Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've seen a lot of anti trump talk in here and not much else, so I'd like to add a few things to the conversation.
has comments from biden and talks about his awful crime bill
youtube.com/watch?v=bmmahbbARNI
Also y'all seem to have forgotten Kamala's history as a prosecutor and cop
funny how with all the anti cop and trump is a racist talk, noone's really talking about joe biden's awful record with hurting black people with his many tough on crime bills and kamala's bad tough on crime/drug record.
also for fun here's a vid of Biden sniffing girls hair and being a weirdo
"lets vote for 2 tough on crimers with bad records, and a cop" -anti cop people in this thread
 
I can't speak for everyone who's Anti-Trump here, but I absolutely despite Biden. I still haven't decided if I'm going to write in Sanders or vote Biden but feel terrible about it.

Trying to fight "Trump sucks!" with "Biden sucks too!" never made much sense to me because a lot more left-leaning voters also hate Biden! A lot of people are simply voting for him because he's the better option of two terrible options.

Honestly, I think teal summed it up pretty well on page 1.

can't wait to vote for some combination of 2 out of 4 of the worst people on earth to represent me internationally and decide upon sweeping uses of our society's collective efforts to inevitably just make it so that Rich McGuy from Goldman Sach's incubator only has to pay 23% effective taxes on his $1.6m a year income rather than 25% and then have this policy sold back to me as some massive win for the working class as the vast majority of my clientele wonders how they're supposed to follow my advice to invest weekly from their paycheck on their 34k a year salary that involves backbreaking work
 
I've seen a lot of anti trump talk in here and not much else, so I'd like to add a few things to the conversation.
has comments from biden and talks about his awful crime bill

Also y'all seem to have forgotten Kamala's history as a prosecutor and cop

funny how with all the anti cop and trump is a racist talk, noone's really talking about joe biden's awful record with hurting black people with his many tough on crime bills and kamala's bad tough on crime/drug record.

"lets vote for 2 tough on crimers with bad records, and a cop" -anti cop people in this thread

Americans need to realize that complacency isn't what causes change to happen. It just happens that this election there's currently only one candidate who's advocating for: criminal justice reform(legalizing marijuana and pardoning victimless crimes to address the fact of the sheer number of people we have locked away for minor crimes), demilitarizing the police (because they shouldn't have fucking tanks to begin with), ending qualified immunity, addressing how grants and federal funding has led to the national student debt crisis(via higher tuition caused by inflation), and importantly for me bringing the troops out of countries we don't need to be in(and ending the fucking miserable failure the war on drugs has been) and that's not Trump and certainly not Biden electing a cop for VP lol. Jo Jorgensen is really the only option I see as a fair chance to get out of this polarization we have as a country but with how much 3rd party propaganda has been spewed out I have doubts she'll get far without making it to the debate stage which seems pretty slim at this point. In terms of being a 3rd party option her platform is the biggest, she's very close to being on all 50 states as of 8/22/2020, she's on DC's and 46 of the states with 3 pending approval and not currently on Rhode Island's.
I think this covers everything about how I feel about this, crazy how people would rather pick between 2 awful men over acknowledging the fact that a good candidate is actually in this election, oof America.
She's actually on 48 states + DC with New Hampshire pending and not currently on Rhode Island's as of August 26 so that's an update to that v:
 
I can't speak for everyone who's Anti-Trump here, but I absolutely despite Biden. I still haven't decided if I'm going to write in Sanders or vote Biden but feel terrible about it.

Trying to fight "Trump sucks!" with "Biden sucks too!" never made much sense to me because a lot more left-leaning voters also hate Biden! A lot of people are simply voting for him because he's the better option of two terrible options.

Honestly, I think teal summed it up pretty well on page 1.

Trump has done plenty to help starting prison reform https://stoprecidivism.org/the-firs...fn3IUuGOyKf91AAyi074OiTwFJ6uqNsBoC3XgQAvD_BwE, and the economy was doing great helping out many black owned businesses before covid hit. I'd say if you look into it Trump has done a lot more to help black people than Joe Biden has in his around 50 years in government.

I think this covers everything about how I feel about this, crazy how people would rather pick between 2 awful men over acknowledging the fact that a good candidate is actually in this election, oof America.
She's actually on 48 states + DC with New Hampshire pending and not currently on Rhode Island's as of August 26 so that's an update to that v:
3rd Parties are cool and I'd definitely consider voting for them too
 
Also y'all seem to have forgotten Kamala's history as a prosecutor and cop

Trump has done plenty to help starting prison reform https://stoprecidivism.org/the-firs...fn3IUuGOyKf91AAyi074OiTwFJ6uqNsBoC3XgQAvD_BwE, and the economy was doing great helping out many black owned businesses before covid hit. I'd say if you look into it Trump has done a lot more to help black people than Joe Biden has in his around 50 years in government.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...prison-time-is-favorite-threat-his-opponents/

Siri, what is bad faith?
 
In the politifact article:

Reporter: "Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?"


Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there. Now, here’s the thing --"

Not sure what point you're trying to make with this part, he clearly is condemning bigotry, hate and violence. And condemns the driver later on in the interviewer, all he was saying in his statement was that there were good people on both sides of the protest, which there were.

If your point was "trump is calling 'white supremacists' good people", I think its pretty clear that YOU were arguing in bad faith, but it's hard to determine seeing as how you didn't really argue or even say anything of value.

I'm not going to defend Trump on the second article, I think jailing people for burning a flag is dumb. But jailing rioters who are tearing down historical statues rather than trying to get them removed legally is something I can understand even if he pretty harsh on it (I dont think people should be jailed for a long time over this, maybe like a few weeks or month at most). Keep in mind it would still be miles better than Biden's crime bill was and is much more understandable than Kamala withholding evidence on innocent people on death row, jailing parents for up to a year for their kids missing school, holding people for longer than their sentences for the low cost labor, and much more.
 
Last edited:
I've seen a lot of anti trump talk in here and not much else, so I'd like to add a few things to the conversation.
has comments from biden and talks about his awful crime bill
youtube.com/watch?v=bmmahbbARNI
Also y'all seem to have forgotten Kamala's history as a prosecutor and cop
funny how with all the anti cop and trump is a racist talk, noone's really talking about joe biden's awful record with hurting black people with his many tough on crime bills and kamala's bad tough on crime/drug record.
also for fun here's a vid of Biden sniffing girls hair and being a weirdo
"lets vote for 2 tough on crimers with bad records, and a cop" -anti cop people in this thread
We know Biden sucks. Every left leaning human with a brain cell does. Both of them have not been exactly black friendly. But neither of them are trying to turn America into some ultra nationalistic state equipped with its own para military command strike force.
 
Fuck those racist statues, they have no historical significance except to show minorities that they'll always be oppressed regardless of change. It was never about "preserving history" and any attempt to legally remove these statues have been thwarted by racist donors. You're out of your goddamm mind brother If you think it's understandable to give people any jail time for wanting to remove these dumb statues.
 
oh really you can understand that? okay.
I can understand arresting people for doing something illegal (destroying property) yes.
Fuck those racist statues, they have no historical significance except to show minorities that they'll always be oppressed regardless of change. It was never about "preserving history" and any attempt to legally remove these statues have been thwarted by racist donors. You're out of your goddamm mind brother If you think it's understandable to give people any jail time for wanting to remove these dumb statues.
Do you have proof on this being blocked? from what I've heard its mainly been people just tearing them down, not not only racist statues but statues like George Washington, ones that were made for union generals like Ulysses Grant who fought against slavery, another statue that was of a freed slave, and also ones for religion like statues of Jesus. And I didn't say jailing for "wanting to remove something", people can want to do anything I don't care. I support the removal of statues towards racist southern generals, they belong in museums or something. I'm against forcibly tearing down statues in a way that is illegal.
We know Biden sucks. Every left leaning human with a brain cell does. Both of them have not been exactly black friendly. But neither of them are trying to turn America into some ultra nationalistic state equipped with its own para military command strike force.
I'm pretty sure Trump isn't doing this, but if you would like to provide some evidence to back it up maybe I can agree. So far I see Trump doing more good than Biden on a lot of things.
 
.

I'm pretty sure Trump isn't doing this, but if you would like to provide some evidence to back it up maybe I can agree. So far I see Trump doing more good than Biden on a lot of things.

He is literally planning on teaching American Exceptionalism in schools, and he is passing laws that disenfranchise immigrants. So Ultra Nationalistic check.

Para Military strike force? Oh, nothing short of increasing the already ludicrous funding to the police, tightening and implementing laws that protect said members of that strike force. Or are you forgetting that police are running around with Tanks and Rocket Launchers.

Trump isn't even hiding it anymore. Its RIGHT there in his manifesto. RIGHT THERE.
 
He is literally planning on teaching American Exceptionalism in schools, and he is passing laws that disenfranchise immigrants. So Ultra Nationalistic check.

Para Military strike force? Oh, nothing short of increasing the already ludicrous funding to the police, tightening and implementing laws that protect said members of that strike force. Or are you forgetting that police are running around with Tanks and Rocket Launchers.

Trump isn't even hiding it anymore. Its RIGHT there in his manifesto. RIGHT THERE.
https://prnt.sc/u70euu
Ending illegal immigration: pretty standard for any country; make it so non-citizens don't gain access to social programs provided by taxpayers and the government: pretty standard; deporting illegal immigrants who are a part of gangs: deporting illegal immigrants who break the law is also pretty standard for most countries; End sanctuary cities (who protect criminal illegal immigrants that put other's lives in danger): sounds good; Ending American corporations from taking advantage of illegal immigrants by underpaying them to replace Citizen labor: Sounds like something most people can get on board with; Require new immigrants to be able to support themselves financially, so new immigrants don't end up becoming dependent on government welfare or go homeless.
All of these don't impact legal immigration outside of making sure they don't come here to depend on the government and don't go homeless here. These are all things that even Bernie Sanders seemed to tout until quite recently.

I'm pretty sure he wants to teach American exceptionalism as a contrast to a lot of the history in the country that is negative, while also teaching the negative things we have done. Pretty sure he's just patriotic and wants people to know that despite our past this is a pretty great country.

I do support police reform rather than making it harder to charge bad cops, but I haven't seen anything saying they'll make it harder to charge bad cops so if you wanna provide sources I'm open to disagree with Trump on it. Defunding the police is a bad idea though and the main thing I see is "fully funding them and hiring more".
You can disagree with it but https://prnt.sc/u70w9n in general most African Americans do support keeping police around.
Also Trump does not control the police that would be mayors.
Edit: I have also never heard of police running around with tanks and rocket launchers, not a single time.
 
Last edited:
Edit: I have also never heard of police running around with tanks and rocket launchers, not a single time.

" The local Cobb County Police Department responded quickly. Following the directions of a witness, who saw the two suspects get into an abandoned house, they arrived at the scene, set a perimeter and called the SWAT team. It was the perfect time to roll out the amphibious armored tank, which was acquired to help officers in high-risk situations like this one." - https://www.wired.com/2012/06/cops-military-gear/


"America's most in-demand police vehicle is a 10-officer 16,000-pound armored tank that takes bullets like Superman and drives 80 mph." - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41912754/...s/t/why-do-americas-police-need-armored-tank/



"In the 2000s, local law enforcement agencies began to adopt the type of military equipment more frequently used in a war zone: everything from armored personnel carriers and tanks, with 360-degree rotating machine gun turrets, to grenade launchers, drones, assault weapons, and more...It is now commonplace to see a Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicle, or MRAP, respond to the protests in Minneapolis, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia..... In other words, the more militarized we allow law enforcement agents to become, the more likely officers are to use lethal violence against citizens: civilian deaths have been found to increase by about 130 percent when police forces acquire significantly more military equipment. - https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/06/03/how-police-became-paramilitaries/


1598555694748.png

- https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need-tanks-they-have-them







This took exactly 7 seconds to google and exactly 5 minutes to extract references to tanks in American police forces from the first page of search results
 
https://prnt.sc/u70euu
Ending illegal immigration: pretty standard for any country; make it so non-citizens don't gain access to social programs provided by taxpayers and the government: pretty standard; deporting illegal immigrants who are a part of gangs: deporting illegal immigrants who break the law is also pretty standard for most countries; End sanctuary cities (who protect criminal illegal immigrants that put other's lives in danger): sounds good; Ending American corporations from taking advantage of illegal immigrants by underpaying them to replace Citizen labor: Sounds like something most people can get on board with; Require new immigrants to be able to support themselves financially, so new immigrants don't end up becoming dependent on government welfare or go homeless.
All of these don't impact legal immigration outside of making sure they don't come here to depend on the government and don't go homeless here. These are all things that even Bernie Sanders seemed to tout until quite recently.

I'm pretty sure he wants to teach American exceptionalism as a contrast to a lot of the history in the country that is negative, while also teaching the negative things we have done. Pretty sure he's just patriotic and wants people to know that despite our past this is a pretty great country.

I do support police reform rather than that making it harder to charge bad cops, but I haven't seen anything saying they'll make it harder to charge bad cops so if you wanna provide sources I'm open to disagree with Trump on it. Defunding the police is a bad idea though and the main thing I see is "fully funding them and hiring more".
You can disagree with it but https://prnt.sc/u70w9n in general most African Americans do support keeping police around.
Also Trump does not control the police that would be mayors.
All right lets go

Sanctuary cities are literally designed to help people who are escaping from poor economies, dangerous countries or war zones have a place of refuge, you are arguing here that immigrants are dangerous because they are not from America. If you want to stop crime, instead of erasing all options that illegal immigrants have from being a positive influence to society, why not just help support them? You block immigrants from getting access to basic human necessities, forcing them into a life of crime which then gives you a legitimate reason for kicking people out.

Now look here
Ending American corporations from taking advantage of illegal immigrants by underpaying them to replace Citizen labor: Sounds like something most people can get on board with

Trump didnt say Illegal Immigrants. He said Foreign workers. As shown here in his 50 point plan. This point is the only point in which Trump specified that not only illegal immigrants, but hard working LEGAL immigrants who simply want to better themselves as well.
IMG_20200824_214626.jpg

Foreign Workers as in people who migrated into the country on a work visa to provide perfectly legal work. Trump wants that to stop.

So to list it out, Trump wants to a)
Prevent anyone who isn't a US citizen regardless of legal immigration status to be able to work in America.

b) Prevent illegal immigrants from accessing social aide and a support system that would be able to help get these people off their feet so they can in return help contribute to society.

c) Requiring that all immigrants have the ability to be able to financially support themselves to live here......even though they now won't be able to get jobs nor have access to social aide????

c) Remove cities and areas of safety for people who immigrate here, therefore removing any and all options for immigrants to be able to support themselves, therefore forcing them to either leave and go back to where they are leaving from in the first place, or turn to a life of crime.

Then finally D) Deport all non US citizen criminals.

Its a 4 point plan to rid the country to immigrants and prevent them from wanting to come there. That isn't a leap in logic. Its not twisting Trumps own words. Its just the logical conclusion to the policies that Trump plans to put in place. Rid the country of immigrants.


Now in regards to American Exceptionalism, I am hoping that you are simply ignorant to its actual meaning in your defending of it. AE (shorting it to that from now) isn't teaching kids that being an American is good. That's national pride. Patriotism is pretty cringey but not inherently harmful. AE is the theory in which describes that America is removed from the history of the world, and that it has lived its own special history, and that its the duty of Americans to transform and "save" the world and that this history and duty to the world makes being an American superior to anyone else. To put it bluntly, its rhetoric that Americans wank themselves off to feeling that they are the best in the world simply by by being born in America, and that they have NO CHOICE but to help improve the world, by making it MORE American. Now, if you don't see the problems with raising children on the belief that they are better than the world just because they were born somewhere, I don't know what to tell you. But I do know of a regime that was build upon telling its citizens that they are superior to others just by the nature of their birth, that they should spread such belief across the world, while simultaneously extraditing anyone that that didn't fit with that particular status quo.



Yes if it wasn't clear I am stating that Trump is a fascist.
 
Last edited:
Defunding the police is a bad idea though and the main thing I see is "fully funding them and hiring more".
You can disagree with it but https://prnt.sc/u70w9n in general most African Americans do support keeping police around.
You seem to be misunderstanding the term "defunding the police". Defunding does not mean eliminating police, it means reallocating policing budget to social services i.e. mental health resources that have been proven to have a significantly greater effect on reducing crime
 
Eliminating police means removing them entirely. This is not equivalent to defunding them, and suggesting that defunding is eliminating is misleading and leads to exactly the sort of misunderstanding outlined above.

Defunding the police by allocating state assets to social assistance programs will result in a reduced police staff. This is a good thing. We want the state to be able to support its at-risk population through mental health assistance programs, community housing, supplementary income grants, social workers, addiction counseling and support, community outreach programs, and so on and so forth. We do not want society to find it necessary to rely on policing to maintain order, because that indicates a societal failure to properly support its population.

Thus, by defunding police, we invest in society.
 
I agree with basically everything in your post except the part where you say that it's misleading to suggest that defunding is eliminating. I see nothing misleading about that, the goal absolutely is to eliminate police 100%.

I understand that many people who say 'defund the police' really do mean 'defund police somewhat, but some of them can stick around for some reason,' as you described. Many others who say it mean 100% elimination of the police though, so it's not a misunderstanding to point out that that is their goal.
 
Regardless of the chosen interpretation of a relatively ambiguous (and thus bad) slogan, both the party and the ticket literally have a detailed policy platform on policing and it’s very much NOT abolition or frankly even a reduction in funding. This is a straw man.

Take it from a conservative source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/heres-...ce-funding-marijuana-and-medicare-11596052231


KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. The Democratic Party platform opposes defunding police, despite growing pressure from Black Lives Matter activists.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the Democratic Party platform committee do not support defunding police and shifting the money to public service programs.
 
I dunno why you guys are bothering to discuss Trump's platform. He isnt gonna stick to it. He'll just continue to do whatever he feels like, which mostly means rewarding whoever is stroking his ego and punishing anyone he doesnt like.
 
Eliminating police means removing them entirely. This is not equivalent to defunding them, and suggesting that defunding is eliminating is misleading and leads to exactly the sort of misunderstanding outlined above.

Defunding the police by allocating state assets to social assistance programs will result in a reduced police staff. This is a good thing. We want the state to be able to support its at-risk population through mental health assistance programs, community housing, supplementary income grants, social workers, addiction counseling and support, community outreach programs, and so on and so forth. We do not want society to find it necessary to rely on policing to maintain order, because that indicates a societal failure to properly support its population.

Thus, by defunding police, we invest in society.
defunding is not equivalent to abolition, but the point is that defunding is the first step towards the eventual abolition of the police. if we accept that the american police force is at its very essence a force of racial oppression, it should be logically concluded that it should not exist at all in its current form. defunding here means the first step towards its gradual abolition (since it is neither politically nor practically feasible to go from 100 to 0 so to speak), although of course if after defunding it does not come to abolition it would still be a massive step up from the highly militarized police force that currently exists. you can read more on police abolition here for starters

You can disagree with it but https://prnt.sc/u70w9n in general most African Americans do support keeping police around.
link your source instead of providing a decontextualized screenshot. furthermore though, even if we assume that your numbers are reliable, a simple "look at how many people do not support police abolition" does not provide us with an actual argument against police abolition. given how extremely normalized the idea that society requires a police force has become, it is not particularly surprising that most people would prefer keeping the police around, even those who are most likely to be the recipients of its violence. it is hard to imagine a world without police right now, but at the same time we know that what we now call the police is a relatively recent invention and societies have been able to do without it for ages, so we should absolutely not take the lack of imagination of those living under the current state of affairs to be an argument against police abolition an sich. attack the actual arguments being made (for example those in the article i linked earlier in this post) or silence yourself
 
link your source instead of providing a decontextualized screenshot. furthermore though, even if we assume that your numbers are reliable, a simple "look at how many people do not support police abolition" does not provide us with an actual argument against police abolition. given how extremely normalized the idea that society requires a police force has become, it is not particularly surprising that most people would prefer keeping the police around, even those who are most likely to be the recipients of its violence. it is hard to imagine a world without police right now, but at the same time we know that what we now call the police is a relatively recent invention and societies have been able to do without it for ages, so we should absolutely not take the lack of imagination of those living under the current state of affairs to be an argument against police abolition an sich. attack the actual arguments being made (for example those in the article i linked earlier in this post) or silence yourself
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...le-want-police-to-stay-in-their-neighborhoods
This took exactly 7 seconds to google
Foreign Workers as in people who migrated into the country on a work visa to provide perfectly legal work. Trump wants that to stop.
He was pretty obviously talking about companies moving to places like china for cheap (basically slave) foreign labor, but different interpretations I guess
You seem to be misunderstanding the term "defunding the police". Defunding does not mean eliminating police, it means reallocating policing budget to social services i.e. mental health resources that have been proven to have a significantly greater effect on reducing crime
I really don't mind the sentiment of allocating some money to services like this, but my main problem is with a lot of the people using this slogan meaning for it to be abolish
Sanctuary cities are literally designed to help people who are escaping from poor economies, dangerous countries or war zones have a place of refuge, you are arguing here that immigrants are dangerous because they are not from America. If you want to stop crime, instead of erasing all options that illegal immigrants have from being a positive influence to society, why not just help support them? You block immigrants from getting access to basic human necessities, forcing them into a life of crime which then gives you a legitimate reason for kicking people out.
I am arguing that these cities end up protecting dangerous criminals who we shouldn't be responsible for since they are not citizens here, not "all immigrants are dangerous because they are not from America". Helping people out is fine and all, but total noncompliance with border enforcement isn't a good thing.
Its a 4 point plan to rid the country to immigrants and prevent them from wanting to come there. That isn't a leap in logic. Its not twisting Trumps own words. Its just the logical conclusion to the policies that Trump plans to put in place. Rid the country of immigrants.
Remove illegal immigrants* which is again pretty standard for most all countries
b) Prevent illegal immigrants from accessing social aide and a support system that would be able to help get these people off their feet so they can in return help contribute to society.
Illegal immigrants shouldn't get access to social aid, especially when many can and do abuse it. Creating a way to find good honest hard working illegal immigrants and helping them become citizens seems fine but would still be a big fuck you to immigrants who came in legally
 
Last edited:
I think one of the biggest pieces of propaganda the media has been able to successfully sell (usually but not always driven by the Right) is the supposed prevalence of dangerous/violent criminals.

The vast, vast majority of criminals are petty criminals. The vast, vast majority of those are people who would not be criminals if they had access to sufficient social support. No one is born a criminal. No one is born predisposed to crime. People turn to crime when they believe they have no other option or when they've been beaten down and failed by society.

In a society with adequate social supports you do not need federal level policy actions against 'dangerous criminals' because they are such a small subset of the population that municipal and provincial/state police have sufficient resources to handle them themselves.

Moreover immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are far and away disproportionately mischaracterized as violent under this association as criminal when the reality is exactly the opposite. No one leaving another country seeks a better opportunity in another nation and decides the best way to do that is to start murdering/robbing people, nor do they intentionally choose to live in ghettos/slums where that kind of violence is institutionalized.

Policies arguing against sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, violent criminals all sound nice, they all sound like exactly the kind of thing that you don't want to be in a society. And it's exactly because they sound nice that the politicians base platforms around them. But when you look a bit deeper and see the statistics that tie to the policy lines you begin to understand that these policy positions attack the problems they purport to solve from an angle that completely misses the mark on the source of the issue, and in doing so creates a prime breeding ground for nationalistic ideals (anti-immigrant) and racism (violent criminals almost always being associated with blackness, wrongly)
 
Why is more police a good thing? Regardless of whether you think defund police get rid of them yadda yadda, you have to agree that police are a negative aspect of society. More police is not a GOOD thing for a country just like more war is not a good thing.

Why do people react to the idea of no police with such aghast? I'd love for there to be no police. Realistically we aren't gonna get there, but still...the point stands. It's like cheering for more prisons or more TSA restrictions or more superfund sites
 
Why is more police a good thing? Regardless of whether you think defund police get rid of them yadda yadda, you have to agree that police are a negative aspect of society. More police is not a GOOD thing for a country just like more war is not a good thing.

Why do people react to the idea of no police with such aghast? I'd love for there to be no police. Realistically we aren't gonna get there, but still...the point stands. It's like cheering for more prisons or more TSA restrictions or more superfund sites
More police can absolutely be a good thing (as long as they are good police), and may I ask you if you don't support police what are your thoughts on the second amendment and self defense laws with them, and what are your thoughts on how investigations into crimes would go from there.
I think one of the biggest pieces of propaganda the media has been able to successfully sell (usually but not always driven by the Right) is the supposed prevalence of dangerous/violent criminals.

The vast, vast majority of criminals are petty criminals. The vast, vast majority of those are people who would not be criminals if they had access to sufficient social support. No one is born a criminal. No one is born predisposed to crime. People turn to crime when they believe they have no other option or when they've been beaten down and failed by society.

In a society with adequate social supports you do not need federal level policy actions against 'dangerous criminals' because they are such a small subset of the population that municipal and provincial/state police have sufficient resources to handle them themselves.

Moreover immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are far and away disproportionately mischaracterized as violent under this association as criminal when the reality is exactly the opposite. No one leaving another country seeks a better opportunity in another nation and decides the best way to do that is to start murdering/robbing people, nor do they intentionally choose to live in ghettos/slums where that kind of violence is institutionalized.

Policies arguing against sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, violent criminals all sound nice, they all sound like exactly the kind of thing that you don't want to be in a society. And it's exactly because they sound nice that the politicians base platforms around them. But when you look a bit deeper and see the statistics that tie to the policy lines you begin to understand that these policy positions attack the problems they purport to solve from an angle that completely misses the mark on the source of the issue, and in doing so creates a prime breeding ground for nationalistic ideals (anti-immigrant) and racism (violent criminals almost always being associated with blackness, wrongly)
Illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be in the country, even if they aren't violent, I encourage you to try and enter countries illegally and use their social systems and see what happens. Allowing illegal immigrants in and giving them taxpayer funded social services also makes it more expensive and more difficult to fund the universal social services the many people want, its just not something that would work well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top