Ford supports defund police

[Burkey]

This is honestly one of the stupidest suggestions ever recorded digitally on earth.

If you do not hire vets, who do you hire? Gutless leftists? When it comes time to step into the fray and stop some scumbag from bleeding out or save a choking baby, you never see a Biden supporter running to help, you see them running with their camera to get media for their blog, feed, Facebook or some other crap. Vets make up a large percentage of police, fire and other jobs the country depends upon because they are for the most part, dependable and want to work for their nation in some way.......................unlike Democrats, who simply want to destroy this nation and create a Marxist state.

Why are the world's sewers ran by Democrats/socialists/Marxists/communists? That is easy enough..............................they always chose platitudes over actions to improve peoples lives. In the end, leftist policies always depend on seizing wealth from those who work to earn it and giving it to those who do nothing. Eventually, the people who work, leave in search of places to live with people who work and are like minded in the idea that you create your own wealth, happiness and hope. These people know the government gives you nothing it has not taken from someone else and thus cannot be depended upon to provide for you.

Wow. I never knew that there were literally no democrats/lefties in the armed forces, police, fire etc
Interesting.

Sponsored

 

[Jimmy Dean]

This is honestly one of the stupidest suggestions ever recorded digitally on earth.

If you do not hire vets, who do you hire? Gutless leftists? When it comes time to step into the fray and stop some scumbag from bleeding out or save a choking baby, you never see a Biden supporter running to help, you see them running with their camera to get media for their blog, feed, Facebook or some other crap. Vets make up a large percentage of police, fire and other jobs the country depends upon because they are for the most part, dependable and want to work for their nation in some way.......................unlike Democrats, who simply want to destroy this nation and create a Marxist state.

Why are the world's sewers ran by Democrats/socialists/Marxists/communists? That is easy enough..............................they always chose platitudes over actions to improve peoples lives. In the end, leftist policies always depend on seizing wealth from those who work to earn it and giving it to those who do nothing. Eventually, the people who work, leave in search of places to live with people who work and are like minded in the idea that you create your own wealth, happiness and hope. These people know the government gives you nothing it has not taken from someone else and thus cannot be depended upon to provide for you.

so yeah, dude. I am a vet. So is my wife. And our training does not go over well to cooperating with civilians. Our training is on how to put on boots on an enemy forces neck without prejudice. To win at all costs because it's not just lives at risk, it is nations, the world. Quite simply, vets, especially combat vets, do not belong on the street as beat cops and traffic cops.

Also, I'm not some leftist or Bernie supporter. Quite a good bit right of center, but I also don't have stupid fucking blinders on like so many other reps have where they can do nothing but repeat party mantra and tow the party line. Fuck that, I have my own mind and am able to disagree with the party line when I can see that it is obviously wrong.

 

[Burkey]

Why are the world's sewers ran by Democrats/socialists/Marxists/communists? That is easy enough..............................they always chose platitudes over actions to improve peoples lives. In the end, leftist policies always depend on seizing wealth from those who work to earn it and giving it to those who do nothing. Eventually, the people who work, leave in search of places to live with people who work and are like minded in the idea that you create your own wealth, happiness and hope. These people know the government gives you nothing it has not taken from someone else and thus cannot be depended upon to provide for you.

Sorry for the second response but it occurred to me that if we’re going to thoroughly examine the evils of socialist ideals, we could probably start with the police.
Those bloody socialists insist that the police force be paid out of people’s taxes. What you really need is a police force with an annual subscription or maybe you just pay them by the hour for the work they do? Those who don’t subscribe or can’t afford them, don’t get the police to attend when they need them. You’d be able to pay less taxes this way and it would become a true “user pays” system rather than the socialised system you’re being oppressed under right now.
You could even stop the socialist ideal of public funded roads while you’re at it.
You could really take this in any direction you want. The possibilities are endless.

Maybe those crazy lefties exist for the sole purpose of preventing the conservative right from taking their policies too far in the other direction and inject some balance into the conversation from time to time?

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Sorry for the second response but it occurred to me that if we’re going to thoroughly examine the evils of socialist ideals, we could probably start with the police.
Those bloody socialists insist that the police force be paid out of people’s taxes. What you really need is a police force with an annual subscription or maybe you just pay them by the hour for the work they do? Those who don’t subscribe or can’t afford them, don’t get the police to attend when they need them. You’d be able to pay less taxes this way and it would become a true “user pays” system rather than the socialised system you’re being oppressed under right now.
You could even stop the socialist ideal of public funded roads while you’re at it.
You could really take this in any direction you want. The possibilities are endless.

Maybe those crazy lefties exist for the sole purpose of preventing the conservative right from taking their policies too far in the other direction and inject some balance into the conversation from time to time?

reminds me of the issues with private fire departments around the start of the 1900s, maybe earlier, around NYC...you'd have to pay em before they would put out the fire, or sometimes they would get in a street brawl with a rival department instead of putting out the fire to see who gets the job.

 

[Burkey]

reminds me of the issues with private fire departments around the start of the 1900s, maybe earlier, around NYC...you'd have to pay em before they would put out the fire, or sometimes they would get in a street brawl with a rival department instead of putting out the fire to see who gets the job.

Funnily enough, that’s exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote it... ha ha.
I just find it intriguing that people aren’t able to see that some “socialist ideals” are already a part of their lives. As always, everything in moderation. Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[lonegunman]

So you two geniuses think only people who pay for police protection thru subscription should be entitled to protection from criminals? I'm not "oppressed" by the police because unlike some people I'm not a criminal or from a family of dregs that require constant law enforcement supervision in order to control their illegal behavior.

I'm also not so irrationally prejudiced that I would exclude and entire class of people from employment based on their service to the country. I guess that's one way to avoid using color or religion or another typically leftist method of classifying people.

 

[Caballus]

...And our training does not go over well to cooperating with civilians. Our training is on how to put on boots on an enemy forces neck without prejudice. To win at all costs...

Disagree.

 

[fatbillybob]

Define the Police is a shitty name for a potentially good policy.
It's not about disbanding the police, it's about not making them do someone else's job, but rather giving the right person the job in the first place. Got a potentially dangerous animal on the streets? An Animal Control Officer is sent, someone trained and specialized in safely handling the situation. There's a family living in an abandoned building? Don't chase them away with armed officers, send a department social worker.

The problem is the unintended consequences of good intentions. When there is enough need we have protocol such as animal control. We can have social workers for homeless but that should not come from police budgets. We can start by not incentivizing homelessness. There isn't a police force in the US that is over funded or under worked even if you give away a few of their tasks. Police have guns, tazers, and sticks and the public who are actively policed still do not listen to them. In fact some openly defy until lethal force is used. Let's make no mistake Floyd's death is unfortunate but he was a career criminal. Not stealing isn't that hard. How do you think people living in an abandoned building are going to react to a social worker with a clipboard? You are assuming a cogent thoughtful response to a social worker's outreach. Homelessness has a huge mental health component. Many of those people will not respond like you expect. What about traffic stops? Why not a traffic enforcer instead of armed police. Cops know the innocent traffic stop is super dangerous. What do you think will happen to the traffic enforcers when perps will shoot at police? Everyday there is a police chase on TV starting as a traffic stop where the perp has complete disregard for life. Chaos and lost of life happens when you lack adequate policing. As recently as CHOP, surviving a month, 3 or 4 where killed where the group was ideologically cohesive.

 

[Burkey]

So you two geniuses think only people who pay for police protection thru subscription should be entitled to protection from criminals? I'm not "oppressed" by the police because unlike some people I'm not a criminal or from a family of dregs that require constant law enforcement supervision in order to control their illegal behavior.

I'm also not so irrationally prejudiced that I would exclude and entire class of people from employment based on their service to the country. I guess that's one way to avoid using color or religion or another typically leftist method of classifying people.

No, I don’t.
I’m turning your logic on itself.
You said you don’t like socialist ideals. I highlighted examples of perfectly functional “socialist ideals” that you seem to quite like, but somehow don’t realise that they are in fact the direct result of socialism.

As to the issue of employing vets in the police force, no, I don’t believe they should be excluded on the grounds of their previous employment, nor do I think they should be given an automatic green-light on the basis of their previous service. Call me weird, but maybe they should be employed based on their aptitude for the role they’re being asked to perform.
What’s with this black and white thinking of yours?

 

[lonegunman]

No, I don’t.
I’m turning your logic on itself.
You said you don’t like socialist ideals. I highlighted examples of perfectly functional “socialist ideals” that you seem to quite like, but somehow don’t realise that they are in fact the direct result of socialism.

As to the issue of employing vets in the police force, no, I don’t believe they should be excluded on the grounds of their previous employment, nor do I think they should be given an automatic green-light on the basis of their previous service. Call me weird, but maybe they should be employed based on their aptitude for the role they’re being asked to perform.
What’s with this black and white thinking of yours?

Your left-nut cohort is the guy who said no one who had EVER served in the military should EVER be allowed in law enforcement, not me.

I'm also vague as to why you associate paying taxes with Socialism? Capitalists pay taxes, as does every other form of government. This is where you lefties go right off the rails. You always try and claim anything government run is somehow an example of the far-left ideology you believe in like a religion.

I think your inability to understand the idea of moderate taxation and good government is the problem. Roads are paid for by taxes, that is not socialism. It was a choice from people who wanted a better transportation network. Charging a fee to use a roadway or river has been common for nearly 3,000 years, longer than "socialism". People with cars, since about 1919, have wanted improved roads and supported this tax.

Now socialism ruins a good tax buy diverting the revenue generated to pay for crap the tax never intended to pay for in the first place. So we pay billions in fuel taxes and the government uses it for anything but maintaining and improving infrastructure, creates massive bureaucracy that costs tens upon tens of billions of dollars and generally does nothing to build, fix or improve roads and bridges. The American version of Social Security is an awesome example of the failures of socialism. Every dollar collected is promptly stolen by congress and replaced with imaginary government bonds, thus there is not one single dollar in the "trust fund". Immigrants who never paid a dime into Social Security are entitled to receive it, thanks to Jimmy Carter. Social Security Disability was never intended to pay for alcoholics, drug addicts, people who cannot speak English(considered a disability on Puerto Rico), general fuckoffs or other forms of generally lazy people. Today almost no one is denied and 12,000,000 people are sitting on their asses on the taxpayer dime. Thank you socialism. This is actually a Ponzi scheme.

Bonds, school district taxes, property taxes.......................not "socialism" to people of normal intelligence. They are the cost of good government in a society. Socialism is then people decide they deserve to sit on their asses and have the rest of us pay for them. Those people are so weak minded they demand the government control every aspect of their lives, their economy and their rights and freedoms are given over to their non-elected masters. It puts people back on the plantation, under the master's whip.

 

[Caballus]

Seems that we are conflating "socialism" with tax-funded social programs or welfare (or the welfare state). Not advocating either, but they are different from an political-economic perspective.

 

[Mikthehun1]

State and local taxes pay for most of the services people use every day. Who the fuck knows where federal taxes go. All I know is, I'd have a GT500 if I didn't have to pay federal income tax. I'm running for president in 2024 on the 'Muscle in Every Driveway' platform. I think everyone here can agree on that at least.

 

[Burkey]

Seems that we are conflating "socialism" with tax-funded social programs or welfare (or the welfare state). Not advocating either, but they are different from an political-economic perspective.

To some extent, yes. For sure. I’m doing it quite deliberately in order to make a point.
If a nation allows unmitigated capitalism to be the primary or even sole driver, the outcomes for certain sections of the population won’t be great... the knock-on effect being even less appealing for those who think they’re above it all.
Simple things like minimum wages aren’t the result of a completely capitalist-centric model. They’re the direct result of a socialistic structure that recognises at least SOME level of equality or at the bare minimum, denies capitalism it’s every wish.
Those at the top (or even the middle) often very quickly forget that SOMEONE has to do the shitty low paying jobs. Once you allow the market absolute free reign, you can forget about simple protection measures that allow people to earn a “decent” living. You typically end up with a race to the bottom.

Capitalism is great. I love it. But it also needs checks and balances to ensure that the people at the bottom don’t become so disenfranchised that they simply quit being part of it and engage in criminal activity (for example) that might yield far greater returns.
There’s probably nothing more dangerous than a person who feels they have nothing to lose.
Call it humanitarian values, call it leftist socialist ideals, whatever.
The point remains that IMO, the left needs the right as much as the reverse is true.
The extremes of either side hold zero appeal for me personally.

 

[Caballus]

To some extent, yes. For sure. I’m doing it quite deliberately in order to make a point.
If a nation allows unmitigated capitalism to be the primary or even sole driver, the outcomes for certain sections of the population won’t be great... the knock-on effect being even less appealing for those who think they’re above it all.
Simple things like minimum wages aren’t the result of a completely capitalist-centric model. They’re the direct result of a socialistic structure that recognises at least SOME level of equality or at the bare minimum, denies capitalism it’s every wish.
Those at the top (or even the middle) often very quickly forget that SOMEONE has to do the shitty low paying jobs. Once you allow the market absolute free reign, you can forget about simple protection measures that allow people to earn a “decent” living. You typically end up with a race to the bottom.

Capitalism is great. I love it. But it also needs checks and balances to ensure that the people at the bottom don’t become so disenfranchised that they simply quit being part of it and engage in criminal activity (for example) that might yield far greater returns.
There’s probably nothing more dangerous than a person who feels they have nothing to lose.
Call it humanitarian values, call it leftist socialist ideals, whatever.
The point remains that IMO, the left needs the right as much as the reverse is true.
The extremes of either side hold zero appeal for me personally.

Good points. However, the terms (socialism, communism, capitalism) are unhelpful and being misapplied and exploited for dramatic effect. Unfortunately, it seems to be working, as citizens are parroting the same arguments. Would be much better off describing the conditions we (the people) are seeking in plain language and holding the political leaders to achieving and sustaining those conditions.

 

[TXBlueStang]

so yeah, dude. I am a vet. So is my wife. And our training does not go over well to cooperating with civilians. Our training is on how to put on boots on an enemy forces neck without prejudice. To win at all costs because it's not just lives at risk, it is nations, the world. Quite simply, vets, especially combat vets, do not belong on the street as beat cops and traffic cops.

Also, I'm not some leftist or Bernie supporter. Quite a good bit right of center, but I also don't have stupid fucking blinders on like so many other reps have where they can do nothing but repeat party mantra and tow the party line. Fuck that, I have my own mind and am able to disagree with the party line when I can see that it is obviously wrong.

You sound like a damn POG. You weren’t trained to put your boot on anyone’s neck and neither was your wife. Your training was likely to some BS minimum standard so your branch could say their S shop clowns know which way the “bullet thingies” are supposed to point in the magazine.

I’m a combat vet (infantry) and a lot of my buddies on the street are, too. They are some of most well adjusted people I’ve ever met and have the ability to stay calm in stressful situations because of real world experience. If you don’t know what it feels like to go from 0 to SHTF you’re more likely to make bad decisions that get people killed.

You are entitled to your opinion. We can even agree to disagree but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.

Sponsored