• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you agree with AOC that cutting a billion dollars form NYC police is just not enough?

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
How many is many?
I dint remember the numbers. But they are often minorities, prostitutes, the poor, and those who had little or no social support in life are typically the ones that go unsolved because of a lack of pressure on the police amd lack of social empathy tk get them solved.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Does she even address the question of what does a city look like without police?

I've been driven to voting for Trump in November. I can't vote for a party that allows people like that to even be a member!

Why would she? No one is suggesting there should be 'a city without police'.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Why would she? No one is suggesting there should be 'a city without police'.
She emphasized ‘defund’ as opposed to cut funds.

I know that’s impossible. But do you expect me to vote for a party that has standing members like that? I’m just disgusted at the moment, sorry. Biden doesn’t condemn this crap enough.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
She emphasized ‘defund’ as opposed to cut funds.

It's not the first time I've said this here at RF, but 'defund' does not mean remove all funding.
I agree it's a crappy term, but there it is.

https://www.newsweek.com/john-oliver-defund-police-show-1509407

I know that’s impossible. But do you expect me to vote for a party that has standing members like that? I’m just disgusted at the moment, sorry. Biden doesn’t condemn this crap enough.

You can vote for whomever you like, so I don't 'expect' anything in that sense. But I'd argue that her comments (not the headline) are not 'disgusting'.
Having said that, I'm not much of a fan of AOC.

Still...give me the top five disgusting things she's said and we can line them up against some things the President has said.
If the Dems win, do you think she'll weild the sort of influence and impact Trump will if the Republicans win?

Do you think the rest of the Republican pollies are fine?

Like I said, vote for whomever you like. But I'd seriously question AOCs comments in this case 'forcing' your hand.
People justify their decisions in all sorts of ways, though.
 

Yazata

Active Member
Do you agree with AOC that cutting a billion dollars from NYC police is just not enough?

In a paradoxical way, yes. I'd prefer to see NYC without any Police at all, and hence without any rule of law at all. Give them what they want and make the result an object lesson.

Crime rising.

Which is why I agree with AOC for a reason precisely the opposite of her's.

I think that we all know that crime in NYC is going to skyrocket. And we know that the Sh*t People won't take any responsibility for the conditions they caused. As long as some reduced semblance of a police force remains, that police force will be blamed for the increase in crime. A scapegoat force, everyone's punching bag, something that can be blamed for every misfortune... until it stops showing up for work.

What NYC really needs is the complete absence of police. And correspondingly, the complete absence of law. Let all the stores be robbed and looted, let all the attractive women be raped. Watch the business community move out of the city. Watch the tax base collapse, assuming that anyone even paid taxes any more. No more schools, no more universities, no more hospitals, museums or performance spaces. No food distribution, and soon enough no water or sewage either.

Just chaos given what semblance of order it might have by street warlords and their armed thugs. How soon before the lefty celebrities in their Upper West Side penthouses are displaced by criminals taking over their homes and their high-end possessions?

In other words, give New Yorkers precisely what they say they want (but not really, it's all sort of a game to them). Well, make it so that it isn't a game. Let people die. Let people lose everything they own.

Let the rest of the country see how well their prescription for the rest of the country works out. Shove Law-and-Order up to the very top of the nation's priorities. Make the total collapse of NYC a spectacle on everyone's TV every night. Right before an election.

It's ironic, since we all know that the Mayor and the City Council would be passing no end of emergency laws. That's what people like them do when faced with challenges, they announce laws and regulations and try to restrict everyone else's freedoms and liberties. Except if there is no downside for ignoring their blizzard of new laws, what force would they have? Then the city "leaders" would demand that the rest of the country send troops to bail them out and restore order to the streets. A demand that should be rejected.

and who will protect the city? Batman?

Hopefully nobody. That's why I agree with AOC. They want this, so rub their little snouts in it.

The only downside would be that literally millions of people would be fleeing New York City... and moving to your town.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Some people are.

Fair enough. I should know better than to use the 'no-one' word, since there is always someone, somewhere suggesting something.
I'll re-phrase.

AOC isn't suggesting there should be 'a city without police'. And I suspect I would strongly disagree with anyone who is suggesting it, although obviously I'd need more specific information on what they are offering as a solution before commenting beyond that.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
And I suspect I would strongly disagree with anyone who is suggesting it, although obviously I'd need more specific information on what they are offering as a solution before commenting beyond that.
This.
I don't know what AOC is actually proposing, but I know the thread OP well enough not to take his thread titles at face value.

Besides, when did fiscal conservativism upset these people? Going by the thread title, AOC is proposing a huge slash in funding big intrusive government. Soon it will be small enough to drown in a bathtub, just like Grover Norquist wanted things.
Tom
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
This.
I don't know what AOC is actually proposing, but I know the thread OP well enough not to take his thread titles at face value.

Besides, when did fiscal conservativism upset these people? Going by the thread title, AOC is proposing a huge slash in funding big intrusive government. Soon it will be small enough to drown in a bathtub, just like Grover Norquist wanted things.
Tom
How much do you want to bet those funds, would go towards regulatory agencies that makes government bigger not smaller? Maybe even in their own special interest pork barrel funds to boot.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The world is ending now but not in a Hollywood blow-it-all-up manner. So it's time to celebrate and join the World 2.0 party.
If I ask AOC, will she concur with this interpretation of her words?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Defunding the police.

That's typically how these revolutions start don't they?

Well, let's take a small example of what that means as see what you think.
In NYC the police budget includes crossing guards. Where I live it's the Local Government budget that includes crossing guards.

Neither approach seems especially 'Marxist', but that would be part of what 'defunding' the police looks like.
So are you for, against, or neutral on removing that budget item from the police?

It's just an example, and I get that you might have strong opinions about some items.
My goal here isn't to convince you AOC is 'good' or to move left. Just that there is a level of conversation to have under the broad umbrella of 'defunding'.
I honestly think the term itself is causing problems.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Can you do better?

You think I should offer up some so you can pooh-pooh them?
Then you could offer up some conservatives and I can pooh-pooh them?

Not a very productive game. My meaning was merely that if you were earnestly seeking 'reasonable democrats' and your list didn't even include a democrat, there might be some problems with how you're searching.
A more productive game would be for me to try and find a reasonable Republican, and you to find a reasonable Dem. If neither of us are able to, there's really not much point in conversing...we're too entrenched in partisan politics.
 
Top