather obtuse (or dishonest) to claim otherwise.

Actually, "defunding the police" could be done just to require the police unions to renegotiate, possible addressing their part in the problem. It's been done before.

I would prefer "reform" or "restructure" though. People can be so easily manipulated these days you can't use language that can be twisted anymore.

 

[NatMorton]

Actually, "defunding the police" could be done just to require the police unions to renegotiate, possible addressing their part in the problem. It's been done before.

I would prefer "reform" or "restructure" though. People can be so easily manipulated these days you can't use language that can be twisted anymore.

This idea that one is “twisting” a word by using its commonly understood definition is really amusing.

 

[Guyzilla]

"Change" means one thing, "defund" another. "Defund the police" is not just a call for better policing but rather a call for better policing by policing less.

No, it is a call for cops to do cop stuff, and auxiliary types take care of things that dont need a gun. That is DEFUNDING. Still an unclear term for the uneducated.