American Politics X: Is There A Reset Button Around Here?

[San Lumen]

There is something called a primary. You can vote for people who are more in line with your views.

The "democratic" electoral system in America only exists to keep those in power where they are and make them richer at the expense of the rest of us. I can vote for those who align with my views, but that's meaningless when the machine of capitalism and our systems in place would never allow anti-capitalist politicians to achieve real, meaningful power. Your statement probably only really rings true at the local level, where the corporations and wealthy don't care if a socialist wins a city council seat.

How did the progressives people love so much win in state legislatures or congress? City council is a great place to start.

Some do support those things but there are some in power that don't. Democrat also suck at messaging.

Defund the police is not a winning strategy. A referendum on it got voted down in Minneapolis last year.

Police reform and defunding the police will never be a winning strategy with Democrats and Republicans in office continue throwing more and more money at police departments and while liberal and conservative mainstream news media alike portray police officers in a positive light an overwhelming amount of time or fearmonger about rising crimes (which, besides "rising crimes" being mostly fearmongering via misrepresentation of data, police statistically don't solve nor prevent most of them)

Defunding the police solves nothing and its terrible messaging. You could get the same point across with reform the police.

[Ifreann]

The "democratic" electoral system in America only exists to keep those in power where they are and make them richer at the expense of the rest of us. I can vote for those who align with my views, but that's meaningless when the machine of capitalism and our systems in place would never allow anti-capitalist politicians to achieve real, meaningful power. Your statement probably only really rings true at the local level, where the corporations and wealthy don't care if a socialist wins a city council seat.

How did the progressives people love so much win in state legislatures or congress? City council is a great place to start.

Police reform and defunding the police will never be a winning strategy with Democrats and Republicans in office continue throwing more and more money at police departments and while liberal and conservative mainstream news media alike portray police officers in a positive light an overwhelming amount of time or fearmonger about rising crimes (which, besides "rising crimes" being mostly fearmongering via misrepresentation of data, police statistically don't solve nor prevent most of them)

Defunding the police solves nothing and its terrible messaging. You could get the same point across with reform the police.

Oh hey, you're advocating for politicians to lie to the public again. Really cool how you support dishonesty and deception in politics.

[San Lumen]

How did the progressives people love so much win in state legislatures or congress? City council is a great place to start.



Defunding the police solves nothing and its terrible messaging. You could get the same point across with reform the police.

Oh hey, you're advocating for politicians to lie to the public again. Really cool how you support dishonesty and deception in politics.

No im not. Im saying to get better as messaging.

There was a great example of this in West Wing. I forget the exact issue but I think it had to do with abortion. Santos the Democratic candidate was pro life but the Republican candidate Vinick was pro choice.

One of Santos's advisors said something on the lines of " would you rather say how you really feel and lose or say tailor your message and win and do what you want once you win?'

[Gravlen]

That is indeed possible. You always have the opportunity to make changes to the current system in order to make it easier to get permits. It's also possible to streamline the system in general... well, if the legislature was functioning and not the current trainwreck.

Also, provide more resources to the system to make it more efficient, thus reducing waiting times.

This will reduce, not eliminate, pressure at the border.

Well that’s what I was trying to propose. I just didn’t have the right knowledge.

It's understandable. If you're trying to approach the problem from a position of nuance, and not go "Open the borders!" or "Close the borders!", there's a byzantine system of rules and regulations you will need to have some knowledge about, and it's complicated subject matter, not particularly accessible stuff.

[Ifreann]

Oh hey, you're advocating for politicians to lie to the public again. Really cool how you support dishonesty and deception in politics.

No im not. Im saying to get better as messaging.

You're saying that politicians should lie. You've gone over this before, you think that people who want to defund the police should pretend that they don't want to defund the police until they get into power. You think that it's smart to lie to the public to get elected.

There was a great example of this in West Wing. I forget the exact issue but I think it had to do with abortion. Santos the Democratic candidate was pro life but the Republican candidate Vinick was pro choice.

One of Santos's advisors said something on the lines of " would you rather say how you really feel and lose or say tailor your message and win and do what you want once you win?'

So you support lying because your liberal fantasy show supports lying.

[San Lumen]

No im not. Im saying to get better as messaging.

You're saying that politicians should lie. You've gone over this before, you think that people who want to defund the police should pretend that they don't want to defund the police until they get into power. You think that it's smart to lie to the public to get elected.

There was a great example of this in West Wing. I forget the exact issue but I think it had to do with abortion. Santos the Democratic candidate was pro life but the Republican candidate Vinick was pro choice.

One of Santos's advisors said something on the lines of " would you rather say how you really feel and lose or say tailor your message and win and do what you want once you win?'

So you support lying because your liberal fantasy show supports lying.

or you could simply say reform the police as its basically the same thing and would play better.

House of Cards showed the same thing to a degree and that wasn't a fantasy. It was a warning.

[Kannap]

The "democratic" electoral system in America only exists to keep those in power where they are and make them richer at the expense of the rest of us. I can vote for those who align with my views, but that's meaningless when the machine of capitalism and our systems in place would never allow anti-capitalist politicians to achieve real, meaningful power. Your statement probably only really rings true at the local level, where the corporations and wealthy don't care if a socialist wins a city council seat.

How did the progressives people love so much win in state legislatures or congress? City council is a great place to start.

Police reform and defunding the police will never be a winning strategy with Democrats and Republicans in office continue throwing more and more money at police departments and while liberal and conservative mainstream news media alike portray police officers in a positive light an overwhelming amount of time or fearmonger about rising crimes (which, besides "rising crimes" being mostly fearmongering via misrepresentation of data, police statistically don't solve nor prevent most of them)

Defunding the police solves nothing and its terrible messaging. You could get the same point across with reform the police.

Could you though? What do you mean when you say "reform" the police - what's the idea behind it when you say that?

[San Lumen]

How did the progressives people love so much win in state legislatures or congress? City council is a great place to start.



Defunding the police solves nothing and its terrible messaging. You could get the same point across with reform the police.

Could you though? What do you mean when you say "reform" the police - what's the idea behind it when you say that?

Its the same thing a lot of the defund crowd wants but saying it in a way that doesnt turn people off. You could include with it mandating body cameras, banning encryption of dispatch, having civilian review boards for example.

[Kannap]

Oh hey, you're advocating for politicians to lie to the public again. Really cool how you support dishonesty and deception in politics.

No im not. Im saying to get better as messaging.

Suppose it depends on what you mean when you say "reform" the police. Because, either (1) that involves removing certain responsibilities from police and giving them to organizations or agencies better trained/equipped to do so, which would include taking away from of the police funding to redirect it to these other agencies and organizations; or (2) you have some idea of reforms that don't include taking funds from the police.

If the answer is 1, then you're advocating for politicians to lie to their constituents: Say "reform" instead of "defund" and proceed to "defund" anyway. If the answer is 2, and there is no defunding, then the two words don't "get the same point across" nor mean the same thing, as you suggest.

There was a great example of this in West Wing. I forget the exact issue but I think it had to do with abortion. Santos the Democratic candidate was pro life but the Republican candidate Vinick was pro choice.

One of Santos's advisors said something on the lines of " would you rather say how you really feel and lose or say tailor your message and win and do what you want once you win?'

Referencing The West Wing, opinion immediately disregarded. But, seriously, you're just doubling down on advocating for politicians to lie. In this example, does Santos (1) say how you really feel - telling the truth - and lose or do you (2) "Tailor your message" (What does this mean? Lying about your stance? Omitting it entirely/hiding it from your constituency? Sounds dubious either way.)

[Arlenton]

On what basis do you make this grandiose statement?

They're all war criminals and vile people and should be held accountable and treated as such.

Preface: I'm willing to let Carter go since he's 97 anyway, plus - unlike the rest of the living Presidents - he has used his life post-Presidency to do some really good things.

Carter is the first war criminal on this list, as he's the oldest living President. While Indonesia was invading/occupying and slaughtering tens of thousands of citizens in East Timor, Carter's administration offered financial, military, and diplomatic support to Indonesia. 90% of the equipment Indonesian forces used were supplied by the United States during the invasion. In 1978 - three years into the occupation - Carter's government authorized sending another $112 million in arms to Indonesia. The country would brutally occupy East Timor until 1999. The Catholic church estimates around 200,000 East Timorese were killed with weapons supplied to Indonesia from the United States.

Carter supported the apartheid regime in South Africa. He also sent 800 tons of military equipment to help UNITA fight against the communist Angolan government. This equipment, used by forces backed by the U.S., would be used to kill 800 people in the Kassinga Massacre as well as perform other raids on refugee camps, resulting in more civilian deaths. In regards to Vietnam, Carter said the U.S. had no obligation to help Vietnam after the war. It was only after Vietnam intervened in Cambodia to oust murderous dictator Pol Pot that Carter sought to do anything - seeking to punish Vietnam by encouraging other nations to stop sending aid to Vietnam.

He heavily increased military spending in 1980-81, which provided the base for Reagan to continue heavily increasing military spending. He also supported the mujahadeen groups in their fight against the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan, which ultimately led to the creation of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He also increased military aid for to Israel, who turned around and used the funds, weapons, and vehicles to invade Lebanon and continue establishing illegal colonial settlements in the West Bank.

Source; Source; of course, this information is all easily accessible history online, if you don't like these sources.

We'll skip Reagan and Bush #1 because, as you guessed it, they're dead. But if we wanted to take inspiration from the Cadaver Pope trial, I wouldn't be opposed to that.

Anyway, Clinton is our next living President on this list. Clinton's administration, almost immediately, declared UN peace resolutions in the Middle East "obsolete and anachronistic." He then showed us what his idea of peace in the Middle East meant. He used taxpayer funds to illegally support the Israeli colonization of the West Bank and the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine. His sanctioned against Iraq were genocidal, resulting in the deaths of millions of Iraqis - including over half a million Iraqi infants. He also supplied weapons to the Turkish government, which were being used to commit genocide against Kurdish communities there. According to the Turkish government, U.S. supplied weapons were used to destroy over 3,500 Kurdish towns and villages.

Clinton also ordered bombing and biological warfare campaigns in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, resulting in mass death of civilians in those countries. His authorized two-month long bombardment of Yugoslavia also resulted in the deaths of potentially thousands of civilians there.

Source

Next is Bush #2. Unlike his father, he's still alive. He orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, perhaps the greatest war crime of the 21st century until the very recent Russian invasion of Ukraine. We know now that he falsely reported to Congress and the UNSC that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The war and occupation in Iraq would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens at the hands of the U.S. military as well as thousands more at the hands of terrorist factions that arose in the power vacuum left by the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government.

In 2001, he was behind the invasion of Afghanistan. This war would end up being the longest war in U.S. history, ending in 2021. During the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians would die at the hands of the U.S. military; hundreds of thousands more would die of starvation or barely survive starvation due to the occupation.

We'll hold Bush accountable for Donald Rumsfeld's actions during his Presidency, as he was Bush's first Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006. Rumsfeld, like Reagan and Bush #1, is dead. While head of the DoD, Rumsfeld was responsible for the torture and inhumane treatment of detained people, as seen during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rumsfeld authorized these crimes - and they are crimes under international law - approving forced interrogation techniques on people detained at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld was on of the primary architects of the Iraq war, which - under the U.N. charter and by the U.S. government's admission - was an illegal war. Bush is also guilty for authorizing this illegal invasion. Both men were in "a position effectively to exercise control over" the military action in Iraq, as defined by the 1998 Rome Statute. Both men hold responsibility for the torture and inhumane treatment of detained people during the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan, where such torture willfully caused great suffering and serious injury. Bush admitted he authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding - declared a form of torture by the U.N. He also facilitated enforced disappearances to CIA black sites outside the U.S, sites of the most brutal torture since the people held there basically no longer existed to the world.

Source; Source

Following Bush #2, we have Obama. Probably the most progressive President since FDR, but the bar has been pretty fucking low in the modern era.

Obama entered the Presidency on the promise of hope and change but that doesn't hold up, does it? Obama oversaw infamous terror campaigns in the Middle East, where drones were authorized to murder thousands of civilians that were suspected - not proven - to be terrorists by the Obama administration. Worse yet, of these thousands who were killed in drone strikes, the Pentagon reports only 10% of them were - again unproven to be terrorists - targets; the remaining 90%, primarily women and children, were innocent citizens caught in the strikes as well. This strategy of terror and extrajudicial assassination was carried out throughout his Presidency and would bring a reign of terror so severe that Middle Eastern children would fear blue skies and pray for grey skies, because "the drones do not fly with the skies are grey."

Obama approved the use of 563 drone strikes that killed approximately 3,797 people. While he did not set the foundation for war in the Middle East, he certainly expanded upon it radically. But it wasn't just the Middle East, Obama extended the drone strikes to Somalia and Yemen in 2010 and 2011, resulting in even more death there. His first drone strike would in Yemen would kill 55 people, 21 of which were children - 10 of whom were under five years; of the 12 women killed in this drone strike, five of them were pregnant. 55 civilians murdered by Obama and his administration in one drone strike. In 2014, Obama began removing troops from Afghanistan but only replaced them with far deadlier drone warfare, Afghanistan would see 1,337 bombs dropped on Afghanistan in 2016, just part of 26,171 bombs dropped that year across Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Of these seven countries, we were only formally at war in one of them. Each year, his illegal actions undemocratically and consciously decided the fates of thousands of lives, without any due process.

And perhaps Obama is the worst war criminal of the Presidents on this list, when you consider his implementation of the double-tap initiative. Double-tap drone strikes are as evil as they sound: After the initial drone strike, first responders and other civilian bystanders would be given time - 5-20 minutes - to move in and try to assist any survivors of the drone strike, only to become victims of a second drone strike; the "double tap." These acts, authorized by Obama, are deliberate and conscious acts of murder of civilians. Under the 1949 Geneva Convention, protections are provided for the wounded, as well as medical and religious personnel, medical units, and medical transports. The 1998 Rome Statute further states, "Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units, or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations," classifying these types of attacks as explicit war crimes. The 1998 Rome Statute also states that "intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians" also constitutes war crimes. Even if you somehow mental gymnastics your way to dismissing regular drone strikes as war crimes, the douple-tap drone strikes cannot be dismissed, they are deliberate war crimes authorized by Obama and his administration to murder civilians who are attempting to help survivors of already illegal drone strikes.

Source; Source

I won't get into Trump since you're already of the opinion that he's a criminal - and I agree - so it would be a waste of time for me to preach to the choir on that one. Besides, I don't think you're seriously gonna bother reading and engaging with what I've written about the other four as it is.

Damn Jimmy Carter was more based than I thought. Or should I say Jimmy Carter the commie killer.

[Ifreann]

You're saying that politicians should lie. You've gone over this before, you think that people who want to defund the police should pretend that they don't want to defund the police until they get into power. You think that it's smart to lie to the public to get elected.


So you support lying because your liberal fantasy show supports lying.

or you could simply say reform the police as its basically the same thing and would play better.

You could simply lie, but that would make you a liar.

House of Cards showed the same thing to a degree and that wasn't a fantasy. It was a warning.

House of Cards was fictional. It was a fictional story about a fictional politician. Jesus fucking Christ.

[San Lumen]

No im not. Im saying to get better as messaging.

Suppose it depends on what you mean when you say "reform" the police. Because, either (1) that involves removing certain responsibilities from police and giving them to organizations or agencies better trained/equipped to do so, which would include taking away from of the police funding to redirect it to these other agencies and organizations; or (2) you have some idea of reforms that don't include taking funds from the police.

If the answer is 1, then you're advocating for politicians to lie to their constituents: Say "reform" instead of "defund" and proceed to "defund" anyway. If the answer is 2, and there is no defunding, then the two words don't "get the same point across" nor mean the same thing, as you suggest.

There was a great example of this in West Wing. I forget the exact issue but I think it had to do with abortion. Santos the Democratic candidate was pro life but the Republican candidate Vinick was pro choice.

One of Santos's advisors said something on the lines of " would you rather say how you really feel and lose or say tailor your message and win and do what you want once you win?'

Referencing The West Wing, opinion immediately disregarded. But, seriously, you're just doubling down on advocating for politicians to lie. In this example, does Santos (1) say how you really feel - telling the truth - and lose or do you (2) "Tailor your message" (What does this mean? Lying about your stance? Omitting it entirely/hiding it from your constituency? Sounds dubious either way.)

Doesn't reform and defund get the same message across here? Poor messaging is part of the reason Democrats lose.

Santos won the election because he had good advisors.

[Ifreann]

Suppose it depends on what you mean when you say "reform" the police. Because, either (1) that involves removing certain responsibilities from police and giving them to organizations or agencies better trained/equipped to do so, which would include taking away from of the police funding to redirect it to these other agencies and organizations; or (2) you have some idea of reforms that don't include taking funds from the police.

If the answer is 1, then you're advocating for politicians to lie to their constituents: Say "reform" instead of "defund" and proceed to "defund" anyway. If the answer is 2, and there is no defunding, then the two words don't "get the same point across" nor mean the same thing, as you suggest.



Referencing The West Wing, opinion immediately disregarded. But, seriously, you're just doubling down on advocating for politicians to lie. In this example, does Santos (1) say how you really feel - telling the truth - and lose or do you (2) "Tailor your message" (What does this mean? Lying about your stance? Omitting it entirely/hiding it from your constituency? Sounds dubious either way.)

Doesn't reform and defund get the same message across here? Poor messaging is part of the reason Democrats lose.

Santos won the election because he had good advisors.

Santos isn't fucking real. The election wasn't real. It's a fucking tv show.

[Kannap]

Could you though? What do you mean when you say "reform" the police - what's the idea behind it when you say that?

Its the same thing a lot of the defund crowd wants but saying it in a way that doesnt turn people off. You could include with it mandating body cameras, banning encryption of dispatch, having civilian review boards for example.

Mandating body cameras - cool idea on paper but proven not to do much since cops can block them/turn them off or departments can withhold/edit the footage, or the cops don't get held accountable even with the body cameras. More reliably, almost every citizen has a camera in their pocket and these videos aren't at the mercy of the police department before being released. This also would cost more money and would not be a form of defunding.

Banning encryption of dispatch - not sure what you mean by this one, but I imagine it wouldn't have an effect on the amount of money politicians are giving the police.

Having civilian review boards - good idea, if we ensure they actually have the power without fear of the police to hold police accountable. This would, however, not be a form of defunding, would probably cost more - I'd imagine.

So none of the three recommendations you've proposed here are forms of defunding the police.

[San Lumen]

or you could simply say reform the police as its basically the same thing and would play better.

You could simply lie, but that would make you a liar.

House of Cards showed the same thing to a degree and that wasn't a fantasy. It was a warning.

House of Cards was fictional. It was a fictional story about a fictional politician. Jesus fucking Christ.

No its called tailoring your message.

Tv shows can't be warnings? That's what House of Cards was.

Doesn't reform and defund get the same message across here? Poor messaging is part of the reason Democrats lose.

Santos won the election because he had good advisors.

Santos isn't fucking real. The election wasn't real. It's a fucking tv show.

You missed the point entirely here.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Well that’s what I was trying to propose. I just didn’t have the right knowledge.

It's understandable. If you're trying to approach the problem from a position of nuance, and not go "Open the borders!" or "Close the borders!", there's a byzantine system of rules and regulations you will need to have some knowledge about, and it's complicated subject matter, not particularly accessible stuff.

Yes. There’s that. These problems that need nuance but well the construction behind this problem isn’t available to average people.

[San Lumen]

Its the same thing a lot of the defund crowd wants but saying it in a way that doesnt turn people off. You could include with it mandating body cameras, banning encryption of dispatch, having civilian review boards for example.

Mandating body cameras - cool idea on paper but proven not to do much since cops can block them/turn them off or departments can withhold/edit the footage, or the cops don't get held accountable even with the body cameras. More reliably, almost every citizen has a camera in their pocket and these videos aren't at the mercy of the police department before being released. This also would cost more money and would not be a form of defunding.

Banning encryption of dispatch - not sure what you mean by this one, but I imagine it wouldn't have an effect on the amount of money politicians are giving the police.

Having civilian review boards - good idea, if we ensure they actually have the power without fear of the police to hold police accountable. This would, however, not be a form of defunding, would probably cost more - I'd imagine.

So none of the three recommendations you've proposed here are forms of defunding the police.

Dont allow them to be turned off or departments to withhold or edit footage.

Banning encryption creates more transparency.

Paying more to create civilian review boards is far better than defending the police and would play better with people.

[Kannap]

Suppose it depends on what you mean when you say "reform" the police. Because, either (1) that involves removing certain responsibilities from police and giving them to organizations or agencies better trained/equipped to do so, which would include taking away from of the police funding to redirect it to these other agencies and organizations; or (2) you have some idea of reforms that don't include taking funds from the police.

If the answer is 1, then you're advocating for politicians to lie to their constituents: Say "reform" instead of "defund" and proceed to "defund" anyway. If the answer is 2, and there is no defunding, then the two words don't "get the same point across" nor mean the same thing, as you suggest.



Referencing The West Wing, opinion immediately disregarded. But, seriously, you're just doubling down on advocating for politicians to lie. In this example, does Santos (1) say how you really feel - telling the truth - and lose or do you (2) "Tailor your message" (What does this mean? Lying about your stance? Omitting it entirely/hiding it from your constituency? Sounds dubious either way.)

Doesn't reform and defund get the same message across here?

Considering they're different ideas and mean different things, no. If they did get the same message across, you'd be just as opposed to saying "reform" as you are to saying "defund."

Poor messaging is part of the reason Democrats lose.

Not delivering, or being unable to deliver, popular progressive policies that would improve the quality of life of American citizens while simultaneously trying to win over conservative voters from the Republican party instead of the easier task of winning over leftist/independent/non-voters because of the aforementioned lack of delivering progressive policies resulting in a lack of motivation or energizing from progressive voters. Poor plays a smaller role, of course, since Dems are either very out of touch or are just helplessly bad at choosing their words.

Santos won the election because he had good advisors.

The West Wing is a work of fiction.

[Ifreann]

You could simply lie, but that would make you a liar.


House of Cards was fictional. It was a fictional story about a fictional politician. Jesus fucking Christ.

No its called tailoring your message.

It's called lying, and now you're lying about how it's lying.

[San Lumen]

No its called tailoring your message.

It's called lying, and now you're lying about how it's lying.

No Im not. What good does saying things that turn off people do and you wind up losing? If Biden had done what some people here want making the same mistakes Clinton did Trump would have won a second term.

[Kannap]

Mandating body cameras - cool idea on paper but proven not to do much since cops can block them/turn them off or departments can withhold/edit the footage, or the cops don't get held accountable even with the body cameras. More reliably, almost every citizen has a camera in their pocket and these videos aren't at the mercy of the police department before being released. This also would cost more money and would not be a form of defunding.

Banning encryption of dispatch - not sure what you mean by this one, but I imagine it wouldn't have an effect on the amount of money politicians are giving the police.

Having civilian review boards - good idea, if we ensure they actually have the power without fear of the police to hold police accountable. This would, however, not be a form of defunding, would probably cost more - I'd imagine.

So none of the three recommendations you've proposed here are forms of defunding the police.

Dont allow them to be turned off or departments to withhold or edit footage.

I'm going to wager a guess here that these are things that cops and departments already know they shouldn't be doing. Once again, police are largely above the law and largely aren't held accountable.

Banning encryption creates more transparency.

Sure, still not a form of defunding.

Paying more to create civilian review boards is far better than defending the police and would play better with people.

Eh, civilian review boards - as I've already said - can be a good idea if they're actually empowered to hold police accountable and as long as they're not the victims of harassment or instilled fear at the hands of the police department.

Nonetheless, defunding the police (of their money and specific duties police shouldn't be handling, and diverting those funds to organizations or agencies better trained and equipped for these duties; you seem to be omitting these steps) is a far better solution, easily.

[San Lumen]

Dont allow them to be turned off or departments to withhold or edit footage.

I'm going to wager a guess here that these are things that cops and departments already know they shouldn't be doing. Once again, police are largely above the law and largely aren't held accountable.

Banning encryption creates more transparency.

Sure, still not a form of defunding.

Paying more to create civilian review boards is far better than defending the police and would play better with people.

Eh, civilian review boards - as I've already said - can be a good idea if they're actually empowered to hold police accountable and as long as they're not the victims of harassment or instilled fear at the hands of the police department.

Nonetheless, defunding the police (of their money and specific duties police shouldn't be handling, and diverting those funds to organizations or agencies better trained and equipped for these duties; you seem to be omitting these steps) is a far better solution, easily.

Say that instead of a broad term defund the police.

[Ifreann]

It's called lying, and now you're lying about how it's lying.

No Im not. What good does saying things that turn off people do and you wind up losing? If Biden had done what some people here want making the same mistakes Clinton did Trump would have won a second term.

What good does it do to elect liars who lie about their goals and beliefs?

[San Lumen]

No Im not. What good does saying things that turn off people do and you wind up losing? If Biden had done what some people here want making the same mistakes Clinton did Trump would have won a second term.

What good does it do to elect liars who lie about their goals and beliefs?

Lying is different from tailoring your message. Clinton didn't do the latter and its part of why she lost.

[Kannap]

It's called lying, and now you're lying about how it's lying.

No Im not. What good does saying things that turn off people do and you wind up losing? If Biden had done what some people here want making the same mistakes Clinton did Trump would have won a second term.

If you're omitting/deliberately hiding things you believe from your constituents, especially when those things will have an effect on your constituent's lives now that you wield the power to make laws that effect their lives, how is that not lying to your constituents?

For them to be informed voters and make informed decisions that have real effects on their lives, they should know that thing you're deliberately omitting for fears you'd lose if they knew about it. But hey, this advocating lying/omitting the truth thing you've got going on right now totally tracks with what you were saying about Cal Cunningham in the NC Senate race two years ago.