Minneapolis: Dems need to be careful to avoid a repeat of 1968

[SlackerInc]

Andy, you raised a skeptical eyebrow and asked me for a cite on the Daily Kos claim. I found one, with considerable time and effort (a Google daterange search didn’t work, so I had to manually and laboriously search through comments at the time, when I posted voluminously at DKos). Now you’ve ghosted the thread. Some sort of minimal acknowledgement would be nice. :dubious:

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I mean, sure, change what you said, from " this all sounds too radical to sell to middle America"

If your position is that Rev. Wright’s rants are NOT too radical to sell to middle America, you clearly are not in touch with middle America.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

to something like your new position, which is, “this will present a challenge to his campaign,” and it suddenly becomes both true and Captain Obvious.

And yet other Democrats on that widely read DKos open thread brushed it off. Like you, they were unable to see past their own left wing perspective to grok how truly incendiary that kind of talk is.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Maybe you read these speeches before his campaign did, which, bully for you I suppose. But your prediction was wrong.

It was not. Obama responded by making a great speech, throwing Wright overboard, and–most of all–by riding a blue wave that what Jon Stewart memorably called his "Gaydolf Titler"ness only blunted but did not, probably could not, entirely evaporate. In any close to neutral year, nominating Obama would have been political suicide for Democrats. I am glad we had him as president–I’d consider him one of our top three all time, along with LBJ and Grant–but politically it was the kind of reach we can only get away with when the GOP brand is, as former NRCC chairman Tom Davis memorably described it, “in the trash”:

Republican dog food - Etalkinghead

“The Republican brand is in the trash can. I’ve often observed that if we were a dog food, they would take us off the shelf.”

Their brand is again in the trash can, but I never see that as a good reason to push our luck unnecessarily.

You are engaging in what poker players call “results oriented thinking”. That Obama ultimately won does not mean that I was wrong to try to make a very early plea for people to pay attention to the potential for Wright to be trouble a year before it blew up. (Just as John Kerry’s losing in 2004 does not mean he ran a bad campaign, despite the CW to the contrary. He was just facing a very, very different political environment, as his incumbent opponent GWB had an approval rating higher than Obama had on Election Day 2012, yet Kerry came much closer to winning than Romney did.)

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

And your prediction in this case is wrong too

What prediction? Maybe I missed it, but skimming through my posts ITT I don’t see any predictions. Just advice. Speaking of which:

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Rather than wag your finger at the protests and give your terrible political advice to Biden and Pelosi, maybe step back and watch how real political leaders lead.

Looks to me like they followed this advice. That doesn’t mean they saw it, of course; but I was part of the political zeitgeist, pushing back in various places against terrible advice like yours; and my type of case clearly got through. Which I acknowledged multiple times upthread:

@SlackerInc

Governor Walz is saying it was a mistake to abandon the police precinct, and blaming Mayor Frey: Walz says Minneapolis knew police station that was overrun might fall hours earlier – Twin Cities

@SlackerInc

Fortunately, our DFL governor Tim Walz has now stepped up in a major way:

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/gov-walz-says-george-floyds-death-cant-be-addressed-while-anarchy-reigns?fbclid=IwAR2cdpyxrgGc0Zuwkpm0ieyPCziOU07pvw6MYQZGa1PhB0VYsqSfKY3rHIk

“None of us can tackle these problems if anarchy runs the streets…my responsibility to Minnesota is the safety and security of all citizens. We cannot have the looting and recklessness that went on.”

YES! More of this please.

@SlackerInc

Joe Biden denounced violent protests in a written statement: “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.”

Yes, good statement from Biden. Exactly what the doctor ordered.

@SlackerInc

For the sake of the long term or at least medium term prospects for the party, they need to very carefully thread a needle: not throwing base voters under the bus, obviously; but also not alienating the white suburban moderates who have recently fled the GOP and flipped the House in 2018.

Walz seems to be doing a good job with this, and now with the most recent statement, so is Biden.

@SlackerInc

In addition to Biden there were good statements by John Lewis and Eric Holder.

Yeah, those are really good–Holder’s especially. But we need to hear this kind of thing from the Obamas, who have a much larger megaphone than either of them do.

@SlackerInc

BTW, I have often in the past been very critical of Ilhan Omar. But I just heard her interviewed by George Stephanopoulos and overall I was very pleasantly surprised by the message she conveyed. She said that people who burn down buildings are not showing by their actions that they believe black lives matter. Great way to frame it!

@SlackerInc

Barack Obama’s statement on Medium was pitch perfect:
How to Make this Moment the Turning Point for Real Change | by Barack Obama | Medium

First, the waves of protests across the country represent a genuine and legitimate frustration over a decades-long failure to reform police practices and the broader criminal justice system in the United States. The overwhelming majority of participants have been peaceful, courageous, responsible, and inspiring. They deserve our respect and support, not condemnation — something that police in cities like Camden and Flint have commendably understood.
On the other hand, the small minority of folks who’ve resorted to violence in various forms, whether out of genuine anger or mere opportunism, are putting innocent people at risk, compounding the destruction of neighborhoods that are often already short on services and investment and detracting from the larger cause. I saw an elderly black woman being interviewed today in tears because the only grocery store in her neighborhood had been trashed. If history is any guide, that store may take years to come back. So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.

Those statements were not yet out there when I wrote the OP. But hey: better late than never!
As for Trump, I commented on him too:

@SlackerInc

Even Trump realized he had gone too far with the “looting/shooting” tweet, so just like with the “disinfectant” nonsense, he made up a transparent lie about what he meant:

“Looting leads to shooting, and that’s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night - or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot…It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement”

Now who’s trying to have it both ways? Or is it only okay when Trump does it? :dubious:

(I never got an answer from **UltraVires **on that one, BTW)

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

Here you go. It was actually April 2007, nearly a year before it blew up in March 2008:
Comments: Open Thread

Okay, noting Wright might be a problem was a decent prediction (but he turned out to not be that big of a problem at all in the long run). But it was kind of undercut by your topline prediction that “Obama has too much baggage” and the party should nominate someone else.

I don’t have a cite, but at the time I recall thinking “this is the most talented political communicator I’ve ever seen, and we would be fools not to nominate this man”.

[SlackerInc]

@iiandyiiii

Okay, noting Wright might be a problem was a decent prediction

Thank you.

And yes, he’s one of the most talented political communicators I’ve ever seen as well (I’m not sure if he’s better than Bill Clinton). But one with a lot of political baggage. Again, political scientists have effectively argued that Obama underperformed what a generic Democrat with a background more like previous presidents would have achieved in the 2008 election. (I don’t think that was the case in 2012, because he had already proven himself as president.) He had to be an incredibly charismatic guy to overcome his own biography. Which, BTW, isn’t all about racial stuff or having lived abroad, having a tricky name, etc.: his all-American white mother Ann Dunham’s radicalism was a potential pitfall as well, as was his association with Bill Ayers, a white former Weather Underground “FBI Most Wanted” fugitive.

I did actually ultimately vote for Obama in the 2008 primary. But I was pretty nervous about it, and I felt we were as a party playing it pretty risky to make him and Hillary Clinton the only viable choices (just as in 2016, I thought we should have nominated Martin O’Malley, and I still feel sure he would have beaten Trump easily). I’m glad the party leaned more toward a “play it safe” attitude in this year’s primaries, although other candidates like Bullock, O’Rourke, or Booker would have been much better IMO.

OTOH, FWIW: I also thought Klobuchar would have been a good safe/electable choice, and the George Floyd case would have made her a disaster. Just as in 2008 it would have been potentially disastrous to nominate Edwards if his “love child” scandal had surfaced as an October surprise. So it goes to show you can’t always know what’s going to pop up. All you can do is operate with the best information you have before the primary race is settled (or narrowed), and try to avoid the pitfalls you do know about. And encourage candidates to use rhetoric that sands down some of the rough edges.

[squeegee]

@SlackerInc

I feel like Biden, Pelosi, and other Democrats need to take a stand against the rioting and looting, even as they also push for maximum prosecution of those murderous cops. We can’t risk what happened starting in 1968, when middle class suburbanites started to see Democrats as not willing to stand up for preserving civil order.

62% of americans, including 65% of independent voters, consider the protests “mostly legitimate” rather than “mostly people acting unlawfully”

[squeegee]

@squeegee

62% of americans, including 65% of independent voters, consider the protests “mostly legitimate” rather than “mostly people acting unlawfully”

Let’s try that link again: Here, page 11. Newsy poll summary here.

[SlackerInc]

@squeegee

62% of americans, including 65% of independent voters, consider the protests “mostly legitimate” rather than “mostly people acting unlawfully”

And I didn’t say anything about the protests. I referred to rioting and looting, and that Democrats need to make sure they are clear about their endorsement of protest but not of looting and rioting. Which they have subsequently done, and as I showed just upthread, I gave them credit for doing so.

But there are still trouble areas we have to be careful of. Like the call to “defund” police departments, which Democrats should make it clear is a nonstarter:

Police Reform Is Popular. Rioting Is Not.

Eighty-nine percent of respondents believe that Floyd’s killer should be charged with at least third-degree murder. “Going forward, Americans largely favor a set of reforms to reduce deadly-force encounters with police,” the poll found. “Sixty-seven percent support banning neck restraints; 80 percent support an early-warning system to identify problematic officers; 87 percent support outfitting all cops with body cameras; and 88 percent training officers to de-escalate conflicts and avoid using force.”
That’s extraordinary––super majorities in favor of broad reforms specifically targeted to reduce unjust killings. Where do Americans disagree? As of May 30, “wide majorities of Republicans (73 percent) and whites (57 percent) see the unrest in Minneapolis as ‘mostly violent riots.’ Only a third of Democrats (33 percent) and black Americans (32 percent) describe the events that way.”[…]

“Asked whether they would back cuts in funding for police departments, 65 percent of Americans said no,” the YouGov survey found. “Just 16 percent said yes—a number that held steady across party lines, with Democrats at 16 percent, Republicans at 15 percent and independents at 17 percent.” The proposal failed to achieve majority black support, with 33 percent in favor.[…]

If [progressives] choose or are dragged into a national debate that centers[sic] the propriety of riots, or abstract attitudes about policing, or white supremacy, or critical race theory, they are far less likely to achieve the urgent reforms that could reduce the frequency of police killings and brutality.

[squeegee]

@SlackerInc

And I didn’t say anything about the protests. I referred to rioting and looting

Really? You’re going to No True Scotsman my reference, and then pull out one immediately after that reads:

Where do Americans disagree? As of May 30, “wide majorities of Republicans (73 percent) and whites (57 percent) see the unrest in Minneapolis as ‘mostly violent riots.’ Only a third of Democrats (33 percent) and black Americans (32 percent) describe the events that way.”

Seriously? Both polls are asking the respondents to distinguish between crime and protest and which is most prevalent. Both polls were doing the same thing.

[SlackerInc]

My main point was the section below that, referencing another question in the poll, related to the words I used to introduce the article (“there are still trouble areas we have to be careful of. Like the call to ‘defund’ police departments”):

“Asked whether they would back cuts in funding for police departments, 65 percent of Americans said no,” the YouGov survey found. “Just 16 percent said yes—a number that held steady across party lines, with Democrats at 16 percent, Republicans at 15 percent and independents at 17 percent.” The proposal failed to achieve majority black support, with 33 percent in favor.

I included the part you zeroed on only for context, so no one would accuse me of cherrypicking just one part of the results and not acknowledging that the same poll included those kinds of supportive responses.

[squeegee]

The point is, in recent polling, respondents support the protesters. That ain’t 1968.

[SlackerInc]

They don’t support the ones who call for defunding the police. And it would not have been good for Democratic pols to speak up in support of the protests without also very strenuously denouncing the rioting and looting, and declaring that we need to restore civil order. I’m glad they did that, and they need to make clear that they aren’t down with defunding police either.

[adaher]

I think the political risk isn’t so much with national Democrats as local. Where the response to violence is perceived as limp we could see Republicans replace Democrats, such as in Minnesota and NYC. De Blasio has beclowned himself in so many ways though it might be hard to attibute Democrats’ problems in NYC to specifically his riot response though.

[k9bfriender]

@UltraVires

In my mind, this will go down as one of the worst screwups by the Dems in political history. They were handed a situation on a silver platter (not to cheapen Floyd’s death, but politically). You have a situation where absolutely everyone agrees that an egregious event happened and it points right towards long held Dem beliefs about police and treatment of blacks in the inner cities. They have our ear. So how does the dialogue proceed?

Mostly by people who don’t want to see any changes conflating the protesters with the looters and rioters.

By people making the claim that observing the looting and rioting is a predicable outcome are in fact condoning the outcome.

Police stations are burned, Target is looted for big screen TVs, and anarchy prevails. And the Dems want to fancy foot around it by talking about pain and systematic injustice. Bullshit. We would have all supported peaceful protest and institutional reform but not looting Target for an RCA TV. They gifted this right back to Trump who says that we will shoot these assholes, and America agrees.

Yes, the right has responded with extremely violent rhetoric, and has gotten a fair amount of buy-in from those who look forward to seeing blood in the streets.

The Dems turned a monumental opportunity around 180 degrees because they cannot keep from tripping over their own dicks. You stop people from destroying property full stop. That is not a reasonable response to any injustice. I’ve seen Dems on Facebook talking about how this is a good American protest just like the Boston Tea Party. *smackshead. How much more ridiculous can some people be?

So, I assume that you would have shot the assholes at the Boston Tea party as they destroyed private property, correct?

I would bet that Dem campaign managers could be gifted a new $100k car and would immediately open the sunroof, climb on top and shit inside.

If this board still allowed it, I’d take you up on that bet.

But they do this and blame everyone else because Trump wins.

No, they only blame those who voted for Trump. Interestingly, the right blames everyone but those who voted for Trump for him winning. Weird.

@adaher

I think the political risk isn’t so much with national Democrats as local. Where the response to violence is perceived as limp we could see Republicans replace Democrats, such as in Minnesota and NYC. De Blasio has beclowned himself in so many ways though it might be hard to attibute Democrats’ problems in NYC to specifically his riot response though.

I don’t know. In my hometown, (a very white, very republican area) the police were cheered by the residents for joining with the demonstrators in solidarity, and the township trustees were mocked for imposing a curfew.

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

They don’t support the ones who call for defunding the police. And it would not have been good for Democratic pols to speak up in support of the protests without also very strenuously denouncing the rioting and looting, and declaring that we need to restore civil order. I’m glad they did that, and they need to make clear that they aren’t down with defunding police either.

Good thing the Democrats are denouncing the rioting and looting as posted early.

As for defunding, it is clear that you are falling for the talking points of the right and some misguided moderates once again, I mean, you do not check what the progressives in areas where abuses by the police were seen are actually saying about defunding:

A D.C. Progressive, Attacked for Calls to Defund Police, Wins Election

Lewis George, a Ward 4 native, ran on a platform of expanding affordable housing, creating higher-paying jobs, fighting money in politics, and supporting criminal justice reform. She also campaigned on demilitarizing the police and reallocating portions of the Metropolitan Police Department’s budget toward social services and violence prevention initiatives — a position that drew the ire of backers of her opponent, Brandon Todd.

Democrats for Education Reform-DC, a pro-charter school advocacy group that endorsed Todd, sent out a series of mailers in the weeks leading up to the Tuesday election taking Lewis George’s comments out of context and smearing her as being anti-police.

In an interview, Lewis George blasted DFER-DC and emphasized that cutting the police budget isn’t synonymous with cutting officers.

“The fact that they saw my platform as a weakness instead of a conversation to have in the community about what it means to be safe speaks to their ultimate goal which is not reforming education but retaining power within our political system,” she said. Lewis George also noted that when D.C. Councilmember and Education Chair David Grosso spoke out about the militarization of the police both in 2017 and as recently as a few days ago, DFER-DC did not object.

[SlackerInc]

@GIGObuster

As for defunding, it is clear that you are falling for

GIGO, I have already asked you to stop with this “falling for” shit. Do I need to report your posts? It’s insulting. Maybe not in your native language (though I doubt that), but definitely in English.
ETA: Read it again:

“Asked whether they would back cuts in funding for police departments, 65 percent of Americans said no,” the YouGov survey found. “Just 16 percent said yes—a number that held steady across party lines, with Democrats at 16 percent, Republicans at 15 percent and independents at 17 percent.” The proposal failed to achieve majority black support, with 33 percent in favor.

That’s called a political loser. I don’t give a shit if you think that vast majority saying “nope” just doesn’t *understand *what’s being proposed. They are foursquare against it, hardly anyone is for it, the end. It’s radioactive, stay away Democratic politicians!

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

GIGO, I have already asked you to stop with this “falling for” shit. Do I need to report your posts? It’s insulting. Maybe not in your native language (though I doubt that), but definitely in English.

Uh, letting others that they are falling for information that ignores that it depends on the location is not anything that is bad AFAIK.

@SlackerInc

ETA: Read it again:

That’s called a political loser. I don’t give a shit if you think that vast majority saying “nope” just doesn’t *understand *what’s being proposed. They are foursquare against it, hardly anyone is for it, the end. It’s radioactive, stay away Democratic politicians!

Thought so, I was expecting that you would not read the article, can you guess who won in that election?

[SlackerInc]

Spin all you like. Winning 55% of the vote in one city council ward in Washington DC does not prove “defund the police” is a winning message in statewide or national elections. The polls (and common sense) show otherwise.

Not to mention that this candidate you’re touting “emphasized that cutting the police budget isn’t synonymous with cutting officers”. Which means it’s not remotely in the same ballpark, or the same galaxy, as what Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (who has the worst job in America right now–I wouldn’t blame him for claiming some kind of health issue and resigning) was pressured on today:

Sana Saeed

If you don’t watch the video or can’t make it out, he was first asked a yes or no question on whether he would commit to defunding the police. He asked for clarification and the questioner spelled it out “We don’t want no more police.” He then said he was not in favor of “complete abolition of the police” and the crowd jeered him out of the area, a “walk of shame” as they described in on social media and the NYT.

If I did not see with my own eyes that these are real people in the actual city of Minneapolis, I would have to assume that a Twitter mob saying the same thing must be a bunch of Russians. It’s an absurd demand to make of the mayor, it beclowns the whole image of their movement, and it’s certainly nothing any prominent Democrat should touch with a ten foot pole. No one outside of the deepest blue majority-minority districts could possibly win on such a platform, and maybe not even there.

If any significant percentage of Democratic voters are going to insist on fealty to this principle from Biden or Democrats running for House or Senate seats, and then refuse to vote for them if they don’t go along, then we are well and truly fucked. But I’m hoping this is just an unrepresentative crowd and that people will calm down and see reason by November.

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

Spin all you like. Winning 55% of the vote in one city council ward in Washington DC does not prove “defund the police” is a winning message in statewide or national elections. The polls (and common sense) show otherwise.

Not to mention that this candidate you’re touting “emphasized that cutting the police budget isn’t synonymous with cutting officers”. Which means it’s not remotely in the same ballpark, or the same galaxy,

And that misses the point, of course it is not in the same ballpark since that is not what I and the city council ward was talking about, your reply is indeed a nutpick and a exclusion of the middle.

The point is that in reality the defunding is related to issues like the militarization of police and lack of violence prevention initiatives, from the article cited:

"Lewis George, a Ward 4 native, ran on a platform of expanding affordable housing, creating higher-paying jobs, fighting money in politics, and supporting criminal justice reform. She also campaigned on demilitarizing the police and reallocating portions of the Metropolitan Police Department’s budget toward social services and violence prevention initiatives — a position that drew the ire of backers of her opponent, Brandon Todd.

Democrats for Education Reform-DC, a pro-charter school advocacy group that endorsed Todd, sent out a series of mailers in the weeks leading up to the Tuesday election taking Lewis George’s comments out of context and smearing her as being anti-police. "

The point remains, not every police state or city departments should get this, only the ones where the evidence points at systemic issues.

And you were indeed wrong when declaring that this was radioactive, again, it depends on the location and not on what a Yahoo in Minneapolis claims.

[Jragon]

To be clear, police abolition doesn’t mean “make the police not exist and then tell everyone to be on their best behavior and pray.” The strategy is “defund and replace” and is a pretty comprehensive plan to transform the justice system to something that is actually just, and honestly even if the police continued existing would be in their best interest too because it removes a lot of their powers and responsibilities that were given to them because people went “how do we deal with this? iunno have the cops do it I guess?” Examples include, for instance, transferring a lot of the jobs of police to other, more specifically trained first responders (e.g. social workers and mental health providers for handling suicide threats), and lowering the ability to use violence (including incarceration). Or using some of the budget currently used in policing to help provide better housing for the houseless and designating responders to place them in a home instead of having police arrest them. It’s an entire cluster of ideas, and the one with the most traction is under the name of “Transformative Justice and Community Accountability” that aims to make people answerable directly to the community they live and move in, and features ways to defuse and allow both the victims and perpetrators heal from the experience, and give the perpetrator the help they need to not reoffend while not banning them from polite society or marking them forever (for the right wingers about to cry about how ironic it is to talk about that when leftists are cancelling people on Twitter, yes that is part of the so-called “disposability culture” that TJ means to address, it’s a big topic).

This is tied up with things like prison abolition which is heavily tied to the recent protests and riots, because of the disproportionate black population in prisons and the fact that prison slavery is legal and ongoing.

So yes, “defund the police” for most people I’ve seen spouting it means more than just “demilitarize the police”, but substantially different from “do nothing about crime and hope things work out.”

As for the looting/riots, it’s the cries of people against a system that values property more than human life. There are nuanced critiques I have of the riots – white rioters not following the lead/wishes of black protest leaders, destroying black-owned businesses even when guards are posted by the protest movement to protect them, and stuff like that. However, people have been “peacefully protesting” under the BLM banner for fuckin years now and y’all ignored it and suddenly people are rioting and within like two weeks the Minneapolis city council is talking about defunding the police so you can naysay all you want but unlike almost every other move that’s been tried recently it’s getting results, in addition to participation in all 50 states and 18 countries, making it the biggest (or one of the biggest) civil rights movement in history in terms of sheer participation so… y’know.

[SlackerInc]

@GIGObuster

And that misses the point, of course it is not in the same ballpark since that is not what I and the city council ward was talking about

@Jragon

To be clear, police abolition doesn’t mean “make the police not exist and then tell everyone to be on their best behavior and pray.” The strategy is “defund and replace” and is a pretty comprehensive plan to transform the justice system to something that is actually just, and honestly even if the police continued existing would be in their best interest too because it removes a lot of their powers and responsibilities that were given to them because people went “how do we deal with this? iunno have the cops do it I guess?” Examples include, for instance, transferring a lot of the jobs of police to other, more specifically trained first responders (e.g. social workers and mental health providers for handling suicide threats), and lowering the ability to use violence (including incarceration). Or using some of the budget currently used in policing to help provide better housing for the houseless and designating responders to place them in a home instead of having police arrest them.

I literally laughed out loud and thought of you and GIGO when I read this snarky, satirical tweet:

Alkali

I personally am hoping Democrats embrace my plan of “murder the puppies”

Please do not be suckered by the GOP talking points on this, everyone understands that “murder” means “enact” and “puppies” means “effective greenhouse gas restrictions”; why would you think otherwise

Another tweet you and any Democrat should really take to heart is this one that reads “Dear Progressives–What the hell are you doing?” and includes a NYT graphic showing recent Yahoo News/YouGov polling data:

https://twitter.com/jerry_jtaylor/status/1270345284481138688?s=21

For those loath to click a Twitter link, the graphic reads as follows:

What do Americans favor?

Train officers to de-escalate and avoid force 88%
Body cameras for all officers 87%
Early warning for problematic officers 80%
Ban neck restraints 67%
Cut funding for police 16%

When you’ve got a wide-open path to significant reforms, it’s incredible political stupidity to aim for the one area where you’ve got massive public opinion against you.

@Jragon

As for the looting/riots, it’s the cries of people against a system that values property more than human life.

Curious then what you thought about the impassioned plea Atlanta Mayor Bottoms made on May 29. Her remarks went viral, and have led to a lot of speculation that Joe Biden could tap her as a running mate. Personally I believe it’s a bad idea just because her name is Bottoms, but I did like her rant. I just wonder how you, and people who think the same way you do, feel about it:

Atlanta mayor makes impassioned plea to calm violence: "If you care about...

You’re not honoring a legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. You are not protesting anything running out with brown liquor in your hands, breaking windows in this city. T.I., Killer Mike owned half the West side, so when you burn down this city, you’re burning down our community.
If you want change in America, go and register to vote. Show up at the polls on June 9th. Do it in November. That is the change we need in this country.
You are disgracing our city, you are disgracing the life of George Floyd and every other person who has been killed in this country. We are better than this. We are better than this as a city, we are better than this as a country. Go home. Go home.

Obviously only a black mayor could dare say something like this. Can you imagine Jacob Frey saying the same thing? :eek: He would have to change his name and go into hiding.

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

When you’ve got a wide-open path to significant reforms, it’s incredible political stupidity to aim for the one area where you’ve got massive public opinion against you

It is actually more silly to use shallow minded tweets to ignore that the points made by me and others stand anyhow. It seems that you still conveniently leave out that we are not talking about abolishing police everywhere. As others and I pointed many times already abolishing or defunding the police depends on the location and I’m already on the record that several locations should not have that extreme solution employed as they already had reforms done.

How cities can reimagine their police forces and still fight crime

The tweets you unhelpfully pointed at also have the basic problem of not taking into account that public opinion has changed a lot in recent times, basically it is a bit like advising political cowardice and just advice others into kicking the can down the road still, when specific places in the US need their bad apple protection systems to be abolished.