SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[Gandalf]

I did indeed mean "backing Biden." Cheers.

In addition to 2016, I wonder why they didn't have that energy in 2002 - 2008. Powell right now is just a retired guy, but when he had a chance to actually do something, he went along and became a war criminal. The best advice he can offer is "Don't make my mistakes."

It reeks of opportunism, like those ex-Republicans who keep showing up on MSNBC. Are they really that anti-Trump, or are they just grumpy about being on the outer?

[The Romulan Republic]

Probably a mix of both.

The Atlantic had a really interesting article recently on why people become collaborators, and why some people stop being collaborators, with specific reference to the current situation. I should probably repost it here, but since its a broader topic than the election, I'll probably give it its own thread.

[ray245]

I did indeed mean "backing Biden." Cheers.

In addition to 2016, I wonder why they didn't have that energy in 2002 - 2008. Powell right now is just a retired guy, but when he had a chance to actually do something, he went along and became a war criminal. The best advice he can offer is "Don't make my mistakes."

It reeks of opportunism, like those ex-Republicans who keep showing up on MSNBC. Are they really that anti-Trump, or are they just grumpy about being on the outer?

They never liked Trump to begin with. They only cared about winning, and that's why they decided to hop onboard the Trump express.

Now that Trump is likely to lose, they are finding ways to salvage their party and to win future election by saying "see? We're not as bad as Trump".

Trump is nothing more than a tool for their interest. They are not trying to win the 2020 election. They are trying to win the 2024 election.

[The Romulan Republic]

I did indeed mean "backing Biden." Cheers.

In addition to 2016, I wonder why they didn't have that energy in 2002 - 2008. Powell right now is just a retired guy, but when he had a chance to actually do something, he went along and became a war criminal. The best advice he can offer is "Don't make my mistakes."

It reeks of opportunism, like those ex-Republicans who keep showing up on MSNBC. Are they really that anti-Trump, or are they just grumpy about being on the outer?

They never liked Trump to begin with. They only cared about winning, and that's why they decided to hop onboard the Trump express.

Now that Trump is likely to lose, they are finding ways to salvage their party and to win future election by saying "see? We're not as bad as Trump".

Trump is nothing more than a tool for their interest. They are not trying to win the 2020 election. They are trying to win the 2024 election.

That's probably true of some, although with some I think there is genuine principle of sorts as well. Not progressive principles, but these folks are part of the old guard, left over from the Cold War, that believes in American exceptionalism and American alliances and leadership abroad, and a certain conception of American institutions and unity, which Trump is anathema to. That's a world view with all kinds of problems to it, and I have no illusions that this makes them particularly progressive or particularly good people, but it does mean that some of them probably have a genuine ideological motive, not merely a self-serving one, for opposing him.

Romney, also, took a significant step beyond merely voicing opposition when he broke with pretty much the entire party to impeach.

[The Romulan Republic]

New CNN poll has Biden at HOLY FUCKING SHIT plus 14.

At this point, my biggest fear is that these numbers will make people overconfident, so they won't feel as much need to actually get out and vote. So just remember, folks: its not enough to lead. We need that landslide, both because it'll make it harder for Trump to cheat, and because if he only narrowly loses after everything that's happened, then it normalizes him and what he's done. Legitimizes him. We need to fucking clean his clock, if we want it to be seen as a decisive repudiation of Trumpism (and if we want the wins downballot that will enable us to actually pass systemic reform).

[The Romulan Republic]

Fivethirtyeight has Trump's approval rating at 41.1, disapproval at 54.7. After a period of ups and downs since covid started, where he briefly bordered on positive approval ratings, its been pretty steadily moving against him for a while. Its now the worst its been since November, at the height of impeachment, and no sign of leveling out yet.

Generic Congressional poll is at 49 to 40.6 in the Democrats' favor. I wouldn't be shocked if both go below 40% by the end of the week.

Hell, if he does cheat his way to a win, nobody outside his base will believe it at this point. The fraud will be obvious, and the response explosive.

[loomer]

The left: No more funding for the police!
Biden: No, more funding for the police!

[Lost Soal]

The left: No more funding for the police!
Biden: No, more funding for the police!

Don't bother complaining, he'll just tell you to vote for someone else.

[The Romulan Republic]

The left: No more funding for the police!
Biden: No, more funding for the police!

That is an oversimplified characterization of his position- to the point that I would call it a straw man.

Biden does not support "defunding". However, his proposals (of which his comments on police funding are only a part) do include making federal funding conditional on police department reforms, and witholding federal funds from departments which engage in excessive violence. In short, its a carrot-stick strategy, not the blank check to the police that you're portraying it as.

Here's the actual text of Biden's article, since loomer did not see fit to share it:

Biden: We must urgently root out systemic racism, from policing to housing to opportunity
Federal dollars should not go to departments that violate people’s rights or turn to violence as a first resort, but I don't support defunding police.
Joe BidenOpinion contributor

From the moment I launched my campaign, I have said that we are in the battle for the soul of this nation. And after two weeks of daily protests, with thousands of people coming out to march for racial justice in the midst of a pandemic, with gatherings in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and in communities of every size, the American people have shown the world exactly where we stand in this battle.

We know the nation we want to be. Now we have to deliver on this moment to achieve fundamental changes that address racial inequalities and white supremacy in our country.

President Donald Trump’s hate-filled, conspiracy-laden rhetoric is inflaming the racial divides in our country, but just fixing the way the president talks won’t cut it. We need to root out systemic racism across our laws and institutions, and we need to make sure black Americans have a real shot to get ahead.

Undo systemic economic racism
For too long, black Americans have lived with a knee on their neck — not only institutional violence but daily injustices like having the police called for sitting in a coffee shop or watching birds in the park.

I support the proposal pending in New York to enhance penalties for making a false 911 call based on race, gender or religion. No one should be subjected to that kind of discrimination, ever.

We should also be directing our resources to actively undo the negative effect systemic racism has had on opportunities for black Americans. For example, African American entrepreneurs are rejected for loans at a rate nearly 20 percentage points higher than white entrepreneurs, and when they do receive funding, it's far less. We should prioritize support for mission-driven lenders in low-income communities by doubling the State Small Business Credit Initiative. We should expand the New Markets Tax Credit Program to funnel billions in investments into communities that need it. And the Small Business Administration should expand its programs that are most effective at helping launch black-owned businesses.

For most Americans, home ownership is the key to financial stability and building generational wealth. Today, the gap between African American and white homeownership is larger than it was in the late 1960s. We have to give local officials the tools to combat gentrification, end discriminatory lending practices, and eliminate exclusionary zoning laws designed to keep low-income people and people of color out of certain communities.

President Trump has actively undermined progress on all these issues, including suspending the Obama-Biden administration’s rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which required communities to proactively examine housing patterns and identify and address policies that have a discriminatory effect.

We should be working with state, local and tribal school leaders, as well as the presidents of historically black colleges and universities, tribal colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions to develop plans for improving teacher diversity, solving the student debt crisis, and investing in these historically underfunded institutions that are critical to our national success.

Across the board — from our classrooms to our courtrooms to the president’s Cabinet — we have to make sure that our leadership and our institutions actually look like America.

And we must urgently address the abuse of power in police departments. I commend the leaders in the Democratic Party in Congress for proposing legislation that includes vital reforms: banning chokeholds, ensuring prosecutors in police-involved killings are independent, collecting data regarding police use of force and violations of use of force standards, and requiring training for officers regarding racial and religious bias and their duty to intervene if another officer is abusing his or her power.

Don't defund police, support reforms
If state and local governments fail to make necessary changes, the Department of Justice must have subpoena power for pattern or practice investigations into systemic misconduct by police departments and force these departments to reform.

While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people’s rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police. The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms.

I’ve long been a firm believer in the power of community policing — getting cops out of their cruisers and building relationships with the people and the communities they are there to serve and protect. That’s why I’m proposing an additional $300 million to reinvigorate community policing in our country. Every single police department should have the money it needs to institute real reforms like adopting a national use of force standard, buying body cameras and recruiting more diverse police officers.

And we need to prevent 911 calls in scenarios where police should not be our first responders. That means making serious investments in mental health services, drug treatment and prevention programs, and services for people experiencing homelessness. That may also mean having social service providers respond to calls with police officers.

Nothing about this fight will be easy. Institutions resist change. Racism has been a fixture in our society for hundreds of years. It will take leadership at the highest levels of our government — and sustained grassroots pressure from communities who will no longer stand by silently when injustices are inflicted on people of color. Vitally, it will require all of us to examine our own conduct, our deeply ingrained habits and our own thinking.

I’m ready to do that work, starting on Day One. Nothing less is acceptable from an American president.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @JoeBiden

The left: No more funding for the police!
Biden: No, more funding for the police!

Don't bother complaining, he'll just tell you to vote for someone else.

Biden has, in actual practice, been far more responsive to the concerns of the Left than any other major party candidate I can recall. And yet, when Trump is literally gassing minorities, you're still out here spreading theses narratives, trying to stir up Left-wing resentment... why? There's only one reason that can think of: to encourage people not to vote for Biden, knowing full well what the consequences of that would be.

I would honestly respect this shit just a little bit more if the people who engaged in it were honest enough to say "We want Trump to win, because we would rather the world burn than get only part of what we want." That would at least be honest, to yourselves and to others.

[loomer]

The left: No more funding for the police!
Biden: No, more funding for the police!

That is an oversimplified characterization of his position- to the point that I would call it a straw man.

Biden does not support "defunding". However, his proposals (of which his comments on police funding are only a part) do include making federal funding conditional on police department reforms, and witholding federal funds from departments which engage in excessive violence. In short, its a carrot-stick strategy, not the blank check to the police that you're portraying it as.

Here's the actual text of Biden's article, since loomer did not see fit to share it:<SNIP>

Hm. So, you're calling it a strawman. Let's examine what a strawman is, shall we?

A strawman is where someone misrepresents someone's position so they can argue against a superficially similar position that hasn't been advanced but which is easier to refute, and which, because of the similar appearance, will be confused with the actual argument.

You will note that my characterization of Biden's position is 'more funding to the police' - a flippant simplification, but an accurate one, as he's calling for $300 million in additional funding to police departments and actively rejecting calls for defunding for police. This is, in fact, a position that may be fairly characterized as 'more funding to the police' as, being generously, we might read it thus: 'more funding to the police if they stop beating people'. This is not what defunding advocates are asking for, which is, drumroll please - defunding.

So, as usual, no. No strawman has been built, and you're using words you don't understand yet again. Biden's response to calls to defund the police is, quite literally, to call for increased funding. He adds a few other throwins - 'oh, well, we'll do a little reform, and maybe we could work on socioeconomic issues' - but at the end of the day, his response is still 'no, we'll give them $300 million more instead of less'.

The left: No more funding for the police!
Biden: No, more funding for the police!

Don't bother complaining, he'll just tell you to vote for someone else.

Biden has, in actual practice, been far more responsive to the concerns of the Left than any other major party candidate I can recall. And yet, when Trump is literally gassing minorities, you're still out here spreading theses narratives, trying to stir up Left-wing resentment... why? There's only one reason that can think of: to encourage people not to vote for Biden, knowing full well what the consequences of that would be.

I would honestly respect this shit just a little bit more if the people who engaged in it were honest enough to say "We want Trump to win, because we would rather the world burn than get only part of what we want." That would at least be honest, to yourselves and to others.

You know, I'm getting tired of your 'with us or against us' attitude (and weren't you supposed to be ignoring me?) So let me make something clear: I don't want Trump to win, but that doesn't mean I'm going to fall in line behind Biden when he's arguing for things like increased funding for police or telling the Black community that if they don't vote Democrat they aren't Black. These are not issues you can shove down and go 'well, it's Biden, so it's okay'. There is actually very little more dangerous to genuine democratic process than an attitude of 'we must ignore our side's failures to defeat the other side', especially when those failures are likely to further demotivate disenchanted voters. You'll notice that I've been plenty critical of Trump and the regime, too - I just don't feel that I owe Biden or the Democrats any particular loyalty.

Like, seriously. Do you think voters rallying to the cry to defund or even outright abolish the police are going to find Biden's 'no, give them more money if they promise to behave' response particularly invigorating?

(Also, you're deluding yourself if you think I need to 'stir up' Left-wing resentment of a centre-right candidate who's been picked to challenge a right candidate over multiple centre-left candidates, who was responsible for much of the increased policing currently plaguing your nation, and whose response to things is, again, statements like 'no give them more money' and 'if you won't vote for me you aren't black'. It's not Australians rolling their eyes at him that stirs up resentment: It's what he does that stirs them up. And what's with the 'spreading these narratives' line? Is 'things Biden said' now a narrative?)

[The Romulan Republic]

Hm. So, you're calling it a strawman. Let's examine what a strawman is, shall we?

A strawman is where someone misrepresents someone's position so they can argue against a superficially similar position that hasn't been advanced but which is easier to refute, and which, because of the similar appearance, will be confused with the actual argument.

You will note that my characterization of Biden's position is 'more funding to the police' - a flippant simplification, but an accurate one, as he's calling for $300 million in additional funding to police departments and actively rejecting calls for defunding for police. This is, in fact, a position that may be fairly characterized as 'more funding to the police' as, being generously, we might read it thus: 'more funding to the police if they stop beating people'. This is not what defunding advocates are asking for, which is, drumroll please - defunding.

So, as usual, no. No strawman has been built, and you're using words you don't understand yet again. Biden's response to calls to defund the police is, quite literally, to call for increased funding. He adds a few other throwins - 'oh, well, we'll do a little reform, and maybe we could work on socioeconomic issues' - but at the end of the day, his response is still 'no, we'll give them $300 million more instead of less'.

I would argue that taking a portion of someone's position out of context, and handwaving away all qualifying statements to treat it as their entire position, "misrepresents someone's position so they can argue against a superficially similar position".

You know, I'm getting tired of your 'with us or against us' attitude (and weren't you supposed to be ignoring me?) So let me make something clear: I don't want Trump to win, but that doesn't mean I'm going to fall in line behind Biden when he's arguing for things like increased funding for police or telling the Black community that if they don't vote Democrat they aren't Black. These are not issues you can shove down and go 'well, it's Biden, so it's okay'. There is actually very little more dangerous to genuine democratic process than an attitude of 'we must ignore our side's failures to defeat the other side', especially when those failures are likely to further demotivate disenchanted voters. You'll notice that I've been plenty critical of Trump and the regime, too - I just don't feel that I owe Biden or the Democrats any particular loyalty.

It might surprise you, but neither do I.

Biden is necessary right now. That does not mean that, once in office, I will not lobby him to pursue more progressive policies. It does not mean that I will not support a primary challenge in 2020, if I am dissatisfied with the results. I am not advocating for giving Biden a blank check. I don't do Cult of the Leader.

What I am saying is that your critique does not accurately reflect Biden's actual position.

Like, seriously. Do you think voters rallying to the cry to defund or even outright abolish the police are going to find Biden's 'no, give them more money if they promise to behave' response particularly invigorating?

At present, polls suggest that most voters, at least, consider him acceptable as an alternative to Trump. Of course, the ultimate test of that will be in November.

(Also, you're deluding yourself if you think I need to 'stir up' Left-wing resentment of a centre-right candidate who's been picked to challenge a right candidate over multiple centre-left candidates, who was responsible for much of the increased policing currently plaguing your nation, and whose response to things is, again, statements like 'no give them more money' and 'if you won't vote for me you aren't black'. It's not Australians rolling their eyes at him that stirs up resentment: It's what he does that stirs them up. And what's with the 'spreading these narratives' line? Is 'things Biden said' now a narrative?)

First of all, that comment was directed at Lost Soal.

Secondly, of course that resentment is there, but Biden and Sanders and others have been working very hard to minimize it, with some success. And yet there seems a concerted effort from some to stir it up again- both from angry progressives and "anti-establishment" folks, and from Trumpers who know it is in their interests to drive a wedge between Biden and progressives.

And no, quoting Biden is not a "narrative"- but you took a single portion of his response out of context, without the qualifying statements, and treated it as the whole. You characterized his argument as simply "Increase police funding", as though he was proposing to simply double down on police militarization and "tough on crime" like Trump, when that is not an accurate characterization of his position. And I think that you knew you were misrepresenting his position, given that you yourself acknowledged it was "a flippant simplification", and that you tellingly chose not to quote the actual article you were "simplifying".

So if you want to criticize elements of Biden's proposals, I'm not arguing. But I think that those proposals should be critiqued for what they are, both good and bad, not a single inflamatory point taken out of context.

[The Romulan Republic]

And in other news, Trump just threatened to sue CNN for reporting that his poll numbers are falling.

[loomer]

Hm. So, you're calling it a strawman. Let's examine what a strawman is, shall we?

A strawman is where someone misrepresents someone's position so they can argue against a superficially similar position that hasn't been advanced but which is easier to refute, and which, because of the similar appearance, will be confused with the actual argument.

You will note that my characterization of Biden's position is 'more funding to the police' - a flippant simplification, but an accurate one, as he's calling for $300 million in additional funding to police departments and actively rejecting calls for defunding for police. This is, in fact, a position that may be fairly characterized as 'more funding to the police' as, being generously, we might read it thus: 'more funding to the police if they stop beating people'. This is not what defunding advocates are asking for, which is, drumroll please - defunding.

So, as usual, no. No strawman has been built, and you're using words you don't understand yet again. Biden's response to calls to defund the police is, quite literally, to call for increased funding. He adds a few other throwins - 'oh, well, we'll do a little reform, and maybe we could work on socioeconomic issues' - but at the end of the day, his response is still 'no, we'll give them $300 million more instead of less'.

I would argue that taking a portion of someone's position out of context, and handwaving away all qualifying statements to treat it as their entire position, "misrepresents someone's position so they can argue against a superficially similar position".

Oh, I'm sorry. Which of the qualifying statements involves actually defunding the police and not handing them an additional $300 million, exactly?

You know, I'm getting tired of your 'with us or against us' attitude (and weren't you supposed to be ignoring me?) So let me make something clear: I don't want Trump to win, but that doesn't mean I'm going to fall in line behind Biden when he's arguing for things like increased funding for police or telling the Black community that if they don't vote Democrat they aren't Black. These are not issues you can shove down and go 'well, it's Biden, so it's okay'. There is actually very little more dangerous to genuine democratic process than an attitude of 'we must ignore our side's failures to defeat the other side', especially when those failures are likely to further demotivate disenchanted voters. You'll notice that I've been plenty critical of Trump and the regime, too - I just don't feel that I owe Biden or the Democrats any particular loyalty.

It might surprise you, but neither do I.

Biden is necessary right now. That does not mean that, once in office, I will not lobby him to pursue more progressive policies. It does not mean that I will not support a primary challenge in 2020, if I am dissatisfied with the results. I am not advocating for giving Biden a blank check. I don't do Cult of the Leader.

And yet you continue to attack those who post anything slightly critical of him on the grounds that we must want Trump to win. Weird.

What I am saying is that your critique does not accurately reflect Biden's actual position.

Which critique is that, exactly? Are you confusing a flippant remark for an actual critique? Because, buddy - if I critique someone, it doesn't take place in a single line. If I was offering an actual critique of Biden's policies and not an eyerolling 'jesus christ the guy's an idiot' your head would fucking spin.

Like, seriously. Do you think voters rallying to the cry to defund or even outright abolish the police are going to find Biden's 'no, give them more money if they promise to behave' response particularly invigorating?

At present, polls suggest that most voters, at least, consider him acceptable as an alternative to Trump. Of course, the ultimate test of that will be in November.

Sorry, that feeble sidestep doesn't answer the question. Let me ask you again:

Do you think voters rallying to the cry to defund or even outright abolish the police are going to find Biden's 'no, give them more money if they promise to behave' response particularly invigorating?

(Also, you're deluding yourself if you think I need to 'stir up' Left-wing resentment of a centre-right candidate who's been picked to challenge a right candidate over multiple centre-left candidates, who was responsible for much of the increased policing currently plaguing your nation, and whose response to things is, again, statements like 'no give them more money' and 'if you won't vote for me you aren't black'. It's not Australians rolling their eyes at him that stirs up resentment: It's what he does that stirs them up. And what's with the 'spreading these narratives' line? Is 'things Biden said' now a narrative?)

First of all, that comment was directed at Lost Soal.

Weird how Soal didn't post anything involving a narrative or 'stirring up Left-wing resentment', then.

Secondly, of course that resentment is there, but Biden and Sanders and others have been working very hard to minimize it, with some success. And yet there seems a concerted effort from some to stir it up again- both from angry progressives and "anti-establishment" folks, and from Trumpers who know it is in their interests to drive a wedge between Biden and progressives.

So, let's be clear. Posting things Biden says is a 'concerted effort... to stir it up again'?

And no, quoting Biden is not a "narrative"- but you took a single portion of his response out of context, without the qualifying statements, and treated it as the whole. You characterized his argument as simply "Increase police funding", as though he was proposing to simply double down on police militarization and "tough on crime" like Trump, when that is not an accurate characterization of his position. And I think that you knew you were misrepresenting his position, given that you yourself acknowledged it was "a flippant simplification", and that you tellingly chose not to quote the actual article you were "simplifying".

I accurately characterized his response to 'defund the police' as 'fund the police more', because for all those pretty little add-ons he chucked in, the core of his response is still $300 million in increased funding to police - the exact opposite of what defunding advocates are after. This doesn't 'misrepresent' his position in any way - it cuts to the core of it. I did so in a flip way for humour's sake, not to 'misrepresent', and stunningly, quoting the actual article doesn't make his position less 'fund the police'.

Again, Biden's core response is 'give them more money, not less'. The qualifying statements are still a fundamental rejection of the call to defund the police.

So if you want to criticize elements of Biden's proposals, I'm not arguing. But I think that those proposals should be critiqued for what they are, both good and bad, not a single inflamatory point taken out of context.

In terms of 'do we defund the police', his response of 'no, we give them $300 million more' is the only relevant point. It is not a 'single inflammatory point taken out of context'. It is an accurate distillation of his response to the demands to defund the police: 'no'.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, I'm sorry. Which of the qualifying statements involves actually defunding the police and not handing them an additional $300 million, exactly?

That Biden opposes simply defunding the police is not in contention. However, that is not the totality of his position in response to the protests.

And yet you continue to attack those who post anything slightly critical of him on the grounds that we must want Trump to win. Weird.

I did not say that you want Trump to win.

What you posted was not "slightly critical", however. It was not even a criticism of Biden's actual position. It was an oversimplification of Biden's position which created the false impression of him as supportive of writing the police a blank check.

Which critique is that, exactly? Are you confusing a flippant remark for an actual critique? Because, buddy - if I critique someone, it doesn't take place in a single line. If I was offering an actual critique of Biden's policies and not an eyerolling 'jesus christ the guy's an idiot' your head would fucking spin.

I'd be honestly interested to hear it, but I will not abandon my view that defeating Trump must be the priority, because any further systemic reform depends upon his removal.

To be clear: I do not consider Biden's position here sufficient. I am not an anarchist like you, and I do not support total abolition of police, but I do believe that a great reduction in overall police and prison funding is needed, and that Biden, despite his admirable efforts to shift Leftward and reach out to progressives, is still lagging behind the times. Even if police budgets are increased in certain specific areas (ie training in deescalation, body cameras, etc), I believe that there should be a substantial net decrease. I do not consider Biden's position here satisfactory.

I just feel that portraying it as "Biden wants to increase police funding" and leaving out everything else does not accurately represent his position in response to the protests, and that making misleading criticisms of him is destructive to the goal of defeating Trump- a goal on which I and many others believe all other reforms are dependent.

Sorry, that feeble sidestep doesn't answer the question. Let me ask you again:

Do you think voters rallying to the cry to defund or even outright abolish the police are going to find Biden's 'no, give them more money if they promise to behave' response particularly invigorating?

I'm not going to presume to speak for the protesters, but it is simply fact that Biden is, so far, not visibly suffering in the polls as a result of his response to the protests. Whether that will change going forward is impossible for me to say.

Is there a "no compromise ever" contingent of the protests who will oppose him over this? Probably. But Biden is the nominee in large part because he had overwhelming support from black primary voters in particular, and as of yet, I have seen nothing to prove that that has changed.

Weird how Soal didn't post anything involving a narrative or 'stirring up Left-wing resentment', then.

It was an obvious cheap shot at Biden, referencing something he said taken out of context.

So, let's be clear. Posting things Biden says is a 'concerted effort... to stir it up again'?

Posting them out of context can be, yeah.

I accurately characterized his response to 'defund the police' as 'fund the police more', because for all those pretty little add-ons he chucked in, the core of his response is still $300 million in increased funding to police - the exact opposite of what defunding advocates are after. This doesn't 'misrepresent' his position in any way - it cuts to the core of it. I did so in a flip way for humour's sake, not to 'misrepresent', and stunningly, quoting the actual article doesn't make his position less 'fund the police'.

Again, Biden's core response is 'give them more money, not less'. The qualifying statements are still a fundamental rejection of the call to defund the police.

In terms of 'do we defund the police', his response of 'no, we give them $300 million more' is the only relevant point. It is not a 'single inflammatory point taken out of context'. It is an accurate distillation of his response to the demands to defund the police: 'no'.

Except he made it clear that his support for Federal funding to police was not unconditional, nor his only or primary response to the protests.

Is it good enough? No. Do people have a right to criticize it? Of course. But I do get nervous, because I remember all the comments from Bernie or Busters and third partiers in 2016, and I remember what happened that November, and the last four years, and the various efforts from various quarters to fit this race into the mold of 2016 Mk II. And I'll be honest: the thought of Biden losing (or winning by a narrow enough margin that Trump can convincingly cheat), and of the utter horror and destruction that would follow that defeat, fucking terrifies me.

[loomer]

So, let me just summarize that wall of sweet fuckall of actual substance. You think that referencing Biden's position of increasing funding to the police is, essentially, wrecking because we need to get rid of Trump and therefore criticism of Biden is dangerous. You feel that his other positions - none of which include or even speak to defunding the police - render it dishonest to say that in response to calls to defund the police he, rather than agreeing to defund the police, wants to increase their funding, despite this being quite literally his intention in regards to the specific issue of police funding.

And I'm the one pushing a narrative - fuck off with that noise, TRR. I'm extremely tired of your bullshit takes - takes that exist specifically in the context of a grand narrative that we must, no matter what, defeat Trump and therefore criticism of Our Guy is Bad and Dishonest. Biden is literally saying 'fund the police' in answer to calls to defund the police. That's an accurate summary of his specific response to that specific issue, and the rest of it is quite literally irrelevant on the issue of defunding. More funding for reform is still more funding, and improved funding to other public services is not less funding for the police. He is literally saying, in answer to defunding the police, that we should instead fund the police more. There is nothing dishonest, out of context, or misrepresentative about saying this. It can only be 'out of context' if his other remarks indicate a general defunding agenda, only dishonest if it's not something he said, only misrepresentative if his other remarks showed support for defunding generally.

Biden's response to 'defund the police' is to fund them more. That is what he said. No amount of rhetorical games will change that unless he renounces his remarks. What damages the odds of defeating Trump is not an Aussie reporting this to a now largely irrelevant message board, but the fact that he said it. That the following is an accurate summary of Biden's proposals is his fault, not mine.

The Left: Defund the police! No More Police Funding!
Biden: Defund the police? No, More Police Funding!

[Ralin]

The Left: Defund the police! No More Police Funding!
Biden: Defund the police? No, More Police Funding!

Man, imagine how great the alternate reality where Rom just said something like "Yeah well, no one outside of Fox News thinks he's a leftist. And he's saying he won't give them the usual heaps of funding with no strings attached. Hopefully he has to stick to that," must be.

[Soontir C'boath]

So, let me just summarize that wall of sweet fuckall of actual substance. You think that referencing Biden's position of increasing funding to the police is, essentially, wrecking because we need to get rid of Trump and therefore criticism of Biden is dangerous.

I know I am a Bernie supporter so I am bias, but we can rightly call Biden voters, cultists, right?

[loomer]

I don't think it'd be helpful to do that, since 'hold yer nose and vote for Biden' is a legitimate position to take when the alternative is Trump and so 'Biden voters' catches - one would hope, anyway - a broad sweep of people who'd really rather not but are strategically voting for him anyway. Like Chomsky.

[RogueIce]

Since Sanders got mentioned I think it's worth mentioning that even he hasn't jumped on the Abolish Police train (and actually spoke against it directly) and he's also kind of wishy-washy about defunding: he thinks cops need to be paid more to get more professionalism and better candidates but said he's not arguing for increased police budgets, either - presumably these pay increases would come at the expense of other items in police budgets?

He also talked about taking out various things police respond to and giving them to social workers and the like but then so did Biden so they're kind of even on that front, and this point is kind of what defunding talks about even if in their proposals nothing was said about re-appropriating the money directly from police budgets; presumably then they'd just increase funding toward those programs in general independent of the police agencies.

So basically my question is how much support does defund/abolish actually have anyway that anyone should be saying it's some major betrayal of The Left (inasmuch as "The Left" can be pinned down to a specific set of beliefs)?

[loomer]

Yeah, neither Biden nor Sanders are on board with defunding the police (and people call Sanders a radical even on this board. Madness.) because they think reform can fix a fundamentally broken system. But, then, that's what you get with centre-leftists and centre-rightists.

On a particularly vile note, Trump is hosting a rally in Tulsa. On Juneteenth. I won't pretend to fully understand the significance of the day since it means nothing to us here except what we've read and watched from the African-American community (the Black-ish episode that went into it was pretty great, which is where I first heard of it), but it's a real slap in the face to said community.


EDIT:

So basically my question is how much support does defund/abolish actually have anyway that anyone should be saying it's some major betrayal of The Left (inasmuch as "The Left" can be pinned down to a specific set of beliefs)?

Well, for this, we'd have to get into actual Leftist politics versus centre-leftist politics (Bernie is on the very edge of actual left/centre-left politics depending on what day you ask him a question and how hard he's trying to appeal to centrists), which are a very different ballgame. All anarchists - who we can reasonably say are squarely in the Left - are, by necessity, proponents of police abolition (even if they aren't active proponents of it as a specific position, the police are fundamentally incompatible with anarchism) while other forms of leftism are more ambivalent (e.g. socialism). That said: My flippant references are literally me playing off a meme, not a genuine claim that Every Last Leftist believes in abolition or defunding the police.

In terms of how much support it actually has, I don't believe there's been a particular census of The Left to measure it, but I'd say the massive movement chanting it in the streets is a pretty good indication.

[RogueIce]

Yeah, neither Biden nor Sanders are on board with defunding the police (and people call Sanders a radical even on this board. Madness.) because they think reform can fix a fundamentally broken system. But, then, that's what you get with centre-leftists and centre-rightists.

Well, hasn't DeBlasio said he was going to take money from the NYPD's budget and shift it to social programs? It would seem that at the local level a Defund Option (that doesn't go all the way to Abolish) could take root, at least for a lot of the traditionally Democratic stronghold cities. Which, in practical terms, is more meaningful anyway since those are the agencies the general public has the most contact with.

In terms of how much support it actually has, I don't believe there's been a particular census of The Left to measure it, but I'd say the massive movement chanting it in the streets is a pretty good indication.

Granted, but let's be realistic: how many people chanting it are doing do in generalized anger and haven't really thought about what comes next? I mean, for mass chanting, that's not exactly uncommon. And then we have to define what any particular person means when they say Abolish The Police. Are they talking about altogether as an institution or just about their local agency? I mean, there's basically three options here:

1) Disband the existing PD, reform into a new PD. Basically, the Camden model, which I believe you mentioned in reference to the Minneapolis City Council's recent declarations?

2) Disband the existing PD, general law enforcement services go up to the next 'higher' jurisdiction (Sheriff or State Police). This has happened in various cities for various reasons, from the local PD being assholes to budget concerns.

3) Actual "Leftist" Police Abolition where it gets replaced with the whole community enforcement thing. I'm not up on this but it's the I guess, academic form? You know what I mean. No real precedent in the US.

So yeah, how many people chanting "abolish" are thinking about options 1 or 2 instead of 3? Given the lack of precedent for Option 3, it's hardly a surprise to not see much traction for it on the Federal level anyway. Not that they could do much with it even if there was short of fundamental changes to how the Fed interacts with States.

EDIT: What I mean by the above statement is that they can't really force, well, any of those options on the local PDs within the existing legal framework. They could change up how Federal law enforcement works, but can't do much to disband local PDs (for options 1 or 2) or, well, change how the States and their political subdivisions go about enforcing their laws (more-or-less Option 3).

It'll be interesting to see how Minneapolis plays out, since they seem to have workable governmental support for some form of Abolish, though afaik the Council hasn't made clear what their actual plans are beyond "get rid of MPD" thus far.

But that's a little off-topic for this thread so... *shrug*

[loomer]

Yeah, neither Biden nor Sanders are on board with defunding the police (and people call Sanders a radical even on this board. Madness.) because they think reform can fix a fundamentally broken system. But, then, that's what you get with centre-leftists and centre-rightists.

Well, hasn't DeBlasio said he was going to take money from the NYPD's budget and shift it to social programs? It would seem that at the local level a Defund Option (that doesn't go all the way to Abolish) could take root, at least for a lot of the traditionally Democratic stronghold cities. Which, in practical terms, is more meaningful anyway since those are the agencies the general public has the most contact with.

DeBlasio is cutting funding, but won't say how much or even give a rough percentage as far as I know. This is not what defunding means - defunding requires massive cuts and social reform, not just a few token cuts to appease the crowd or a moderate cut. Defunding requires massive prison reform and a total overhaul of local, state, and federal policing and law enforcement bodies, and massive investment into social spending.

Essentially, defunding does not mean half-measures. Either it's all in (with one permissible compromise, which is a scaled step-down over a period of several years) or it's not defunding.

In terms of how much support it actually has, I don't believe there's been a particular census of The Left to measure it, but I'd say the massive movement chanting it in the streets is a pretty good indication.

Granted, but let's be realistic: how many people chanting it are doing do in generalized anger and haven't really thought about what comes next? I mean, for mass chanting, that's not exactly uncommon. And then we have to define what any particular person means when they say Abolish The Police. Are they talking about altogether as an institution or just about their local agency? I mean, there's basically three options here:

People who haven't just picked up the slogan last week have usually thought about it, and there are extensive resources on exactly what it means - including a massive upswell in easily digestible pamphlets and flyers that are being handed out at the protests. Those who haven't thought about it are now being given the option to figure it out (which, incidentally, makes Biden's statement even worse. No one is as zealous as a new convert, and we may just be seeing the emergence of a lot of new converts to abolitionism and/or defunding, who might - quite reasonably - feel that Biden has just slapped them in the face.)

1) Disband the existing PD, reform into a new PD. Basically, the Camden model, which I believe you mentioned in reference to the Minneapolis City Council's recent declarations?

'Abolish the police' does not, and cannot, mean the Camden model. So - no. People who are genuinely shifting to an abolitionist viewpoint do not mean this. Some defunding advocates do mean this.

2) Disband the existing PD, general law enforcement services go up to the next 'higher' jurisdiction (Sheriff or State Police). This has happened in various cities for various reasons, from the local PD being assholes to budget concerns.

State policing bodies are still policing bodies. Advocates for police abolition and police defunding do not mean this, even if it would be a relatively sensible reform to make.

3) Actual "Leftist" Police Abolition where it gets replaced with the whole community enforcement thing. I'm not up on this but it's the I guess, academic form? You know what I mean. No real precedent in the US.

Well, it actually has a precedent from the very early days of the US, as initially, large areas of the US had no police whatsoever. That aside, this is what all actual abolitionists advocate for and what a good number of defunding advocates are arguing for.

So yeah, how many people chanting "abolish" are thinking about options 1 or 2 instead of 3? Given the lack of precedent for Option 3, it's hardly a surprise to not see much traction for it on the Federal level anyway. Not that they could do much with it even if there was short of fundamental changes to how the Fed interacts with States.

Bluntly? Probably none of them. The idea that they mean anything else is being pushed by liberal reformists who are trying to soften the radical position that the police aren't permanent, aren't necessary, and alternative models exist. Now, it's fair to say plenty of people in the crowd haven't had a chance to read the literature and are just going with the flow, but 'abolish the police' means, pure and simple, abolish the police. Defund the police means, pure and simple, strip them of their enormously excessive funding.

The people chanting this in the streets may not know the fullest details. But they know what they want, and they want what they say in whatever form they understand it. And this is why Biden's 'no, fund them more' response is potentially disastrous: These are people who either genuinely want defunding properly so called, or think they want defunding improperly so called and probably in a Camden-esque model, and who've just seen Biden ignore their demands and instead promise the polar opposite.

See, Biden's proposal can't be considered any form of defunding. The closest it comes is saying 'police departments that get violent and criminal shouldn't get federal funding' - but that's not a defunding position. That's status quo stuff. On top of that he wants to hand them more money, which means whatever element of his position could charitably be read as friendly to defunding ('stop beating people or the federal tap turns off, maybe') gets swept out to sea with the part that's actively hostile to defunding.

EDIT: What I mean by the above statement is that they can't really force, well, any of those options on the local PDs within the existing legal framework. They could change up how Federal law enforcement works, but can't do much to disband local PDs (for options 1 or 2) or, well, change how the States and their political subdivisions go about enforcing their laws (more-or-less Option 3).

That's why all advocacy for abolition and defunding involves justice and law reform to support it. No one is assuming it will just magically happen overnight - everyone knows you have to pass laws first, you have to work within the system to dismantle the system, and even that a staged stepdown is probably necessary while other forms of social investment ramp up (there are some who say 'fuck it' and advocate for a legitimate revolution instead, of course.)

It'll be interesting to see how Minneapolis plays out, since they seem to have workable governmental support for some form of Abolish, though afaik the Council hasn't made clear what their actual plans are beyond "get rid of MPD" thus far.

But that's a little off-topic for this thread so... *shrug*

Minneapolis is probably going to pull a Camden or a Camden+ (which would be a much more limited reconstruction of the police), rather than actual abolition, but it might emerge as a 'rolling project' - one where you begin with a Camden/Camden+ and then successively defund further and further as part of a transition towards genuine abolition.We'll see how it goes.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, let me just summarize that wall of sweet fuckall of actual substance. You think that referencing Biden's position of increasing funding to the police is, essentially, wrecking because we need to get rid of Trump and therefore criticism of Biden is dangerous. You feel that his other positions - none of which include or even speak to defunding the police - render it dishonest to say that in response to calls to defund the police he, rather than agreeing to defund the police, wants to increase their funding, despite this being quite literally his intention in regards to the specific issue of police funding.

And I'm the one pushing a narrative - fuck off with that noise, TRR. I'm extremely tired of your bullshit takes - takes that exist specifically in the context of a grand narrative that we must, no matter what, defeat Trump and therefore criticism of Our Guy is Bad and Dishonest. Biden is literally saying 'fund the police' in answer to calls to defund the police. That's an accurate summary of his specific response to that specific issue, and the rest of it is quite literally irrelevant on the issue of defunding. More funding for reform is still more funding, and improved funding to other public services is not less funding for the police. He is literally saying, in answer to defunding the police, that we should instead fund the police more. There is nothing dishonest, out of context, or misrepresentative about saying this. It can only be 'out of context' if his other remarks indicate a general defunding agenda, only dishonest if it's not something he said, only misrepresentative if his other remarks showed support for defunding generally.

Biden's response to 'defund the police' is to fund them more. That is what he said. No amount of rhetorical games will change that unless he renounces his remarks. What damages the odds of defeating Trump is not an Aussie reporting this to a now largely irrelevant message board, but the fact that he said it. That the following is an accurate summary of Biden's proposals is his fault, not mine.

The Left: Defund the police! No More Police Funding!
Biden: Defund the police? No, More Police Funding!

This, too, is a straw man. I explicitly said, repeatedly, that I do not object to any and all criticism of Biden, I engaged in criticisms of him myself, but I expressed my concerns about oversimplified criticisms taken out of context to create a false or misleading impression of his position. I explained this very clearly, and I have nothing more to say on the subject.

[Jub]

This, too, is a straw man. I explicitly said, repeatedly, that I do not object to any and all criticism of Biden, I engaged in criticisms of him myself, but I expressed my concerns about oversimplified criticisms taken out of context to create a false or misleading impression of his position. I explained this very clearly, and I have nothing more to say on the subject.

What part of loomer's post about Biden's clearly stated position was false? The fact is that Biden has proposed an increase in police funding ($300 million to be exact) with a side of unclear reforms and some standard neo-liberal boilerplate about how 'it's all such a shame' and 'we need to do better'.

People want actual change and not the pandering to the center that Biden defaults to when he's not being shoved left by some outside force.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't disagree that a lot of people (if you mean "people on the Left") want more than Biden is offering. But the difference between him and Trump is that Biden can be, at least to some extent, pushed. Biden listens, and modifies his positions, whereas Trump responds with jackboots and even when he does concede something, tends to quickly backtrack or not follow through. So the difference is that one man can be worked with, negotiated with, pressured- and the other is a raging narcissistic psychopath.

Does that mean that Biden is ideal? No, of course not. He's a Not Trump placeholder until we can get someone better. I'm still 90+% going to support a primary challenge against him, presuming there is a viable one (its also possible he only serves one term and his VP is the nominee next time).

For the record, my ideal 2024 ticket, as of right now, would be AOC/Tlaib.