teej6

If this happens, I hope it will push Biden and a democratic Congress to agree to expanding the Supreme Court.

Did anyone see Trump’s Rose Garden rambling today? Apparently his stream of consciousness diatribe was especially bad today. Here’s a snippet: “We have great agreements where when Biden and Obama used to bring killers out, they would say don’t bring them back to our country, we don’t want them. Well, we have to, we don’t want them. They wouldn’t take them. Now with us, they take them. Someday, I’ll tell you why. Someday, I’ll tell you why. But they take them and they take them very gladly. They used to bring them out and they wouldn’t even let the airplanes land if they brought them back by airplanes. They wouldn’t let the buses into their country. They said we don’t want them. Said no, but they entered our country illegally and they’re murderers, they’re killers in some cases.” I didn’t see it but there’s a good report on it in the Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/trump-news-conference.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

True!

Although I haven’t donated to the Lincoln Project and probably won’t in the future, I must say that their ads are far more effective in getting the message across than the ads from the Biden campaign so far. The repubs or ex-republicans in this case do know how to market their message far better than the democrats do. The Lincoln Project also has an ad called “Names” that goes after the senate seats. If they want to make the negative ads that the Biden campaign and DNC won’t, I say hurray! There’s an ad that the Trump gang is running claiming that Biden supports defunding the police. This ad is on repeat in all the swing states. I don’t think the Biden campaign has responded but the Lincoln Project has an ad called “Law and Order” that really nails it.

So whatever Barr’s motives (most likely due to the investigation of Giuliani and associates) was in asking Berman to resign, it seems like the whole thing backfired. Barr had to publicly confirm that he would follow “the operation of law” and appoint the deputy USA, Audrey Strauss, to replace Berman, who by all accounts is a straight shooter. In addition, she is heading the office investigating President Trump’s business and campaign finances. Strauss in the past argued against and defeated Roy Cohn (Trump’s mentor) in court. Sweeeet! https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/acting-new-york-us-attorney-once-defeated-roy-cohn-investigated-iran-contra/2020/06/20/82378274-b332-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html Barr also had to publicly admit that if there is any improper interference regarding any pending cases in the USA office, the Justice Dept IG will investigate. And Lindsey Graham just affirmed his confidence in Strauss. So Barr and his crazy boss will probably now have to deal with an even more troublesome adversary in Strauss. It’s not the corruption of Trump and his cronies that amazes me, it’s their sheer incompetence and stupidity while committing these corrupt acts that is so dumbfounding. They are like bank robbers who leave behind their finger prints, DNA, cell phones, pictures, and even an accomplice for the authorities to easily identify, find, and prosecute them.

First off, I don’t appreciate your condescending tone. As to an alternative plan, I’m not the one pitching the idea of a city without a police force, just saying I’m open to exploring such an idea if someone can explain to me how that would work. So far I’ve not heard any convincing argument as to how this would work, especially in a large city. The President of the Minneapolis City Council in interviews mentioned a “police free” future. And she goes on about having people other than police attending to domestic violence calls or mental health calls, or other health related issues. But she still can’t seem to give a clear answer as to what she means by a police free society — what is the extent of this policy. This is why I initially stated that I don’t know what the nine members of the Minneapolis City Council means when they announce they support “dismantling” the police. The president herself stated “we committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe” This is not the Camden, NJ model she is referring to but a far drastic measure, where she sees a police free society. She goes on to say that when she was asked about whether she could envision a police free Minneapolis in 2017, she said she could. So she has had three years to figure our what this society would look like but she still can’t seem to provide a clear answer about it even now. She can’t even give a clear answer when asked whether there will be no policing or some policing — for instance, who will do the work of maintaining law and order? You can have social workers and mental health workers address 911 calls relating to mental health issues, or drug related issues, etc. But what about responding to a robbery. She didn’t seem to have an answer to that. The argument I keep making is that before you make an announcement that you have a majority on the city council that wants to “dismantle” the police, you should have a thought out response as to what that means and what the alternative would be. If someone can produce an alternative plan with proper research that shows that a police force is not required to handle the problems of 99% of the city’s issues even law and order problems, then by all means dismantle the police force and transfer the funding to social workers, community workers, health care workers, etc.

My mistake. As I said before, I’m not against an alternative plan as long as careful thought and consideration is given towards such a plan and it’s vetted properly. In the immediate future, however, I do not see any such alternative arrangement being feasible. Perhaps the the threat of dismantling the police force can be used as leverage to get the unions to renegotiate and give the city more favorable terms.

Not arguing that alternative plans should not be drawn up or discussed, but in my opinion what the Minneapolis City Council did wrong (based on my limited understanding of the matter) is the abrupt way in which they voted for and announced the dismantling of the police. To me, it seemed reactionary and not well thought out. It may have come from a place of despair and frustration from the continued abuse of the police in Minneapolis but I feel any public policy (especially one as significant as this) if implemented haphazardly, will fail. Yes, policing is a state and local issue but a Democratic congress and presidency can implement legislation to condition federal aid to police departments or spend much more on community policing programs or increase investigations of police depts for civil rights violations. The other thing that I think will change policing in this country is ending qualified immunity for police officers and that can happen only through federal legislation or the courts.

Yes, I know nine city council members in Minneapolis voted for dismantling the MPD. I specifically referred to the President of the council because I heard her speak, and from what she said, I don’t think she gave a clear answer to what is meant by dismantling the police dept. As for funds, again, she’s the one who said it will require huge investments. She didn’t seem to make the argument that it was as easy as directing funds from the city police budget. If it’s as easy as that, then there should be no problem. And then, even if they have the funds, where are they going to get this trained work force of social workers, psychologists, educators, etc that will be required for this alternative department/ body in the immediate future. The point I was making is that watching her interview didn’t give me confidence that they (or at least she) had planned or thought this thing through. If there is an alternative plan that will work and that can be implemented relatively quickly and efficiently, I’m all for it. But doesn’t seem to me like there is one currently. Not disputing the bolded. In fact, several cities in this country have this problem. Also, not disputing that this is a problem that needs to be corrected as soon as possible. But the chances of any significant measures being taken under a Trump presidency is zero. It will be even worse if he gets reelected on the platform of saving the police force in this country. So instead of giving the republicans fodder in an election year, I think the best course of action is what the Biden campaign has taken — not to let the current momentum and support slip, but using it to enact laws and policies that will significantly change policing in this country. I always tell people that there were things to dislike about Hillary Clinton (for me personally it was her hawkish foreign policy) but had she been elected, we wouldn’t have had Gorsuch or Kavanaugh on the supreme court or all the 100+ judges Trump and Mcconnell appointed to the federal courts. Republicans continue to act strategically so as to remain decision makers long after they have become the minority party in this country.

Based on Lisa Bender’s (the Minneapolis City Council President) interviews, I’m not clear on what she means by dismantling the police department. She really doesn’t give a definitive and clear answer on what this means. She says something like a police free city is a “long way away” and will require a huge investment. So I don’t know what they will do in the interim. Without a well thought out alternative and how this alternative system is going to work — where the funds and work force is going to come from for this system, I don’t see how you can convince a majority on this. I’m all for dismantling the police unions or at least replacing the top brass at these unions with younger and more diverse leaders (watching that guy who leads the MPD union made my sick in my stomach). Also, take away the military style weaponry from police departments. For that matter, take away these weapons from everyone, go after the NRA (now that’s an organization that definitely has to be dismantled in my opinion). Have police academies reserve seats for minority communities and provide tuition free programs. The police departments should actively recruit from minority communities. The police internal affairs should not be made up of other policeman but independent investigators. And this culture of protecting your own should be changed. I’m hopeful that the supreme court might take up qualified immunity this year and perhaps change that stupid law. I think there’s a lot that can be done before going to the extreme measure of dismantling the police force. I feel these reforms may have better success this time than in the past due to broader support and I really think the political class is going to take it seriously this time. Apart from the issues I have of dismantling the police without an alternative arrangement in place, the immediate concern I have is that this gives Trump and the republicans their rallying cry. Trump and his campaign will use this to create a faux culture war. Nothing will matter if Trump gets re-elected in November.

Unless you can show me a way to hold the primaries again in all the 50 states in the middle of a pandemic, your point is moot. And FYI, based on the polls I’m seeing, the Reade story hasn’t hurt Biden all that much. All it’s done is given Bernie supporters a talking point and false hope that Biden will be forced to quit and the DNC and the voting public will declare Bernie the winner by default. Thankfully, the DNC and the voting public (most of them) are smarter than that.

I really think you need to read people’s posts more carefully. I used the term categorical denial to dispute your claim that the 72 people interviewed in the article stated that “yeah they don’t remember”. If my first post was confusing, I clarified my meaning in my following post. The article comes to the conclusion that these 72 people (including 62 women) interviewed remember their time in Biden’s office positively and deny any behavior of assault or harassment from Biden based on their experience. I reiterate the point I made earlier, they cannot state with certainty that Biden did or did not assault Reade because they are not witnesses to the event and there is no forensic proof. All they can do, is vouch for Biden’s character based on their experiences, which they do judging by the article. Anyway, I’m done discussing this topic w/ you and just wanted to respond since you seemed to be misrepresenting my posts.

This is rich. So, the DNC should just ignore and cast away the choice of all those millions of voters who voted for Biden in the primaries? I hear this argument so much from the left and Bernie supporters (just to be clear, not stating you are one). How is this any different from Trump and the republicans trying to disenfranchise voters?

I didn’t think I was stating it as a fact but if that’s the impression you got, fair enough.

If you are talking about the Democratic leaders, I can’t speak for them. I’m a democrat and didn’t blindly believe Dr Ford. I saw her testimony and Kavanaugh’s and made a rationale choice to believe her. Even after hearing her testimony, I still didn’t think Kavanaugh should have been disqualified based on an act that he committed decades ago as a drunken teenager. It gave me pause about his character but the man could have changed and grown up in the years since. What disqualified him in my eyes was his testimony and behavior before the senate. His behavior made me think that he hasn’t changed much and doesn’t seem to have the constitution and character to sit on the supreme court.