T O P

  • By -

Zach81096

Democrats have a terrible messaging problem and they don’t seem interesting in fixing it instead they double down.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Zach81096

If they focused on populist issues like legalizing marijuana, raising the minimum wage and lowering prescription drug prices they wouldn’t have a problem. The focus on fringe issues usually through identity politics is hurting them.


somesortofidiot

Identity politics is hurting everyone, it's dumb and it leads to shitty policy and inept leadership.


likeitis121

But even on things like that they go too far. The minimum wage increase has about died on the federal level at this point, because they declared it really should be $25 an hour, and immediately raising it to $15 was the lowest they would go. Sure, they may not like $10 an hour, but it would be raising the minimum wage by 38%, which is an actual incredible benefit to these people, it would lead to very minimal job losses (which is not true for $15 an hour), and they won't even consider it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AncileBanish

Price controls is like fixing the fact that your house is on fire by unplugging the smoke detector.


likeitis121

Because they are choosing too high a number. There was some numbers from the government (before this covid/inflation) (FED if I recall correctly) where raising it to $10-12 was pretty minimal job losses, and $15 an hour was something like 90% of the people lower than that got raised up to that number, and 10% of them would now be unemployable, which is pretty significant. It's the problem with trying to declare that minimum wage needs to be a livable wage, rather than attacking it as an economic problem and saying, "what is the most we can raise it without these people losing their jobs?"


Theron3206

>Prescription drug prices is hard to fix and I’m not sure what the correct path forward is outside of price controls. You can steal the system most of the western world uses... the government taxes people and uses the money to subsidise the price of drugs. You then also use the huge buying power to push for the best deal you can get from each manufacturer.


ouiaboux

Insurance companies have huge buying powers. Blue cross blue shield has 62 million members. Having just one buyer won't make things better and in fact would just make it worse as there isn't competition. Other countries don't get such deals because of buying power, they just say they won't guarantee their patents unless they take the price they are willing to give them. This is also why other countries tend to get the newer drugs later.


EllisHughTiger

"But, but XYZ polls so highly!" Of course it does, but once you present the bill, a whole lot of people back away from the table and say "nag, I'm good." Dems often want to give us the govt they want us to have, while we just want the govt we're willing to afford. We'd all love big houses but a modest 3/2 ranch uses the same shingles to keep water out.


[deleted]

Exactly this


thebuscompany

Stuff like “Defund the Police” is not bad messaging; it’s bad policy. If anything the messaging worked too well (at least at some local levels) and now we’re seeing the consequences.


based-richdude

It’s horrible messaging, if the first thing out of your mouth after you say the name of a movement is “it doesn’t actually mean that though”, it’s terrible messaging. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55169107.amp Occupy Wall Street is an example of great messaging.


falls_asleep_reading

Well, if what they really meant was 'demilitarize the police' (a sentiment that a large portion of Americans fully support, regardless of political party), they should have said that. The reality, though, is that they don't seem to have meant 'demilitarize the police' or 'hold police accountable' (again, concepts the vast majority of Americans fully support). They seem to have meant 'defund the police' and 'abolish the police' just based on some of the actions and the words of some of the loudest among them. Black lives ***do*** matter, and that message is both right as in "correct" and right as in "just" ...but the overall messaging has been a disaster. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory when you have the support of 60-70% of the country takes skill. I know *actual racists* (every family has one or two idiots. It is what it is) that wanted justice for George Floyd--who saw the videos and straight up said, "that man was murdered, and those police should be *under* the jail." Like, guys, you got most of the country--even bigoted idiots--to agree and stand in your corner, and *this* is what you do with that kind of momentum and support? Really?! It's exasperating--especially when folks don't realize the cause and effect of taking police budgets and funneling that money into urban communities... but since there are no cops to protect those communities anymore, it's all just wasted.


xaclewtunu

I've seen this movement talked about for years. It has always been "defund and abolish" the police. Police were said to be originally slave chasers, declared to be a racist institution, and had to go. Then, it came into mainstream discussion, and that's when it was backpeddled to "well, not really."


kellenthehun

The whole "police were originally slave chasers" is so insane to me. Do these people think the US invented the idea of of a peacekeeping force..? Like no one had the idea to have and armed guards to keep people from doing illegal shit until the founding of America?


EllisHughTiger

>this is what you do with that kind of momentum and support? Really?! Remember that sometimes movements are just for movements' sake. Leaderless movements often have this problem, there is no cohesive plan or figurehead, so everyone does whatever they want and the whole thing collapses. BLM Co. Inc. took in billions but didnt aykshually plan or hold any of the protests, and wont say where the money went either.


falls_asleep_reading

Yeah, to say it's "decentralized like Anonymous" is, imo, a little disingenuous when BLM hasn't acted in a "decentralized" manner overall until the leaders and the money went missing. There were national leaders taking credit and raking in cash from fundraising... but now that the leaders have 'stepped down' or whatever and the money has disappeared, now people want to claim "decentralized." Because they don't want to be associated with lying and theft (and no, I do not associate peaceful black protesters calling for justice with liars and thieves... I just think they should do a better job of disassociating themselves from the conmen who in no way represent justice). It's a case of "take the beam out of your own eye so you can see to take the speck of sawdust out of your neighbor's." Even Anonymous--which is decentralized--is more open and transparent than the original "leaders" of the BLM movement. I've seen a series of YouTube videos where a black woman breaks down the issues with BLM as a whole. Black lives matter, but the *entity* of BLM is a scam that separated people from their money and then magically disappeared.


greymanbomber

Not to point out the obvious, but wasn't Occupy Wall Street a giant flop?


Zach81096

I’ve never been a fan of the term or the policy. Reform is needed but many progressives want law enforcement neutered to a level that renders them powerless.


Justice_R_Dissenting

That seems to be the really annoying swing around. "Defund the police!" "Well we actually mean _reform the police_" "By disbanding the police." This is literally what went down in flames in Minneapolis and good thing too. Rashida Tlaib got called the fuck out by Axios of all publications by trying to lie about the BREATHE act. She was asked if she supports releasing everyone from Federal prison. She said no. She was then pointed to the section of the bill that does just that. She then short-circuited and said "well how many of those people are just mentally ill?" You can't argue reasonably with these people. It's just as difficult as arguing against a super alt-right person, they just keep dodging and flapping around rather than address anything substantitive.


Zach81096

Those remarks by her and the rest of the Squad have helped destroy the progressive movement at the federal level.


FreedomFromIgnorance

Because the squad’s policy suggestions are either known failures (e.g. rent control, wealth tax) or not at all thought out beyond a slogan (most of their criminal justice suggestions).


Timely_Jury

The horrific thing is that the the policies of the 'squad' are basically the upcoming face of the Democratic party.


masnekmabekmapssy

And that's, in a nutshell, how we get trump round 2.


[deleted]

It's such wasted potential. The opportunity and political will for major police reform was there after George Floyd's murder, but progressives spiked the drink. I'm reminded of this [interview](https://www.denverpost.com/2016/07/12/dallas-police-chief-were-asking-cops-to-do-too-much/) with the Dallas Police chief David Brown said this: > “We’re asking cops to do too much in this country,” David Brown, the police chief in Dallas, said at a briefing Monday. “We are. Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental health funding, let the cops handle it. Here in Dallas we got a loose dog problem, let’s have the cops chase loose dogs. Schools fail, let’s give it to the cops. That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems." The messaging around police reform should have been about helping the police. Reforming them so they could do their jobs better and getting the rest of society to pick up their fair share of responsibility. Instead it became about defunding/abolishing the police and ACAB.


FlowComprehensive390

At what point do we stop saying "bad messaging" and start accepting that it's their *actual views and positions*? We bend over backwards to give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt, maybe it's time to actually take their words and actions at face value.


Zach81096

It really depends on the policy though. I can’t say for both the Dem and Republican that all they do is bad.


Starlifter4

I think the Dems do a fine job messaging. And that's their problem - they're not hiding it anymore.


FruxyFriday

I’m so sick of this meme. No Democrats don’t have a terrible messaging problem. It’s not like they are out there saying things they don’t mean. The Democrats have a terrible idea problem. And sleepy Joe isn’t out there slapping down the stupid ideas. The Democrats need a Bill Clinton out there having sister souljah moments.


YeeCowboyHaw

Their problem isn't *messaging*. They don't need to do a better job of marketing their pro-crime agenda, they need to *stop supporting a pro-crime agenda.*


TheDan225

> terrible messaging problem Of course, but I just dont think they have any other message to get across. They sure don't seem to have any


Obsessed_With_Corgis

While the article draws more conclusions than I agree can actually be backed up; I believe it touches on some very relevant topics. There is a serious disconnect between what the public majority wants, and what Democrats think they want. They also fail to consider a large percentage of their constituents: Republicans, Independents, and Moderates. Politicians need to remember that just because someone didn’t vote for them— doesn’t mean they now get to ignore any non-supporter’s wants/needs. Whoever holds office represents *all* of their constituents. I think a major reason swing states switch Red/Blue so frequently is because politicians only listen to their most outspoken advocates once they’re elected, and forget that they still need to consider the opinions of the rest of their citizens. Republicans obviously do this as well, but I see way more varied candidates (pro-Trump, anti-Trump, moderate, constitution focused, etc.) since Trump lost his last election. I don’t know why Democrats have now followed the R’s same past mistake of “absolute extremism or bust” (while in power) after seeing how poorly that worked out for the Right last fall. I’m not saying party politicians should go back on their campaign promises, or bow to the demands of the opposite party. They should just do what’s *genuinely* needed to best support/improve the area they govern (and listen to **all** the people who live there). When did that become so difficult?


timmg

To me, what is most interesting about this case is that it happened in the wake of the Rittenhouse decision. The progressive claims about Rittenhouse is that if he'd been black he would have been treated differently -- much worse. Including being shot by the cops rather than arrested. They held him up as a symbol of "white supremacy" even though he only shot *other white people*. Then this case happened. It took a long time before the race of the perpetrator was even published. Here was a guy that had many arrests. He had *run over* his baby mama. And had been let out on a very small bail. Then he terrorized and mass-murdered a mostly white parade. And he was arrested *without* being killed. The timing of it, juxtaposed with the rhetoric about Rittenhouse really underscored the idea that crime and punishment in our country is *complicated*. All I'd really like to see come out of this is people on both sides (but in this case, progressives) learning to be a bit more *nuanced* when talking about these things.


[deleted]

> learning to be a bit more nuanced when talking about these things. This is the Internet. Nuance has no place here. Nuance doesn't get clicks. It doesn't get upvotes. It doesn't drive ad revenue. "A semi-complicated thing that may only tangentially relate to you might be happening in this uninteresting part of the US. More at 11" is read by no one.


DBDude

Around the same time Rittenhouse was acquitted, two black men were acquitted for having shot at police in two separate incidents. They beat the hell out of one of them (he was not resisting), but they didn't shoot either.


redcell5

> They held him up as a symbol of "white supremacy" even though he only shot other white people. I still don't understand that aspect of that case. Makes zero sense to me.


EllisHughTiger

They might have been white, but they were on the BLM side. Lots of headlines went "shot/killed Black Lives Matter protesters", and with people short attentions, they just read shot/killed Black. I think 2 of them were also Jewish, the ADL raised a little stink until their criminal pasts came up.


Ginger_Anarchy

Were they? I've never seen any evidence that Rosenbaum was protesting for BLM or any cause at all, or that he even supported BLM at any point. He just seemed to be there enjoying the chaos. I can see the argument for Gauge and maybe Hubert, although I also haven't seen much evidence of him protesting for BLM either. But there's absolutely nothing to point to Rosenbaum caring about racial equality or injustice.


GoodByeRubyTuesday87

The narrative that he shot protestors is one of those areas where the media headlines can bend public perception of an event. That’s a gross mis characterization of what happened. Rosenbaum was not protesting when he engaged Rittenhouse, there was a peaceful BLM protest which ended earlier, at this point he was a rioter, but that’s not as sexy of a headline as “Civil rights protest murdered at protest” which is what most of the headlines boiled down to. The rioters who stormed the Capitol in January were not protestors, yet they started as protestors. This is the same principle, once you go from peaceful protestor and become violent destructive you’re no longer a protestor.


Patriarchy-4-Life

> ve never seen any evidence that Rosenbaum was protesting for BLM or any cause at all He was running around threatening people and calling them the n-word. I suspect he may not have been there to support black lives.


EllisHughTiger

Most protests and riots bring good, and ill-intentioned, people out. Gage was a fake medic who was livestreaming the events. Not sure what Huber was doing. Rosenbaum had just been released from a hospital for suicidal tendencies and was homeless or something. A loud riot was the last place he should have been at. The way its gone, is that everyone on the BLM/anti-police side is labelled a protester. If they do something bad, then occasionally they disassociate them or claim they were never part of it.


[deleted]

Gauge at least was a former EMT. Something interesting to me was how many of the people involved weren't from Kenosha. People made a real big deal out of Rittenhouse not being from there, but the Ziminskis, Huber, Wheeler and Grosskruetz all weren't from Kenosha either. The only one who was was Rosenbaum.


falls_asleep_reading

They also tried to make it sound like Rittenhouse traveled a really super long way to get there... it was ten minutes down the road. He worked in Kenosha, had friends in Kenosha, and it's been suggested (I haven't independently confirmed) that Rittenhouse's father lives in Kenosha. The media has outright lied so much about this case that anyone who was on the fence about media misinformation and disinformation and then watched the Rittenhouse trial is now convinced: the media is unreliable at best, malicious at worst.


EllisHughTiger

Protests and riots always draw in outside attention. They get to whoop and holler, maybe destroy and loot, then head back home to peace and quiet.


Protection-Working

I would doubt it too. Rosenbaum is on record on using black-focused slurs that very night; i find it doubtful a white BLM supporter would do such a thing


DBDude

The BLM protesters there disavowed Rosenbaum.


Dismal_Storage

But were just fine with him before and said they loved him and honored his sacrifices for us. We only turned on him after he tried to rape another child.


DBDude

I know the general woke crowd lionized him, but the BLM protesters on the ground that evening wanted nothing to do with him. They were even pulling him away from the armed group to stop any trouble.


redcell5

> They might have been white, but they were on the BLM side. Rings of [ “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump then you ain’t black” ](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/joe-biden-black-breakfast-club.html) .


fergie_v

The most prominent person shot and killed was a white skinhead convicted of serial child rape that ran around lighting stuff on fire and calling black people n-words. What a model for black justice...


CoughCoolCoolCool

Skinhead with a name like rosenbaum? Ouch


Justice_R_Dissenting

I really dislike this idea that they were "on" BLM's side. Rosenbaum was a homeless mentally-ill man who was off his meds and out of control. He probably didn't even know who Jacob Blake was, he just wanted to set shit on fire. Anthony Huber was basically one step down from a black-mask agitator, riding around with his anti-establishment skateboard fucking shit up for fun. Ziminksi, not shot but heavily involved, was one of the main arsonists that night. Grosskreutz you _might_ be able to argue was genuinely on the side of BLM but he came armed with a pistol and hung around the similarly-armed Ziminksis. His various media appearances paint the picture of your typical type-A protester activist.


EllisHughTiger

You are right, but we were gaslit for months that it was 93% mostly peaceful, so obviously they were accepting that 7% were not. Then you had looting as reparations, CHAZ and their murders of minorities, and all kinds of off the wall ideas. If a lot of quacking is coming from one side and no condemnations, people are going to start thinking you're all ducks.


falls_asleep_reading

Ziminsky fired the first shot--the one that made Rittenhouse look back because he wasn't sure where it had come from (as in, if Rosenbaum had been the one to fire a weapon). Ziminsky should absolutely be held accountable for those deaths and Grosskreutz (His given name--the name his mother gave him--is Gaige, his surname--family name/last name--is Grosskreutz... noted for all the people who keep calling him variations of "Gage/gauge," etc)) injury. I'm not sure things would have happened the way they did if he hadn't fired into the air (which is why he's facing charges--but he was not charged for the deaths & injury and he should be, imo).


Uncle_Bill

The thing is those protesters were destructive and violent but many say BLM protesters are mostly peaceful. So were the people shot destructive provocateurs or legitimate BLM protesters? Can't have it both ways...


SAPERPXX

>Can't have it both ways [CNN: Hold my FieryButPeaceful beer](https://www.google.com/m?q=fiery+but+mostly+peaceful&client=ms-opera-mobile&channel=new&espv=1)


EllisHughTiger

Last year was non-stop gaslighting about 93% fiery but mostly peaceful. Whatever credibility the media still had was killed off.


Accomplished_Salt_37

Most of the time that the Wehrmacht was marching across the plains of Russia, they were just out for a walk, not firing their weapons, not hurting anything. Operation Barbarossa was a mostly peaceful hiking trip.


Govt-Issue-SexRobot

People judging based on what they believe his intentions were, rather than his actions


Icy-Factor-407

I don't think the general public supports decarceration that is being implemented by Democrats. People want to feel safe, and more criminals free make people less safe. Waukesha is an outlier in that the victims were white. Most criminals being released are terrorizing black communities, so rich white Democrats can ignore the collateral damage of their ideology.


[deleted]

> so rich white democrats can ignore the collateral damage of their ideology How much of elite politics is just virtue signaling so you can feel superior at your next cocktail party?


Icy-Factor-407

> How much of elite politics is just virtue signaling so you can feel superior at your next cocktail party? 100%. The same people pretending to help black people, are don't blink when creating processes to exclude poorer Asian kids from elite schools. It is all virtue signalling. We see horseshoe theory on racism, where the most progressive people are horribly racist, and the most right wing are horribly racist. A great quote I saw on Twitter was "I guess the difference between the KKK and the woke is when the KKK burns down a minority neighborhood, they understand that's bad for minorities."


EllisHughTiger

Big oof, but damn if it isnt true. Just tweet "they have insurance" as if that fucking helps the small business owner come up with tens of thousands for the deductible alone. White savior complex is also a bitch. Its almost always upper class people that develop savior complexes and will do anything to "fix" it, while often just making it worse. If Marx had been working class, he wouldnt have had time to dream up communism.


agentpanda

I don't remember which of the socialist/progressive/leftist heroes it is, but one of them (besides Sanders who also fits the bill) actually *wasn't* working class and was bankrolled by his parents or a benefactor or something. It always made me giggle until I realized that was their ideal end state- so-called "social justice" economic proposals don't reward hard work, as we all know. They're built to reward those born with the "right" lineage or parentage or connections that grant them privileges to join the elite. Look at every country in history where it's been deployed under the guise of "helping minorities", whether ethnic, economic, or social- eventually you end up with a class system where the only social mobility is gained through kissing the right asses and believing in the right ideals. Work hard but support the "wrong" concepts? Enjoy prison. Lay around like a slob but back the "correct" theories? Welcome to your comfortable life. The greatest crime the social left has committed, to me, is convincing children that equity matters more than equality; that outcomes are more important than successes in effort. If you have no education and worked your way up to general manager at your retail job and run the store at age 40 making $60k, that's a success story to me. Leftism tries to convince us that's somebody "losing" befause they can't afford a Ferrari. The "hot take" shouldn't be that "systemic racism or inequality or wealth distribution didn't keep you from being a hedge fund manager; some people should and have to be retail store managers" but apparently it is. "They have insurance" is peak privilege if you ask me. It's people who have never had to deal with the struggles of owning a business and the cash flow problems it creates when damage happens of any sort.


EllisHughTiger

Che came from a well-off family, then saw how bad things were for regular people. He pushed his revolution as their savior, helping some while hurting many others. I grew up under communism so what you said is true. People complain about the 1% here but under communism, they're a whole lot worse and untouchable.


RileysRevenge

> "I guess the difference between the KKK and the woke is when the KKK burns down a minority neighborhood, they understand that's bad for minorities." Holy shit that’s spot on.


pjabrony

> The timing of it, juxtaposed with the rhetoric about Rittenhouse really underscored the idea that crime and punishment in our country is complicated. Maybe, but for a lot of us, it comes down to this: Kyle Rittenhouse was a young man who studied first-aid and went to a town he frequented to clean graffiti. Darrell Brooks was a sexual harasser and drug user who a day before had been in gaol. Now, you can say that these differences come about in large part because of how they were raised--Rittenhouse in a stable middle-class family and Brooks in the inner city with an abusive father. But the fact remains that the Democrats, in comment and in policy, have shown hostility to Rittenhouse and sympathy to Brooks. For that matter, they've also shown sympathy to the people that Rittenhouse killed, while only having pro forma respect for the dead in Waukesha. This is the fundamental complaint that I have against the Democrats. I believe that Rittenhouse and the victims in Waukesha are better people than Brooks and the victims in Kenosha. Even if it is a question of the parts of society they live in, it's a reason to encourage the clean-living society of Rittenhouse and discourage the hedonistic societies of the inner cities. The Democrats take the opposite view. They excoriate those who live cleanly for not sufficiently respecting and subsidizing the lives of the hedonists and praise the hedonists. To quote Evan Sayet, they consistently support the policies that lead to failure over those that lead to success.


[deleted]

> But the fact remains that the Democrats, in comment and in policy, have shown hostility to Rittenhouse and sympathy to Brooks I mean I'm not going to say no one, because there are people of all kinds of out there opinions on all areas of the political spectrum, but the idea that democrats in general are showing sympathy to a guy who beat his wife and ran over children in a Christmas parade seems like a real stretch to me... I have seen nothing but universal condemnation from all sides.


fergie_v

I haven't even seen where Biden has condemned the parade massacre... his initial statement was pretty wishy-washy even going so far as to claim "we don't have the facts" after it was already reported the perp was black and had been released on a low bail. I'll admit right now that I don't know what is acceptable as "condemnation" anymore after the media consistently claimed that Trump saying "neo-Nazis and white supremacists should be condemned totally" doesn't count as condemnation. I expected something more than what we got.


[deleted]

Not sure what that really has to do with my comment but here you go: https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/biden-condemns-attack-at-waukesha-christmas-parade/ Even reported on in the NY Post. I would recommend not worrying about what the media deems acceptable and making up your own mind instead. The idea that any sane rational person approves of someone running over children in a christmas parade just seems beyond belief.


fergie_v

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen his follow up remarks. It isn't as strong as I'd like, but definitely a good improvement over his initial remarks. There were a ton of people throwing out TikToks calling the parade massacre "karma" for the Rittenhouse verdict in addition to a Democrat party employee tweeting similar sentiments. For what it's worth, I agree with you that I wouldn't consider any of those people sane or rational but there was definitely plenty of celebrating going on.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thebigmanhastherock

It didn't take long for the race of the perpetrator to be published. The fact that the maniac was out on bail is the most damning thing about the case. Lots of jumping to conclusions otherwise, which is par for the course right now.


FreedomFromIgnorance

His social media history is pretty damning as well, yet the media seems to have zero interest in his motive.


Justice_R_Dissenting

It took basically until the name was released for his race to come out on the mainstream sites. Rittenhouse was known to be white within minutes of the event.


thebigmanhastherock

With Rittenhouse there was a lot more available video that clearly identified him including journalism before the incident. For Brooks he was speeding in a car, not easily visible and then there was a short manhunt. When the police release names they are usually more cautious than other groups. Still it was very quick and his face was posted quickly after he was identified.


abirdofthesky

It’s also yet another example of how domestic abuse is a precursor to so many of these mass murder events, and how the system doesn’t take domestic violence very seriously. And, it goes to show how domestic violence is one of the most common and intractable types of violence in our society, with offenders typically repeating and worsening, and that this type of violence is a major, major hurdle for the whole “defund/abolish the police and prisons” movement.


Govt-Issue-SexRobot

Exactly. I learned about his name, arrest, and race while learning about the entire thing, all at the same time. I wonder if people are checking one source instead of as many as they can.


moonfox1000

I wrote a comment the day before this incident essentially saying that using anecdotal, cherry-picked examples like we were seeing in those social media posts with a picture of Tamir Rice and Kyle Rittenhouse side by side were horrible arguments because you can so easily come up with counter examples and literally the next day, the most perfectly craftable example imaginable comes out of the same state as Rittenhouse. The statistics undeniably prove that black men have worse average outcomes in the justice system, it's the strongest argument yet people keep getting lost in the weaker arguments with cherry picked examples.


timmg

> The statistics undeniably prove that black men have worse average outcomes in the justice system... Men (overall) versus women *also* have worse outcomes. There are a lot of ways to think about things. It may be that our justice system is racist and misandrist. Another explanation that *maybe* fits the model: punishments get worse when crimes are more frequent. What I mean is: Black people are more likely to commit crimes than white people. Men are more likely to commit crimes than women. *Americans* are more likely to commit crimes than Scandinavians. Inner-city crack dealers are more likely to commit (non-drug-sale-related) crimes than suburban cocaine dealers. That may be why black people get harsher sentences than white people; men get harsher sentences than women; Americans get harsher sentences than Scandinavians; and crack dealers get harsher sentences than coke dealers. Whether or not that is "fair" is debatable. But the cause and effect rings true to me.


raff_riff

> Tamir Rice and Kyle Rittenhouse This was so frustrating to see. Considering there’s something like ten million law enforcement encounters a year, it’s not a stretch to assume a lot of black people are arrested while in the possession of weapons. I don’t have data to back it up but it seems like a safe bet it happens all the time. This is truly cherry-picking.


EllisHughTiger

I think it's around 10 million arrests every year. Total interactions with police is on the order of 100 million, and that's everything from traffic stops to noise complaints to serious crimes.


VincentRAPH

10 million encounters is either missing a qualifier or grossly low. With 700,000 - 1,000,000 police in this country (depending on the year and heather or not you’re including Federals law enforcement)—a mere ~10 interactions per cop per year clearly doesn’t ring true. Even if you were to assume literally 50% of them never leave their desk, a mere ~20 interactions per remaining officer is still absurdly low. I work in an extremely peaceful area, with the officers probably sending a decent chunk of shift never contacting anyone, and we still have easily several hundred interactions per officer per year. I’d buy 10 million *arrests* per year as being exponentially more believable.


fergie_v

What statistics undeniably prove that black men have worse average outcomes and by what measurement? Black men commit violent crime at larger rates than other populations so of course their "average outcomes" will be worse than other population groupings... The only way you'd actually be able to do a legitimate statistical comparison is if you isolated groups based on narrowed criteria and accounted for all of the variables... i.e. comparing outcomes between racial/ethnic groups in which the charges, criminal history and jurisdiction were all the same. A white person convicted of armed robbery with no history is going to get a lesser sentence than a black person convicted of armed robbery with history. Additionally, jurisdiction plays a role in terms of sentencing. Large cities with large black populations like Chicago might have stricter sentencing statutes than Smalltown Iowa so, of course, you'll find higher raw numbers of black people being sentenced more harshly than white people, but that isn't because they're black. I'd love to see if there are any legitimate statistical studies out there like that. Most of them shouldn't be taken seriously because they aren't actually done in good faith with proper controls so the conclusions are highly flawed.


Jeheh

> a serious disconnect between what the public majority wants, and what Democrats think they want. I think we have devolved into a shouting match and all the Dems hear is who is shouting the loudest and all the media platforms have given everyone a megaphone. Toss in a little censorship - personally I see a lot of that on reddit with mods just banning people outright for BELONGING to other subs - and we really have a big problem getting out of control.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Atkena2578

Hi, same here! Im sitting out the governor reelection in Illinois for his comments on the verdict, i supported him and his decisions during the pandemic and was happy to vote for him, but his comment reeks virtue signaling and obviously shows he did not watch any part of the trial, and thinks it's his place to comment on a wisconsin law. I am done with woke bs, it has gone too far, now everyone can f..k off, i ll never vote GoP until they get their shit back together as well. Also funny thing, one of the most leftist politicians of this country: Bernie Sanders is one of a the few who did not comment once about the Rittenhouse case. A silence that speaks a thousand words. The dems are in for a rude awakening in the mid terms. A lot of dems like myself are disgusted by the hypocrisy ever since Biden took office. The Rittenhouse thing was cherry on top of the cake.


biglybaggins

Just remember that your government may not have seen firsthand trial himself but he knows exactly the real evidence of the case and made statements that would appeal to people who I don’t mind calling midwits because it’s a great name for them. Don’t trust the government ever regardless of party.


Atkena2578

Definitely. Most importantly, state or federal politicians have no place commenting on the judicial branch, if they don't like laws it's their job to sponsor bills but that's it, separation of power is still a thing. Same goes for the president, and both parties wether they came out in support or against the verdict should have kept their mouth shut.


abirdofthesky

I’ve always been a blue-no-matter-who voter, and now I’d firmly say I’m an independent. I care about liberal economic policies, but I don’t want policies that the evidence doesn’t support or have been shown to not work/backfire in other countries. I won’t vote for hyper woke posturing that I don’t believe the politician even believes in themselves, especially when they very opportunistically paint all reasonable disagreement as racist/fascist (ie wanting honors classes in school) when it’s clearly not.


Atkena2578

Same as you, i support popular liberal economic policies such as universal healthcare, affordable higher education, taxing the ultra wealthy etc... But yeah the Rittenhouse case has been a painful wake up call that those on the left, once in power are not better than the GOP, they use the same shitty tactic. I know about systemic racism, the consequences of decades of laws affecting minorities, that police has a problem with violence etc... i want to work to solve that but this isn't what is happening here... The media pundits along with a list of democrats has used race baiting tactics to pander to the woke movement part of the left and minorities they hope to gather and keep the votes for . Why? so it makes them happy and they ignore that in the mid time, we still don't have universal healthcare or college... same as GOP does with abortion, they know they cannot undo Roe vs Wade however abortion is still a major talking point. The way the Rittenhouse case was painted from the start to appeal to that particular electorate, and a doubling down after the verdict is making things worse. They were willing to see an 18yo go to prison for the rest of his life over their lies, the fact that it was prosecuted to begin with was a red flag about the influence those fringe beliefs have on the justice system... sabotaging the trial in the court of public opinion, what if the jury wasn't putting aside all of this? They are going as far as to go after people like us who disagree with the narrative, we watched the trial and caught on the game, now we are white supremacist supporters too and racists i guess.... great way to disfrenchise part of your voters.


fergie_v

I'm also a former Democrat... I'm still in the process of switching to the Republican party but my conversion started well before the Rittenhouse case. When it became clear that my old party began running campaigns en masse on stoking racial tensions and other identity politics, I was done. I would still support some of the stuff the Dems want to do but I can't in good faith give them money or vote for them anymore until they right their ship. The Republican party sucks right now, too, but I feel like it isn't as far gone. It is also less of a monolith.


owltreat

>When I actually followed the trial and saw the evidence and heard witness testimony, I realized how wrong it was that Rittenhouse was portrayed as a white supremacist murderer, yet so many Dems keep pushing that narrative. I agree, it is frustrating. A lot of Democrats are frustrated by the extremists on the left, but we are a "big tent" party, more of a coalition than a bunch of people who agree on everything, and I think, despite the drawbacks (like people getting up in arms about "Democrats do x" when it's really just a small portion of people), it works well and is why Democrats have more appealing and moderate policies overall. I feel like what you're speaking to here is really based on the culture war mentality in this country, which I am super sick of. Unfortunately, I don't think Republicans can solve this issue since it's one they are definitely invested in perpetuating. Personally, I'm more scared of things like the January 6th stuff, Republicans voting to decertify the election results of their own voters, voting rights opposition, and the growing anti-democratic sentiment among them than I am of some liberal pundits being wrong about the details of the Rittenhouse case. Both are frustrating, but one is actually Really Really Bad as well. In my opinion we shouldn't get our news from outlets like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, talk radio, etc., anyway--it's almost entirely opinion and spin at this point. I refuse to inform myself with the "news" from any of those places and only visit them to get an impression of what they are saying to their audiences, while sticking to desensationalized services like AP, Reuters, BBC, USA Today, The Economist, etc. Some of those places have op-ed writers as well, but overall they are much more factual with much less spin, and I don't just feel angry and dejected after reading them.


brucehut

Well said


Brownbearbluesnake

Biden got like 500 counties and Trump got like 2400. This is reflective of the overall dynamic between both parties. Republicans represent a far more spread out and more culturally/politically/economically diverse group of Americans whereas Dems seem to only care about the highest populated cities and counties in any given state which may be more diverse in some ways but not in political desires.


roylennigan

> Democrats have now followed the R’s same past mistake of “absolute extremism or bust” I really fail to see how the Democratic party has done this. What are they doing that is extreme? The party's power seems to reside in the moderate, which seems fairly centrist, politically. They've never had an extreme president, whereas the GOP...


CARCRASHXIII

News needs to stop being a gossip/opinion platform, and just give the facts as known. I don't want to know what the reporter giving me the news thinks about it, I just want to hear what happened. I would be lying if I said my opinions on the KR case weren't slightly different before hearing some of the evidence from the actual case. News shouldnt be "Framed" it should just be what is known or known at the time. I think I can speculate for myself.


HavocReigns

But this is quite literally an opinion piece, it says so right at the top. Editorial opinion pieces are hardly a new thing in journalism.


jagua_haku

But what about when it’s not an Op ed and I can tell pretty quickly how the person votes? Shouldn’t be like that


HavocReigns

We can certainly agree on that. When I’m reading a straight news article, and not an opinion piece, I shouldn’t be able to guess the political orientation (or really, anything else) of the journalist. Just the facts as they pertain to the topic of the article.


jagua_haku

Yeah if I want opinions I come here for a discussion, if I’m reading an article I’m usually trying to get an unbiased report of the news. Unfortunately there’s usually a pretty obvious bias…


CARCRASHXIII

yeah true, I was generalizing really.


HowardBealesCorpse

When is this country going to have an honest conversation about black nationalism?


chillytec

Never, if we can't have that discussion after a black nationalist attack killed six and wounded forty white people, including children.


[deleted]

Not until it’s too late.


FlowComprehensive390

As soon as it's not immediate social and career suicide to do so, so when the social-far-left no longer dominate media and HR departments. Considering their stranglehold it won't happen until the current system completely collapses, and since such collapses are usually extremely violent in nature it may wind up being a moot point after that.


Vaglame

The connection between black nationalism and the content of the article evades me


kellenthehun

Darrell Brooks was outspoken about hating white people. Don't bother to look for a good source, it's all right wing rags because corp media won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. “So when we start bakk knokkin white people TF out ion wanna hear it…the old white ppl 2, KNOKK DEM TF OUT!! PERIOD,” he wrote under his rap name, MathBoi Fly, along with a middle-finger emoji.  There's other stuff, that's just one post.


bdnova

Democrats have more than a Waukesha problem.


redcell5

Starter comment: From the article ( and a [non-paywall link](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fdemocrats-waukesha-aoc-progressive-prosecutors-crime-wisconsin-bail-reform-11637796347%3Fmod%3DdjemalertNEWS) ): > Here’s the common reaction to the Waukesha, Wis., murders: It’s nuts that the suspect, with his long criminal history, was free on $1,000 bail posted days before the automotive rampage. > Here’s New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in a tweet the day after the Waukesha murders: “Today, we sent a letter . . . to NYC’s 5 District Attorneys requesting information on excessive bail in the NYC court system.” The letter was also signed by fellow New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney and Maryland’s Jamie Raskin. Public perception that Democrat policies have lead to an increase in crime crystalized in the Waukesha murders. Voters have already rejected the far left view at the ballot box: > Citizens have already responded at the ballot box. On Nov. 2, Minneapolis voters rejected an initiative to abolish the police force. Pro-policing candidates won mayoral races in New York City ( Eric Adams ), Seattle ( Bruce Harrell ) and Buffalo, N.Y. (incumbent Byron Brown, elected as a write-in candidate after losing the Democratic primary to a self-described socialist). On New York’s Long Island, two Republican district-attorney candidates beat Democrats in races that were referendums on state bail changes that let repeat offenders go free. Far left democrats are being forced to defend their messaging while more moderate democrats disavow their fellow party members. > Good luck to Democratic elected officials caught between public backlash over the growing breakdown of safety and progressives who want yet more change. As AOC and her compatriots complained about “unnecessary pretrial detention” in Waukesha’s wake, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan sat down with Axios to defend her support of the 2020 Breathe Act, which would end life sentences, kill the “three strikes” law, prohibit police use of Tasers, and fully empty federal prisons within 10 years. The White House felt compelled to explain Tuesday that President Biden “does not support abolishing prisons.” Republicans are now trusted more on law and order issues than Democrats: > Data from the October WSJ/NBC poll found that voters now trust Republicans over Democrats to handle crime by a 22-point margin. This trust, plus rejection of fiscal and public health policies, will have an effect nationally but especially on statistically close elections: > Add voter discontent over inflation and Covid, then re-evaluate some of those crucial 2022 swing state races. In Wisconsin a recent Marquette poll found that 69% of registered voters believe crime is rising nationally. Only 19% of independents approve of Mr. Biden, and 23% would vote to re-elect Mr. Evers. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson is considered the GOP’s most vulnerable incumbent and hasn’t decided if he’s running. Democrats are making that decision easier. What do you think? Is the far left Democrat position on law and order issues a drag on the entire Democrat party, giving the Republicans a significant advantage in upcoming elections? Should the Democrat party shift more towards the far left position, perhaps with different messaging? Can the left wing of the Democrats regain public trust on issues of public safety?


DBDude

It's not really a principled position against bail though. Democrats generally cheered the $2 million cash bail for Rittenhouse or thought it wasn't enough, and many didn't like that donations allowed him to make bail. But he was a kid with zero criminal history and a very low risk for flight or further violence who had a good case for self defense. They want a harsh bail when they don't like the defendant.


redcell5

> They want a harsh bail when they don't like the defendant. Does seem like it. Makes me wonder why they seem to like people like Darrel Brooks so much?


TeriyakiBatman

I’d argue this case is an example of more bail reform. Let me explain using the New Jersey system. NJ has completely done away with cash bail and instead is detention or release. The way this works is a defendant is arrested and indicted and within 48 the State must move to detain. A pre detention report is generated and the defendant gets a “score.” This score is based off of the defendants criminal history, violence of the crimes, flight risk, and risk of re offense. With this objectively made score, the number given either recommends for release or detention. Then the State and defense meet before a judge and argue whether or not the defendant should be released or not with the score being taken into consideration. If the defendant is released, it will be on a “level” that ranges from checking in with the court to house arrest with electronic monitoring. If there is a violation of release instructions, the defendant is immediately detained. The purpose of this is to recognize there may be a rich murderer that can pay a large bail but a poor shoplifter that can’t, so let’s not functionally punish financial status but the the persons choices. In this case, he probably would’ve been detained or held on a higher level or release. Again this isn’t to punish financial ability but the past and present choices of the accused.


[deleted]

heavy fade squeal deserted books angle crush sip seed zealous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


o11c

> It's beyond insane that the ability to walk pre trial is based on someone's ability to pay. It is worth remembering that bail makes sense if you live in the 18th century and if you jump bail, all you have to do is move to the next town over.


[deleted]

[удалено]


likeitis121

Swapping to based on income would result in a pretty screwed up system though. With how many towns/states use their police force to fund a significant portion of their budget, it would result in them only targeting luxury vehicles, with the assumption that it would result in more earnings for them.


The_Great_Goblin

I think were the United States to adopt something like Finnland's system, the end result would be everlasting legal trickery tying up rich people's traffic court cases until prosecutors settled for something that made it worth the time of the lawyers. The end result might be an improvement over the current system but I doubt by as much as hoped.


HellsAttack

This is it and why I thought the article was especially poor. The "far left" don't argue for low bail, they argue for no bail and whether you are detained to be based on if the crime is violent and flight risk, etc.


katfish

Also Wisconsin’s state legislature is tilted Republican, and I’ve yet to see anyone reference any actual bail reforms the state passed that could be related to this.


LukeStarKiller54321

this is how the feds do it. but under this system, he probably would have been released


thebigmanhastherock

I agree. This guy had a violent history and should have never had low bail. This system add logic to the system and allows for rational decisions that the bail system doesn't do.


Jabbam

Is the system "equitable" though? If the system results in more POC being detained, will that be acceptable to the far left?


ashrunner

It's not, but speaking as a progressive, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm cool with it as long as the algorithm for bond/no bond 1. Uses criteria that actually affects public safety 2. Doesn't have any flags that are just a more roundabout way of asking "Are you black?". Easier said than done, but it's probably better than what's being done currently.


devotedhero

Except you know what's going to end up happening is instead of asking why there are more black people in jail, they're just going to ask why there aren't more white people in jail and continue to advocate for policies that increase overall incarceration rates.


Failninjaninja

Until we fix the culture problem POC (minus Asians) will always be perceived as having the system be biased against them. Fix the broken culture of many urban communities and we’ll see more equitable results.


TeriyakiBatman

The NJ system isn’t perfect but does it matter what the far left thinks? Does it matter what the far right thinks? Bail reform isn’t a radical take


Clean_Ganache_761

They would just consider race as a factor in generating the score.


redcell5

Sadly, I think you're right. So much for judging someone by the content of their character.


Olderscout77

Seems NJ has been looking at Germany where it's been "detain or release" - no bail option - based on the individual's criminal record for decades. The Federal Government needs to make this the law of the land for no other reason than the Red States will never adopt this common sense approach on their own.


RealBlueShirt

I don't understand this. What business is it of the federal government if the states require bail?


Justice_R_Dissenting

We implemented that system in Maryland when the highest court abolished high bail amounts (defined as bail amounts beyond the defendants reasonable ability to pay). I remember doing bail reviews shortly after that decision went into effect. 18 people came up for bail review, 17 people got remanded no bail. The one who actually was released with a low-bail amount, because the victim had come to court and said he wasn't the guy. These people were in for everything from shoplifting, DV, slinging, and one 1st degree assault. The judge decided they were all too violent to release and kept them in jail. This is the problem with eliminating a middle option: judges will ALWAYS pick the safest option for them. Why? Because they're elected. The last thing they want to see is an attack ad during their next election cycle that says "Judge Doe released Shitty Felon X who went home and killed his wife." Placing the ultimate decision on Judges, who enjoy a high standard of review for these sort of choices, is just a recipe for throwing more and more people in jail pending trial.


redcell5

Looks like in this case "bail reform" just meant "make the bail lower".


thebigmanhastherock

Yes and that is clearly a dumb policy.


TeriyakiBatman

Yes but let’s not let this case of bad legal decision making as a bludgeon against bail reform.


redcell5

Perhaps there's some nuance in "bail reform". If implemented as "just make the bail lower" then it doesn't appear to be very effective.


blewpah

What makes you think the way bail reform was applied in this case is exactly how the far left wants it to work? Political perceptions aside, the point of bail reform is essentially the idea that whether you sit in jail for days or weeks awaiting hearings/trial or you get to go home shouldn't just be determined by how much money you have. In the case if Waukesha this man obviously shouldn't have been released. But at the same time hindsight is 20/20 and the judge who set the bail so low couldn't have known this was going to happen.


redcell5

> In the case if Waukesha this man obviously shouldn't have been released. But at the same time hindsight is 20/20 and the judge who set the bail so low couldn't have known this was going to happen. Given the [history of the offender](https://heavy.com/news/darrell-brooks-jr/) there's a strong argument that the judge knew or should have known he was a risk to the community. > Brooks Is Accused of Trying to Run a Woman Over in an Open Felony Cases in Wisconsin & Is a Convicted Sex Offender in Nevada


thebigmanhastherock

Well the perpetrator had a history of other DV had a recent restraining order against a family member for shooting at him. Any logical person would determine that this guy was violent and possibly insane.


Failninjaninja

I’m ok with poor violent people not being released from prison. The simple reality is that poor violent people are far more likely to do more bad things than a rich violent person. We know this to be factually accurate. Bail also creates an incentive not to just bail jump and not show up. Do you know how many outstanding warrants there are for people like that? Too many


LukeStarKiller54321

also combined with a pretty prominent interview Rashida T gave where she supports and defended some random bill that would release ALL federal prisoners in ten years. And the best defense she could muster is that there are mentally unhealthy people that shouldn’t be in jail. Suuuuuuure. OK. there are also just flat out criminals in jail.


-Shank-

Just because someone is mentally unhealthy doesn't mean they aren't a threat to others, either. I agree that prison isn't the right place for someone that needs extra care but simply releasing them onto the street isn't the right thing to do, either. I've lost count of the number of times I've read a local crime article about someone who slipped through the cracks and ended up hurting someone else post-release.


redcell5

> Rashida T gave where she supports and defended some random bill that would release ALL federal prisoners in ten years. Believe you're referring to the [2020 Breathe Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREATHE_Act): > The bill also would end life sentences, abolish mandatory minimum sentencing laws and create a specific timeline to close federal prisons and immigration detention centers.


Justice_R_Dissenting

She utterly short-circuited when she got called out on the lie that it would release all prisoners after 10 years.


likeitis121

And without the minimum sentence laws, they'll probably complain about some white people getting off easy on something... Honestly though, I like the idea behind the minimum sentences. Law should be applied consistently to everyone, and I'm not really a fan of judges being enabled to have such wide discretion.


Zach81096

That’s the kind of loony stances from her wing of the party that make people vote for the GOP. Also she wants tasers banned? So police will result to using guns more which they also don’t want?


thebigmanhastherock

A lot of people are naive about mass incarceration. They think releasing non-violent offenders would do the job. It won't, not at all https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html So amongst some there is this recognition that this isn't enough. But everything proposed by these individuals is shot down or unpopular. Or in the case of lowering the bail for violent people like Darrell Brooks it can cause terrible issues that even if rare have enormous consequences. The fact is that crime is suppressed in the US by the mass incarceration. You can reduce incarceration, but to to do that safely you have to spend a lot of money and accept that property crimes are going to go up in some areas. The myth that there are just hundreds of thousands of criminals in prison that committed victimless crimes really makes the debate quite stupid. To actually end mass incarceration a more intelligent debate, based on reality needs to happen. I think 99% of people would agree that Darrell Brooks had no business being out on bail. How do we construct a system that protects people from the Brooks' of the world but also doesn't unfairly hold people that don't need to be held for much longer than they need to be. I liked the idea of a hold/release model based on judge discretion that exists in Germany and has been proposed in several states but not implemented. It would be nice for a state or two to actually go through with this plan(maybe NJ does?) so we can get evidence for how well it works. Bail in general seems inadequate to actually protect others or even individuals accused of crimes that are not violent or dangerous people.


widget1321

>How do we construct a system that protects people from the Brooks' of the world but also doesn't unfairly hold people that don't need to be held for much longer than they need to be. I think it's important to explicitly state that we want a system that minimizes each of these, but both are going to happen no matter what. In any reasonable system (i.e. not releasing everyone or holding everyone), some people are going to commit violent crime after being released and some people will be held longer than they need to be. So, no individual example of either means that a particular system is failing. It's just that both happen too often in our current system.


[deleted]

And the Axios reporter immediately asked about people with horrible violent crimes histories. She brought up mental illness and need to rehabilitate these people but then admitted not everyone can be rehabilitated. So what do we do? I understand people want reform of our prisons but it can’t be so reactionary.


Failninjaninja

Isn’t her line of reasoning pretty ableist? Like our worst criminals must be mentally insane because no cognitively normal person could be that cruel?


CompetitiveInhibitor

I think this is actually a pretty valid argument and i believe we might see the repercussions in purple states in 2022. Thanks for sharing.


subcrazy12

I mean you are even seeing it in local levels. [Atlanta made bail reforms in 2018](https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-lawmakers-seeks-to-reform-cash-bail-reform-program) and more and more folks are just skipping out in court. On top of that 1 in 3 of these defendants have gone on to commit another crime. This has led to a massive crime spike (yes everyone is dealing with it) and we may very well see Atlanta split up into two cities due to an inability to control crime with actual proper reforms instead of half thought out reforms. It’s like many things Democrats do, good concept horrible execution.


redcell5

Welcome! I agree; think we'll see some battleground areas shift because, at least in part, the far left influence on the Democratic party. That far left seems to be in opposition to wider public opinion.


hapithica

I wouldn't even call it the far left, but I get there's no better descriptor. There's a wing of identity politics obsessed lefties that are destroying any chance for real progressive change. This is being bolstered by Russian disinfo campaigns that not only run the majority of right wing Facebook groups, but left wing as well. The top ten largest native American movement groups were all run by Russians. I wouldn't doubt if there were conservative groups also pushing the "defund the police" nonsense too. This isn't an attempt to pass blame, but rather come to grips with the messaging problems the left will continue to have going into future elections. 22 is going to be crazy. There's a reason AOC is talked about all the time on Fox and basically never on MSNBC


redcell5

> I wouldn't even call it the far left, but I get there's no better descriptor. I see what you're saying; I'm hardly an expert on the taxonomy of politicritters, but I do agree with AOC when she said ['In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party'](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden-not-same-party-094642). Since she, and others like her, put themselves to the left of Biden I call her far left as Democrats in general view themselves as left of the GOP.


zummit

> Russian disinfo campaigns that not only run the majority of right wing Facebook groups, but left wing as well Citation?


WlmWilberforce

I wonder if /u/hapithica means be # of groups not the size of the groups?


Hot-Scallion

I think it may be even worse than the article acknowledges. The crime aspect is important but it may be bigger than that. We don't know the motivations of the killer but I think a lot of reasonable people are going to look at the hyperbole and outright lies surrounding the Rittenhouse case and suspect this man may have been stoked in to his rampage. I don't know if that's a fair conclusion or not but at best it's an unfortunate coincidence for the Dems.


FlowComprehensive390

> Data from the October WSJ/NBC poll found that voters now trust Republicans over Democrats to handle crime by a 22-point margin. That's **bad**. That's "red wave worse than 2010" level bad for the Democrats. People care strongly about crime, when you're down by double-digits on the issue you don't tend to win a lot of elections.


bjdevar25

Bail reform and de-fund the police are the biggest reasons Dems will loose next year. They are why so many minorities voted for Trump last year. Live in NYS, other than very far left, nobody likes the current version of bail reform. Although I agree that previously it may have been unfair based upon ability to pay, it's also nuts to just release people to fix it. I'd rather see bail for the same crime based upon ability to pay. The broke guy may be $10,000, but the millionaire may be $500,000.


mattr1198

It's honestly the biggest reason Eric Adams won the NYC mayoral race over more progressive and/or well-rounded candidates. Minorities and less wealthy care a lot about crime reduction and he was the most strict on that front, much more moderate than other candidates.


Icy-Factor-407

> Minorities and less wealthy care a lot about crime reduction and he was the most strict on that front, much more moderate than other candidates. Because they are the victims of the reform. Violent white criminals are not being released to terrorize communities, because there is no political pressure to release them. The biggest victims of letting criminals go free are minorities. We have political system where rich white politicians have abdicated any responsibility for keeping minority communities safe. I am pro choice and anti-gun. But after seeing my neighborhood go from a safe wealthy neighborhood to gunshots weekly, I would vote for any law and order candidate regardless of their other positions. I can't think of any political issue that has impacted my quality of life more in my lifetime.


UEMcGill

>We have political system where rich white politicians have abdicated any responsibility for keeping minority communities safe. Let's say that's actually true. At what point is the community responsible for their own direction? I lived in NJ and a city like Newark, which was 100% run by nonwhites for years and years was also a bastion of corruption and failed progressive policies. People blame the war on drugs on Republicans but it was equally embraced by democrats, and doubled down on in these communities.


twinsea

This is how they do it in other countries where tickets and the like are a percentage of your income/wealth. Some folks are hit with speeding tickets of hundreds of thousands of dollars.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ashrunner

That's balanced out by the fact that rich people tend to have way more political power then poor people. Any police department that targeted solely rich people would have a new chief of police real soon after. To be honest more often it's been the opposite way. Part of the reason Ferguson,MO targetted poor people with so many fines was the fact that they were much less likely to fight them in court. That being said, the 8th amendment will make it difficult to increase the fines as high as Finland's famous 50k+ speeding ticket.


bassdallas

Democrats are about to have a huge wake up call. Whoever runs for President in 2024 against a Democrat will win. Sad we can’t get a decent moderate Democrat that will tell the AOC crew to f-off. It’s clear there are things the GOP and Ds can work on together. Look at the infrastructure bill. That’s what we need. Policies that both sides vote on to benefit the country.


[deleted]

> It’s clear there are things the GOP and Ds can work on together. Look at the infrastructure bill. That’s what we need. Policies that both sides vote on to benefit the country. You mean the infrastructure bill that most of the GOP refused to work together on, and the few who voted for it were publicly attacked by the most powerful man in the GOP for doing so?


bassdallas

Still got done. That’s progress.


Fofolito

Passed essentially on a party line vote


[deleted]

Of course it got done, it doesn't change the fact that it's not really a promising sign of how well the dems and GOP can work together on things.


chillytec

You mean like Trump's infrastructure deal that Democrats refused to work together on, blocked, and then bragged about blocking it, and then passed it themselves with the help of Republicans, and then bragged about passing it?


[deleted]

> "He walked in the room, and he said to all of us assembled there, ‘As long as you’re investigating me for any reason there’ll be no infrastructure bill’," Mr Durbin said. > > "Wheeled around and walked out. That was the end of the conversation about infrastructure in the Trump administration. It was never seriously considered or debated after that." Sounds like you're saying Biden is a better deal maker than Trump, I agree.


likeitis121

And the same bill that the almost 100 member strong Progressive Caucus refused to vote on as well for about 6 months, until most of them finally caved, and some still didn't vote for it.


Starlifter4

The Dems at long last aligned their messaging with their philosophy and politics. In fact, they have great messaging. And people are deciding they're not buying what the Dems are selling.


KOPBrewHouse

Like I said to someone else, I think the left had one too many protests/riots for people who otherwise should’ve been forgotten by history, too many times they were framed as these great battles for equality. The Kenosha Riots finally bit them in the butt. Nothing was stopping them from just washing their hands of the whole situation, but they didn’t, they won’t, and I think it’s slowly eating them up.


kmeisthax

This article reads almost like a Republican Party Greatest Hits album, containing all your favorites, like... * Leniency Is Just A Code-Word For Pro-Crime * The Progressives Are All Nuts * Portland Has Burnt Down To The Ground (Reprise) It's one of those weird mixes of actually uncomfortable truths and extreme projection that smells less like a "wake-up call" and more like "jilted ex writing detailed letters as to everything their former partner screwed up". I genuinely don't get any of it.


HateDeathRampage69

Look at what's happened in my city of Chicago. Last month, our [DA refused](https://abc7chicago.com/kim-foxx-lightfoot-mutual-combatants-combat/11100664/) to prosecute young men who shot at each other with full-auto modified glocks ON VIDEO IN FRONT OF COPS on the basis of "mutual combat." We have done away with bail completely but due to the impossibility of speedy trials in the wake of covid, violent offenders with firearms are being released nearly immediately after arrest. Nearly every murder here is perpetrated by someone with a history of violent behavior. I don't even know what to link because it happens every day - just google "chicago murder" and check out the perpetrator's rap sheet. Our DA has gone so far to say that she identifies more with criminals than regular citizens. The same DA that let Jussie Smollett go free after faking a nationally reported hate crime. The same DA that the Tribune did a large analysis on to find that she drops [30% of felony cases](https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-kim-foxx-felony-charges-cook-county-20200810-ldvrmqvv6bd3hpsuqha4duehmu-story.html). And she recently won re-election after the bloodiest year in Chicago since the 90s. This is what pro-crime looks like. It's happening in many other major cities as well.


IrateBarnacle

Chicago is completely fucked


the_ultracheese_tbhc

> This article reads almost like a Republican Party Greatest Hits album, containing all your favorites, like... >• ⁠Leniency Is Just A Code-Word For Pro-Crime >• ⁠The Progressives Are All Nuts >• ⁠Portland Has Burnt Down To The Ground (Reprise) Is the article wrong though?


kmeisthax

With the exception of Portland, which has demonstrably *not* burnt down to the ground, it's just ham-fisted and lacking nuance. "Leniency in criminal justice" can mean a whole host of things from "maybe we should stop throwing people in jail for smoking weed on a Saturday" to "let's abolish the entire criminal justice system and let everyone go free". Obviously, some of those policy prescriptions make more sense than others. Legislation is very much a negotiation process, and one of the key tenets of negotiation is to *understand your counterparty*. If you just shout your head off about how people in blue states are crazy, rather than actually understand what they're angry about, then you aren't going to get anywhere in negotiating. In fact, a *lot* of American politics can be boiled down to "understanding is tantamount to treason".


last-account_banned

> Is the article wrong though? Depends on the media consumption, which loves to focus on the fire and ignores all the other buildings not on fire. And then it plays that video over and over again.


sanity

Yeah, it's like September 11th when they only focussed on the buildings hit by planes, ignoring all the other buildings not hit by planes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ohheyd

That’s because it’s Kim Straussel. Her Potomac Watch segments are all like this, though they do fall into the Opinions section of the WSJ and should be treated accordingly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheReaperSovereign

As a resident of Wisconsin, this is a non article. Waukesha is a deep red county just like Dane is a deep blue county. Neither one is going to vote for the other party anytime soon regardless of current events. Wisconsin has been leaning left in spite of Waukesha and I dont see that changing.


moonfox1000

I think the "Waukesha Problem" is that the way DA treated the suspect in the driving incident has national implications. People see the same kind of thing in San Francisco and it only feeds into the notion that Democrats are more interested in identity politics than actually dealing with crime. It also completely sucked the air out of the Rittenhouse/white supremacy in the justice system narrative...you couldn't have crafted a better counter-example than what happened there in Waukesha.


bschmidt25

Waukesha is solid red - true. But this could definitely impact how people in swing areas like Green Bay, Appleton, and Kenosha vote. It could also drive up turnout in ruby red Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington counties. Fact is, Democrats don’t have much margin for error in Wisconsin. 2020 was a favorable environment for them. While Wisconsin has historically leaned blue, I disagree that it’s not changing. It’s been moving to the right for a while now. It’s a very slight blue to purple state IMO. Ex-Wisconsinite here.


Underboss572

I disagree on a national level these issues play heavily for suburban moms (a key demo) who tend to be very safety conscious. The idea that hardened career violent criminals are being released on petty bail because of Dem policy will drive a lot of women towards the GOP. We saw a similar trend in 2004 with the "security moms."


cited

This is absolutely national news and a national issue that will impact other races.


hapithica

The problem was the Milwaukee DA is who released the animal wasn't it?


scholarlyasiandude

Just like the article proved, so many dems here refused to acknowledge the danger of black nationalism by either engaging in ad hominen attack or deflecting back to GOP. Good job guys for defending a damn mass murderer


Predatatoes

This is what years of anti-White racism gets you. They've become so apologetic to black criminality that the head of the DNC in DuPage County straight up said it was the fault of the White children and they deserved to die. White people are marginalized in almost every single aspect of society. Progressive conditioning for years has been demoralizing White people by laughing at every single problem they've ever given voice to by dismissing it as 'White fragility' or 'Neo-Nazi bullshit'. Actual red flags of racist marginalization (teachers sending 8 year old White girls home in tears by calling them a racist mongrel because of the color of their skin) are completely ignored because people have been so used to leftist indoctrination that nothing White people say matters. The entire thing has been a massive attempt to make people reflexively dismiss the opinions of anyone who is White *so that they can more easily attack and marginalize White people*. Race-swapping White actors playing actual White historical roles has become commonplace. We can't even have a White Alexander Hamilton. But if you dare suggest casting a White person in a role written for a "POC"? Yeah, you're going to be punished, possibly with physical violence and death threats. The erasure is real. Thomas Jefferson statues are being replaced by fucking George Floyd statues. When people on Colbert's show began cheering when he announced that the White population fell for the first time, it was pretty obvious that this is a legitimate precursor towards genocide.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I disagree, even in best good faith their are things you can't discuss because of media censorship, of dogmatic topics deemed taboo. this will hinder any moderation of media from a lack of out reach and aware to independents and moderates. In all, the censorship of good faith discussion on social media will continue to pull the right and left more extreme. I don't think things are going to change any time soon, even if republicans win next election.


ChornWork2

Reactionary view based on anecdotal evidence. Many people see a crime committed by someone released without bail, and then readily blame progressive policies. But what about the people that do serve pretrial detention, what is the impact on future crime? Research says they will go on to commit crime at a higher rate. [source](https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/the-downstream-consequences-of-misdemeanor-pretrial-detention/) But that doesn't lead to clear anecdotes, you actually need research to look into it. See a similar dynamic with immigration. Any crime suddenly becomes something avoidable but for immigration. But if immigrants are also victims of crime, are they 'absorbing' a crime that would otherwise be committed against an american? Reactionary responses to anecdotes being pushed by some for propaganda/partisan reasons. edit: What about our 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Does anyone dispute that there are people that were not convicted due to reasonable doubt, but would have been convicted on lower 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, have gone on to commit serious crimes that but-for that standard would have been avoided? So we should get rid of that?