Republicans might also soon regret having set the precedent of stonewalling congressional subpoenas.
1 Like
Is that true ?
No. I’m just having some fun on a Saturday.
1 Like
haha … I couldn’t tell !
1 Like
It won’t be a shock if @El_Dorado proves to be correct. Gaetz will have wanted a high-profile stage, but could not possibly be given a committee/sub-committee gavel for anything that has to actually get something done - even most of his GOP committee members would despise him.
2 Likes
I’d laugh my ass off to hear Gaetz questioning the pros. “Now, just as a matter of interest, what did you make him pay for that?”
2 Likes
Could he summon himself as an expert witness?
I wish they were but they are not. Look at the standard language that is used to describe police activity…in what world other than one purposefully crafted to protect cops would a term like “officer involved shooting” be dreamed up? We know police lie in the public statements all the time. Like literally, every time their actions are even questionable they lie, and the press covers those statements like it is coming from an unimpeachable source frames the coverage according to the police story. Whatever fraction of the media that is willing to cover problems with the police seriously is dwarfed by the cover they are given by the establishment.
4 Likes
As Liverpool supporters, we should all be more aware than most of establishment/police cover-ups.
1 Like
The way things are framed is so important. The problem with “defund the police” is that it seems way too alarmist, and is a poorly crafted sound bite… if the intent is to actually get something done.
Just trying it out, but imagine if the message was, “Support the police.” At first pass, it seems a lot more reasonable, and doesn’t get everyone’s backs up (by everyone I mean the large portion of the public who support the police in doing a tough job, often in difficult circumstances).
Under a banner called “Support the police” you could probably get more done.
Let’s put more funding to social workers. Support the police! They are being called out to situations that they are not trained for.
Let’s put more funding to mental health. Support the police! They are not qualified to deal with a nuanced mental health issue in the heat of the moment.
Let’s put more funding into training. Support the police! It is in everyone’s interest to have the very best trained officers we can provide, as it is a difficult job.
Let’s make sure we root out bad apples. Support the police! The public deserves a reliable, accountable, and trustworthy police force.
And so on and so forth.
I can’t help but think that many of the aims of a “defund the police” movement might be better achieved under a suitably crafted “support the police” movement.
4 Likes
True, but that isn’t what’s at the bottom of it. The left just wants to substitute one set of government workers with another they like better and who will vote for them. Has nothing to do with public safety.
Really?
Nothing to do with the fact that the police are ill-trained to handle the multitude of crises that they have to deal with on a regular basis, and such crises would be better off dealt with by actual specialists?
Let the police deal with matters of public security and enforcing the laws of the country, and (for example) paramedics deal with medical emergencies, or mental health workers deal with mental health issues.
Doesn’t it really depend on the situation? Years ago I met a policeman who had just killed a fellow. The guy was clearly mentally ill, but he was wielding a knife. The officer was called because of the threat of violence, not because of the guy’s mental illness. The officer instructed him multiple times to drop the knife. He did not, and the officer shot him dead. Now, that was in the 1980s. Today, if the media go ahold of that story, they would likely imply the officer did something wrong. Actually, there was a similar case in New York last year in which the media did do that.
I’m not against mental health workers. I’m against vilifying the police. I’m also for holding police accountable, but trying them in the media is not the way to do that.
With Gaetz, we at least can feel comfortable that his self-awareness will not deny us that moment of comedy
3 Likes
The fundamental thing is police get money, lots of it, to be responsible for stuff that is detrimental to communities to ask them to do it. Or, get money, lots of it, to do things that are in the remit irresponsibly and militaristically. It is fundamentally an issue of defending them. And their opposition to it is fundamentally one of wanting to protect that funding. No amount of change to the tag line to get it focus on something else will address that fundamental conflict.
Yes, I overused the word fundamental, but that is because so much of the supposed reasonable discourse from people trying to be reasonable ignores the fundamental conflict.
What is at the bottom of it is a desire for a person’s 4th amendment right to due process be upheld and when it is not for people who violate it be held accountable.
1 Like
He did, it’s that that’s got to be adressed the poor training!
1 Like
Taking aside your other points which have been replied to by others, you didn’t reply to my original question.
I’m intrigued, because let’s assume your claim is correct for a moment. Why does who government workers will vote for factor into the motivation? Surely it does not matter, especially if said voters will vote for them anyway?
I did answer it. More specifically, the shock troops of mental health workers and social welfare workers would also be government funded and then unionized and would support and vote for Democrats because they share their view of the world. But as I’ve said several times, I’m not against increasing mental health workers (especially addiction workers, who are perhaps most needed). I just think vilifying police ad hominem is destructive, disingenuous and foolish.
My apologies, I must have missed it.
My question is they would support and vote for Democrats anyway regardless of whether they’re employed and funded by the government, no? I don’t get that as an incentive for Democrats to therefore create such positions, as you’re suggesting.
For example, some argue (and I believe there was contemporaneous evidence thereof) that the Right To Buy legislation in the UK was created in part so that it would shift the voting behaviour of the voters towards the Conservative Party since they would then perceive their interests to be more aligned with the Conservative Party.
In this case however, what you’re suggesting is that such people already are aligned with the Democratic Party? If so, then such an incentive doesn’t exist?
Politicians deliver goodies to constituents to keep them happy and deny goodies to those they do not like for the same reason. Not difficult math. But you do ignore the central issue, which is the destructive ad hominem attacks on police, most of whom do their best to carry out their jobs the best way they can. Giving tickets to double-parked Range Rovers and so forth.