if they were really smart they'd all quit their jobs and devote themselves to throwing piss bottles full time until the problems stop

It's far worse than "wont defund," Biden wants to INCREASE police funding, because he's a fucking monster.

And of course, Kamala Harris IS a cop.

Seriously? Is Ashtar really still pissed off about THE BEER SUMMIT?

Whatever he imagines will turn people off from voting.

how about we increase funding to police, but it's for a class where they have to write essays on Judith Butler?

Can’t say ‘defund’ because a lot of white people near the center associate that with letting rape gangs of ‘coloreds’ roam their suburbs.

Win the election then worry about semantics.

"Defund the police" is pretty vague all by itself, and so is "increase funding for the police." The point of this rhetoric is to counter an attack from Republicans, and its been pretty effective at that. Im not sure that I agree with whatever Biden policy we're simplisticly discussing, and I probably don't, but isn't it possible to increase without encouraging the murder of more black people?

AND SPEAKING OF MONSTERS, TRUMP PUBICLY PARDONED SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, THE ULTIMATE LAW INFORCEMENT MONSTER, FOR THE CRIME OF REFUSING TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER TO END RACIAL PROFILING.

I mean, WHAT THE FUCK?

This interview was from earlier this year so the whole movement to defund the police had just started when she asked these questions. It's important to make that distinction because at the time of this interview the media was in denial mode that anyone wanted to abolish the police, even though that movement exists.

And in my opinion, America will not be safer with less police. I think that's a really naive belief.

>>>>And in my opinion, America will not be safer with less police. I think that's a really naive belief.

That's why practically no one believes that, at least in such stark, simplistic terms.

On the other hand, if you take half the money currently spent on drug enforcement, and invest it in drug treatment, mental health services and community outreach, after a certain learn curve is overcome, the possibility that America would be much safer cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Ordinarily, I'd assume that Brawndo was setting up a straw man, but I'm going to give him a pass this time, because I don't think there's a lot of general agreement and specifics. I think its good that defined the police had entered the discussion, but Im kind of relieved that its not.on the platform

I think there is definitely a contingent of these people, and I think it's a lot of them, that think life would be better without the police and the vitriol towards the police, the hatred of the police, has been spreading and overflowing. I'm pissed off with Kamala for not trying to do more to actually curb that sentiment or criticize it. She basically changes her opinion to whatever the polls suggest she should or whatever he handlers say she should because she doesn't say anything without it being about getting ahead. She's in it for herself and does not give a fuck about anyone or anything else.

There is also a hell of a lot of naivete regarding what social workers can do on their own without police escorts. The real problem with this idea is that most social workers who are called in to deal with extreme mental illness or to defuse situations already work with the police, and I know two of them. Both of whom say they have NO desire to go into these situations alone and they do NOT support this movement at all. It's great on paper to say "Yeah, we're just gonna have social workers defuse this." But what if they are sent into a dangerous situation and they get shot as a result? None of these people is thinking about consequences, they are all thinking about an idyllic version of reality, and it really isn't realistic. Real life does not reflect this new utopian vision of a future where you don't need to call the police for mental illness related situations. A lot of the time the police to need to interfere with the homeless as well. They don't relish it, but those two things overlap. Lots of mental illness among the homeless.

Likewise the new laws in California (in SF especially) that allow people to shoplift up to a thousand dollars worth of product before they can be arrested is fucking ridiculous.

Training is important. Making sure the police are better trained is an answer. Making sure they are all on the same wavelength with mental health professionals is a great idea. But taking police out of the situation won't necessarily make things safer.
I think that's influenced by a bias against police, that idea. Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean that it will turn out the way you want it to.

2020 has seen a complete demonization of the police that is dangerous, and it's embarrassing that our country has this much self hatred. We live in a country that is bombarded with so much self hatred that most younger people think they live in the most racist, worst country on Earth. They have no idea how bad it would be under communism. Try living under Castro's regime and see how benevolent cops were over the decades in Cuba. There's a perspective problem and a gap in knowledge with this movement. A lot of ignorant people think that American cops are the enemy, that they're good for nothing, that they don't do anything but ruin lives. They have no IDEA how bad it could really be under an actual police state.

How many people have we watched get beaten brutally by police, just this year? That's the "demonization of police" that you should be incensed about. The kind that they earn with their own actions.

It's almost like there's something in between sending social workers alone into crack dens and police hitting a crowd of peaceful people protesting a murder with clubs, LRAD weapons, and tear gas. And it has nothing to do with communism.

It's almost as if defunding the police would also require reimagining the relationship between the citizen and the State. This commentary is full of whataboutism and deflection, I give it a D.

Context is a thing.

Whataboutism is nonsense when someone on Fox uses Hillary Clinton, who isn't currently holding office or running for office, to deflect criticism against Donald Trump, who is holding office. It's irrelevant.

Its a very different thing to counter criticism of a candidate in a current election with the record of his opponent. I was very much aware of this when I brought up Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio. No apologies offered.