Who wants to move to CHAZ?

Post Reply New Topic

Calling Trump a Neanderthal is an insult to Neanderthals.

I just realized something, the CHAZ is a really good real estate investment opportunity - not right now, I mean when this is over and all the crap is cleaned up. I'm guessing it'll probably be even twice as strongly policed - at the request of the citizens. It'll probably turn into a foodie paradise and be great for gentrification. They can have some welded metal art to celebrate / memorialize the CHAZ (maybe with a fountain of a masked individual urinating on a copper plate with everything they were protesting engraved on it), have a few anarchist bakeries, the money will be rolling in hand over fist.

And yeah - I do feel awful for the business owners, just that if they hold onto their property and don't sell it for pennies on the dollar this might come back their way.

The democrat party is also responsible for passing all the laws that allow the police to be corrupt, absusive and militarized. There’s not any protests in republican cities. All the incidents of black men killed by cops are in democrat cities.
Mean would anyone on the left care if police shot and killed a black man in middle of the night during a no knock raid for a red flag law because one of his exes or someone at work said he’s a danger? They passed all these laws that centrist and republicans opposed and now they upset thst said laws are being abused as we said they would.
Maybe it’s time to elect Republicans or 3rd party and get rid of the democrat problem.

I don’t think most democrat cities will geti rid of their police cause who would abuse gun owners for them then.

Not all Democrats are on the “left.”

I don’t like CHAZ and that ilk....but there’s too many minority (and some white folks, too) being abused by the cops, just for being in the “wrong neighborhood,” or “fitting the description” of somebody.

That's pretty much what Coleman Hughes was getting at on Triggernometry, and he echoed a lot of Sam Harris's points in his Making Sense 207 solo show.

The democrat party is the left in USA.
One wouldn’t be a democrat if they weren’t left leaning.

So you saying two wrongs make a right?

While I want change I won’t support or take part in any of this bad behavior .

progressives only vote democrat because it's their only option, as opposed to the ultra-far right GOP... but they certainly would not if there was a real progressive party.
hell i may not even vote at all.

the spectrum in the US is skewed so far to the right, it's amazing. i think anywhere else in the western world, the democrats would be considered center-right.

Gop isn’t far right non less ultra far right. But I’m not Surprised you think anyone non left is ultra far right.

Progressives are far left though. Liberals are always like progressives Arent liberals they far left don’t judge us by them. I find progressives to be far to extremist.

Only cause the rest of the world is far left.

Communists are “far left.”

The idea that liberals/progressives are “far left” is absurd. Only right-leaning people would say that. Just like only left-leaning people would say that all Republicans are “far right.”

Many Republicans aren’t even close to being “far right.”

Only the Alt-right would be considered “far right.”

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 15 Jun 2020, 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In my opinion, a Liberal is someone who wants to prioritise freedom, even if that freedom steps on the freedom of others. They might provide lip service to social progressive movements, but they will only change when it looks popular to do so.

A conservative generally would want little to change, but your GOP under DT has gone beyond wanting nothing to change and actively aimed to regress things. It was not bad enough that your health system was dying because the one put forward by Obama was influenced by and strangled by the likes of private interests (any other 1st world nation can see that), but he wanted to go back to nothing.

Perhaps a progressive appear as far Left, but unlike the far Right we are far less violent despite what people might think (we are not all Antifa), it is why the further Right like to describe us as both weakling soy boy pacifists who would lose a fight but somehow also too dangerous. And in history, we're gonna win in the end.

Well I think that defunding the police will do more harm that good for a lot of people. If a break in at someone's house happens for example, or someone is being assaulted, and you call the police, it can take a lot longer for them to respond if they are defunded, for example.

Let's give them infinite money, we can take it from the ambulances, they are not stopping home invaders.

I know that is a strawman argument on my part, but there is a point in time where an amount of funding stops meaningfully help with home invasions, which I imagine is lower than it has in a long time, and that you are actually taking away resources from places that could do good. Like work to help with programs to help the homeless get off the street and get on track on their lives will help them from needing to sneak into a building to get out of the weather and get the police called on them.

You can't just throw money at something and hope it is doing good, I think that there is good chance that this has been happening in places like law enforcement in places. And really you could be just kitting out a bunch of people who were hired if a budget allowed it, with surplus military equipment and are itching to use it to show how tough they are. The money should go where it is needed and where it could help communities, and there are places that rather than being protected by the police with their money, they have been hurt by them

Breonna Taylor, she was shot by police a few days ago in her home from a no knock warrant of police deciding that they get to choose what homes they can invade and justify violence and murder without identifying themselves in the middle of the night. Who do you call for that?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/breonna-taylor-s-death-ignites-debate-no-knock-warrants-louisville-n1208156

Oh okay, when reading about this case, you mentioned, what were they searching the home for in the warrant. The article doesn't say.

But that article is about banning no knock warrants as a result of the search, which seems like a different issue to me that cutting down on funding the police, unless I am missing something?

There's a contemporary school of thought that such "harms" (ie burglary, assault, etc) are something that people should get used to, accept and even allow to happen. Most recently the head of the city council in Minneapolis talked about it in a video interview. In relation to "white privilege", part of the thinking is that white people have largely been shielded from experiencing such crimes while non-white people experience them more often. We should all just accept that such crimes happen and actually, objecting to such things as a white person is upholding your white privilege rather than rejecting it.

I linked the interview in another thread recently. I think it was the defund the police thread.

This school of thought has even been set into law in certain parts of the western world where in effect, if someone breaks into your house to rob you, they have rights to the point that you're to allow it to happen or at least it's against the law for you to use force against them. Let it happen.

There are of course other places, such as in certain states in the U.S. where the "castle doctrine" is legal and provides protection for a homeowner if someone breaks into their home while they're there and they feel threatened (umm....who wouldn't?) that they can use force up to and including lethal force to kill the intruder.

Two very different schools of thought, yes?

It's not hyperbole to say that in many areas of the U.S. you'd be taking your life into your own hands if you break and enter into someone's home. That seems like common sense to me. In my former job I was responsible for among other things, doing home inspections for insurance companies; some of the properties were in rural areas and I would NEVER have set foot on someone's property without first confirming it with them. I did this as a courtesy for them to a degree, but a far greater reason was for my own safety.

Where do you think the excess funding goes to? Extra expensive donuts in the breakroom? It goes to police being able to pull s**t like this, dangerous night raids with the suspect already detained and nothing found. It makes them feel like that they get to choose whatever they want in acting like action heroes, especially against certain kinds of people.

Well I think that each case needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The article doesn't even talk about what the police came to search for, so I can't give an opinion on this case, when I don't even know what it's about.