Conflict erupts at Minneapolis, L.A. protests over George Floyd death

[The Romulan Republic]

Attended a rally/vigil today.

For this city it was a strong turnout, I'd guess in the thousands. The event was peaceful, there were a lot of excellent speakers with compelling view points and personal experiences that drew attention to the deep racism in Canada, and there was a real sense of togetherness and commitment to speaking up against racism. Indigenous rights and speakers were also present- some of the speakers were of mixed black and indigenous heritage. It was a challenging but positive experience, one that I'm glad I attended.

I felt a sense at times of being part of a larger history, of this being one small part of the same struggle as the Civil Rights movement in which Martin Luther King fought, or the same war in which Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln fought (among so many others). And its shameful that this fight still has to be fought after so long.

On the way home, though, carrying my sign, I was heckled by a man who shouted at me that I should be talking about homeless people instead, and then added "all colors". I just kept walking, and immediately felt ashamed for not confronting him.

It could have been worse, though. My brother was at the rally, as well, and said he was approached by a Russia fanboy who was trying to get him to read RT.

At least we didn't have riot police firing on us here. My city did good today.

[The Romulan Republic]

Holy fuck. They actually did it.

Minneapolis city council votes to abolish the Minneapolis police department in a veto-proof majority:

https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/ju ... orge-floyd

The Minneapolis city council has pledged to disband the city’s police department and replace it with a new system of public safety, a historic move that comes as calls to defund law enforcement are sweeping the US.

Speaking at a community rally on Sunday, a veto-proof majority of councilmembers declared their intent to “dismantle” and “abolish” the embattled police agency responsible for George Floyd’s death – and build an alternative model of community-led safety. The decision is a direct response to the massive protests that have taken over American cities in the last two weeks, and is a major victory for abolitionist activists who have long fought to disband police and prisons.

“In Minneapolis and in cities across the US, it is clear that our system of policing is not keeping our communities safe,” said Lisa Bender, the Minneapolis city council president, at the event. “Our efforts at incremental reform have failed, period. Our commitment is to do what’s necessary to keep every single member of our community safe and to tell the truth: that the Minneapolis police are not doing that. Our commitment is to end policing as we know it and to recreate systems of public safety that actually keep us safe.”

Nine councilmembers announced their support and represent a supermajority on the twelve-person council, meaning the mayor, who earlier this weekend opposed disbanding the department, cannot override them. The remaining three councilmembers are broadly supportive of the effort as well, but weren’t ready to sign on, activists said. While the mayor has oversight over the police, the city council has authority over the budget and policy, and could work to dismantle the department through cuts and ordinances.

The formal effort to abolish a major-city police department in America and replace it with a different model of safety would have been unthinkable even weeks ago and is a testament to the impact of the protests that began with Floyd’s death on 25 May. The unarmed 46-year-old was killed by Minneapolis police when an officer kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes as he pleaded for him to stop. Four officers now face criminal charges.

“This is a moment that’s going to go down in history as a landmark in the police and prison abolition movement,” said Tony Williams, a member of MPD150, a Minneapolis group whose literature on building a “police-free future” has been widely shared during the protests. “There’s a groundswell of support for this. People are grounded in the history of policing in a way that has never happened before. It’s visible that police are not able to create safety for communities.”

The councilmembers are expected to face opposition from law enforcement officials and the police union, though activists emphasize that the veto-proof majority has the authority to move forward regardless of opposition.

“It’s pretty clear the political will is here, and they can’t stop it,” said Williams, noting that even if police officers opposed the move, a vast majority of them live outside of Minneapolis and can’t vote on their elected leaders.

Spokespeople for the Minneapolis mayor did not immediately respond to inquiries Sunday. The police department declined to comment.

After Minneapolis’ mayor, Jacob Frey, wouldn’t commit to abolishing the police at a demonstration on Saturday, protesters shouted, “Go home, Jacob!” and “Shame!” until he left. Minneapolis is also home to a powerful union leader who has aggressively resisted any reforms to the department despite the agency’s history of racial abuse.

Lawmakers and advocates across the US will likely be closely watching what happens next in Minneapolis. It’s unclear how quickly this process could move, and what the transition could look like. Supporters are pushing for the council to start with taking money away from the police budget and investing in other government departments, social services and programs, while launching a community process for creating alternative systems.

An alternative safety model, advocates say, can start with finding “non-police solutions to the problems poor people face”, such as counselors responding to mental health calls and addiction experts responding to drug abuse.

Like many US municipalities, Minneapolis was already facing a budget shortfall due to the Covid-19 crisis, and defunding police could help address some of those gaps. There are a handful of examples of governments disbanding troubled local police agencies in the US over the years, though the authorities have had other regional law enforcement entities take over policing.

Police reforms around the country
While the effort in Minneapolis is the most radical, a number of other US mayors and local leaders have reversed their positions on police funding. The mayor of Los Angeles said he would look to cut as much as $150m from the police this week, just days after he pushed forward a city budget that was increasing it by 7%.

Following days of protests and widespread accounts of police misconduct in New York City, mayor Bill de Blasio said Sunday that some funding would be moved from the police to “youth initiatives and social services”. Some councilmembers and others, however, have been pushing for a $1bn divestment from the NYPD.

“The details will be worked out in the budget process in the weeks ahead, but I want people to understand that we are committed to shifting resources to ensure that the focus is on our young people,” de Blasio said. “And I also will affirm while doing that, we will only do it in a way that we are certain continues to ensure that this city will be safe.”

De Blasio also announced that enforcement of regulations involving street vendors – many of whom are persons of color and, or immigrants – should not be handled by police. “Civilian agencies can work on proper enforcement and that’s what we’ll do going forward,” he said.

In Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, San Francisco and other cities, local policymakers have expressed support for some form of defunding or opposing police budget increases in the last week.

For years, abolitionist groups have advocated for governments to take money away from police and prisons and reinvesting the funds in other services. The basic principle is that government budgets and “public safety” spending should prioritize housing, employment, community health, education and other vital programs, instead of police officers.

Advocates for defunding argue that recent police reform efforts have been unsuccessful, noting that de-escalation training, body cameras and other moves have not stopped racist brutality and killings. Police in America kill more people in days than many other countries do in years.

Amid the current protests, abolitionist groups have put forward concrete steps toward dismantling police and prisons, arguing that defunding police is the first move, and that cities need to remove police from schools, repeal laws that “criminalize survival” such as anti-homelessness policies, provide safe housing for people and more. Colleges, public school systems, museums and other institutions have also increasingly announced plans to divest from police.

The Minneapolis announcement could inspire other cities to follow, Williams said: “I do believe we are on the precipice of a major global shift. I’m really hopeful in this moment.”

Victoria Bekiempis contributed reporting

News is under threat ...

While I remain frankly skeptical that a complete abolition of police and prisons is feasible, this is the kind of radical experiment that I think we should be willing to try, and I hope it will inspire others, by moving the envelope on what is possible.

[Agent Fisher]

Holy fuck. They actually did it.

Minneapolis city council votes to abolish the Minneapolis police department in a veto-proof majority:

https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/ju ... orge-floyd

*snip article*


While I remain frankly skeptical that a complete abolition of police and prisons is feasible, this is the kind of radical experiment that I think we should be willing to try, and I hope it will inspire others, by moving the envelope on what is possible.

As a fan of the view of 'labratories of democracy' with regards to states and cities, I'm interested to see how this proceeds, if it ends up being the county level law enforcement taking over, or if they restructure and do something completely different with regard to law enforcement and public safety. Hopefully the money saved gets put into a massive amount of mental health outreach, and building the community support necessary for real reforms and improvements of the city. There's always gonna be a need for some form of law enforcement, but lets see if we can change things so it's not the cops being the ones to respond to every mental health crisis, as just one example of how redirecting police funding or removing a muncipal police force can lead to change.


Apologies if this post was somewhat rambling and hard to understand. Alcohol may have been involved with my day so far.

[loomer]

It remains to be seen if they actually abolish or just pull a Camden. Camden is still a reasonable model, but very far from actual abolition. If they actually follow through, it'll necessitate a radical reordering of society in Minneapolis away from capitalism and liberalism (and towards the self-organizing anarchist movements that have organically grown out of the uprising), so we'll all be watching closely.

[The Romulan Republic]

Or divert the money into other government-run social programs other than the police.

There are a lot of ways this could go, and I'll be watching it with great curiosity.

[loomer]

Or divert the money into other government-run social programs other than the police.

There are a lot of ways this could go, and I'll be watching it with great curiosity.

On its own, this won't be sufficient to resolve the social issues that give rise to policing. Only a radical reformation of society can allow abolitionism to survive.

[loomer]

Seattle and Portland regime forces apparently fired chemical weapons at the crowd again tonight, which really does raise the question of when they're going to be fired. That's every night since supposed bans on the free use of chemical weaponry were put in place for their garrisons.

[loomer]

Christ almighty, kente cloth and kneeling? Are the democrats trying to look like they're pandering?

[Straha]

Christ almighty, kente cloth and kneeling? Are the democrats trying to look like they're pandering?

Have you met the chairman of the house police brutality committee?





In seriousness, the democratic ineptitude on this is a fucking travesty. I'd try to be more articulate about this but I just keep short circuiting every time I try to comprehend just what they're trying to do.

Walk me through how you connect the dots on that last sentence.

Read the Atlantic article I posted a few posts up, and look at Trump's poll numbers.

The Atlantic article compared Trump to a bunch of countries with less than a generation of democratic experience. Also, not to be too fine on this, what happened there was an overthrow of entire governments. If that is tried in the US it's not going to end well for anyone involved.

Horrendous as this feels, nothing has actually structurally changed out of this and the democrats are too terrified of actually taking a stance on something to turn this into something they could capitalize on.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, when the Democrats are at least trying to do something in response that isn't an authoritarian crackdown, and some local governments have in fact taken some steps toward structural reform, and poll numbers indicate that the Democrats are benefiting as a result, it seems pretty disingenuous to fall back on the same old reflexive talking points about how inept and cowardly the Democrats are.

A cynical person might conclude that by pushing that narrative, you hope to sway people away from the Democrats, in the belief that four more years of Trump (or, realistically, dictator for life Trump) is preferable to the "compromise" of a Democratic victory.

Edit: And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the Democratic party has done everything it needs to do. If you find their response inadequate, I'm not challenging that. Though I think (hope) we'd agree that their response is vastly preferable to the alternative.

I do disagree with the suggestion that they are or are likely to fail politically as a consequence, because the statistical evidence (thus far) does not bear that out.

[Zaune]

Edit: And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the Democratic party has done everything it needs to do. If you find their response inadequate, I'm not challenging that. Though I think (hope) we'd agree that their response is vastly preferable to the alternative.

I do disagree with the suggestion that they are or are likely to fail politically as a consequence, because the statistical evidence (thus far) does not bear that out.

I wouldn't bet too heavily on that last part. I don't think many people are terribly receptive to the idea of moderation and compromise right now. Anyone taking that position is going to be seen as at best papering over the cracks rather than confronting the systemic problems that got the US into this mess in the first place, which would be a defensible position even if the GOP was still so much as pretending to act in good faith, and at worst trying to appease the white-supremacist movement.

[Jub]

You know, when the Democrats are at least trying to do something in response that isn't an authoritarian crackdown, and some local governments have in fact taken some steps toward structural reform, and poll numbers indicate that the Democrats are benefiting as a result, it seems pretty disingenuous to fall back on the same old reflexive talking points about how inept and cowardly the Democrats are.

A cynical person might conclude that by pushing that narrative, you hope to sway people away from the Democrats, in the belief that four more years of Trump (or, realistically, dictator for life Trump) is preferable to the "compromise" of a Democratic victory.

Edit: And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the Democratic party has done everything it needs to do. If you find their response inadequate, I'm not challenging that. Though I think (hope) we'd agree that their response is vastly preferable to the alternative.

I do disagree with the suggestion that they are or are likely to fail politically as a consequence, because the statistical evidence (thus far) does not bear that out.

If the Democrats, and other Centrist Liberals, are doing their job why do nations keep slowly slipping to the right over time? The US is a prime example of sliding ever rightward since the '80s so explain to me how the Dems have done a good job if they haven't even been able to stop the slide let alone reverse its course.

Citing specific changes to social norms and legalizing pot won't be enough to prove that the Dems did anything as the laws only changed years after the popular opinion was shown to be trending that way. Which changes designed to push the nation left have the US Democrats, as a party not lone political candidates, actually pushed and continued pushing in the face of resistance?

[The Romulan Republic]

Edit: And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the Democratic party has done everything it needs to do. If you find their response inadequate, I'm not challenging that. Though I think (hope) we'd agree that their response is vastly preferable to the alternative.

I do disagree with the suggestion that they are or are likely to fail politically as a consequence, because the statistical evidence (thus far) does not bear that out.

I wouldn't bet too heavily on that last part. I don't think many people are terribly receptive to the idea of moderation and compromise right now. Anyone taking that position is going to be seen as at best papering over the cracks rather than confronting the systemic problems that got the US into this mess in the first place, which would be a defensible position even if the GOP was still so much as pretending to act in good faith, and at worst trying to appease the white-supremacist movement.

The thing is, the GOP has dropped the pretense. They've made it clear that they are dominated by, essentially, neo-fascists. And done it in such a way that its impossible for any remotely informed and honest person to ignore.

In any case, I'm just looking at the current polling here, which shows Biden decisively trouncing Trump, stronger than Hillary ever was at any point during the race, and leading by historic margins for a candidate at this point in the race (the generic Congressional polls have Dems ahead by at or near 2018 numbers too).

A lot can, of course, change in five months, especially these days- but I think that those of us who are regularly exposed to the radical Leftist circles on-line sometimes lose perspective, and start to think that that is the norm. It isn't. Some of us may wish that it was- but while most Americans want Trump and his cronies gone, and want reform, most Americans are NOT part of the no-compromise, burn it all and rebuild from the ashes anti-establishment/accelerationist crowds. Even most progressives aren't. And even some who took those stances in 2016, and refused to vote for the "establishment" Hillary, are having buyer's remorse after four years of Trump.

Also Biden, while nobody's idea of a radical Leftist, has taken more concrete steps to reach out to progressives than Hillary ever did.* In short, Biden has shown a willingness to listen, and try to change for the better, as opposed to turning the military on his opponents. That's the difference: not that Biden is perfect, not that he will give anyone everything they want- but that he is someone who can be worked with, and pushed to go further than he has in the past. The only practical reason then not to support him is if one is an accelerationist: if one actively wants things to get worse, to push things past the breaking point in the (highly overconfident, if history is any guide) belief that utopia will rise from the ashes of our current society. And the bottom line is: the majority of Americans, and the vast majority of those opposed to Trump, are not accelerationists: including many who want sweeping changes to the system.

As to the views of Black protesters, I'm not really qualified to say, beyond noting that polling also shows, repeatedly, that most black voters consider Biden an acceptable option- indeed considered him a preferable option to the more radical Sanders. That was kind of the whole point of South Carolina, and its the biggest reason that Biden's the nominee. He may have trouble turning out younger black activists (and younger voters in general), but current polling suggests that the need to beat Trump will still put him over the top.

So I think we need to stop thinking of this in terms of "Biden is a compromise candidate, people don't want compromise, therefore he will lose". Its at best a huge oversimplification, and at worst it's a narrative that will create a self-fulfilling prophecy by depressing turnout. And let's not kid ourselves: the protests are not going to overthrow the US military and government by force of arms, nor is that the intended goal for most of the protesters. That means any lasting change that they can accomplish will have to involve translating that anger and outrage and public support into electoral victories, political policy, and legislation.

As relates to Jub's point, I also think we need to stop judging the Democratic Party by its failures 10, 15, and 20 years ago. The Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, the Bush Years, or even Barack Obama. Bernie Sanders would not have gotten a third or more of the votes in those primaries. UBI would not have even gotten a mention in that party. The party HAS shifted, and things that were controversial or fringe are now accepted widely. Some of the same politicians are still around, some aren't, some new voices (like AOC) have emerged at the forefront, but even the remnants of the old guard have been forced to at least somewhat shift their positions. The Democratic Party has changed significantly since the last time it won a Presidential race. Hell, the entire political landscape has changed significantly in the last three months. I don't think we've even begun to see the full reprecussions of covid-19, an event arguably rivaling the Depression or the second World War in its potential impact on the world. Then add the protests on top of that, a near-unprecedented rebuke of the President by military authorities, and a major American city government voting overwhelmingly to abolish its police force. Not scale back- abolish. Even if Minneapolis doesn't fully follow through... if you had told me two months ago that a major city would abolish its police force in June, I would never have believed it.



*I think this bears repeating because a LOT of people have tried to frame this race as 2016 Mk II: Biden, for all his faults, is not just Hillary with a penis (although sadly, given the prevelance of misogyny, Hillary with a penis would probably have won too). Biden is no radical- but he has taken more concrete steps to reach out to the Left than Hillary ever did. In fact, given how close 2016 really was, I'm willing to bet that if Hillary had done the outreach Biden has done, she could have won.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also on the subject of "America's political landscape has massively shifted"- Mitt fucking Romney just marched with evangelicals in support of Black Lives Matter.

Even if, as is probable, its an empty gesture and nothing more- can anyone here honestly say that when Black Lives Matter began, they could have imagined Mitt Romney of all people marching in solidarity with it? The fact that he feels compelled to do so, even if only in self-interest, says that something big has shifted.

[The Romulan Republic]

House and Senate Democrats complain about the continued closure of Lafayette Square to the public, under a vague pretext of "security":

[Zaune]

So I think we need to stop thinking of this in terms of "Biden is a compromise candidate, people don't want compromise, therefore he will lose". Its at best a huge oversimplification, and at worst it's a narrative that will create a self-fulfilling prophecy by depressing turnout. And let's not kid ourselves: the protests are not going to overthrow the US military and government by force of arms, nor is that the intended goal for most of the protesters. That means any lasting change that they can accomplish will have to involve translating that anger and outrage and public support into electoral victories, political policy, and legislation.

I tend to agree, but I have to wonder if Biden is going to have what it takes to do more than kick the problem down the road. Obama certainly didn't.

Then again, I could say the same about Sanders or Warren as well, because I don't see how the US is going to put a permanent stop to voter suppression without hauling a number of Republicans up on charges of sedition -which is, unless I'm mistaken, potentially a capital crime in the States- and that's just one act of drastic house-cleaning the Democrats are going to have to do if they don't want to be back to square one in another two terms. The Democrat Party tends not to attract the kind of candidate who's comfortable with not merely blaming the previous administration for the current situation but having them perp-walked out of their former office on the first day of the handover period.

I remember there being a time when that was a good thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

So I think we need to stop thinking of this in terms of "Biden is a compromise candidate, people don't want compromise, therefore he will lose". Its at best a huge oversimplification, and at worst it's a narrative that will create a self-fulfilling prophecy by depressing turnout. And let's not kid ourselves: the protests are not going to overthrow the US military and government by force of arms, nor is that the intended goal for most of the protesters. That means any lasting change that they can accomplish will have to involve translating that anger and outrage and public support into electoral victories, political policy, and legislation.

I tend to agree, but I have to wonder if Biden is going to have what it takes to do more than kick the problem down the road. Obama certainly didn't.

Then again, I could say the same about Sanders or Warren as well, because I don't see how the US is going to put a permanent stop to voter suppression without hauling a number of Republicans up on charges of sedition -which is, unless I'm mistaken, potentially a capital crime in the States- and that's just one act of drastic house-cleaning the Democrats are going to have to do if they don't want to be back to square one in another two terms. The Democrat Party tends not to attract the kind of candidate who's comfortable with not merely blaming the previous administration for the current situation but having them perp-walked out of their former office on the first day of the handover period.

I remember there being a time when that was a good thing.

Well for what its worth, Biden has gone on record pledging that he will not pardon Trump or interfere in any federal investigation of him, and its widely believed that the State of New York is building a campaign finance case against Donald Trump.

And if Trump goes down, I expect he'll take several of his underlings with him (Pompeo and Barr, off the top of my head, have both done things that could land them in serious legal trouble, Pompeo being balls-deep in both the inspector general firings and Ukraine-gate).

I don't think a sedition charge or the death penalty is necessary to enforce voting rights, but I do think a law criminalizing voter suppression and attaching criminal penalties to such acts might be worth pursuing. More useful, though, would be making voter registration automatic, and moving to all-paper/mail ballots, as well as restoring the portions of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court gutted, by constitutional amendment if need be. As well as campaign finance reform, of course. And killing the Electoral College.

This is veering rather off-topic, though.

[The Romulan Republic]

Protesters Criticized For Looting Businesses Without Former Private Equity Firm First (the Onion):

https://theonion.com/protesters-critici ... 1843735351

MINNEAPOLIS—Calling for a more measured way to express opposition to police brutality, critics slammed demonstrators Thursday for recklessly looting businesses without forming a private equity firm first. “Look, we all have the right to protest, but that doesn’t mean you can just rush in and destroy any business without gathering a group of clandestine investors to purchase it at a severely reduced price and slowly bleed it to death,” said Facebook commenter Amy Mulrain, echoing the sentiments of detractors nationwide who blasted the demonstrators for not hiring a consultant group to take stock of a struggling company’s assets before plundering. “I understand that people are angry, but they shouldn’t just endanger businesses without even a thought to enriching themselves through leveraged buyouts and across-the-board terminations. It’s disgusting to put workers at risk by looting. You do it by chipping away at their health benefits and eventually laying them off. There’s a right way and wrong way to do this.” At press time, critics recommended that protestors hold law enforcement accountable by simply purchasing the Minneapolis police department from taxpayers.

[Straha]

You know, when the Democrats are at least trying to do something in response that isn't an authoritarian crackdown, and some local governments have in fact taken some steps toward structural reform, and poll numbers indicate that the Democrats are benefiting as a result, it seems pretty disingenuous to fall back on the same old reflexive talking points about how inept and cowardly the Democrats are.

The police in my home city engaged in a pretty brutal and violent crackdown on protesters, arresting so many people that normal due process had to be suspended because the courts just couldn't keep up with how many people they had in jail. In response to this the Democratic Mayor of my home city declared that the police were good, hardworking, folk who were doing the right thing, even after they rammed their cars into protesters. These are the same cops, btw, who are now threatening to quit en masse if any of their number get so much as charged with a crime. The Democratic Governor then put the city in curfew for a week, something that didn't even happen during 9/11, and threatened to roll out the National Guard if people didn't settle down. (But it's okay! He gives good press conferences, and maybe has a nipple ring y'know. ) If this isn't an authoritarian crackdown in your book then you've got a problem.

On the national stage, I'll note, the congressional delegation is engaging in pathetic pandering that it took five minutes for the ACLU to declare insufficient to the situation. While at the same time Joe Biden is out there saying cops should be retrained, so that they'll shoot 'unarmed people with a knife' (?????????) in the leg. Which, y'know, real fucking improvement, especially given how he made his name as the LAW AND ORDER Senator.

I don't think the democrats are inept. They are cowards. They are terrified of being painted as anti-law & order, horrified at the idea of being seen as weak on crime, and absolutely scared shitless to take on police unions. But they're not inept. They are the architects of all of these policies. It is democratic mayors, with democratic city councils, who have been the driving force behind the policies in cities like Minneapolis, Chicago, Oakland, San Francisco, etc. (NYC also, but y'know. Bloomberg was a horrendous piece of shit and not a Democrat, despite what people wanted to think four months ago.) I don't trust them to care, and I think even when confronted with the right option with the support and backing to do it they'd rather run away than address the real problem.

This isn't disingenuous. The Democrats are the problem. That they haven't apologized and tried to make amends for their litany of errors is the problem. That they won't consider doing so because they would look weak is the problem.

I don't care if they look better than the Republicans. Being better than a troglodyte only goes so far.

A cynical person might conclude that by pushing that narrative, you hope to sway people away from the Democrats, in the belief that four more years of Trump (or, realistically, dictator for life Trump) is preferable to the "compromise" of a Democratic victory.

Don't be a coward. If you're going to accuse me of playing an ulterior motive here beyond "Democrats kill people, and then teargas, arrest, and jail my friends who protest those deaths" then make that accusation. Otherwise fuck right off with this playing coy nonsense.

Edit: And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the Democratic party has done everything it needs to do. If you find their response inadequate, I'm not challenging that. Though I think (hope) we'd agree that their response is vastly preferable to the alternative.

If a student gets a 50% on an exam they still fail, it doesn't matter if another student took a shit on the desk instead of filling out the answer sheet. The Democrats have failed and don't want to make it right. Yes, the Republicans can fuck right off too, but that doesn't excuse this absolute fritata level response from the Democrats.

[The Romulan Republic]

You are painting a large and diverse party with a single brush. This is not accurate. Some Democrats are cowardly or regressive. Others have taken very progressive stances. And as the protests mount, more will be pushed to do so.

But if you believe that "The Democrats are the problem", and not the guy who's now literally gassing minorities in camps, then tell me: what is your alternative? Give me another option. Because I don't see one, other than "Let/help Trump win, in the hope that things get bad enough that there will be a civil war that will probably kill millions, and then utopia will rise from the ashes of the old order, unlike all the times civil war has just replaced one tyrant with another".

And least anyone think I am trying to speak on behalf of the protesters or the black community here, I'll remind you that poll after poll has shown that black voters overwhelmingly favor Biden, and did so in the primary despite having an array of more radical or progressive choices. Maybe, you know, they have a good reason for that?

[Straha]

But if you believe that "The Democrats are the problem", and not the guy who's now literally gassing minorities in camps

I'm not dealing with this shit. DR5. Quote the sentence where I said anything exculpatory about Trump.

, then tell me: what is your alternative? Give me another option. Because I don't see one, other than "Let/help Trump win, in the hope that things get bad enough that there will be a civil war that will probably kill millions, and then utopia will rise from the ashes of the old order, unlike all the times civil war has just replaced one tyrant with another".

DR5. Where have I advocated for a civil war? Quote it.

[The Romulan Republic]

But if you believe that "The Democrats are the problem", and not the guy who's now literally gassing minorities in camps

I'm not dealing with this shit. DR5. Quote the sentence where I said anything exculpatory about Trump.

I DID quote you, word for word. See the quote marks?

You did not defend Trump, but the entire thrust of your post was how the Democrats are the problem, how we shouldn't support the Democrats, even though the alternative is Trump, and you and I and everybody else knows it.

DR5. Where have I advocated for a civil war? Quote it.

I never said you did. I asked you what your alternative was, as I see no alternative to electoral victory other than the one I described.

I will not defend or concede something I never said, nor words you put in my mouth.

Edit: You know what? Its not worth fighting over. Its not the topic of this thread, nor is your personal hostility toward me. Biden is 14 points up, which means that unless something really drastic happens in the next five months, the No Compromise crowd aren't going to get to throw the race this time, no matter how much they want to.

[Straha]

But if you believe that "The Democrats are the problem", and not the guy who's now literally gassing minorities in camps

I'm not dealing with this shit. DR5. Quote the sentence where I said anything exculpatory about Trump.

I DID quote you, word for word. See the quote marks?

You did not defend Trump, but the entire thrust of your post was how the Democrats are the problem, how we shouldn't support the Democrats, even though the alternative is Trump, and you and I and everybody else knows it.

You did quote me. Out of context and then asserted that I am, somehow, acting as a catspaw for Trump by holding Democrats responsible for what they did. So, again. Where does anything in my post defend Trump?

I understand you see the world through the starkest lenses of Manichean dualism, but the rest of us fucking understand nuance, context, and history. If you're going to assert that I am defending Trump I want the quote.

DR5. Where have I advocated for a civil war? Quote it.

I never said you did. I asked you what your alternative was, as I see no alternative to electoral victory other than the one I described.

I will not defend or concede something I never said, nor words you put in my mouth.

Funny. "See the quote marks" in your post. Which in the first part of the post meant that you, by your own admission, were attacking a position I directly took. Now we're onto you using them to assert that this is my position and asking what could it be if it were not that. So, either you're putting words into my mouth or you are being straight up dishonest in this conversation. Which one is it when you're using the quotes this time?

[The Romulan Republic]

You did quote me. Out of context and then asserted that I am, somehow, acting as a catspaw for Trump by holding Democrats responsible for what they did. So, again. Where does anything in my post defend Trump?

I did not assert, and do not believe, that you are a "catspaw" in the sense of an agent working on behalf of Trump or his allies. But I do think that the view you promote is one that, if widely-acted upon, would have the practical effect of reelecting him, regardless of whether that is your intent or desire. Is that sufficiently clear?

I understand you see the world through the starkest lenses of Manichean dualism, but the rest of us fucking understand nuance, context, and history. If you're going to assert that I am defending Trump I want the quote.

Yeah, when it comes to defeating a literal fascist controlling the most powerful country on Earth, I do take a fairly dualistic view. I acknowledge that, and I make no apologies for it.

Funny. "See the quote marks" in your post. Which in the first part of the post meant that you, by your own admission, were attacking a position I directly took. Now we're onto you using them to assert that this is my position and asking what could it be if it were not that. So, either you're putting words into my mouth or you are being straight up dishonest in this conversation. Which one is it when you're using the quotes this time?

Context. One was a direct quote. The other obviously was not, but was intended to summarize a position which is presented as an alternative to electoral and political reform.

[Darth Yan]

I'm not dealing with this shit. DR5. Quote the sentence where I said anything exculpatory about Trump.

I DID quote you, word for word. See the quote marks?

You did not defend Trump, but the entire thrust of your post was how the Democrats are the problem, how we shouldn't support the Democrats, even though the alternative is Trump, and you and I and everybody else knows it.

You did quote me. Out of context and then asserted that I am, somehow, acting as a catspaw for Trump by holding Democrats responsible for what they did. So, again. Where does anything in my post defend Trump?

I understand you see the world through the starkest lenses of Manichean dualism, but the rest of us fucking understand nuance, context, and history. If you're going to assert that I am defending Trump I want the quote.

DR5. Where have I advocated for a civil war? Quote it.

I never said you did. I asked you what your alternative was, as I see no alternative to electoral victory other than the one I described.

I will not defend or concede something I never said, nor words you put in my mouth.

Funny. "See the quote marks" in your post. Which in the first part of the post meant that you, by your own admission, were attacking a position I directly took. Now we're onto you using them to assert that this is my position and asking what could it be if it were not that. So, either you're putting words into my mouth or you are being straight up dishonest in this conversation. Which one is it when you're using the quotes this time?

Uh you ARE saying that there's no difference between Trump and the democrats and that therefore it doesn't matter. By definition you're aiding Trump even if you think you aren't. That "both sidism" nonsense helped Trump get elected in the first place (people kept saying Hillary was no better; she was an awful candidate and in some ways a bad human being but she was NOT Trump). In that regard you have no nuance. Sometimes you have to suck it up and go with the lesser of two evils and in this case that's the Democrats.

You're also rejecting any idea at compromise because you think things are fundamentally broken.


As for the police abolition......I'm for overhaul and reforming but getting rid of law enforcement as a whole is never going to happen. Anarchism tends to be a rather childish ideal that doesn't really work in real life.