• 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.

NatMorton said:
^^^ Ad hominem fallacy at work.
Click to expand...

My post is not an ad hom, it's an accurate assessment of your OP. Let's review:

1. Since the Michael Brown incident, there have been thousands of incidents of racist police brutality. Why do you fail to include even a single counter-example? Because you're not interested in discussing racist police brutality, you're interested in denying it. That's why you trot out a years old incident and employ an old file dump to talk crap about civil rights organizations and a past (black) President.

In sum, your one sided bs is obvious.

2. You argue your bs from a position of total ignorance. This is typical of racist swill. Pretend to know nothing, completely misconstrue opponents and maintain intentional ignorance for the purpose of demonization.

In sum, if you were interested in discussing Defund the Police, you'd have at least a clue what it's about.

Now, I have made my case regarding the OP. I have supported my claims with evidence.

Another file dump cannot save you.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Are you willing to wager real money anonymously with me about police departments being shut down?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. I'm more worried about funding levels being reduced or other actions resulting in the same outcome: less active policing where policing is needed.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Reducing the level of which aspect of policing specifically?

Traffic
Violent crime
Robbery
Burglary
Sexual assault
Human trafficking
Major drug trafficking
Blue collar crime
White collar crime
Organized crime
Vice
Racketeering
Civil unrest
Natural disasters
Community relations
Welfare checkups

Cue me if I left something out.
Click to expand...
Not sure who or what you are responding to. I asked who on this board was pushing for a significant decrease in policing.
 
aociswundumho said:
I dig that spoiler tag, thanks for letting me know about it.

I may have the worst screen name, but can you guess who has the most accurate screen name on here?
@aociswundumho
Click to expand...
AOC has the best political platform out there, that I'm aware of.

But let's not distract from the fact that you said you want to completely abolish the police.
 
NatMorton said:
The OP is not BS. I know what I'm talking about, and it's not a rant about black people or an expression of lazy racism.
Click to expand...

Typical ignorant denial with no counter evidence. About what I'd expect.
 
aociswundumho said:
What's amazing is how the same people who believe the masses are uneducated are the same people who ardently support the failing public school system.
Click to expand...
Right-libertarian schooling for all right-libertarian parents to indoctrinate their children.
 
Another thread that has backfired with an h.
 
NatMorton said:
Or maybe, just maybe, "defund the police" means exactly what it says and the phrase caught on with an audience that is prone to hyper-emotionalism and values instant gratification over objective, sober reasoning.
Click to expand...
Oddly, your comment seems to imply that you exhibit those qualities.
 
NatMorton said:
Here's another way to eliminate the vast majority of black fatalities (and I would wager fatalities of any demographic) at the hands of police that doesn't involve gutting the police's ability to do its job:
  1. Obey lawful police orders.
  2. Do not resist arrest.
...
Click to expand...
In other news, slave drivers said:
A. Whippings would be drastically reduced
B. If slaves would stop moving while they're being whipped

It's like that joke sign you'd see at workplaces, especially auto parts stores:
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Click to expand...
 
RealityNow said:
Thank you for admitting that you don't understand....

Proverbs 10:17
Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray.

Proverbs 1:5
Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance,​
Click to expand...
Correct, I do not understand you. If you wish to be understood, please write clearly and speak to the points being discussed. Thus far, you've done neither.
 
NatMorton said:
... "Defund the police" is a call to significantly reduce the level of policing in our communities.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's a good thing, unless one enjoys a militarized police state. Cities will be forced to divert funding to social services.

The other option is to direct the police "to enforce the gun control laws already on the books," and the new ones soon to be coming out of the barrel at high velocity.
 
NatMorton said:
"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.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it has been pointed out to you that this was exactly what Obama said? That if the goal is to reform the police, do not use the term "defund the police?"

So what exactly is your problem with his words? If in fact your problem is that some people really do advocate to defund the police, why did you disingenuously title this thread about Obama?

"If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it's not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan like 'Defund The Police,' but, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done."
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I didn't ask if the use of force was justified.
Click to expand...
In effect, you did. You asked whether Brown was entitled to due process, i.e. a fair legal proceeding. At the moment he was making a second attempt to steal an officer's gun, my answer remains no. Preventing him from doing more harm was the more urgent matter, and that justified his being shot by police. Had Brown survived the shooting and been restrained, then yes, he would have then been entitled to due process.
 
Is the "anti-government" crowd done begging for more police brutality via their unconscionable ignorance?
 
Antiwar said:
AOC has the best political platform out there, that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...

Yes, she wrote it during her 15 minute breaks when she was working as a barmaid last year.

I hear that if we don't implement her platform the world is going to end in 11 years, so we better get to it.

But let's not distract from the fact that you said you want to completely abolish the police.
Click to expand...

Yes. In case it isn't obvious enough, the institution of police is a complete failure. They do not protect life, liberty, or property. As far as I can tell, they exist to harass minorities and to extract the maximum amount of revenue from the populace by issuing thousand of fines for petty offenses. They also enforce gun laws and drug laws, both of which egregiously violate the rights of the American people.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
I'll admit I haven't read every post in this thread but curious who has advocated making things "better" by significantly reducing the level of policing?
Click to expand...
vegas giants in post #136, i.e. just three posts before yours. He literally said it would make things better.
 
NatMorton said:
vegas giants in post #136, i.e. just three posts before yours. He literally said it would make things better.
Click to expand...
To be clear I never used the word significantly

Some funding should be reallocated
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Do you think that the Minneapolis City Council vote to disband the police force means that the City of Minneapolis will not have a police force in the future?
Click to expand...
No, I think people are quickly learning -- the hard way -- what insufficient levels of policing leads to.
 
aociswundumho said:
Yes, she wrote it during her 15 minute breaks when she was working as a barmaid last year.
Click to expand...
That's much better than anything Republicans have come up with for the past how many decades, now? I know, you're right-libertarian.

I hear that if we don't implement her platform the world is going to end in 11 years, so we better get to it.



Yes. In case it isn't obvious enough, the institution of police is a complete failure. They do not protect life, liberty, or property. As far as I can tell, they exist to harass minorities and to extract the maximum amount of revenue from the populace by issuing thousand of fines for petty offenses. They also enforce gun laws and drug laws, both of which egregiously violate the rights of the American people.
Click to expand...
It's strange when you post pretty good comments, and when I mostly agree with them.
 
Last edited:
NatMorton said:
No, I think people are quickly learning -- the hard way -- what insufficient levels of policing leads to.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those uppity folks will get out of hand, again. That's why slave patrols (police forces) were started in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom