(07-23-2020 03:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I think one issue here is you're arguing to me about what others say.
See the bolded, which sound like you're trying to offer a rebuttal to items I haven't brought up or discussed.
I've never said that it was just the right who rejected change - in fact part of the reason I believe the issues are more structural is that change hasn't really depended on what political party has been in office.
You've clearly supported the position of local leaders in Portland who lean hard left, against Federal officials whom have been (rightly or wrongly) assigned to Trump/the right.
I think the problem is that we're talking about these people and you've chocen to defend their positions... so you're being asked to actually defend their position and not merely some relatively minor portion of it. It's not as if we're asking you to defend their position on abortion. The issues are very closely related. It's as if you want to distance the actions of Federal officials from the decisions of local politicians and local citizens that lead to it. Just as in the 'randomly picking people up off the streets' discussion... if that was really what was happening... it would be an obvious travesty... but when you add the other facts in, it is not nearly the travesty that it was originally purported to be.
Quote:I haven't argued that "defunding the police is clearly the solution," but rather provided backup about what it actually means, and where it has seen mixed results (Camden, which I think you're misunderstanding if you don't think Camden defunded its police department and clearly replaced it).
I understood it perfectly. I've probably explained it to people on the right better than many from the left. You said Camden did it and its been a mixed bag. That supports the idea that 'defund the police' isn't likely to be the solution... unless the replacement is vastly different from what Camden did.
Quote:I guess I fail to see the point of whether or not an idea is new, what makes you seem so caught up on ideas being new or not new? Is it just so you can point to the other side, since you feel like your side is being attacked?
If so, then you keep missing my point about these issues being structural in nature. Drug decriminalization is a perfect example - let's focus on weed. Liberals overwhelmingly support weed legalization, yet we don't actually see politicians moving on that proposal on a national level. I'm not sure why, but it's a good example of why the politics of a population isn't always reflected by the politicians who represent them (which gets to a comment I had earlier about your labeling of Minneapolis as progressive).
I'm pretty sure you brought up the idea of 'new'. I was responding to it. I think I said... 'as to your comment about new'....
The only reason it matters to me is as I've said numerous times... what makes so many people (on the left) think that it will work 'this' time such that it's okay to bully people (call them racists or similar) who dare to question it? It MIGHT be different if it were something that had never been tried before and someone wanted to pilot it. That's specifically what I suggested we try... which again, you could have joined me. 'Defund the police' is a political talking point, it is not a plan. Smart people usually prefer the latter over the former, which is what we all expect when we come to a Rice forum. I'm not saying YOU've called anyone racist, but you've certainly expressed dismay that we don't simply agree with it.
The enforcement of drug violations against US citizens is almost exclusively the responsibility of local politicians. You don't need national support and that's my point. Claiming we do (which is what most people do) is a way of deflecting blame from local politicians.... or from accepting that 'what happens in California' (its the best example) is PRIMARILY the result of the ideas of one party. I'm sure there is a state that is as just as 'owned' by Republicans, and they bear the primary burden for their decisions.
I understand that you want to say that it is systemic because it happens under every political watch, but it could just as easily mean that it doesn't exist... or that it does but there is nothing that can be done about the 'inherent' problem... because we can't even describe, much less demonstrate another system where the problem doesn't exist. Poverty breeds desperation. Desperation breeds crime. Crime breeds increased enforcement. Increased enforcement breeds higher enforcement success against people in poverty. It may be just that simple. What about that 'system' would you change, that isn't under the control of one party in many places? Minneapolis could have easily decided to decriminalize some drugs or to simply decrease enforcement of those crimes... or find alternative punishment. They could have engaged in education or support measures to limit poverty. They could have done all sorts of things. Why didn't they? Same reason as above, IMO. It's easy to point fingers and claim the other side is the cause... it's much harder to solve issues. I've said this numerous times, and directed it at both parties.
I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
My contention is that the reason you don't see action on drug decriminalization, despite the overwhelming support from the left... is that the support doesn't really exist. Oh a lot of them say it, but apparently they don't want the consequences of the actual decision.
As I said before, the distinction of them being 'progressive' in Minneapolis is meaningless. All I intended to demonstrate is that they weren't centrists or a mixed bag who happened to lean slightly left during that election... but they were actually 'truly' Democrats.
If you're saying that they vote for people who don't actually represent them... I'd agree with you... but in Minneapolis where this tragedy occured, they're voting for Democrats that don't represent them... not Republicans. Hennipin County went 63 to 28 for Hillary... and while I don't have the county numbers for the caucuses, Hillary was a DISTANT second choice for them statewide among Democrats... and Hennipin County (which leans strongly left) is 35% of the entire voting base for the state.... and the state split like 48-46. Again, the only reason this matters is because it demonstrates that the policing problem in Minneapolis wasn't a failure of local politicians to overcome a strong republican opposition in the city/county. It MAY have been DINOs, but they were still elected by people from the left.
/
Response to the killing of George Floyd
