Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 348: Trump Stumped by Massive Dumps

(+) Yeah! (+)

The best argument for Biden was that he polled better in Michigan and Wisconsin(Not by a lot, but it was slightly more)

---

why doesn't jakyl make the topic titles anymore

He does like 95% of the time.

---

whose alt

---

TheRock1525 posted...

This a pretty bad analogy.

It would be like saying "desegregate" but when asked for details you go "well it doesn't mean we literally desegregate."

No, we do want to literally defund. We want to literally reduce the amount of money given to police.

I am ONCE AGAIN asking people to engage with the actual fucking policy

---

StealThisSheen posted...

whose alt

He's named after a political figure. It's pretty clear who it likely is

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

No, we do want to literally defund. We want to literally reduce the amount of money given to police.

I am ONCE AGAIN asking people to engage with the actual fucking policy

The actual policy doesn't matter if you can't get people to come out and vote for politicians that will support it.

---

Inviso posted...

The actual policy doesn't matter if you can't get people to come out and vote for politicians that will support it.

And it also doesn't matter if no politicians will support it because of bad faith misinformation? And I have to reiterate - the slogan being bad is NOT why politicians don't support it. They don't support it because they do not want to support the policy.

Please drill this into your head. Put aside your thoughts about the stupid slogan. What do you think about the actual policy?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

And it also doesn't matter if no politicians will support it because of bad faith misinformation? And I have to reiterate - the slogan being bad is NOT why politicians don't support it. They don't support it because they do not want to support the policy.

Please drill this into your head. Put aside your thoughts about the stupid slogan. What do you think about the actual policy?

I don't have a problem with it. But I'M just part of a minority of educated internet users. For the majority OF VOTERS, they DON'T want to support the policy because defunding the police scares them. It's the job of defund advocates to get the majority OF VOTERS on their side, which it seems like you just don't want to do, since every argument comes back to "it's the establishment's fault!" or "it's the media's fault!" when you fail to convey your message to the people you need to convey it to.

---

Again, I must point to Green New Deal and Medicare for All, which I think are some pretty good slogans! They are also politically toxic for moderates.

This is not because the slogans are bad. This is because opponents of the policy manipulated opinion in such a way to make them toxic. They will always do this. Finding the "correct" slogan will not change this.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Again, I must point to Green New Deal and Medicare for All, which I think are some pretty good slogans! They are also politically toxic for moderates.

This is not because the slogans are bad. This is because opponents of the policy manipulated opinion in such a way to make them toxic. They will always do this. Finding the "correct" slogan will not change this.

Sounds like a problem with the policy then.

---

Inviso posted...

Sounds like a problem with the policy then.

Okay, then just be honest in the first place that you don't like the policy! That's what this is all about!

I promise you that support for policy would build if respected politicians came out in support of it and made the case for it, but they don't want the policy so instead of leading the public on issues they bury them.

---

Inviso posted...

It's the job of defund advocates to get the majority OF VOTERS on their side, which it seems like you just don't want to do, since every argument comes back to "it's the establishment's fault!" or "it's the media's fault!" when you fail to convey your message to the people you need to convey it to.

Also, the implication that people aren't doing this and the info isn't out there is ignorant. Since the debate over "slogan bad" is dominating the conversation, and anything that even REMOTELY resembles adequate reform is quickly tied to it, how do you expect people to make the case for the policies when everyone is so quick to distance themselves as far as possible from it?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Okay, then just be honest in the first place that you don't like the policy! That's what this is all about!

I promise you that support for policy would build if respected politicians came out in support of it and made the case for it, but they don't want the policy so instead of leading the public on issues they bury them.

You're making the assumption that the politicians are the ones halting things, and not the voters. We keep hearing about those polls talking about widespread support for MfA or DtP, but then voters do not turn out to vote for politicians that support those policies. Politicians shouldn't be subverting the will of the people. That's how we get the GOP.

---

Inviso posted...

You're making the assumption that the politicians are the ones halting things, and not the voters. We keep hearing about those polls talking about widespread support for MfA or DtP, but then voters do not turn out to vote for politicians that support those policies. Politicians shouldn't be subverting the will of the people. That's how we get the GOP.

I think this is a gross oversimplification of why voters vote for who they do. I don't think the actual policies matter too much. If your problem is that "Defund" is bad messaging, then that's an admission that messaging is key. But since messaging is key, scare tactics are always going to be effective. So what you actually need to do is fight those scare tactics, and part of that is not to sit around and agree that slogans are bad while doing nothing else.

And I'm also not really assuming politicians are halting things and not the voters, what I actually think is happening is that Dems rely too much on focus tested messages and opinion polling instead of driving a narrative and it backfires a lot on them.

---

I think the last time the Dems really pushed for progressive (by American standards) policy, it led to a massive swing in the House that fucked Obama's agenda for the last six years of his presidency. So yes, they're gunshy, and the voters have yet to give them a reason to behave differently.

---

Inviso posted...

I think the last time the Dems really pushed for progressive (by American standards) policy, it led to a massive swing in the House that fucked Obama's agenda for the last six years of his presidency. So yes, they're gunshy, and the voters have yet to give them a reason to behave differently.

Well they tried to moderate and they lost the presidency and then the Senate, and I don't necessarily disagree with you but what I'm saying is, maybe it's time to run a few hail maries because regardless of the Georgia results, 2022 will be such a fucking shitshow that there isn't much to lose

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Okay, then just be honest in the first place that you don't like the policy! That's what this is all about!

I promise you that support for policy would build if respected politicians came out in support of it and made the case for it, but they don't want the policy so instead of leading the public on issues they bury them.

Can you send me a link to the official "defund the police" policy? Everyone i know in the political circle seems to have a different definition

---

Inviso posted...

I think the last time the Dems really pushed for progressive (by American standards) policy, it led to a massive swing in the House that fucked Obama's agenda for the last six years of his presidency. So yes, they're gunshy, and the voters have yet to give them a reason to behave differently.

Democrats tried mildly Progressive policy (read: not) and lost the midterms...then continued to hold the L nationally for the next 8 while doing nothing even approaching progressive...and you think thats the WINNING approach?

---

https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/status/1334692794829471745

Fight! Fight! Fight!

banananor posted...

Can you send me a link to the official "defund the police" policy? Everyone i know in the political circle seems to have a different definition

Because they do. Some want to reallocate funds. Some literally want the police abolished.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Democrats tried mildly Progressive policy (read: not) and lost the midterms...then continued to hold the L nationally for the next 8 while doing nothing even approaching progressive...and you think thats the WINNING approach?

What wins have progressives gotten outside of solid blue areas?

---

banananor posted...

Can you send me a link to the official "defund the police" policy? Everyone i know in the political circle seems to have a different definition

Well it's a decentralized movement so it doesn't have an "official" policy page like Joe Biden. But briefly, it involves:

• decreasing police budgets and redirecting funds to the community, as an alternative means of crime prevention
• preventing militarization of police
• redistributing jobs police shouldn't be doing (mental health services, traffic handling, non-violent disputes) to civilian roles
• decriminalizing non-violent crimes like drug use and possession to free police resources for more harmful crime and free up money for addiction health services
• holding police accountable, part of which would involve ending qualified immunity, forcing them to be financially liable for some damages instead it being paid for by the city PD

If you are interested in reading something and not just trying to be snarky, I can recommend "Are Prisons Obsolete" by Angela Davis if you want to learn about the foundational flaws of the entire criminal justice system which will help to clarify the role police have in it.

---

I feel like it should be noted that the leaders of the most successful activist movement in recent US history, the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's, were very concerned with optics. Their actions were all carefully stage managed to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Rosa Parks was specifically chosen for the Montgomery bus boycott for example, because she was considered very appealing and sympathetic, as opposed to another woman who was a single mother. The activists knew how their opponents would respond and attempted to address those issues with their approach.

---

Yesmar_ posted...

I feel like it should be noted that the leaders of the most successful activist movement in recent US history, the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's, were very concerned with optics. Their actions were all carefully stage managed to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Rosa Parks was specifically chosen for the Montgomery bus boycott for example, because she was considered very appealing and sympathetic, as opposed to another woman who was a single mother. The activists knew how their opponents would respond and attempted to address those issues with their approach.

Sure, but also MLKs Letter from Birmingham Jail famously identified white moderates as a bigger roadblock than the KKK because of their priority of keeping up appearances over getting shit done.

Inviso posted...

What wins have progressives gotten outside of solid blue areas?

I mean Florida, in spite of the gusanos, managed to pass a $15 minimum wage, just off the top of my head because its local to me.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/democrats-are-blaming-wrong-people/617281/

Its kind of crazy how much all of these recent posts relate.

From the article:

And both can misinform. Four years ago, Democrats final messaging was which bathroom one could use, the Democratic consultant Dane Strother told The New York Times. This year it was Defund the Police. Similarly, the political scientist Bernard Grofman wrote, Defund the police is the second stupidest campaign slogan any Democrat has uttered in the twenty first century. It is second in stupidity only to Hillary Clintons 2016 comment that half of Trumps supporters belong in a basket of deplorables.
In fact, Clinton did not use basket of deplorables as a campaign slogan in 2016. Progressive Democrats hardly used Defund the police as a campaign slogan in 2020. Even though a majority of Democrats (55 percent) support defunding the police, only one in 10 Republicans and only one in three Americans support that goal, according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll. So few Democratic candidates were actually saying Defund the police on the campaign trail that Republican operatives and candidates demanded they break their silence on the issue.

It is massively disingenuous and reactionary to bring up defund the police on Republican terms and assign it as this big campaign slogan progressives ran on.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Sure, but also MLKs Letter from Birmingham Jail famously identified white moderates as a bigger roadblock than the KKK because of their priority of keeping up appearances over getting shit done.

white progressives havent exactly been on board here either.

---

Yesmar_ posted...

I feel like it should be noted that the leaders of the most successful activist movement in recent US history, the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's, were very concerned with optics. Their actions were all carefully stage managed to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Rosa Parks was specifically chosen for the Montgomery bus boycott for example, because she was considered very appealing and sympathetic, as opposed to another woman who was a single mother. The activists knew how their opponents would respond and attempted to address those issues with their approach.

This isn't wrong but it's also an oversimplification, because it involved plenty of fighting and also required politicians to be willing to work with the activists. There was still friction within activist circles that working too closely with the politicians was in some aspects was detrimental and confusing to the movement. And the movement was still viewed as radical overall. Also...all the good optics didn't stop the FBI from trying to slander and kill MLK.

The big difference here is that BLM and defund are largely decentralized and lack these kind of huge national leaders by design, and the big similarity is that the major factor turning public opinion is the violence being committed against activists. A lot of this strategy for optics you mention involved getting the violence out in the open, which is still the case. Today, you can tell it's slowly working but you can certainly feel the resistance to it, in the form of excuses for police and outright hostility to dismantling their power to perpetuate violence.

---

red13n posted...

white progressives havent exactly been on board here either.

MLK was an outright socialist so he probably would consider you a moderate too

---

the hell are you even talking about? i wasn't talking about me.

---

then replace you with the people you are talking about

---

I mean, I openly support what "Defund the police" stands for. I just think its a dumb slogan. So I'm not even sure how you got to that statement in the first place.

---

You basically just called Bernie Sanders a moderate as well, so I'm confused.

---

Bernie Sanders is very moderate on police reform!

Well maybe not very, he is still left of most politicians but its for sure one of his most center-left positions

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Bernie Sanders is very moderate on police reform!

Well maybe not very, he is still left of most politicians but its for sure one of his most center-left positions

No, hes not.

---

People have to understand that people thinking "Defund the police" is a bad slogan does not mean they don't support the underlying policy. The slogan is political poison.

It doesn't mean you don't support the cause. If your going to eat the people that support the cause but think a slogan of all things is dumb, you might as well give up because your movement is dead(Dont do this).

---

I'm not "eating" Bernie Sanders (what?) I'm just pointing out the fact that some of the stuff proposed by the defund movement is well to his left. He supports a lot of the infrastructure and community investment proposals (which is good!) but is pretty silent or avoids talking about stuff that would require less funding. That's always been his thing. And his policies are mostly pretty good. Bernie IS moderating his message, but he isn't the politicians I'm worrying about here. The ones complaining loudest about the Defund movement would not be caught dead endorsing Bernie's policies either.

---

Wait do you actually think defunding means defunding?

It typically refers to a reallocation of police resources, which some of those things you mentioned are a part of.

The problem would not be fixed by just going"hey use less money".

Leafeon13N posted...

Wait do you actually think defunding means defunding?

It typically refers to a reallocation of police resources, which some of those things you mentioned are a part of.

The problem would not be fixed by just going"hey use less money".

Yes? Let me give you an example.

Bernie supports doing things like offloading certain roles to non-police civilians and decriminalizating a bunch of stuff to get rid of a lot of pointless fines PDs use to raise money for themselves. All that is good! Crucially, it also ends up reallocating resources away from the police at the same time. Biden's compromise here is to have civilians work with the police which is am alright start but risks the police departments absorbing those roles entirely again.

Anyways. When asking about defunding police Bernie said he opposed it, and actually wants to increase funding! Let's say I believe him. We are now in a situation where Bernie just eliminated a bunch of police jobs but still has a ton of idle cops laying around. Defund would say we don't need those guys. Bernie's keeping them around and so resources are not actually being reallocated - we just have a bunch of idle cops to reassign. Maybe that's fine, but since policing is broken the risk is they move on to other bad cop shit. Now you get into demilitarization and accountability which does actually just require making it illegal for police to acquire certain resources and prevent them from using money to defend their unjust violence. That's just straight up restricting money, and again you have to ask where it is going if it stays within the police force.

And look if you want to spend a bunch on social programs that's great but a major part of why Defund specifically became a thing is that people always ask "how will you pay for it?" and well...

The problem is no one, not even Bernie, knows how to talk about this shit. That's why that even if you think Defund is a bad slogan, it doesn't matter because even the politicians that would be interested got nothing. And anyways, most politicians aren't interested and that's why they make the slogan the issue.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The problem is no one, not even Bernie, knows how to talk about this shit. That's why that even if you think Defund is a bad slogan, it doesn't matter because even the politicians that would be interested got nothing. And anyways, most politicians aren't interested and that's why they make the slogan the issue.

Politicians should rarely talk specifics on campaigns. People simply don't have the brainpower to understand more than the basic tag line.

This is part of why the slogan is bad.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Anyways. When asking about defunding police Bernie said he opposed it, and actually wants to increase funding! Let's say I believe him.

In fairness, I think part of this is because one wanted and generally agreed upon reform for police is body cams. Which are going to take a pretty large capital investment to start.

The comparison is dumb because the police could maintain the same level of funding with no ill effect if other justice reforms took play. Segregation had no viable... hell, any alternatives whatsoever.

so comparing defund the police to eliminate segregation is asinine.


---

Leafeon13N posted...

Politicians should rarely talk specifics on campaigns. People simply don't have the brainpower to understand more than the basic tag line.

This is part of why the slogan is bad.

Okay, now how do they address their own messaging when their opponents will use ANY messaging against them? This is the root of the problem. It is not unique to this specific slogan. If politicians just denounce slogans but have no message, no one will believe them. At the very least, embracing the slogan would offer more control over the narrative.

Leafeon13N posted...

In fairness, I think part of this is because one wanted and generally agreed upon reform for police is body cams. Which are going to take a pretty large capital investment to start.

Also no, body cams are much less useful without accountability itself. Otherwise it's way too easy to get around. This is a big sticking point with defund and the go-to example of how the current strategy of throwing money at the problem doesn't fix much, you need to change the underlying strategy. See also bias training.

---

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1334405463375417344

What a fucking joke of a person

---

Defund is an OK slogan for cities but a bad one in other areas. Especially with the riots. Plenty of towns have decent police relationships and conduct and don't overtly bear the weight of systematic issues.

I think people can understand the need to invest in community/social workers and community infrastructure. But what I see is a lot of "ACAB" and "Defund the police" and perhaps more inflammatory statements. I feel like when the flaws of Defund were pointed out, people just double down on it, or say things like "people are dumb and don't understand nuance". I'd say, use that to your advantage!

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Okay, now how do they address their own messaging when their opponents will use ANY messaging against them?

Just because opponents will use it against them doesn't mean it's effective. Defund is effective as an attack because it is easy for people to understand.

red sox 777 posted...

I think Biden may just be a stronger candidate than Hillary.

i used to think this too but after seeing biden's performance in the last election, i'm not so sure anymore. biden got a pretty narrow victory against trump during covid. maybe hillary winning the popular vote was more impressive than she got credit for.

then again, trump had incumbent advantage this time so it might have evened out.

---

Instead of Defund the Police, it should have been Refund the Police. Then when you're dealing with antagonistic parties, you play dumb and say "No, I said Re-Fund the Police".

Game.Set.Match.

---

So I'm hearing there is a new lawsuit in GA again aimed at throwing out legal votes based on a technicality when they were counted.

This despite the fact that GA has already done a full recount of the presidential election so any issues would have been found and fixed.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i used to think this too but after seeing biden's performance in the last election, i'm not so sure anymore. biden got a pretty narrow victory against trump during covid. maybe hillary winning the popular vote was more impressive than she got credit for.

then again, trump had incumbent advantage this time so it might have evened out.

I don't think the pandemic actually affected the election results that much. At worst Trump would have won the popular vote narrowly. It's pretty messed up he got a greater share of the popular vote than in 2016 yet has lost the electoral college as badly as he won it back then. The EC is dumb.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I mean Florida, in spite of the gusanos, managed to pass a $15 minimum wage, just off the top of my head because its local to me.

Okay. Good. Now what about any sort of progressive POLITICAL win? Because until we put literally every progressive policy up to a straight ballot initiative vote, we have to rely on elected officials, and there is no evidence that people will turn out to vote for politicians that even potentially push for those progressive policies. Also, as far as ballot initiatives go, if voters keep voting for GOP politicians in direct contradiction to the progressive policies they allegedly want implemented, then we wind up with things like the "I know you voted to re-enfranchise former felons, but we still want to keep them from voting" matter we dealt with in recent years.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Wait do you actually think defunding means defunding?

This is what cracks me up.

---