• 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.

Rogue Valley said:
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 debatepolitics.com
Click to expand...

I think you are in the wrong thread.
 
NatMorton said:
^^^ still more race-baiting nonsense.
Click to expand...
I suppose white folks in Baltimore that aren't "conservative" could be who you're concerned about.
 
NatMorton said:
Offer something worth discussing. I'm not going to waste much time on mindless gainsaying.
Click to expand...

Keep hiding in absolutism. I'm sure actually entering a discussion would be worse.
 
ecofarm said:
Keep hiding in absolutism. I'm sure actually entering a discussion would be worse.
Click to expand...
I'm not. I'm simply asking you to explain yourself. Under what circumstances do you think lethal force by police is necessary and justified?

Gosh, it's like you don't want to discuss it or something.
 
NatMorton said:
Where did I say or imply I had a problem with Obama's words in this matter?
Click to expand...
Simple question: Why is his even name in the title?
Did he say "not one single person in the US wants to defund the police."
No, he said, if your goal is....reform... don't say defund.
So duck and dive all you want but your thread title is disingenuous at best.
 
NatMorton said:
Far from it from my perspective. A fair number of folks on the left here have said, in so many words "Defund the police doesn't mean defunding the police even though defunding the police is what's needed."

It's all rather amusing.
Click to expand...
Maybe they're liberal centrists.
 
Where did this slogan come from?

Did people calmly sit down around a table and think it out or were they angry about George Floyd's death that they screamed it?

I think it originally meant exactly what it says, to defund the police to get rid of them. After the blowback on that, now they are trying to rebrand the message.

It is not hard to understand a portion of the rioters want no police patrols or action at all.
 
NatMorton said:
To be clear, in your opinion, under no circumstances is lethal force by police justified, yes?
Click to expand...

I have the utmost respect for police officers. It's a thankless job and one I'm not willing to do; I just don't have it in me to try to help people so much. I ain't getting shot for trying to give a speeding ticket. If I'm getting shot, it's gonna be doing something amazingly stupid.

I'm very pro gun. I'm pro Castle and SYG. I'm against making the exercising of a natural right to self defense and the realization of that natural right in the only objectively effective manner (gun possession) costly in time or money. I believe militia, in the second, refers to which arms are protected: Those of the militia (infantry). Select fire is up for discussion, but all individually issued infantry arms should be uninfringed.

All that said, we have a police brutality problem in this country. It's one that I would expect small government types to be concerned about and seek solutions regarding.

An old file dump about one case, when thousands of counter-examples exist since then, bears obvious agenda.
 
NatMorton said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's really brave of you.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Simple question: Why is his even name in the title?
Did he say "not one single person in the US wants to defund the police."
No, he said, if your goal is....reform... don't say defund.
So duck and dive all you want but your thread title is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...
I’m neither ducking nor diving. If you make an honest attempt to understand the OP you’ll see that Obama is mentioned because the “defund” crowd is reacting to something he, Obama, said.

Obama is merely the prop here. The OP is about the shortsightedness and intellectual dishonesty of the “defund” movement specifically and the social justice warriors generally.
 
Mason66 said:
Where did this slogan come from?

Did people calmly sit down around a table and think it out or were they angry about George Floyd's death that they screamed it?

I think it originally meant exactly what it says, to defund the police to get rid of them. After the blowback on that, now they are trying to rebrand the message.

It is not hard to understand a portion of the rioters want no police patrols or action at all.
Click to expand...
It’s been building for a while. The American political left has been claiming for years that America’s police forces are systemically racist. Any attempt to refute that assertion is itself cast as an expression of racism. If one really believes these claims it’s not a great leap then to assert ”if police do this much harm, why do we need so many police or why do we need them at all?”

In short, it all stems from a misdiagnoses of what is causing so many fatal altercations between black Americans and police.
 
NatMorton said:
I’m neither ducking nor diving. If you make an honest attempt to understand the OP you’ll see that Obama is mentioned because the “defund” crowd is reacting to something he, Obama, said.

Obama is merely the prop here. The OP is about the shortsightedness and intellectual dishonesty of the “defund” movement specifically and the social justice warriors generally.
Click to expand...
Yea, the more you try to spin, the tighter the knot becomes. Do really need me to quote your own thread title back to you? The one that straight out suggests Obama denies the "truth" that some people really do want to defund the police?
Either you hate Obama and are desperately trying to throw shade on him, or you simply knew you'd get more attention with your thread if you disingenuously tried to lay this at Obama's feet despite the fact he flat out said claims to "defund the police" are not the way to go.

Now, spin away... again.
 
ecofarm said:
I have the utmost respect for police officers. It's a thankless job and one I'm not willing to do; I just don't have it in me to try to help people so much. I ain't getting shot for trying to give a speeding ticket. If I'm getting shot, it's gonna be doing something amazingly stupid.

I'm very pro gun. I'm pro Castle and SYG. I'm against making the exercising of a natural right to self defense and the realization of that natural right in the only objectively effective manner (gun possession) costly in time or money. I believe militia, in the second, refers to which arms are protected: Those of the militia (infantry). Select fire is up for discussion, but all individually issued infantry arms should be uninfringed.

All that said, we have a police brutality problem in this country. It's one that I would expect small government types to be concerned about and seek solutions regarding.

An old file dump about one case, when thousands of counter-examples exist since then, bears obvious agenda.
Click to expand...
That’s a thoughtful reply, but you’ve not really answered my question.

Under what circumstances do you believe it is justified for a police officer to use lethal force?
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Yea, the more you try to spin, the tighter the knot becomes. Do really need me to quote your own thread title back to you? The one that straight out suggests Obama denies the "truth" that some people really do want to defund the police?
Either you hate Obama and are desperately trying to throw shade on him, or you simply knew you'd get more attention with your thread if you disingenuously tried to lay this at Obama's feet despite the fact he flat out said claims to "defund the police" are not the way to go.

Now, spin away... again.
Click to expand...
Obama is asserting that people don’t literally mean “defund the police.” On that point he is wrong, and you only need read several commenters’ posts in this thread to see that. If that’s not enough, you only need to read the news articles quoting community activists, like Cori Bush, rebutting Obama’s words. If you’re still wondering, then you only need read news articles on what some local governments are doing, like in Minneapolis. For many, “defund” does mean defund and Obama is doing his best to pretend that is not the case.

Regardless, if you look at the body of my OP you’ll see my point is more about those offering rebuttals to Obama’s words and less about Obama’s words.
 
NatMorton said:
That’s a thoughtful reply, but you’ve not really answered my question.

Under what circumstances do you believe it is justified for a police officer to use lethal force?
Click to expand...

Lethal force is justified in self defense. It's a case wherein violence does solve a problem. The intent is, of course and barring insanity, to stop the person and not to kill the person. If the person dies as a result of justifiably applied lethal force, that's an unfortunate outcome and the attacker is entirely to blame.

Cops should use lethal force less than civilians (so to speak). Here's why:

1. They have training in dealing with stressful situations.
2. They have training in non lethal methods.
3. They carry non lethal methods.
4. They have backup ready to speed to their location. Their life is not in the same danger as a 'civilian' regarding response time.

For these and many other reasons, greater restraint should be expected from police than from a private citizen.
 
NatMorton said:
That’s a thoughtful reply, but you’ve not really answered my question.

Under what circumstances do you believe it is justified for a police officer to use lethal force?
Click to expand...

I should note that I find the limiting of instances to "lethal" serving of racism. Such a qualification is wrought with intentional blinders.
 
ecofarm said:
Lethal force is justified in self defense. It's a case wherein violence does solve a problem. The intent is, of course and barring insanity, to stop the person and not to kill the person. If the person dies as a result of justifiably applied lethal force, that's an unfortunate outcome and the attacker is entirely to blame.

Cops should use lethal force less than civilians (so to speak). Here's why:

1. They have training in dealing with stressful situations.
2. They have training in non lethal methods.
3. They carry non lethal methods.
4. They have backup ready to speed to their location. Their life is not in the same danger as a 'civilian' regarding response time.

For these and many other reasons, greater restraint should be expected from police than from a private citizen.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I agree with your reasoning.

Which brings us back to the post that started our exchange. It read “It is always ‘nice’ to see a thread explaining why black folks should all be shot” which I took to be a charge of racism directed at me owing to my assertion that the use of lethal force on Michael Brown was entirely justified.

So, do you think Wilson’s shooting of Brown was justified under the criteria you’ve proved here?
 
NatMorton said:
Obama is asserting that people don’t literally mean “defund the police.” On that point he is wrong, and you only need read several commenters’ posts in this thread to see that. If that’s not enough, you only need to read the news articles quoting community activists, like Cori Bush, rebutting Obama’s words. If you’re still wondering, then you only need read news articles on what some local governments are doing, like in Minneapolis. For many, “defund” does mean defund and Obama is doing his best to pretend that is not the case.

Regardless, if you look at the body of my OP you’ll see my point is more about those offering rebuttals to Obama’s words and less about Obama’s words.
Click to expand...
Really, then it will be real easy for you to cite where Obama said no one really wants to defund the police. You can't because he never said that. And you know that. And that's why your thread title is disingenuous at best, a flat lie at worst.
Why not state: "Some people really do mean they want to defund the police-here's one such idiot". And they are flat wrong/or stupid. You'd get 3-4 posts in agreement, mine included, and the thread would be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom