• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

"Redirect the police to harass white guys with guns."
 
ultmd said:
Of course not. Yours are the words and views of an emotional rightwinger, Nat. And you're way off the topic of your own thread, here.

Police use of lethal force against ANY unarmed person, when the officer's life is not directly threatened....is not "justified", in any way.

The fact is, however, that laws and rules of engagement allow for EXTREMELY broad definitions of when an officer's life is threatened.....to include merely "feeling" threatened. And THIS is part of what needs to be changed. It gives the police an unwarranted license to kill at will. And if local/state legislatures are unwilling to change laws, then the federal government should as a matter of civil rights.

Michael Brown posed no lethal threat to Wilson. He was unarmed.
Click to expand...
At least you answered the question others have been ducking, so points do you.

Follow-up question. What if Michael Brown had successfully wrestled the gun away from Wilson. Would he then have been a danger to others?
 
NatMorton said:
What do you mean “nope?” You asked why I thought they had the reaction they did. That is my answer.
Click to expand...

That is not why they voted.
They voted because they were out of options. The Minneapolis Federation of Police refuses to accept civilian oversight, a pattern of abuse dating back over a decade or more. The department is incorrigible and HAS BEEN for some time.
As I referenced before, their vote is similar to the one taken by the people of Camden, NJ.
If the department refuses to take correction or respond to civilian oversight then it is beyond hope of reform.

NatMorton said:
If you believe they were not overreacting, fine, you’re welcome to that opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that they were overreacting OR underreacting, I believe that they made an informed executive decision to do away with any contract involving the Minneapolis Federation of Police, the union in question.

NatMorton said:
As to your second question, of course. But I fail to see how that question is relevant here.
Click to expand...

Then you fail to understand the problem at the source.
You fail because the relevancy of civilian oversight strikes at the root of the problem in Minneapolis, and in several other large cities with unions gone rogue.

DISCLAIMER: I am a pro-union person AND I used to be a resident of South Minneapolis and I know the history of the Third Precinct pretty well.
 
NatMorton said:
Fine, but others here are arguing that “defund” in this context doesn’t mean taking resources away from police. You may want to join me in correcting them.
Click to expand...
if you knew that everything police respond to is not a police matter... then there would be no question or challenge about diversifying the usage of funds.

Problem is:
This site is full of people, who like to "react", its entertainment and drama antics they love to some,... for many they care nothing about learning or truthful information. they come here to talk... just to claim they are interacting....
 
ultmd said:
Dumb comment, combined with a healthy dose of projection on your part.

You people have no idea who "you folks" are. So let's be clear....you can no longer pretend to NOT understand what the people behind the "Defund the Police" mantra actually mean. Clearly, they are not the only people relying upon "mindless emotionalism".

Truth is, you and your ilk really have no interest in a substantive debate about police reform. As you rightwingers ALWAYS do, you've ceased upon a convenient slogan or phrase, and are using it as a Strawman....which you then attack in hopes of discrediting it. It's what you people always do, because you don't have the chops to actually engage in the actual debate.

Attacking the slogan by pretending (i.e. lying) about what it means....is weak sauce for an intellectually weak crowd.

It won't work. But you'll keep doing it. And you'll be dismissed as the issue moves beyond you.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry your panties are in a bunch over this one, but there are certain facts here you'll just have to learn to live with. There are many on the left, both in positions of power and here on this board, who believe "defund the police" means just that. They range from those who want to remove a significant level of funding from police to all funding. That is not a misunderstanding on my part nor is it mere opinion. It is fact. So let us be clear, I am not just attacking a slogan; I'm attacking the thinking behind it. To claim otherwise is simply a lie.

You're right on one point. I do not think serious police reform is needed. To believe police behavior is among the most urgent matters facing Black America is, IMO, a misdiagnosis of the problem. So there is little use debating the fine points of a "solution" that will not materially improve the lives of Black Americans. There are more pressing matters, with the violent crime rate among Blacks being perhaps #1.

Finally, feel free to "dismiss" me anytime you like. You will not be missed.
 
SJW is a slur. No one self identifies as such except in rhetorical response. No one should be surprised when an OP employing slurs is closed to discussion.
 
NatMorton said:
To believe police behavior is among the most urgent matters facing Black America is, IMO, a misdiagnosis of the problem. So there is little use debating the fine points of a "solution" that will not materially improve the lives of Black Americans. There are more pressing matters, with the violent crime rate among Blacks being perhaps #1.
Click to expand...
Nobody has to race-bait you, you just jump in the boat and flop around all on your own.
 
Clown said:
I agree with Obama. People who don't closely follow the movement or politics, in general, will read that slogan as Democrats wanting to get rid of the police departments. Reform the Police would've been a better slogan. The same goes for the BLM slogan. I think more people would understand the movement and support it if the slogan was "Black Lives Matter Too".
Click to expand...
"BLM Too" is at least logical extension of BLM and is defensible. It gets positively Orwellian when "defund" isn't supposed to mean defund. It just means police resources get diverted. :rolleyes:
 
RealityNow said:
if you knew that everything police respond to is not a police matter... then there would be no question or challenge about diversifying the usage of funds.

Problem is:
This site is full of people, who like to "react", its entertainment and drama antics they love to some,... for many they care nothing about learning or truthful information. they come here to talk... just to claim they are interacting....
Click to expand...
Some people love to get caught up in semantics
 
NatMorton said:
Need a tissue?
Click to expand...

Your arguments are slurs and racist bs. You wanna rehash your tired old token case and ignorantly employ crime stats. It's the same racist bs I've seen at this website for ten years. And you wanna play philosopher. Haha.
 
NatMorton said:
The City Council of Minneapolis.
Click to expand...

And you've been informed as to the reason, but you're clearly holding your hands over your ears and screaming "LALALALA I can't hear you!"

If you think the reason I gave you is incorrect, you're going to have to support your counter-arguments, and telling me I am emotional, or that my panties are in a bunch don't count as valid counter-arguments.
 
RealityNow said:
if you knew that everything police respond to is not a police matter... then there would be no question or challenge about diversifying the usage of funds.
Click to expand...
The debate here has been largely about whether "defund" actually means to reduce funding to police budgets. You're stating your opinion that their funding should be reduced and why. That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion, but whether you like it or not you're agreeing with me that "defund the police" is about actually defunding the police.

So thank you for your support.
 
ecofarm said:
Your arguments are slurs and racist bs. You wanna rehash your tired old token case and ignorantly employ crime stats. It's the same racist bs I've seen at this website for ten years. And you wanna play philosopher. Haha.
Click to expand...
And the ad hominem follows the weak argument like night follows day.
 
I just think that policing should be safe, legal and rare.
 
NatMorton said:
And the ad hominem follows the weak argument like night follows day.
Click to expand...

Don't be such a pathetic victim. My assessment of your arguments does not make you a martyr. If you don't like criticism of what you post, perhaps you should be at Twitter or Facebook or something instead of a debate website.

And you ask if I need a tissue? ****. What pansy bs.

"Like night follows day". Okay, Shakespeare. You have leggings to go with that crap?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
And you've been informed as to the reason, but you're clearly holding your hands over your ears and screaming "LALALALA I can't hear you!"
Click to expand...
You folks are amazing. The question asked was whether any Democrats had gone so far as to call for a police force to be abolished. And here you are, chiming in apparently under the impression you're proving my answer wrong and instead -- by attempting to justify the City Council's call to abolish the Minneapolis police force -- you're actually supporting my assertion that such a call was made. Then, to put the cherry on top, you have the Chutzpah to assert I'm not the one paying attention here.

Too funny.
 
NatMorton said:
I'm sorry your panties are in a bunch over this one, but there are certain facts here you'll just have to learn to live with. There are many on the left, both in positions of power and here on this board, who believe "defund the police" means just that. They range from those who want to remove a significant level of funding from police to all funding. That is not a misunderstanding on my part nor is it mere opinion. It is fact. So let us be clear, I am not just attacking a slogan; I'm attacking the thinking behind it. To claim otherwise is simply a lie.

You're right on one point. I do not think serious police reform is needed. To believe police behavior is among the most urgent matters facing Black America is, IMO, a misdiagnosis of the problem. So there is little use debating the fine points of a "solution" that will not materially improve the lives of Black Americans. There are more pressing matters, with the violent crime rate among Blacks being perhaps #1.

Finally, feel free to "dismiss" me anytime you like. You will not be missed.
Click to expand...

A significant reason why their is violent crime among Blacks, in heavily segregated, poverty ridden ghettos is, despite their mammoth budgets, the police don't solve these crimes. They are committed with impunity. So what's the point in continuing to so heavily fund such a losing program?
 
NatMorton said:
The debate here has been largely about whether "defund" actually means to reduce funding to police budgets. You're stating your opinion that their funding should be reduced and why. That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion, but whether you like it or not you're agreeing with me that "defund the police" is about actually defunding the police.

So thank you for your support.
Click to expand...
Think of it as it best suits you.... I'm very clear as to what I post...
 
ecofarm said:
Don't be such a pathetic victim. My assessment of your arguments does not make you a martyr. If you don't like criticism of what you post, perhaps you should be at Twitter or Facebook or something instead of a debate website.

And you ask if I need a tissue? ****. What pansy bs.

"Like night follows day". Okay, Shakespeare. You have leggings to go with that crap?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand me. I am not playing the victim here. Bring on all the criticism you like, but when you resort to personal attacks it reflects poorly on you, not me.
 
NatMorton said:
You misunderstand me. I am not playing the victim here. Bring on all the criticism you like, but when you resort to personal attacks it reflects poorly on you, not me.
Click to expand...

You take criticism of your posts or arguments as criticism of you personally. It's classic snowflake syndrome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom