Defund the Police

I’m not saying that, idiot. We’re talking about now. Try following the conversation.

A former cop talks about being a bastard:

https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759

In general, I agree with the notion to defund the police. It may sound extreme, but that’s because we live in an authoritarian country that fetishizes its law enforcement officers to the point of religious zeal.

So the principles which guided the formation of the Constitution no longer apply?

They do.

So "no taxation without representation" and "all men are created equal" still apply?

Yes.

I see.

So when you talk about the majority getting their rights and acceptable exceptions you are allowing the meaning of "all men are created equal" to be fudged a tiny bit?

Cops Who Allegedly Assaulted and Arrested a Man for Standing Outside His Own House Are Protected by Qualified Immunity

seriously... we're about 3 weeks from a UN human rights rescue mission at this rate.

Important poll!

Well, this is about as dumb a statement as I've read here in a while. What, in your mind, does that look like exactly?

I believe all men are created equal, but I don’t believe in equal outcomes.

That's not the issue.

But that doesn't mesh with the rest of your position.

I'm not meaning to seem mean here but at times like these we are often called upon to question some of our assumptions, I'm certainly finding a lot of the things I take for granted about the world to be shaking slightly. We live in interesting times.

If all men (read people for the sake of argument) are created equal and the association between taxation and representation truly holds the significance in the US it is supposed to (although fun fact, it actually has it's roots in English law, oh the irony) then there shouldn't be any grey areas. There shouldn't be any dispossessed minorities. There shouldn't even be an addendum that it applies only to citizens given that citizenship of the US was never actually part of the original argument.

Therefore if there is one single person who pays regular taxes but has no means to vote then that is either a localised problem to be addressed or a tacit admission that there's some leeway in those natural rights of yours after all. After all it's the much larger failure to guarantee them in practise which has led us here, the vast, seemingly unbridgable gap between theory and reality.

If you can accept a bit a wiggle room there, in that most sacred of sacreds, surely you can be willing to listen to the arguments around "defunding the police" without dismissing them out of hand because the literal interpretation sounds unworkable?

So Bernie’s making a nuanced argument that the pay for police in many places is too low. He’s not wrong. That is often an issue.

you don't proof read your own shit?
But, Kosovo level shit show, I'd suspect.

you suspect? Have you been to the Balkans? I have so I have a little "boots on the ground" perspective - whomever wrote this is chock full of shit & hyperbole. But believe what you want to believe Skippy!

Nope. 1776-1789, there were no US territories outside of the states. Vermont was part of New York, and Maine was part of Massachusetts. Wasn’t even a DC yet.

As a matter of law, they do, both legal and illegal immigrants. Representation is distinct from suffrage, and they are thus counted in the census for districting.

Puerto Rico, DC, and the other territories are the larger problem here.

So any territories that cane afterward were deliberately created to include taxation without representation?

And England was representing your colonies interests in its parliament on your behalf, without any of the mess like needing to elect your representatives.

If the argument is then made that it wasn't been represented equally, a little thing called the 3/5 compromise raises its head.

@Federal Farmer a simple question.

Yes/No, do you truly believe that those who fought the US revolutionary war and wrote its constitution truly believed that all men were created equal?

Some did, yes. It’s well known that Jefferson saw the hypocrisy and he freed his slaves. Washington did as well. Congress banned the importation of slaves and planned on ending slavery by the first quarter of the 19th century.

Washington freed some of his slaves when he died, and during his life engaged in practices like moving them around the country to avoid local laws that would have required freeing them and stealing their teeth to use as dentures.

Politicians making vague hints to do something in the future are worthless platitudes designed to maintain the status quo.

I answered the fucking question. That you don't like the answer is irrelevant.

Jefferson did not free his slaves.
Did Jefferson free anyone he owned?
Of the over 600 people Jefferson owned, he formally freed only seven. During his lifetime, Jefferson freed two enslaved men. At his death, Jefferson bequeathed freedom to five men in his will, two of them were his sons Madison and Eston Hemings. At least three other slaves were unofficially freed when Beverly Hemings, Harriet Hemings, and James (son of Critta Hemings Bowles) were allowed to leave Monticello without pursuit.

The question about Washington isn't as clear cut.
Washington’s “domestics” were enslaved workers. And though he promised in his will to free all of his workers when he died, only one of them immediately went free and nearly half of the enslaved people at Mount Vernon remained in bondage for decades. The reason why has to do with law, marriage and a family that disagreed with their patriarch’s evolving views on slavery.

Once again, non-Americans know more about American history than the self-proclaimed American "historians."

I want to blame the public schools, but intelligent people continue their self-education long after they get that high school diploma. The just keep quoting platitudes.

No, you said that "some" did, and then provided examples that could be used to argue either way.

This all started when you said that slogans which require more detailed explanation are bad, so it should be simple enough for a categoric yes or no response.