Democrats love masks

:0)

Seal of Approval - 4z05qo.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

Well, liberals didn’t start the KKK. Democrats did.

Democrats are modern liberals. Unless you're using the term liberal in the classical use of the term like our founder were. Then I would agree with you.

Modern democrats are liberal. KKK founders were conservatives. KKK founders were democrats. Therefore, KKK founding democrats were conservatives.

That KKK Founders were conservative is nothing but an empty claim - not an argument to support one. The liberal Democrats that started the KKK are the same liberal Democrats of today, but that depends on how you're using the term liberal. Democrats - like LBJ - learned they could better profit from minorities by keeping them poor and voting for handouts in inner cities rather than picking cotton on plantations.

Your arguments are tired. The founding of the KKK or more accurately, refounding in 1915, was inspired by writings of the daughter's of the Confederacy. They sold pamphlets glorifying the almost defunct KKK to fund building Confederate monuments. Who defends these monuments now?

The small government, states rights, Confederate flag flying, Democratic party is most similar to todays _____ party.

When Strom Thurmond, the guy who led the filibuster against the civil rights act left the Democratic party and ran as a Republican, was he rejected? Did he lose?

Your "minorities don't know what's good for them" argument sounds a lot like the slavery justification that said we were just overseeing the development of the slaves and would let them go on that happy day when they were developed enough to do it themselves.

What definition of liberal and conservative are you going by? Please paste and don't just say "tHe cLaSsIcAl oNe"

How can my arguments be tired when I haven't offered any arguments? You haven't offered anything that needs to be counterargued - just empty claims.

The monuments being defended in modern times are not exclusively civil rights monuments, but all historical monuments. Only barbarians tear down their history. You offered a faulty comparison fallacy while omitting relevant factors.

You don't know what you're talking about. The KKK was inspired by blacks being afforded the right to vote as a result of the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments - which Democrats opposed. Democrats formed the KKK as a terrorist organization to keep blacks from voting. Republicans then had to escort them to the polls as a result.

Very good. You named a single Democrat who switched sides. This is typically the name that comes up during the " Party Switch" claim. If the parties truly did " Switch sides" You should be able to produce dozens of such examples. Where are they?

What " minorities don't know what's good for them " argument? Do you have a mouse in your pocket or are you making faulty deductions in the form of strawmen arguments?

Bonus question in regards to this topic. If Democrats truly are the party of "Civil rights" and the parties "Switched sides " so that blacks could eventually start voting for the party looking out for their best interest. Tell me, why did the shift of blacks voting for Democrats occur during the 30s and 40s under FDR's new deal benefits to blacks. And not during the 60's during civil rights - when their friends the Democrats supposedly set them free from bondage?

When I use the term " liberal " I am using it in the modern sense of denoting a "progressives" political position. Not classical liberals like our founders. You misunderstood my use of the term classical. You took it as meaning " typical" example. Showing your lack of historical knowledge of political parties and their leanings..

Only barbarians Tear down - monuments on public lands are maintained with taxpayer dollars depicting traitors. Tearing down history - no tearing down monuments meant to push the lost cause narrative. Some monuments probably weren't made with that in mind and may authentically be about remembering the fallen, not glorifying what the south tried to accomplish. If that's so, I hope those monuments are judged individually. Fun fact: the daughter's of the cofederacy also built a monument to the KKK.

There have been 3 iterations of the KKK. You refer to the first. It was all but destroyed by federal forces. The second was a bit more antisemetic and anti Catholic than the first. The current KKK was founded I'm the 50s. The second was inspired by the unified daughter's of the Confederacy.

Why did the switch happen in the 30s/40s? You keep assuming that black people were tricked it lured. The split between northern and southern democrats got aggravated here. In the north and west blacks began to vote Democratic based on policies. Southern democrats began to be unreliable when it came to voting for presidential candidates, though they still voted for their local Dixiecrats. The switch finally occurred when republicans started courting those Dixiecrat voters.

Sanger? What about her? Eugenics is bad. That doesn't change the fact that Planned Parenthood isn't sterilizing women or running breeding programs.

Take a guess as which race has the highest percentage of aborted babies.

And yet the birth rate is pretty much the same across demographics. If abortion is a plan to eliminate a race, it is the worst plan in the history of mankind.

It was her plan. It succeeded in that blacks are destroying their babies at an alarming rate. She was a racist who thought she could dwindle the black population over time through abortion.

Women and the new race - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8660
She mentions blacks not at all (not surprising considering when it was written) and negros twice.
Weeding once - "Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."

Chapter III - "The materials of the new race" sounds like it might be what you wanted. It starts out pretty bad. She asks if the foreigners coming here are actually making us better. At first it sounds like no - she talks about how many come over illiterate, in poverty, etc. But then she talks about the spirit that brings them here.

She talks about creating 'an American race' but I don't see where she excluded anyone except based on merit. The last sentence of the chapter

"We shall see that it will save the precious metals of racial culture, fused into an amalgam of physical perfection, mental strength and spiritual progress. Such an American race, containing the best of all racial elements, could give to the world a vision and a leadership beyond our present imagination."

So, please point me to where she says what you implied.

Source? Non-crazy person source if you have it, but I can evaluate for myself.

How about....Margaret Sanger herself?

"Birth Control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

I suggest you read her book "Women and the New Race." There's a whole chapter in there where she explains her goal of "getting rid of the weeds (blacks)."

Eugenics - it makes sense on the surface, right? You breed the race for good traits. If someone has 'defects' they don't breed and we become stronger. Its like evolution, or breeding livestock. It all sounds like a great idea...until you think about it. Because then you either have to have a population that is totally onboard with asking permission to breed or you have to enforce it. Neither solution sounds like a fun society to live in.

Now the Sanger quote, I don't think it was racist. I think racial elements means the elements of each race. Like breeding dogs. "On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

"keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class."

You also need to remember what it was like before birth control. Its easy for us to forget. Some families had more children than they could take care of. If you literally cannot feed your family you might make some very poor decisions. Accidental pregnancies were pretty much only avoidable by abstinence, and that ain't happening. So, while her belief in birth control was based on Eugenics, people are generally more complex than one idea.

"Usually this desire [for family limitation] has been laid to economic pressure... It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion."

"It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide."

Even non-race based eugenics is scary though. Who decides what is or isn't merit? I'm actually reminded of a Star Trek: TNG episode where Geordi is talking to a Romulan and tells him he was born blind. His response was to say that this was why Humans were weak. "And your parents let you live? You waste time and resources on defective children."

Good Lord, you ramble on about Margaret Sanger as if any of her thoughts had merit.

No, I ramble on like your black genocide conspiracy theory doesn't hold up.

Oh, it's not my conspiracy theory. It's Sanger's herself.

With regards to what was literally called "The Negro Project," which specifically sought to underwrite black pastors to peddle her vision:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

The project sought to provide birth control. That's it. Her while schtick was allowing families to control the number of kids they had so that each child had the resources to thrive.

If I'm wrong, show me.

I already did.

You are blinded by revisionist history crafted by admirers of progressivism no matter the moral cost.

I'm not blinded, i'm skeptical. Its funny how the professional skeptics seem to take offense to anyone being skeptical of them. Irony is king.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Does she mean that there is a plan or that she doesn't want rumors to start? I could read it either way. Apparently those who have read the correspondence it came from seem to think it was concerned with rumors, not an actual plan when read in context. I didn't see the actual correspondence anywhere and am not going to look at this point. However, MLK seemed to think her efforts were "to preserve human life under humane conditions".

I'm not going to change your mind, and if there was sufficient evidence to make your point, I imagine one or both of us would have stumbled across it. The thing is, even if that was her intent, it doesn't change much. Henry Ford was an anti-Semite who's writings were sited as inspiration by the Nazi party. I doubt that has much influence on Ford Motors today. I imagine I could find some dirt on any number of surgeons who pioneered life changing surgeries. Even were that the original plan of planned parenthood, I see no way for you to link a service offered equally to all races to that plan.

It's not taken out of context. That's why she -in the same writing, no less- talks about the need to bankroll black pastors and other community activists to promote her goals.

Revise it all you like, the truth remains, and it is ugly.

Is a choice. Nobody is forced to get an abortion (unless you count the pressures of lack of healthcare or a livable wage as force).

That is just a poor excuse for killing your unborn child.

I hope nobody gets an abortion, but if a kid was on life support, it would be the parents choice about ending care. If there was an objection to a life saving surgery, I'm pretty sure the parents decide. I leave the decision between the expectant mother and doctor. I support programs that I hope will lower the numbers. I think any attempt to stop abortion without addressing the reason a woman finds that option to be the preferred choice is probably going to end poorly.

The root cause is a choice too.

I find 'personal responsibility' only works at the individual level. If lack of personal responsibility is the cause, you wouldn't expect it to make a difference statistically since, all things being equal, the same number of individuals should be making poor choices among other races. When you start to see statistical patterns such as more of one race incarcerated or living in poverty, you either have to conclude that more of that race is inferior (hard no for me), or that there are societal factors.

I'm not defending Sanger, because I don't know enough about her one way or the other, but she reportedly didn't allow any discrimination among her staff. Also, according to her autobiography, she did speak before the KKK, but only did it because she was willing to speak in front of anyone who would listen. She described the audience of that speech as all half-wits.

Now maybe that is BS and public relations after the fact. I'm actually not sure why it matters.

and i see some in the muppet class are trotting out the classics.confusing liberal and conservative.
you can be a conservative democrat,and a liberal republican.
both in our f**ked up two party duopoly have shifted ideologies over their existence.

because politics is about POWER,not your wittle fee-fees.

stop with the revisionist history you cock juggling thunder c**ts.

stream appears to have a muppet infestation,but not as many nazis as last year.

you were SUPPOSED to keep the stream clear homie!
very disappointed.

i tease.
how you be my friend?
hope you are doing well during these...interesting times.

Honestly, I've been working a lot lately and there has been an infestation of Middle-schoolers on the site, and adults who think like them (see current thread). And then there are the sensitive types who can't take a single comment that questions their narrative (right, left, and anything in between). But...I'm a dick, and it is my sworn duty to protect pussies from assholes and f**k em both when I get a chance cuz they both need it, and each one thinks it's the other. Haven't seen Vag for a while, guess he doesn't like making kids cry as much as I do. lol

i know he had severe health issues.

You're a winner among the special ed.

hey,aren't you that twat waffle that disables comments?

why you commenting at me?

f**k outta here with that pansy shit.
i only talk to adults.

"hey,aren't you that twat waffle that disables comments?"

This isn't my meme. And crap here is exactly why I disable my comments. You don't like it, feel free to not respond back.

"why you commenting at me?"

Because I feel like it.

"f**k outta here with that pansy shit.
i only talk to adults."

So you think you're the adult? I'm not the one using personal insults to "debate" a political topic like you are.

oh jesus christ,grow some balls will ya?

of course you can comment at me,i was giving ya shit for disabling YOUR comments on YOUR thread.

and this ain't a debate,and you haven't brought up a topic.
f**k me..put your big boy pants on will ya?

/walks away mumbling
f**king responding in bullet form..f**k me..this world is doomed..

"oh jesus christ,grow some balls will ya?"

This is a political stream, in which the rules clearly state to be respectful. So far, in this brief encounter you have failed on that front. I am guilty of doing exactly what you are doing now and I am getting tired of doing it. I am not a p*ssy. If I were I would have not only flagged your comments, but also would have reported you.

"and this ain't a debate,and you haven't brought up a topic.
f**k me..put your big boy pants on will ya?"

You're the one who seems a bit rattled. I merely responded to your comment and you're going off the handle, throwing profanities. Profanities don't hurt my feelings. I am trying to get away from childish interactions within my own memes and was hoping for a logical and reasonable conversation here, but I suppose that isn't possible. My original response was due to the fact I knew that "cock juggling thunder c**t" line was from Ryan Reynold's character in the third Blade movie. you seem pissed off for some reason. Was it the "you're a winner among the special ed" comment?

I now know to steer clear of you if I want to have a logical discussion from here on out. Duly noted.

i just don't respect those who disable comments.

but you actually cleared that up,and explained why.
and ya know what?
that's fair.

thanks for clarifying.

*note* i give every user who disable comments shit.not just you homie.

Exactly. The party of Satan.

And I'll bet you think Trumpers couldn't possibly be a cult.

Trumps Presidency - 3 Impeachment Attempts.
Biden Presidency - 0.
Which side is bat-shit crazy obsessed again?

Correction - Trump was impeached twice.
The first time he asked a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political opponent, the second time he incited a f**king insurrection.

Right because telling people to protest “peacefully and patriotically” is incitement. What’s next, prosecuting schoolteachers for telling kids to have a friendly game of dodgeball?

He's literally the sole reason for the insurrection, and he said a lot more inflammatory stuff than just "peacefully".

Compared to who? Maxine 'Get in their faces' Water or Nancy 'Tearing up Speeches' Pelosi?

They didn't inspire an insurrection.

I thought the sole reason was that the far right wackos were planning it beforehand on social media.

Which wouldn't have happened without Trump's Big Lie.

I also agree it wouldn’t have happened had he not spent the months beforehand spewing BS about the election. HOWEVER, the point I’m making is that his final speech did not explicitly tell anybody to riot. In fact, the only times he ever specifically told anybody to do anything in the speech was telling them to peacefully protest and then to “make their voices heard”. Nowhere in there did he say let’s hang Pelosi or anything like that.

Question: if politicians spreading lies to get their supporters fired up which leads to a riot is justifiable reason to prosecute the politicians, would you agree to hold Democrats to the same standards for lying about racism?

People rioting when police aren't charged, are let go, etc. is a bit different. I don't think politicians are more than riding the wave one way or the other on that one. I think the racism is real. Sometimes people take the side of the victim over the officer and it turns out to be wrong, but there's also people who take the cops side no matter how damning the evidence. Personally, I think taking the victims side is in accordance with innocent until proven guilty.

If you could somehow establish that the politicians know they are spreading falsehood and/or are trying to cause a riot, then yes, they should be charged.

It’s better not to put that as a requirement, or else Trumpers could just as easily argue that Trump honestly thinks the election was stolen so it’s ok. Those who lie for gain in positions of power should be removed, simple as that.

It’s not like there’s no way for them to find data on the subject, but that fact that they still push this systemic racism crap, encourage the ACAB crowd, and some have even bailed out rioters tells me their true side.

Trump can claim he thought there was election fraud, but he or his associates also have released videos edited down to look suspicious when they aren't on the full video (GA - state farm). Plus you have the history that Trump claimed there would be fraud in the Primary leading up to him being the candidate (and he won), claimed the results of the 2016 election couldn't be trusted (and he won), and then did the same for 2020 and he lost. Its a pattern of him preemptively making an excuse so it isn't his fault if he loses.

I know too many people of color who have had encounters with the police that were clearly unacceptable. A guy I used to work with was traffic stopped, pulled out and handcuffed facedown while they searched his car. He said it was humiliating, he was on the main street in his town and people were driving by. When they finally let him up because he didn't have anything, the reason? Air freshener hanging from the mirror is a moving violation. He got mad and complained to the captain/chief of police (I don't remember, not my story) because his grandma was big in the community and knew him. A week later he was on the other side of town leaving a friends house at 1 am after playing video games. He said he went to get in his car and police lights came on behind him. Same cop from the traffic stop drove by and smiled at him, met his eyes, and then turned the lights off and drove away.

Now this is one example, and is therefore anecdotal evidence. But I know other people who've had similarly creepy experiences.

I initially dismissed these as obvious one offs or mistakes. But at some point you kind of have to realize that either you have a lot of black and brown people lying about their experiences, there are a lot more exceptions than there should be, and/or that there is systemic racism.

I don't think ACAB, but some are. I think the question becomes, how many? A bad apple ruins the barrel, as the saying goes.

Systemic racism doesn't require any specific person in the chain to be racist at this point. Crimes that POC are arrested for more frequently often have higher sentencing guidelines than similar crimes. There also doesn't seem to be an issue with assuming that a POC is suspicious or dangerous looking. The tendency to look at POC's history to justify the action too is disgusting.

Chauvin/Floyd for example - even if Chauvin wasn't in any way motivated by race, the DA wasn't going to file charges until the riots.

Unfortunately bringing up 1 case (even though the cop on that situation is 100% in the wrong) does not represent the nation's entire police force. The fact of the matter is researchers who have looked into this don't pin the data differences on racism, the only people who call it racism are those who are looking to gain something from it.

But let's forget what percent of the police force is part of those bad apples for a second and answer me this: What do you think should be done about it?

One case - I admitted it was one case. But it was also just an example as I have heard others. I agree that it doesn't represent all police. Of course it doesn't, but...

I use the analogy of the Catholic church (which works really well because Diocese apparently have a level of independence much like a police precinct). There were accusations of abuse. Cardinals and the like covered it up and moved the accused priests. Sometimes they probably believed the priests, sometimes they didn't want the bad press, sometimes probably much worse reasons. Abuse continued. I'm sure there were Diocese that handled it better than others. Now, do I think all priests are bad? No. But there have been enough cases that we don't give the priest the benefit of the doubt anymore. It is unfortunate for those good priests, but we need to take very accusation seriously. The catholic church now requires all abuse claims to be reported to the police where previously that was left at the discretion of the Cardinal (I may be getting catholic terms messed up here). Most priests are good, but now we have distrust of all because those bad apples weren't handled properly.

And I want to make sure you understand this, because for some reason it seems to be something people don't get - it has nothing to do with what the suspects crimes were. Nobody is saying (in most cases) that they are innocent. It isn't even the individual cop (like Chauvin) because there will always be bad cops. Its the fact that even with the tape, Chauvin wasn't arrested immediately. It is that the DA said they weren't sure if they were even going to file charges. It that the cop who shot Philando Castile was let off even though Philando did nothing wrong. That isn't justice. For Chauvin, there was enough evidence that there never should have been doubt that it needed to go to trial. There seems to be an assumption that POC are suspicious enough that it is understandable why cops might have overreacted, and that is unacceptable. Because it seems like black lives matter just a little less.

In the example of the catholic church mosts priests have the logical reaction, which is they are angry at those who do commit abuse for ruining the reputation of the rest. So why is it any different for black people? Why is it the police who are the problem meanwhile 13% of the population is responsible for 50% of the murder and black on black crime is basically ignored? It is absurd to inflate the minor percent who are in the wrong but ignore heaps of counter data. Of course it’s still not justified anytime a cop pulls over a black man for doing literally nothing, I would just like you to see beyond the one side.

“There seems to be an assumption that POC are suspicious enough that it is understandable why cops might have overreacted, and that is unacceptable.”

Once again, 13% does 50%.
Besides, I’m half black. I’ve grown up around both cultures and can tell you that the black culture is infected with gang influence. Dressing, walking, and talking like thugs is the norm. Me, who dresses normally and speaks properly was called a cracker for years, I was accused of being “too white”. The regressive culture is the problem here, which is why it’s the stupidest thing when I come across the SJW idiots who would have us believe that everybody in the world commits the same types of crime at the same rate and the only possible reason for a difference is because of discrimination, which is some of the most dangerous BS to pound into people’s heads because it makes them see themselves as victims and it makes them angry.

Well, I'm probably not qualified to answer this, but when has that stopped me?

What should be done - accountability and transparency. It doesn't matter if it is racism or just bad cops. Motive isn't really that important. If its happening, its happening. If its not, its not.

The cops who stormed Brianna Taylors apartment. (Ignoring that they lied to get the warrant, which ought to invalidate the whole thing and make it home invasion.) Any serving of a warrant should require that bodycams be activated. They also should have waited for SWAT (as SWAT recommended).

No knock warrants should be locked down more (they actually are supposed to only be used in certain circumstances, but there is a fairly general loophole that is used). They should be limited to someone's life being in danger. Perhaps some other exceptions, but definitely more restricted than now.

Bodycam footage should fall under the freedom of information act. If it can't be released due to an ongoing investigation, then there should be an independent body who reviews them.

There should be a standardized policy for how/who reviews when an officer fires there gun on someone. I would suggest that all such cases be independently investigated. It is innocent until proven guilty, after all.

There should be a national review of best practices to make sure that things like knees on back, choke holds, etc. are being consistently applied.

Most of these would protect cops as well. If there were a consistent national policy on the use of holds, then right away Chauvin either was following his training, or he wasn't.

Police need to not be the first responders in every situation - there are actually a few police forces that have complained about this for years because they don't feel like its fair to expect them to handle anything that isn't EMT or FD. A lot of the worst offenses have happened because people who would have been better served by a social worker showing up were instead faced with a police officer. Eugene Oregon has had a program for 30 years that sends out someone other than cops first. If you've never heard about it: https://whitebirdclinic.org/what-is-cahoots/ Maybe just get a drunk an cab instead of arresting them.

A database of police so that if they are fired, they can't just go somewhere else. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-alabama-state-trooper-fake-letter-20210506-7ilepc5fcvfbdlud4di3eepnta-story.html

Well you named better accountability and more release of information like body cam footage and so son. I fully agree with those, so good job being based. (I was just checking to make sure you’re not in the abolish PD crowd.)

Its Defund the police, not abolish (probably some have said abolish, I can't help that). It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Most people don't mean fully defund the police, but they see the ever escalating police budgets as an issue and possible conflict of interests. To justify those budgets, police have to show results. If there are fewer arrests, are the police doing anything? If crime rates legitimately go down, shouldn't budgets? Our crime rates have been declining a lot since the 90's, but police budgets haven't been. There is food for thought there. Couple that with the for-profit prisons and my concern grows.

Like I said, why send a cop for a drunk if a taxi will do? If someone is sleeping on the street, send a social worker to try and get them into a shelter. Save actual armed police officers for situations that warrant them. Those officers can then also be better trained and specialized. Probably better paid too.

If you look at the cahoots thing, they show what it is considered to cost to send out an officer vs one of their teams, and it is a significant savings.

I still think you’re looking at this wrong. If crime rates have gone down as the police budget increases shouldn’t that be testament to exactly why we need police? Plus, cities that have embraced a defunding of police have seen a spike in crime. Hmm, see the connection?

Different for black people - because you don't choose the color of your skin. You're half black - do you feel the need to apologize for Chauvin or George Floyd? Do you feel it right that people would expect you to apologize for the crimes of someone else based on the circumstances of your birth? I would guess not. Being a police officer is a job, and one with an implied degree of trust. To go back to the church, we are concerned about Priests, not the race of the specific priest.

Black on black crime is a manipulative term, which is why it’s ignored. Almost all crime is limited by geography and personal relationships. Most crimes are <race> on <race>. Calling out black on black crime implies "if you can murder/rob each other, why are you complaining about others?” Could the same logic be applied to other races? If so, we shouldn't care about anyone. But again, people don't choose their race.

Inflate the number who are wrong - We doubt the numbers at this point. A guy I listen to on YouTube is an ex-soldier who used to teach cops de-escalation. He stopped after he told an officer that certain things would cause most people to instinctively fight back as an involuntary reaction. The cop responded that what he put on the report is what happened and nobody else in the room felt any need to correct him or call him out. If you are interested: https://youtu.be/BmjB7TUroyE

It doesn't matter what the statistics are. There seems to be some misunderstanding that stereotyping and discrimination is based on lies and if it’s true, then it’s not bad. Most stereotypes are based on things that are common, but you don't get to judge someone based on a trait they didn't choose.

Our crime rate is actually pretty low historically speaking. There were 16,425 murders in 2019 in the US and 44.08 million POC. That means if 100% of murders were by a different POC, only .0373% of them are murderers.

Who said anything about the race of the priest? The point is most of the priests would be angry with those who ruin all their reputations, not angry at law enforcement and there’s no reason it should be any different here. Black people should still be more angry at the black people who cause the thug stereotype.

What BLM still refuses to address is that blacks make up 56% or murders despite being 14% of the population and 89% of the offenders are also black.

I really don't authorise wackos to use my term of wackos. Please stop Zachary.

Shouldn't budgets go up as crime goes down? Not necessarily. It depends.

Easy to visualize example: the border
If the rate of crossings go down, it could be fewer people trying (when Mexico's economy is strong, fewer people cross) or it could be better protection.

If the rate of people crossing being apprehended goes up, does that mean more people are trying to cross or does it mean that people are better at catching criminals.

Back to cops: if reported crime goes down and arrests stay high, are cops just patrolling more and arresting people for crimes nobody cares about (weed for instance). The arrest rate stays high, budgets are justified, but are we actually any safer?

Crime rates have gone up when defund the police...I haven't seen numbers on that.

For the last time: Crime goes down BECAUSE budget goes up.

You haven’t bothered to google the numbers to see if the very policy you want is working? Then let’s look at Minneapolis, which removed about 8 million dollars from police funding and redirected it to other programs. Since then they have seen a 20.6% spike in violent crime incidents (5,422 in 2020 as opposed to a 5 year average of 4,496) and a 10% in property crimes. A 46% increase in vehicle theft and their murders have increased 60%, plus more of them go unsolved than before.

New York city cut 1 Billion dollars from police. Their murder rate, which had been in decline in the previous years, increased 44.8% in 2020.

https://nationalpolicesupportfund.com/what-happens-when-cities-defund-police-departments/

https://www.americanexperiment.org/as-murder-rates-rise-in-cities-across-america-minneapolis-leads-the-pack/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-homicides-and-shootings-rose-dramatically-in-2020-11610055243

Crime went up nationwide last year. Pretty much everywhere. This is not the year to measure baselines. If you were to insist, I would want to start with a national average. If crime rose nationally at an average of 25% (made up number), then maybe that 44% is high. But then you would need to look at places that raised budgets and see how it compared to that 25%.

According to FBI data, the nationwide murder rate increased by somewhere between 19-24 percent since they didn’t present a specific number for 2020. So yes, defunding police has allowed a surge in crime, far more than what can be attributed to covid or whatever.

He lied about voter fraud. If it was real, and democracy was being stolen, then what they did was actually justified. However, it was lies. He may not have literally said to break the law, but he made accusations where that was the logical conclusion.

So there we agree. Him crying a stolen election is BS, and I imagine there’s a mix of both the idiots who genuinely believe it and those who are using it as an excuse to bust in the capital.

No one ever accused those idiots of being "logical".

Its not so much the logical failings as the hypocrisy that gets to me.

2nd Amendment -> From my cold dead hands; enforce those laws, you'll be leaving in a body bag
minorities -> Do what you are told

Riots in the cities -> its the liberals fault for spreading lies about racism
Riot in the capitol -> just extremists being extremists; you can't blame people who didn't participate

Masks -> You have no right telling me to get a vaccine or to wear a mask to protect others
Abortion -> Anything to save a life (as long as its mostly other people being asked to do 'anything')

MAGA -> this country is so corrupt, it needs to be fixed
Liberal criticism -> If you don't love America, then get out

Cancel culture -> Gina / Dr. Seuss / Mr. Potato Head
Not cancel culture -> Kaepernick / Liz Cheney

"Masks -> You have no right telling me to get a vaccine or to wear a mask to protect others
Abortion -> Anything to save a life (as long as its mostly other people being asked to do 'anything')"

You're not the first person to equate being forced to comply with a mask to killing your unborn child in the womb and I'm sure you won't be the last. The two do not compare. Not even close.

Oh, agreed. Wearing a mask has no downsides. Being pregnant can be fatal and expensive.

Carrying a child has financial burdens due to pre-natal medical care even if the child is put up for adoption. If a child isn't put up for adoption it is a financial commitment for at least 18 years. Saying nothing on the impacts to the expectant mothers health. The maternity mortality rate in the US is 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births, which isn't high, but it is higher among adolescents and older women.

And San Bernardino had a 60% increase. Now they did cut their police budget by 8%, but they apparently didn't let any officers go.

Fort Worth had a 80% increase. Best I can tell, their budget increased.

I concede that I went: here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z9b5mIwztAwmEHJW7Q5DHMjS14-Rs7XIXOt33Al_rDw/edit#gid=1757262194

Sorted by change to get the largest.

Updated the numbers in column B for those two Republican cities. Not trying to blame a party, just figured the wouldn't have cut police budgets.

Googled the budgets.

As far as San Bernadino you must remember that manpower isn’t the only thing that makes up a police force, so it’s likely that their budget cut contributed to the sharp rise.

Fort Worth is an anomaly in the pattern. Congratulations, you found 1 anomaly. Now that we’ve established that we can cherrypick a single example for this argument, I refer you to San Diego, which increased their budget and the murder rate increased only 9%, well below the nationwide average.

The fact that you’re using a spreadsheet you found online instead of an already existing website tells me you scrolled through lots of sites but didn’t find one that supports your claim so you’re now using this. That alone is enough to make me question the information in there.

https://www.secureamericanow.org/cities_defunding_police

I couldn't find any sites that weren't pushing an agenda. From past experience big reports like that don't get published until well into the year. I found the spreadsheet. Used it to point me and then double checked/updated the numbers. Budget was the hardest part. I explained why I chose the cities I did. I even skipped a few shall towns where there were huge % increases, but only represented a lownumber.

I see the site you references but could tell right away it was propoganda. Side note: confirmation bias can be a bitch. Before I tear it apart and tell you what's wrong, I want to point out that just because it's presented badly doesn't mean the underlying premise is wrong. Them presenting this way is suspicious, but it could have been laziness or for dramatic effect.

Except Baltimore, it had fewer murders in 2020. Not by much and it was ahead at some point. https://homicides.news.baltimoresun.com/

I haven't double checked the rest.

The site is too polished with graphics and bullet points. It isn't conveying data - it is making a point.
*It only lists cities that defunded without comparison to cities that didn't. Ideally you'd find ones that had budget cuts, ones that didn't, and ones that increased.
*they say that cuts were recent, but then talk about the whole year. A graph would be the perfect way to show when budgets were cut and the surge. Budgets take time to go into effect too so when funding actually reduced would be nice.
* jumping back and forth between numbers and %. Ideally you'd list both. 10 million is a lot, but ny cut a billion. That context is important. If a business has to lay off 25% of its people, you'd want to know if there it was 1 of 4 Similarly, a 5% cut could be a huge number.
* Subjective terms: Baltimore is pacing ahead - but they finished under.

Here’s an article with a solution I like

https://www.thelittlehawk.com/56063/opinion/defunding-the-police-doesnt-work-but-training-does/

I don't agree with the blatant "defund doesn't work at the beginning". I don't feel they made that case. However, ignoring that, there's a lot to like. Decriminalizing addition. Better more consistent training.

I'm actually of the opinion that a 1 size fits all might not be appropriate. I'm fully happy with letting municipalities and voters decide. Maybe a city really does have a police department that needs to be fully dismantled and rebuilt. That seems doubtful, but who would know better than the people who live there? And they will live with the consequences of those decisions.

I started writing something recommending central standards...and decided to look to see if there were any.

I think standards protect everyone. Cops are trained to do something; if they execute faithfully then they should have a degree of protection from reprimand.

Here's a good read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_officer_certification_and_licensure_in_the_United_States

In the United States, certification and licensure requirements for law enforcement officers vary significantly from state to state.[1][2] Policing in the United States is highly fragmented,[1] and there are no national minimum standards for licensing police officers in the U.S.[3] Researchers say police are given far more training on use of firearms than on de-escalating provocative situations.[4]
******
A study in the year 2000 found that the minimum number of police training hours varied from 320 to 800.[1] In some states, the minimal training time for officers set by state regulation is shorter than the training time to become a licensed barber, cosmetologist, or manicurist, although many police departments have training requirements in excess of the state minimum.
*******
n 1999, IADLEST, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, established the National Decertification Index (NDI), a database of decertified officers.[29] As of 2005, only 13 states participated in the national decertification database;[1] by 2018, that number rose to 43.[29] T
****
A study of 98,000 Florida police officers over three decades (1988–2016), published in the Yale Law Journal in 2019, found that "wandering officers"—police officers terminated from one law enforcement agency for misconduct who then are hired by a different law enforcement agency—were about twice as likely to be fired for misconduct or to be the subject of a complaint alleging a "moral character violation"

Oh, you must have forgotten the post-presidency attempt at impeaching him that would've prevented him running in 2024.

Wrong, he was impeached before he left office.

There are fake Republicans in our party, which I despise. There are fake Democrats, in your party, which I cheer on.

Fake Republican - RINO(Republican In Name Only).

?

I thought you were done with me.

Yes, I am.