“It’s a little too quiet” - US Politics February 2021

well, you know, take those parts of the sentence and rearrange them, we all understand

Just seen that yanks abroad get the new stimulus cheque too. I hadn't thought about that until I came across a discussion of how to do so as an ex-pat elsewhere.
So they're stimulating other economies too.

Are we returning to an age of American interference. Surprised to hear somebody I would have thought of as liberal or even progressive talking about how America was the greatest spreader of democracy on a podcast last week. Gorlumme.

RETURNING to the age of American interference? Listen, there's some stuff you may not have been paying attention to.

ok, it's a constant. thought the last lot were busy screwing over their own people so had less focus elsewhere. I accept there was some continually.

Bullhorn lady is in custody

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2021/02/05/rachel-powell-taken-into-custody/amp/

Mother of 8. Another family destroyed so a belligerent rich fascist (pleonasm, I know) could feel slightly better about losing

Re: Dobbs, there was another quote in the WaPo piece showing him totally aware that his show had become Trump 2020 TV but not caring at all, because he was so close to death and/or retirement. There was an interview with Rudy some months back where he expressed a similar fatalism. What do I care about my reputation, or doing the right thing? I'll be dead soon enough. Such a gross mindset.

On the other hand, they suspect they'll die soon, so hooray!

I mean, isn't that just conservatism now? They don't give a shit what happens to the world after they're dead. All that matters is that they got theirs while the gettin' was good.

Lou Dobbs owns Lou Dobbs pic.twitter.com/zdhemkaecI

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2021

wait i... what?

can't respond, dead soon

How popular is Fetterman in Pennsylvania? Everyone I know there is extremely liberal and loves him but they are also all in Philly. But I gather he has a lot of support across the state.

He’s big news in Pittsburgh to. He was doing his mayor of Braddock stint when we were living there and people like him for giving a shit and getting things done in Braddock when no one gave a shit about Braddock. My wife can’t wait to vote for him.

He and his wife are maybe my favorite politicians at the moment. I desperately want to hang with them, get dinner, and get high.

Finger on the pulse outta Staten Island

Happy birthday Ronald Reagan. My sketch from 2016 proudly hangs in my Washington office. pic.twitter.com/JaRFbqImKi

— Nicole Malliotakis (@NMalliotakis) February 6, 2021

Fetterman's Berniecrat/social democracy cred is pretty solid, I imagine he can fundraise a ton from those circles. I'll throw him $27 at some point.

Yes, I want to give that dude money.

also he would have the coolest house in the Senate, guaranteed

https://www.designsponge.com/2016/07/in-pennsylvania-a-car-dealership-becomes-an-industrial-home.html

Yeah that house is amazing. He generally seems almost too good to be true as a Dem candidate in this moment so in the back of mind I keep wondering is there some major flaw or weakness in the blindspot.

For fun!

NEW: Remember back in December when Mike Flynn was suggesting Trump impose martial law? Yeah, Trump was so impressed that he floated the idea of making Flynn chief of staff for the final weeks of his admin, or even naming him FBI director https://t.co/T5ccBM35Fw

— Matthew Rosenberg (@AllMattNYT) February 6, 2021

Shitposting AOC is better than exchanging epic owns with Ted Cruz AOC.

Some of the same folks who said “defunding huge PD budgets & shifting $ to schools is too hard to explain” are now saying “Well $1400 is actually $2k if you recall the $600 from a diff president, carry the 1- yes I know ads showed $2k checks, but thresholds-”

Just help people!

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 7, 2021

Republicans really can't get over Ronald Reagan

They have.

It’s Democrats who can’t get over Ronald Reagan

Republicans really can't draw Ronald Reagan.

pic.twitter.com/YFgkqIB8yn

— Mr. Victor Berger IV (@VicBergerIV) February 7, 2021

AOC is right that they should probably just give people the 2000 (especially at this point) but that’s not a good comparison. “Defund the police” is way worse messaging. Especially given how highly the “1400 on top of the 600 you already got” polled in Georgia recently.

“Defund the police” is way worse messaging.

simply not true, we've been through this. it depends on the district.

On a national level the fact that people running with it were divided between “we don’t mean it literally” vs. “yes we do” means that that debate was settled/lost. Plus there was likely unprecedented support for the idea of “police reform” at that time (which is open ended enough to be more conducive to be appropriately applied per district). Although I know people would often say “but we tried reform before” without ever meaningfully explaining how. The insistence on defund seemed navel gazey or just a sloppy attempt to rebrand police abolition.

Not looking like minimum wage will be part of reconciliation bill

the fact that people running with it were divided between

who

The insistence on defund

by who

Xpost That’s pretty disappointing I have to admit.

Sic those things are pretty fundamental to having had basic awareness of “Defund the Police” before now.

if you don't know, it's okay to say so

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/612682/

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/6/3/21276824/defund-police-divest-explainer

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.amp.html

When you do a basic search there’s really countless “what does it actually mean?” articles you see immediately which is funny because I would think solid political messaging wouldn’t lead to that.

Although tbf the goals of activism shouldn’t have to align with what works in political messaging. Since the former is more of a long term battle.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/612682/

this one does not name anybody who was running with it. consequently, it does not delineate between people who were running with it as “we don’t mean it literally” vs. people who were running with it as “yes we do.”

it specifies "defund the police" as "a more radical option, one scrawled on cardboard signs." however, it does not name the people who scrawled it on those signs. (it does delineate many salutary policies that come under the umbrella of the slogan, though.)

When you do a basic search there’s really countless

Three results total for "who was running with defund the police". sorry to flex but I can count that high without even using my fingers!

#3 is 'Defund Police' Crowd Silent as Nashville First Responders Risk Life and Limb Running Toward Explosion which opens Is this what you want to defund, liberals?, and rants for 683 words against "activists" and "a public school teacher" before acknowledging that the Nashville police department's budget was increased, not reduced, after the calls by these unnamed entities that the writer decries.

Gotta say I'm not fully convinced, by these citations of his research, that Big Don's note-taking is all that rigorous.

Huh? No dude there’s “what does defund the police mean?”
articles from The Guardian The Cut and even Good Housekeeping etc

Like there’s way more headlines based entirely around confusion of what was suppose to communicated there with that slogan then there is for “1400 vs 2000”

And also AOC wrote an amendment that was $2000 instead of $600 so you know....there’s some dishonesty in that tweet (or maybe a short memory) but whatever works if it gets folks more money I guess.

I thought what defund the police brokedown to was that it was easier to continue to throw money at an established institution no matter how successful the consequences were for certain sections of society as opposed to money spent on a solution that was more built for purpose.

I was wondering if people in the US from certain sections of society grew up with the idea that if one was in trouble they could ask a policeman since it was a standing thing in the UK. Your neighborhood beat bobby as somebody who wouldn't be seen to automatically turn around and try to arrest you which is the impression left on a lot of society by experience. But there are a lot of people whose experience of teh police in general is absolutely negative so they're not going to be people who would defuse a situation would probably do the opposite.
So expecting every problem to be something taht could be answered by police is just mindless for some people. Expecting them to be people who could talk people down when they are in a manic state when what they represent is actually going to add to the situation.For somewhat connected reasons putting police into schools is counterproductive for those who are involved, people get pushed from minor problems in school to be categorised as criminal which means they have been messed up before they've even started when a different approach would at least not be pushing them into a position where some arbitrary official thought they needed to be controlled.
Also just throwing more and more armaments to them is not the best way to deal with situations.
Defunding police normally means that there is more funding available for other alternatives which might actually be more win win than people being controlled against their wills and having an armed foe show up to deal with situations that don't need more accelarants.

I would prefer a new system where teh end user was aprt of the design of how problems were dealt with than having something imposed on them. That thing that is imposed on them at the moment has a long negative history of how it was set up, for what purposes and what the designation of crime si ahd how egalitarian its deployment is, or rather clearly isn't.

oh yeah was going to say money spent on a solution that was more built for purpose and didn't have thge same supposed proven track record. & stresstaht that thagt track record is only positive from one perspective and is heavily negative from another.
Is certainly not objective in the way it is supposed to be.

Private prisons need population. I listened to a talk a couple of weeks ago where that was pretty much stressed. Where the supposed idea of a prison as a place where you put those who will not fit into society to keep them out of creating danger for others to being a location that has ulterior motives for its existence that needs people to have crimes structured for them to fall the wrong side of to create population for, I think that is true of prisons in general if they are wrong for the wrong motivatiion which is why they're also a subject of defunding or abolition for a number of people.

Huh? No dude there’s “what does defund the police mean?”
articles from The Guardian The Cut and even Good Housekeeping etc

If you don’t know who you meant, it really is okay to say so. Without a link, I’m going to remain dubious that Good Housekeeping is running contextual explainers on individual Big Don Abernathy posts in ILX politics threads though, after your previous pointers went nowhere.

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/a33024951/defund-the-police-meaning/

Good morning!

pretty sure people are lying when they say they don't know what it means. it's literally what it sounds like. these explainers keep trying to water it down or make it more complicated than it is

do people thunk they're being subtle by repeatedly harping on about how unhelpful the phrase is. say what you fucking mean

or think even