It has been brought up in a couple threads here already but I don't want to derail those so I'm putting this in a new thread.
Whatever your feelings about it, or your understanding of it, Trump is using it for purely political purposes and got caught lying about it...then doubled down on twitter (bluecheck!) where he could not be confronted about it to his face.
WASHINGTON – Fox News host Chris Wallace fact-checked President Donald Trump's inaccurate claim during an interview that former Vice President Joe Biden is in favor of defunding the police, leading to a testy reaction.
In a clip released between the "FOX News Sunday” anchor and Trump – the entire interview will air Sunday – the president blamed "stupidly run" Democratic local governments for the increase in violence in some cities and implied the increase was the fault of the defund the police movement.
More:Biden-Sanders unity task forces release proposals to overhaul criminal justice, immigration
The proposed Democratic Party platform does include a series of police reforms including banning choke holds, ending racial profiling and allowing victims of abuse to pursue civil litigation.
However, the platform does not support defunding the police, as Biden and his campaign have stated on multiple occasions.
Wallace points this out, saying the plan "says nothing about defunding the police."
"Oh really? It says abolish, it says defund. Let’s go! Get me the charter, please," Trump said, turning to speak to staff out-of-frame.
NEW: Chris and President Trump sit down to discuss the recent spike in violence in major cities across the country. Tune in Sunday to catch the full interview. #FoxNewsSundaypic.twitter.com/r7hwgyVhKM
The Trump administration and campaign have been continually lodging attacks and ads at Biden, claiming he wants to defund and abolish the police.
Vice President Mike Pence said Friday, “Joe Biden would weaken the thin blue line that separates us from chaos,” and continued, “You won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America,” seizing on remarks Biden made recently where he expressed support for redirecting some funds, but not all, to bettering social services.
Law enforcement has become a flashpoint between Biden and Trump because of protests following the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody. More:George Floyd's family sues city of Minneapolis, Derek Chauvin and 3 former officers
Biden became the presumptive nominee with support from Black voters in key states who are demanding police reforms. Trump has campaigned as the law-and-order president fighting chaos that erupted at some protests.
Biden has pledged support for the central cause of Black Lives Matter protesters – fighting systemic racism – and proposed policing changes.
Later Friday, Trump repeated his claim on Twitter:
Corrupt Joe Biden wants to defund our police. He may use different words, but when you look at his pact with Crazy Bernie, and other things, that’s what he wants to do. It would destroy America!
I've been told in this very forum that those things the Biden campaign want to do is rightly called defund.
As to me: I think the term is divisive, much like Black Lives Matter. If you have to spend that much time describing how your term is not what you call it, then you might want to re-look the term.
A member of the Senate drafted a reform bill but because of the Dems they weren't even allowed to debate it.
(07-18-2020, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've been told in this very forum that those things the Biden campaign want to do is rightly called defund.
As to me: I think the term is divisive, much like Black Lives Matter. If you have to spend that much time describing how your term is not what you call it, then you might want to re-look the term.
A member of the Senate drafted a reform bill but because of the Dems they weren't even allowed to debate it.
Iirc it was a very straight forward bill that should have been able to have been passed with unanimous consent. One could just as easily cast doubt on the motives of the republicans for insisting it go up for debate.
(07-18-2020, 12:29 PM)treee Wrote: Iirc it was a very straight forward bill that should have been able to have been passed with unanimous consent. One could just as easily cast doubt on the motives of the republicans for insisting it go up for debate.
I'd assume so it would get a better reception in the Dem controlled house. They made no limit on the amendments the Dems could introduce. If all but 3? Dems voted to not even debate it in the Senate, what do you think the house would have done? Hell Pelosci said he was trying to "get away with murder".
IMO it's absurd to "cast doubt" on the GOP in this instance. Imagine the shit storm if the was one black Dem Senate who would have proposed a bill and Mitch dismissed it as a "token' bill. The Libs would have lost their shit.
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UNITY-TASK-FORCE-RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf Non-Police Responses:Federal funding to create a civilian corps of unarmed first responders such as social workers, EMTs, and trained mental health professionals, who can handle non-violent emergencies including order maintenanceviolations, mental health emergencies, and low-level conflicts outside the criminal justice system, freeing police officers to concentrate on the most serious crimes. Fund initiatives to partner mental health professionals, substance use disorder experts,social workers, and disability advocates with police departments to respond to calls with police officers to better de-escalate interactions with citizens and when appropriate, to divert individuals to the social services they need.
But I don't think they line up with Trump's definition, if he means get rid of police departments. Cuz with Biden the depts. are all still there. Just deployed differently.
(07-18-2020, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've been told in this very forum that those things the Biden campaign want to do is rightly called defund.
As to me: I think the term is divisive, much like Black Lives Matter. If you have to spend that much time describing how your term is not what you call it, then you might want to re-look the term.
A member of the Senate drafted a reform bill but because of the Dems they weren't even allowed to debate it.
I agree on "defund the police" being a bad term, putting it that way really is a questionable PR decision.
What Biden wants might be called "defund" if used in the sense of decreasing their responsibilities. But what Biden wants is not rightly called "defund" if you use the term like Trump does it, as abolishing the police and destroying America.
(07-18-2020, 01:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: I agree on "defund the police" being a bad term, putting it that way really is a questionable PR decision.
What Biden wants might be called "defund" if used in the sense of decreasing their responsibilities. But what Biden wants is not rightly called "defund" if you use the term like Trump does it, as abolishing the police and destroying America.
"Partially reallocate responsibilities" doesn't sound as scary though.
You could call it "relieve the police"... disengage the police... but straight up going to defund the police is really not a message made for America. "Here's the slogan, now please take your time and your unbiased efforts to let me explain what I mean by that" never will work in this environment.
(07-18-2020, 01:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: I agree on "defund the police" being a bad term, putting it that way really is a questionable PR decision.
What Biden wants might be called "defund" if used in the sense of decreasing their responsibilities. But what Biden wants is not rightly called "defund" if you use the term like Trump does it, as abolishing the police and destroying America.
Of course it's a bad term. Hell even Biden's team is smart enough to know that. It should be reform the police. The GOP Senate tried to push a bill on it, but the Dems know a bad political issue associated with the GOP this close to election time is better than a bill that could improve society
(07-18-2020, 02:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: but the Dems know a bad political issue associated with the GOP this close to election time is better than a bill that could improve society
Actually Republicans tried to push through a weak sauce law that didn't do everything that needed to be done just so they could claim the political high ground.
If they had juts agreed to some more terms, like barring choke holds, I think it could have gotten done. But for some reasons Republicans stood strong on a practice that is known to be deadly and is laready barred in most police forces.
(07-18-2020, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually Republicans tried to push through a weak sauce law that didn't do everything that needed to be done just so they could claim the political high ground.
If they had juts agreed to some more terms, like barring choke holds, I think it could have gotten done. But for some reasons Republicans stood strong on a practice that is known to be deadly and is laready barred in most police forces.
YES!! They tried to "push through" a law in which they were allowing the Dems to address as many amendments as they wanted. Who knows if the Dems would have allowed the bill to be debated maybe, just maybe....
But the Dems found that one little nugget that they can claim the GOP is "Trying to get away with murder" on their "token" Bill.
Video for reference. Doesn't seem to sound as bad as the one sentence through text.
Also I'd say he is talking about perception one might have of them due to their equipment rather than what he thinks of law enforcement in general.
I've heard the clip several times. I just thought it important to note that he actually did utter those words. Articles everywhere are claiming that's not what he said or meant. This happens to DJT quite frequently, and the news media has a field day with it.
I bring this up, and mention the above mainly to point out the hypocrisy of when it happens to the one I don't like, it's fun. When it happens to the one I do like, it's more like "oh, that's not what he meant to say".
You can't have double standards for whomever is being looked at. Either we judge what everyone says by the exact letter of what they said, or we use context, imagery and symbolism to interpret the intended meaning of what every speaker said. Which is it??
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(07-18-2020, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually Republicans tried to push through a weak sauce law that didn't do everything that needed to be done just so they could claim the political high ground.
If they had juts agreed to some more terms, like barring choke holds, I think it could have gotten done. But for some reasons Republicans stood strong on a practice that is known to be deadly and is laready barred in most police forces.
(07-18-2020, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: YES!! They tried to "push through" a law in which they were allowing the Dems to address as many amendments as they wanted. Who knows if the Dems would have allowed the bill to be debated maybe, just maybe....
But the Dems found that one little nugget that they can claim the GOP is "Trying to get away with murder" on their "token" Bill.
Literally chokeholds murdering people is why there were protests and calls for reform.
It ain't a "nugget" unless you're on the side thinking killing suspects by choking them is okay.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-18-2020, 04:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Literally chokeholds murdering people is why there were protests and calls for reform.
It ain't a "nugget" unless you're on the side thinking killing suspects by choking them is okay.
Why didn't you bold the part where I stated the Dems wouldn't even discuss it despite being allowed to suggest unlimited amendments?
So yes; it's a little nugget. The Dems were free to debate the inclusion on barring choke holds and refused not to. Now people can be honest in why they think this is.
IMO it's just like the GOP not allowing the Obama SCOTUS nominee. I don't see how folks on either side cannot see it for exactly what it was. There's no way in Hell the Dems were going to allow a GOP Senate to be the creator of a police reform bill and one that would be signed by Donald Trump and it damn sure was not because a pre-debated bill didn't bar choke holds.
(07-18-2020, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why didn't you bold the part where I stated the Dems wouldn't even discuss it despite being allowed to suggest unlimited amendments?
So yes; it's a little nugget. The Dems were free to debate the inclusion on barring choke holds and refused not to. Now people can be honest in why they think this is.
IMO it's just like the GOP not allowing the Obama SCOTUS nominee. I don't see how folks on either side cannot see it for exactly what it was. There's no way in Hell the Dems were going to allow a GOP Senate to be the creator of a police reform bill and one that would be signed by Donald Trump and it damn sure was not because a pre-debated bill didn't bar choke holds.
bfine that the GOP didn't even have it in the bill to begin with says more about them than the Democrats not "debating" whether it should be there or not.
You made a lot of assumptions in that post but they have nothing to do with the fact (not assumption) that the GOP didn't care and just wanted to post something that said "reform" on it.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-18-2020, 04:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Literally chokeholds murdering people is why there were protests and calls for reform.
It ain't a "nugget" unless you're on the side thinking killing suspects by choking them is okay.
Everyone get's that. Now ask yourself what is so hard about complying with "You are under arrest" or "stop resisting"? Many of these cases are the result of perpetrators fighting with the police, in an attempt to not be taken into custody. What are the police to do, just allow them to run away?
I'm sure that you'll already be prepared to steer the question away from the behavior that I'm pointing to, with something about racial profiling or being arrested for non crimes, etc. But, just humor me for a moment, and address the behavior of the criminal that often leads to the use of force to subdue or apprehend. How about we ask our criminals to simply obey the directives of the officers?
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
