So what’s next?

[Dill]

(06-07-2020, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are folks in this very thread that once wanted no part of Joe Biden now signing his praises.

As for me: I really don't care who gets the White House in 2020 now that the Socialists are eliminated. At least fn we get Biden we can has threads in this forum that actually focus on the issues. 

One way to actually focus on the issues would be to explain why getting rid of a president who wrecks police reform and encourages police brutality is not an appropriate project for the majority of the country who like to see reform implemented without an obstacle as formidable as the Oval Office.

It is astonishing that you keep responding to issues as if it simply didn't matter who was president, least of all Trump.

As if a president announcing his intent to (illegally) "dominate the streets" with the US military during a time of national crisis with protests and riots in every major city were not himself increasing rather than resolving tensions.

As if bringing Trump into the conversation of how manage this crisis and prevent future ones were simply beside the point, bringing up non issues.

If you WANT a president who blocks police reform and encourages bad behavior, or if you DON'T, then you ought to say that one way or another. 

But for some reason you cannot. Instead, you must count the number of times Trump threads appear in this forum, as if that in itself were some kind of DIVERSION from our multiple current national crises rather than an appropriate and clear indication of his implication in them. Talk about managing the national pandemic without reference to the guy who thrust states into "free market" competition for CPV-19 supplies? Get police reform started without reference to the president poised to block it? The thrust of your posts this entire thread has been to UNFOCUS actual issues with diversion after diversion--Obama said "thugs" too, and we don't blame him for Garner or Roof, more talk of presidential over reach than a burning church basement, etc.

LOL "liberal hypocrisy" turns out to be context sensitive: If Biden were running against Hillary, then I might want no part of Biden. But if he is running against Trump then yes, I do "sing his praises." Because Trump.

I.e., because Trump is so spectacularly bad on every level: character, compassion, competence, knowledge etc.

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2020, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Consider myself "checked". So let me not put words in your mouth and ask you a question:

Do you think a large amount of threads in this forum get derailed into Trump, when a more civil discourse would occur if it were not?

If you say yes; then you agree with my original assertion and I'm unsure why you took it to task. If you say no then we'll just disagree.  

All federal level executive policies have to do with Trump. Every. Single. One. In a democratic society, a representative democracy, a republic, whatever you wish to call it because it all means the same thing, we elect officials that are accountable to us, the people. In the executive branch, we elect an executive who then, in turn, hires others to carry out their policies. Because the executive we elect is the one most accountable to the people either directly through the electoral process or indirectly through another branch, i.e. the legislature, any conversation about executive policies begins and ends with the elected official.

If you would like to have a conversation about the lack of in depth and critical analysis of policy issues in this forum, that is a legitimate conversation to have. But let's be clear, that has never happened. It didn't have with George W. Bush, it didn't happen with Barack Obama, and it isn't happening with Donald Trump. There are always going to be those that don't contribute in a civil manner. Some of us gave up long ago but randomly see something interesting and try to have a good conversation but it is mostly ignored.

Anyway, the derailment that occurs is not because Trump was brought up, it is because people choose to make it about him, the person, and not his role as POTUS. He is the executive. He is responsible for every single policy that comes out of the White House. That's how our system works. Just bringing Trump into something doesn't mean it is a derailment. Which is why you were putting words in my mouth.

[GMDino]

(06-08-2020, 01:18 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: This is 2020 in America. Trump has derailed a whole lot more than just a large amount of threads in this forum.

And absolutely more civil discourse would occur if the president and leader of one of the two major political parties in this country wasn't a loud-mouth orange shitty-haircut having lying conman reality tv-show host narcissist who many in the party don't even acknowledge when he is being an asshole and destructive to our country. 

Would it?  Because that same "man" is never going to stop commenting.  Even if Twitter shts him down after he's out of office he's still going to be interviewed by the likes of Fox & Friends and Hannity and OAN as an ex-president.  Worse...they'd do it even if he hadn't been POTUS.

The "discourse" will forever be interrupted by Trump and his family now.  And his defenders will then step in and say "he's out of office and we shouldn't be talking about him!!!  You said to not blame everything on Obama!!!" 

[fredtoast]

(06-07-2020, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think a large amount of threads in this forum get derailed into Trump, when a more civil discourse would occur if it were not?

It is almost impossible to have a discussion on any issue without Trump interjecting himself into it.  That is all he does.  He tweets on everything.  And since he is the president of the United States his comments carry weight.

What I see a lot of is Trump supporters who get embarrassed by something he says or does so they say we can't talk about it.  It is their "go to" defense.  They try to claim we should ignore what the leader of the free world has to say because it doesn't matter.

[Dill]

(06-08-2020, 07:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you would like to have a conversation about the lack of in depth and critical analysis of policy issues in this forum, that is a legitimate conversation to have. But let's be clear, that has never happened. It didn't have with George W. Bush, it didn't happen with Barack Obama, and it isn't happening with Donald Trump. There are always going to be those that don't contribute in a civil manner. Some of us gave up long ago but randomly see something interesting and try to have a good conversation but it is mostly ignored.

Anyway, the derailment that occurs is not because Trump was brought up, it is because people choose to make it about him, the person, and not his role as POTUS. He is the executive. He is responsible for every single policy that comes out of the White House. That's how our system works. Just bringing Trump into something doesn't mean it is a derailment. Which is why you were putting words in my mouth.

I don't agree that we've never had "in-depth" critical analyses of policy issues in the forum. Factoring in our amateur status, we have had some good ones on foreign policy. They have been derailed at times when some people divert from policy to personal attack, calling others "disingenuous" or "liars", sure. I think we have had at least one good, developing discussion of voter suppression (you even posted an academic paper there); same for immigration and climate change, though admittedly these tend to get stalled when the personal attacks begin or one side simply bows out. 

But conversations are equally derailed when grounded criticisms of Trump are reflexively dismissed as "because Trump."

THAT is how people make it about Trump, the person, rather than policy.  As if connecting Trump's past policies and statements encouraging police brutality to current police brutality were simply a personal attack on the order of making fun of his hair, and a diversion from addressing the problem of police brutality.

As if we should leave Trump OUT of any discussion of why his AG and NSC advisor BOTH claim there is no systemic racism in police departments (when most reformers agree the preponderance of evidence suggests there is) because we don't want to "make it about Trump." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/us/politics/justice-department-barr-racism-police.html

So I am agreeing with you here. Trump's position as POTUS places him at the center of Executive policy; impossible to discuss the policy without discussing the person who directs it.

"Derailment" is indeed what happens when people separate Trump the person from his actions as president.   What makes it worse the derailers continually invert cause/effect, claiming that criticizing Trump for what he actually does is "derailment," while separating him from his official actions (the import of "because Trump!") is not.

Rock bottom for the one-time party of personal responsibility.

[*Nately120*]

(06-08-2020, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is almost impossible to have a discussion on any issue without Trump interjecting himself into it.  That is all he does.  He tweets on everything.  And since he is the president of the United States his comments carry weight.

What I see a lot of is Trump supporters who get embarrassed by something he says or does so they say we can't talk about it.  It is their "go to" defense.  They try to claim we should ignore what the leader of the free world has to say because it doesn't matter.

It reminds me of arguments I'd have with a friend of mine in junior high.  I specifically recall him saying that the Packers drafted Brett Favre and I told him the they got him via trade from the Falcons.  This was 1996 or so so you couldn't just look things up.  At any rate, I was even more of a short-fused jerk back then and he dug in his heels and eventually I had to track down some Windows 95 Sports Illustrated almanac on CD rom thing that proved he was wrong.

His response when faced with that was to say something along the lines of "Look how worked up you are and look how calm I am." and then I think he went on to play it off as if he knew Favre was drafted by the Falcons all along and he was just trying to make me crazy.

I guess the bottom line is that I always assumed while I was having absurdly childish "you got mad so I technically win" arguments as a kid the adults of the world were being more rational and civil about things.  Damn, I'm always wrong...but now I have an easier time being calm about it so  I guess I win?


Ok, back to the thread.  If Trump slips any further in the polls he's going to find a way to make sure we don't get an election in November. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2020, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is almost impossible to have a discussion on any issue without Trump interjecting himself into it.  That is all he does.  He tweets on everything.  And since he is the president of the United States his comments carry weight.

What I see a lot of is Trump supporters who get embarrassed by something he says or does so they say we can't talk about it.  It is their "go to" defense.  They try to claim we should ignore what the leader of the free world has to say because it doesn't matter.

Guess why he tweets on everything? He know it will get overblown attention by both sides. The next tweet I read from the original source will be my first.  

None of that changes my original assertion that if Biden wins there will be a lot more threads dedicated to the actual matter instead of looking for 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Biden leans conservative for a Dem and I'm down with that. Removing Trump from office will restore some civility by both the sender and receiver. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-08-2020, 12:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't agree that we've never had "in-depth" critical analyses of policy issues in the forum. Factoring in our amateur status, we have had some good ones on foreign policy. They have been derailed at times when some people divert from policy to personal attack, calling others "disingenuous" or "liars", sure. I think we have had at least one good, developing discussion of voter suppression (you even posted an academic paper there); same for immigration and climate change, though admittedly these tend to get stalled when the personal attacks begin or one side simply bows out. 

But conversations are equally derailed when grounded criticisms of Trump are reflexively dismissed as "because Trump."

THAT is how people make it about Trump, the person, rather than policy.  As if connecting Trump's past policies and statements encouraging police brutality to current police brutality were simply a personal attack on the order of making fun of his hair, and a diversion from addressing the problem of police brutality.

As if we should leave Trump OUT of any discussion of why his AG and NSC advisor BOTH claim there is no systemic racism in police departments (when most reformers agree the preponderance of evidence suggests there is) because we don't want to "make it about Trump." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/us/politics/justice-department-barr-racism-police.html

So I am agreeing with you here. Trump's position as POTUS places him at the center of Executive policy; impossible to discuss the policy without discussing the person who directs it.

"Derailment" is indeed what happens when people separate Trump the person from his actions as president.   What makes it worse the derailers continually invert cause/effect, claiming that criticizing Trump for what he actually does is "derailment," while separating him from his official actions (the import of "because Trump!") is not.

Rock bottom for the one-time party of personal responsibility.

Agreed, we have a lot of great discussions. When people seek to troll for the sake of trolling, it gets derailed. This is a volunteer gig for mods, they shouldn't need to police that behavior. You either need personal growth and maturity on the part of the troll or you need everyone else to not feed the trolling. 

There should be no need to explain how POTUS is relevant to federal policies to justify criticizing POTUS when you criticize the federal policy he influences. Doing so only further feeds into the troll's derailment. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-08-2020, 02:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess why he tweets on everything? He know it will get overblown attention by both sides. The next tweet I read from the original source will be my first.  

None of that changes my original assertion that if Biden wins there will be a lot more threads dedicated to the actual matter instead of looking for 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Biden leans conservative for a Dem and I'm down with that. Removing Trump from office will restore some civility by both the sender and receiver. 

I think things will go back to being a lot more normal if/when we get an actual politician back in the WH.  If Trump wins again in 2020 I fully expect democrats to start digging up some wacky celebrities of their own, but if we actually follow Trump with a normal politician in 2020 or 2024 I suspect history will recall this time period as "that one time the USA made a celebrity the president and everyone inside and outside of the White House went crazy on social media for a while."

[hollodero]

(06-08-2020, 02:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Biden leans conservative for a Dem and I'm down with that. Removing Trump from office will restore some civility by both the sender and receiver. 

Good for you to recognize the former, it's a main point of those you frown upon. As for the latter, of course it will be more civil if a president does not tweet moronic BS and people affiliated with his party don't feel the need to diminish or ignore that and attack those who do not instead.

Btw. Trump literally tweets (waaay) more about NO KNEELING! than about George Floyd. And about 100 other topics. His whole twitter account is crazy. Just crazy. I find it hard to associate that with "overblown attention", a constant stream of sheer craziness from the president of the United States. I feel many people pay way too little attention to what's going on with the person in the highest office. And for sure this IS one of the main topics at hand.

That being said, Democrats brought forward a bundle of measures, that of course will get voted down by the Trump senate, but still, what do you people make out of it? Main points seem to be creation of a National Police Misconduct Registry, additional body cameras, forbidding chokeholds, cutting down on military equipment, racial bias training and an anti-lynching policy.
Imho, the first two points might address the specific problem, the rest I see as ineffective in that regard.

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2020, 04:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think things will go back to being a lot more normal if/when we get an actual politician back in the WH.  If Trump wins again in 2020 I fully expect democrats to start digging up some wacky celebrities of their own, but if we actually follow Trump with a normal politician in 2020 or 2024 I suspect history will recall this time period as "that one time the USA made a celebrity the president and everyone inside and outside of the White House went crazy on social media for a while."

I've always said we need a politician to be President. We currently don't have one and people are losing their shit. Of course I'd also like for the person to have some Military experience, but you cannot get everything. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2020, 04:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Good for you to recognize the former, it's a main point of those you frown upon. As for the latter, of course it will be more civil if a president does not tweet moronic BS and people affiliated with his party don't feel the need to diminish or ignore that and attack those who do not instead.

Btw. Trump literally tweets (waaay) more about NO KNEELING! than about George Floyd. And about 100 other topics. His whole twitter account is crazy. Just crazy. I find it hard to associate that with "overblown attention", a constant stream of sheer craziness from the president of the United States. I feel many people pay way too little attention to what's going on with the person in the highest office. And for sure this IS one of the main topics at hand.

That being said, Democrats brought forward a bundle of measures, that of course will get voted down by the Trump senate, but still, what do you people make out of it? Main points seem to be creation of a National Police Misconduct Registry, additional body cameras, forbidding chokeholds, cutting down on military equipment, racial bias training and an anti-lynching policy.
Imho, the first two points might address the specific problem, the rest I see as ineffective in that regard.

I guess my point is folks do exactly what they ***** about. Biden has even started it. He recently called Trump's remarks about Floyd and the economy despicable; while they had nothing to with the economy. 

[hollodero]

(06-08-2020, 07:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess my point is folks do exactly what they ***** about. Biden has even started it. He recently called Trump's remarks about Floyd and the economy despicable; while they had nothing to with the economy. 

This just is such a minor, minor topic. So unimportant. I even might be inclined to agree halfway with you, were it not such a tiny, tiny topic. Trump usually tweets more awful sfuff before breakfast.
Also, If Trump is called despicable, he deserves it on more than one occasion. How he's perceived is on him, for the most part. But mostly, yaaawn.

Also, your logic is at full display here. Biden said something unfair about Trump, so that means all folks do exactly as they *****(argue) about. That is also quite unfair and makes no sense at all. Your talking points really takes more away from the bigger topics as anyone's.

[For really, here I am, bringing up concrete legislation ideas, and Mr. Let's focus on the topic only responds to the Trump stuff. A bit ironic, don't you think?]

[*bfine32*]

Just as i condemned the Trump photo op on it's merit alone; I must condemn this one as well:

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2020, 08:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just as i condemned the Trump photo op on it's merit alone; I must condemn this one as well:

Yeah, my wife told me about this and I was like "what the ever-loving hell were they thinking?!" I can't with these people.

[*Nately120*]

I guess democrats can't let the neo-cons hog all the tone deafness.

[Dill]

(06-08-2020, 09:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, my wife told me about this and I was like "what the ever-loving hell were they thinking?!" I can't with these people.

I think they were thinking to show support for BLM and the push police reform.

[samhain]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned it, but what are people's thought on the whole "defund the police" issue?

Apparently Minneapolis city council has a veto-proof majority to get it done.

IMO this is dangerous territory both politically and from a law enforcement perspective. I'm not completely sure how it would shake out, but it seems that state and county officials would step into roles once filled by city cops. I've also heard some say that communities would police themselves, which I think is even more risky. Are we talking about vigilanteism here? Does it leave a niche to be filled by organized crime and extortion/protection rackets?

We just saw two clowns go cowboy in Georgia over somebody getting a drink of water at a construction site. I'm not quite ready to think that people at large are going to make rational and safe decisions when it comes to protecting life and property.

[treee]

(06-09-2020, 04:34 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm surprised nobody's mentioned it, but what are people's thought on the whole "defund the police" issue?

Apparently Minneapolis city council has a veto-proof majority to get it done.  

IMO this is dangerous territory both politically and from a law enforcement perspective.  I'm not completely sure how it would shake out, but it seems that state and county officials would step into roles once filled by city cops.  I've also heard some say that communities would police themselves, which I think is even more risky.  Are we talking about vigilanteism here?  Does it leave a niche to be filled by organized crime and extortion/protection rackets?  

We just saw two clowns go cowboy in Georgia over somebody getting a drink of water at a construction site.  I'm not quite ready to think that people at large are going to make rational and safe decisions when it comes to protecting life and property.

From my understanding these types of movements are mostly about diverting funds from policing to social programs, and rebuilding a new PD (especially if attempts to reform that PD have received significant institutional pushback). Popular ways to do this could be to divert money that would go to purchasing military equipment for the PD, and instead use it for substance abuse programs or women's shelters and things like that. Its less about taking LEOs out of circulation and more about decreasing the role they play in civil matters.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2020, 04:34 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm surprised nobody's mentioned it, but what are people's thought on the whole "defund the police" issue?

Apparently Minneapolis city council has a veto-proof majority to get it done.

IMO this is dangerous territory both politically and from a law enforcement perspective. I'm not completely sure how it would shake out, but it seems that state and county officials would step into roles once filled by city cops. I've also heard some say that communities would police themselves, which I think is even more risky. Are we talking about vigilanteism here? Does it leave a niche to be filled by organized crime and extortion/protection rackets?

We just saw two clowns go cowboy in Georgia over somebody getting a drink of water at a construction site. I'm not quite ready to think that people at large are going to make rational and safe decisions when it comes to protecting life and property.

Defunding the police isn't about disbanding police; they are two different movements. Defunding is, as discussed, about diverting resources from police to other community based options for mental health, homelessness, food insecurity, etc. While I think that any police officer would say that they are asked to do a lot of things they are not trained to do like dealing with these social issues, I think we need to think about the competing narratives going on.

There has been a lot of criticism about the length/amount of training required for an officer. It's true that many lower stakes professions require more training for their certification, but in order for us to push for reform and require more training they will need, you guessed it, more funding. That is where a ton of money in police departments is already spent, so attempts to divert funds from police would make the training even less.

Disbanding the police is just stupid. I don't really have much more to say about that. Reforms are needed, but that isn't one of them.