2024 GOP primary

[reo]

4 minutes ago, Justafan said:

I never claimed that it was the majority. You have a bad habit of taking the least generous interpretation of what I say and building an argument from the most extreme position possible instead of having a reasonable conversation about something we could probably find more agreement than disagreement on. 

 

When you talk "messaging" that implies an organized and official policy. "Abolish the police" was never the policy of democrats. So therefore there was never any "messaging" for it to change from abolishing the police to reforming the police. The policy is and always was reform. Therefore, the messaging didn't change. It's just that the noise of the vocal minority reduced so the actual policy and messaging was heard.

Edited February 5, 2024 by reo

[Guest]

Just now, Justafan said:

They're pretty clear that they want to drastically downsize or dismantle the police departments in these metropolitan areas. They did so in many cases, as your article correctly points out, and it has been a disaster in every instance, which is why the messaging changed drastically from defunding the police to police reform. 

 

My perspective on this is that each policy has to be analyzed--and some were failures for sure, but the overarching national narrative about this was sensationalized--yes, it was bad messaging for sure. 

 

How do we even go about police reform? It feels like an impossibility, because part of it means taking away power from the police (extreme resistance to this) and implementing wider accountability for a group that many view as heroic and without reproach. 

 

I understand that being a cop is not an easy job. The tension created with the influx of body cameras and scrutiny is high. 

 

America has also created the circumstances that reinforce this dangerous model of violence by doing nothing to reign in the presence of guns. 

 

It does make sense that cops wouldn't want to work in a place like New York or San Francisco, but I think you are oversimplifying it. A lack of pay, a higher level of accountability than your peers, and increasingly changing and moving goal posts. 

 

To me, I equate this with being a teacher. And how do we solve this issue beyond paying and training the cops more and getting guns off the street so that our training can reflect the reality of the danger they face in communities? 

 

This is another issue where political conflict is hard for me to swallow because you have one group that's failing on a messaging front but is at least responding to issues and trying to solve problems and another that is doing something else entirely. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, reo said:

 

Police reform was always what I'd say most Dems supported. There were a lot of vocal minorities who wanted to abolish the police all together but by no means were they the majority. 

 

Is this really true though? In a meaningful, sustained way? 

 

The problem with the "messaging" dialogue is that what we consume characterizes our perspectives. Conservative media frames liberal platforms for the American public. Even when you find the most radical democrats on this issue a lot of their comments were speaking out in a moment of passion and national crisis and didn't manifest in any kind of consistent, sustained message or meaningful policy. 

 

I think Sanders is a good example, who pretty quickly clarified/walked back. The damage was done though, as the second democrats didn't condemn and strongly distance themselves from protestors and this poorly worded slogan, they were cooked--conservative media had something to latch on to and it was a non-starter. 

 

I have pretty complicated and, at times, conflicted views about this issue in general. What's clear though is that our model of policing is out of control--what isn't clear is how we walk that back. 

 

I mostly support a lot of the ideas that Sanders and others indicate--we need to look into the waste and the volume of militarized gear sent out.

 

We need a lot more police accountability--but to me that means an investment in the police. We expect police to be increasingly culturally competent and yet there are some communities where they are able to face less diverse communities and less pressure to do so, able to live in safer environments, and able to have more built in respect for who they are as people. 

 

Back to your point, if I am a cop--why would I want to work in San Francisco? I get that. 

 

So for me, it becomes about how we allocate our societal resources. We always spend a quadrillion dollars on what the fuck ever, we need to divert money we are using on gear, money we are using to increasingly provide the wealthy with more resources and, specifically when it comes to policing: 

 

• improve education 
• improve pay 
• create early pathway programs to careers in policing 
• diversify police force 
• hold police accountable 

 

I think I'd start there. If we want cops to give a flying fuck, we need to increase their quality of life. 

 

I do think we should defund/divert funds "the police", but to me that means investing in the human beings themselves. 

 

I personally think the issues we see playing out in America are not good for citizens, but cops are harmed to. Killing an innocent person due to a "mistake" or whatever, is going to fuck your psyche to pieces. 

[reo]

23 minutes ago, Bink said:

 

Is this really true though? In a meaningful, sustained way? 

 

The problem with the "messaging" dialogue is that what we consume characterizes our perspectives. Conservative media frames liberal platforms for the American public. Even when you find the most radical democrats on this issue a lot of their comments were speaking out in a moment of passion and national crisis and didn't manifest in any kind of consistent, sustained message or meaningful policy. 

 

I think Sanders is a good example, who pretty quickly clarified/walked back. The damage was done though, as the second democrats didn't condemn and strongly distance themselves from protestors and this poorly worded slogan, they were cooked--conservative media had something to latch on to and it was a non-starter. 

 

I have pretty complicated and, at times, conflicted views about this issue in general. What's clear though is that our model of policing is out of control--what isn't clear is how we walk that back. 

 

I mostly support a lot of the ideas that Sanders and others indicate--we need to look into the waste and the volume of militarized gear sent out.

 

We need a lot more police accountability--but to me that means an investment in the police. We expect police to be increasingly culturally competent and yet there are some communities where they are able to face less diverse communities and less pressure to do so, able to live in safer environments, and able to have more built in respect for who they are as people. 

 

Back to your point, if I am a cop--why would I want to work in San Francisco? I get that. 

 

So for me, it becomes about how we allocate our societal resources. We always spend a quadrillion dollars on what the fuck ever, we need to divert money we are using on gear, money we are using to increasingly provide the wealthy with more resources and, specifically when it comes to policing: 

 

• improve education 
• improve pay 
• create early pathway programs to careers in policing 
• diversify police force 
• hold police accountable 

 

I think I'd start there. If we want cops to give a flying fuck, we need to increase their quality of life. 

 

I do think we should defund/divert funds "the police", but to me that means investing in the human beings themselves. 

 

I personally think the issues we see playing out in America are not good for citizens, but cops are harmed to. Killing an innocent person due to a "mistake" or whatever, is going to fuck your psyche to pieces. 

 

Hitting on a lot of topics here. In terms of what should be done for police reform... I honestly don't know. Lots of increased training and monitoring (psych and procedural) which would probably also require improved pay to incentivize good recruits.  Outside of that no clue.

Edited February 5, 2024 by reo

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, reo said:

 

Hitting on a lot of topics here. In terms of what should be done for police reform... I honestly don't know. Lots of increased training and monitoring (psych and procedural) which would probably also require improved pay to incentivize good recruits.  Outside of that no clue.

 

I am a big believer in education reform and pathway programs. I think for a long time we encouraged education flexibility and not having students decide too early--but now we've got rigid education systems were students are pretty quickly locked into certain paths based on all the usual factors, like socioeconomic status, education level, etc. We are starting to see the swing back towards trades and putting pressure on education with the student loan crisis and the crash of certain white collar style work (hello tech). 

 

I believe a big solution to this would be to lean heavily into incentivising service based careers. I think the military has had some success with incentive based structures (want to go to med school? we can help you). 

 

What does this look like? 

 

Picture picture/conceptual goals to serve as guiding lights: 

 

• make systems of accountability fair but present 
• increased accountability means increased compensation 
• make policing proactive and collaborative (spend time working in the community with social work and other orgs) versus always reactive 
• make the work sustainable from a financial, physical, and mental health perspective 
• diversify police 
• have more community specific models 
• demilitarize police 
• patterns of problematic behavior are punished harshly not covered up 

 

Tangible solutions: 

• building pathway programs to service based jobs that go from high school  > community college/affordable public school/ service 
• define a sect of public service needs in a community, and partner with schools. For example, do you not have enough cops? Incentivize schools to offer a criminal justice program that leads from associate's to four year degree or specialized training 
• revamp high school curriculum to have more flexibility (end standardized test hellscape) that does expose students to themes like criminal justice (I am sure this already being done)
• make sure the curriculum at all levels addresses the needs we have--sorry conservatives, this means we do need to teach social justice and diversity 
• launch these programs directly in high need communities 
• if there is not a close, affordable community college, work on building one 
• make the pay and benefits good 
• make the work sustainable for your mental health. if you are a cop and want to participate in therapy, we have a therapist trained to work directly with police in house and you can see them 1 hour per week during work time. This is done anonymously via ZOOM. If you decide not to participate, that's one hour for you to rest and reflect so it is truly anonymous. If you are a cop and want to do research or get an advanced degree, we will pay for it. 

 

 

Some of this is kind of radical and hard to achieve. We can't find the money and time to do this right away. We need people of all walks of life to change their hearts and minds. And to an extent, we need to acknowledge the nature of American gun ownership--that means anyone might have a gun at anytime, will always account for a certain amount of police and citizen violence. 

 

To me, though, some of these ideas are not that complicated. Instead of hemorrhaging all money and resources to the rich, we look into the work that directly serves the community. We raise the salary and educational floors and invest in the people who invest in our communities. We make sure these communities work for everyone. I am all for incentivizing and not overly penalizing. I know we need to be harsher on cops who do truly fucked up shit and get away with it time and time again, but I think those patterns are more a product of the system needing reform, and not the person. 

 

But I think more educated police would be a more anti-corrupt police. And I think the fact that a cop could get paid something like $40k absolutely enforces corrupt and problematic behavior. 

 

 

[Guest]

Here's an example of the kind of program I've seen work in a major city with pretty negative attitudes about policing. 

 

 

You have a career readiness program that connects students directly to a career coach in high schools in a specific county. This person does career exploration activities and works with students on things like college application processes and scholarships. This individual also supports students generally though his touch interactions (i.e. lots of email reminders, meetings, if the student is struggling--reaching out, getting them to class, connected to tutors, etc.). 

 

This style of coaching continues to the local community college level, so you have consistency. 

 

As a rising high school junior, you participate in programming with local community business leaders and service providers. For example, there's a summer program that includes a career fair and career simulations. 

 

This includes different levels and roles in law enforcement, along with other jobs that might do public service. As a student, you move through a simulation with a social worker role playing as a family trying to budget and meet needs, you go to a simulation with a prosecutor who walks you through some interesting case studies (who doesn't like true crime), and you go to a law enforcement sim that walks you through a traffic stop or something similar--complete with a cop car on campus. This programming is mixed in with other careers (everything from scientific research to local media companies to the local female owned mechanic). You are essentially normalizing this as a career choice. You are also providing programming that teaches career competencies, like professionalism and communication, and how to connect your interests to job areas. 

 

The police invited to participate in these programs are young and match the identities of the people who might be interested. They are work directly with the criminal justice faculty at the community and four year college. 

 

If you are a high school student, you are able to talk to someone who can tell you what the career is like, and what to do to get that career directly from an educational standpoint. 

 

You combine this program with free community college. 

 

Stuff like this isn't free or cheap, but it works. I have seen students first-hand go from having pretty strongly held and justifiable negative views about police to giving them a chance and having more empathy because of this type of programming. 

 

You do have to be willing to pay cops and give them time to participate in this kind of programming. You have to pay career coaches. You have to pay for education. 

 

This is all worth it as far as I'm concerned. This kind of programming also really benefits police. They get to feel like they are giving back. They get to connect with teenagers and minority populations. 

 

---------

 

On the flipside, I think higher level administrative reform is a lot more important than addressing rank and file. 

 

Another thing I have seen be successful is a student coming back to get his graduate degree so he could advance as an officer. 

 

Part of his project based learning was writing papers on his actual proposals (heavily generalized obviously). 

 

Because he was in a classroom with non-police classmates, he was able to get a direct perspective on how the public might perceive such a program. He also had a lot of academic support. He came back to school lacking traditional skills, so he was connected with writing resources and academic coaching. 

 

Again, these ideas cost. You have to pay for a writing center and academic coaches. You have to pay for an officer to go back to school and you have to pay them a salary where this type of extra professional development is attainable (can't go back to school if you aren't making ends meet). 

 

I believe this type of model benefits a lot of professions too. 

 

 

Like it or not, I think "traditional" higher ed is being aggressively challenged. So let's offer leaner, more flexible, educational models with direct community benefit. All of this should be based on high level partnerships and pathways. 

 

 

[Justafan]

2 hours ago, Bink said:

Here's an example of the kind of program I've seen work in a major city with pretty negative attitudes about policing. 

 

 

You have a career readiness program that connects students directly to a career coach in high schools in a specific county. This person does career exploration activities and works with students on things like college application processes and scholarships. This individual also supports students generally though his touch interactions (i.e. lots of email reminders, meetings, if the student is struggling--reaching out, getting them to class, connected to tutors, etc.). 

 

This style of coaching continues to the local community college level, so you have consistency. 

 

As a rising high school junior, you participate in programming with local community business leaders and service providers. For example, there's a summer program that includes a career fair and career simulations. 

 

This includes different levels and roles in law enforcement, along with other jobs that might do public service. As a student, you move through a simulation with a social worker role playing as a family trying to budget and meet needs, you go to a simulation with a prosecutor who walks you through some interesting case studies (who doesn't like true crime), and you go to a law enforcement sim that walks you through a traffic stop or something similar--complete with a cop car on campus. This programming is mixed in with other careers (everything from scientific research to local media companies to the local female owned mechanic). You are essentially normalizing this as a career choice. You are also providing programming that teaches career competencies, like professionalism and communication, and how to connect your interests to job areas. 

 

The police invited to participate in these programs are young and match the identities of the people who might be interested. They are work directly with the criminal justice faculty at the community and four year college. 

 

If you are a high school student, you are able to talk to someone who can tell you what the career is like, and what to do to get that career directly from an educational standpoint. 

 

You combine this program with free community college. 

 

Stuff like this isn't free or cheap, but it works. I have seen students first-hand go from having pretty strongly held and justifiable negative views about police to giving them a chance and having more empathy because of this type of programming. 

 

You do have to be willing to pay cops and give them time to participate in this kind of programming. You have to pay career coaches. You have to pay for education. 

 

This is all worth it as far as I'm concerned. This kind of programming also really benefits police. They get to feel like they are giving back. They get to connect with teenagers and minority populations. 

 

---------

 

On the flipside, I think higher level administrative reform is a lot more important than addressing rank and file. 

 

Another thing I have seen be successful is a student coming back to get his graduate degree so he could advance as an officer. 

 

Part of his project based learning was writing papers on his actual proposals (heavily generalized obviously). 

 

Because he was in a classroom with non-police classmates, he was able to get a direct perspective on how the public might perceive such a program. He also had a lot of academic support. He came back to school lacking traditional skills, so he was connected with writing resources and academic coaching. 

 

Again, these ideas cost. You have to pay for a writing center and academic coaches. You have to pay for an officer to go back to school and you have to pay them a salary where this type of extra professional development is attainable (can't go back to school if you aren't making ends meet). 

 

I believe this type of model benefits a lot of professions too. 

 

 

Like it or not, I think "traditional" higher ed is being aggressively challenged. So let's offer leaner, more flexible, educational models with direct community benefit. All of this should be based on high level partnerships and pathways. 

 

 

I have some pretty radical ideas myself on policy solutions but the truth is I’m woefully under qualified for that undertaking and lack any insight or experience, and I would lump most of us in that same category, to understand the ramifications of implementing those ideas. 
 

I tend to believe that we’ve created the problems more than solved them by trying to centrally plan solutions to impossibly complex problems. 
 

I think people are so accustomed to the talking points they automatically lump every opinion into one of two buckets. That’s just not the case though. You can very easily support doing something about police brutality and understand that cutting police presence in high crime areas is a particularly bad idea. 

[Starkiller]

1 hour ago, Justafan said:

I have some pretty radical ideas myself on policy solutions but the truth is I’m woefully under qualified for that undertaking and lack any insight or experience, and I would lump most of us in that same category, to understand the ramifications of implementing those ideas. 
 

I tend to believe that we’ve created the problems more than solved them by trying to centrally plan solutions to impossibly complex problems. 
 

I think people are so accustomed to the talking points they automatically lump every opinion into one of two buckets. That’s just not the case though. You can very easily support doing something about police brutality and understand that cutting police presence in high crime areas is a particularly bad idea. 

How about letting cops deal with mental health issues vs a trained mental health professional? Who would you prefer handles those?

[Justafan]

2 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

How about letting cops deal with mental health issues vs a trained mental health professional? Who would you prefer handles those?

Is there violence involved? Can you guarantee the safety of the mental health professionals? Is it cost-effective? Has a crime been committed? If so, is the state going to prosecute or ignore it because mental health was involved? What does that look like? Are you referring to federal or local police? Who has jurisdiction? What would it look like? What are the next steps if you successfully manage an incident with a healthcare provider? What steps are you prepared to take if an encounter turns violent?

 

I can think of all kinds of things that make sense when I can spend as much of someone else's money as I want. Let's pretend we're trying to be honest stewards of taxpayer money. What does this all look like?

[Starkiller]

On 2/4/2024 at 11:20 AM, reo said:

Sidenote, Putin's main American propagandist Tucker Carlson is currently in Moscow. 

Apparently he is even doing a Putin interview

[Starkiller]

8 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Is there violence involved? Can you guarantee the safety of the mental health professionals? Is it cost-effective? Has a crime been committed? If so, is the state going to prosecute or ignore it because mental health was involved? What does that look like? Are you referring to federal or local police? Who has jurisdiction? What would it look like? What are the next steps if you successfully manage an incident with a healthcare provider? What steps are you prepared to take if an encounter turns violent?

 

I can think of all kinds of things that make sense when I can spend as much of someone else's money as I want. Let's pretend we're trying to be honest stewards of taxpayer money. What does this all look like?

Depends on the situation.
 

But currently it is all cops all the time. Homelessness? Cops. Mental health issues? Cops. What could go wrong?
 

You know what they say about when your only tool is a hammer. Cops tend to see every problem as a nail needing to be hammered down.

[El Guapo]

What per cent of criminals have an actual certifiable mental health issue? I would venture to say the vast majority of crime is done by bad people. I favor the hammer. And all that deflection is bullshit. 

[Starkiller]

Maybe fight poverty instead of just criminals and we'd need fewer cops because there would be fewer criminals…

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Justafan said:

I have some pretty radical ideas myself on policy solutions but the truth is I’m woefully under qualified for that undertaking and lack any insight or experience, and I would lump most of us in that same category, to understand the ramifications of implementing those ideas. 
 

I tend to believe that we’ve created the problems more than solved them by trying to centrally plan solutions to impossibly complex problems. 
 

I think people are so accustomed to the talking points they automatically lump every opinion into one of two buckets. That’s just not the case though. You can very easily support doing something about police brutality and understand that cutting police presence in high crime areas is a particularly bad idea. 

 

Yes, and I've seen this play out in real time. I have friends living in DC who were extreme caricatures of defund the police (essentially confirming stereotypes) and then were victims of a robbery, and it was really funny to see them interact with and rely on police. 

 

I agree that community based solutions and outreach are better, but our national policies have to help create better ideas. 

[Justafan]

11 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Depends on the situation.
 

But currently it is all cops all the time. Homelessness? Cops. Mental health issues? Cops. What could go wrong?
 

You know what they say about when your only tool is a hammer. Cops tend to see every problem as a nail needing to be hammered down.

Your generalizing comment aside, I haven't argued against police reform. I do suspect we would have some differences of opinion about what that reform looks like but that's a whole other rabbit hole.