(06-03-2020 07:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 02:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 02:29 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are certain issues that I think are easier to pin responsibility on the current party in charge than others. There are plenty of issues that the Democrats fumble and I'd agree that voting against them on that basis makes sense. This simply isn't one of those IMO.

Taking a snapshot of the country right now... things are pretty damn bleak. Are you going to assign blame to the Republicans who have been in charge for the past 3 1/2 years for our current situation?

Credit - and blame - to each where it is due.

That's what "nuance" means in this context.

You're using nuance as a smokescreen - because the current leadership of the Minneapolis police aren't entirely responsible, you say voters shouldn't hold them at all responsible.

By this do you mean the senior leaders in the police department or do you mean the Governor of Minnesota and the Mayor of Minneapolis?

Deliberate obtuseness is the most annoying of stall tactics.

Ummm... I actually wasn't sure what you meant. In terms of elected officials, a previous poster mentioned the governor, the mayor, two senators, a congressman, and a previous DA. None of these people would be included in a list of the leadership of the Minnesota police.

When you said, "because the current leadership of the Minneapolis police aren't entirely responsible, you say voters shouldn't hold them at all responsible" I was confused as to whom you were referring. I'm assuming that voters don't pick the actual leaders of the police department? Maybe the sheriff gets elected? Not sure if the other police leadership would be there due to appointments or seniority?

So some confusion on my part but not deliberate obtuseness.

Also... this is not a live debate. It's an internet forum where we post whenever we feel like it. Not sure why one would feel the need to employ a "stall tactic" here.

I guess you are not aware that a city government can fire a police chief, or replace a police chief. And a police chief can fire all those beneath him.

Its not that hard of a concept to wrap one's hands around.

For example, in your neck of the woods the city can fire Art Acevedo. Typically, a mayor can garner enough support from the council to effectuate a firing. In your case, the Cat can get the Houston City council to fire Art.

And, various people in department can fire racist slugs. That is unless the local police union wont let that happen. But, the police union is another fine invention and water carrying group for progressives. So if the union wont allow Sluggo the racist to be fired, you can chalk that one up on the progressives.

Or in another manner, the voters can pressure the AG to file suit an remove a failure police administration. Or the AG can file suit against a PD as a whole for racism under 13 USC 1983 --- violation of civil rights under color of law.

A Governor can pressure the AG to do this, or can attack funding for a PD. Remember that is what ol' Rick Perry did to Austin and the local DA.

A legislature can limit state funds.

Now that we have the basic course in civics, and hiring, and firing down pat, the voters of a state/county/city can absolutely can hold their own officials responsible for racist actions of a PD.

All of these things can be done at those levels. Note that the President of the United States doesnt have that vote power, though. You know, the position you hold accountable for Chauvin.

And again, I would love to hear your detailed thoughts on the 'systemic issue' you speak so eloquently about. I am beginning to think it is myna bird repeating of a line.