ADVERTISEMENT

Chris Cillizza: This is how badly "Defund the Police" has hurt Democrats

FAUlty Gator

HR Legend
Oct 27, 2017
37,950
47,286
113
Deciding what makes the final cut in a State of the Union speech is an agonizing process. Interest groups lobby the White House for a mere mention of their pet cause, knowing that the speech will almost certainly be the most watched political address of the year.

And so, what makes it into these speeches is rightly understood as major priorities for a president and his administration.
Which brings me to Tuesday night and President Joe Biden's State of the Union speech. And to these lines in particular:
"We should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. It's to fund the police. Fund them. Fund them. Fund them with resources and training."

It was simultaneously one of Biden's biggest applause lines of the night (lots of Republicans gave him a standing ovation) and a candid recognition from the President of how much political damage calls from within his party to defund the police have actually caused.

It all began in Minneapolis in the summer of 2020, when footage of George Floyd dying at the hands of police officers became public, leading to protests around the country. (Derek Chauvin, one of the officers, was convicted on all three charges against him in April 2021.)


Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council appeared at an event in June 2020 in which they pledged that they would work to dismantle the police force in the city. They did so on a stage that featured large cutout letters spelling out "Defund Police."

"We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe," Lisa Bender, the city council president at the time, told CNN then.

Liberals in Congress picked up that call, led by the members of the "Squad:" Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
"It is not crazy for Black and brown communities to want what White people have already given themselves and that is funding your schools more than you fund criminalizing your own kids," said Ocasio-Cortez of the "defund" movement in June 2020.

Tweeted Omar around the same time: "The 'defund the police' movement, is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services. Let's be clear, the people who now oppose this, have always opposed calls for systematic change."

The problem? The notion of defunding the police simply was not popular among much of the public. A ballot measure that would have fundamentally restructured the police department in Minneapolis was easily defeated last November. And Republicans running for office began to seize on Democratic calls for defunding the police as evidence that the other party was deeply out of step most Americans.

Calls for defunding the police also dovetailed with rising crime rates around the country, which only made the attack by Republicans more potent.

Biden's decision to directly address the issue -- and to urge funding for police departments -- speaks to how politically damaging he believes the issue is for his side. In urging funding for police departments in such a public forum, Biden is clearly hoping that rank-and-file Democrats follow his lead in advance of the 2022 elections.
The early returns on that hope were not promising, however.

"With all due respect, Mr. President. You didn't mention saving Black lives once in this speech," tweeted Missouri Democratic Rep. Cori Bush following Biden's address. "All our country has done is given more funding to police. The result? 2021 set a record for fatal police shootings. Defund the police. Invest in our communities."
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkssox1
Their idea was a good one, they just chose a horrible term to describe it. It really is a shame.
Says the white guy who lives in an extremely safe neighborhood.

But I agree, reimagine the police would’ve worked. But when you take slogans from rioters you get what you get.
 
Says the white guy who lives in an extremely safe neighborhood.

But I agree, reimagine the police would’ve worked. But when you take slogans from rioters you get what you get.
I live in an extremely dangerous neighborhood. The slogan didn’t originate with rioters. If you’re going to go down the, “says the white guy who lives in an extremely safe neighborhood,” road, don’t follow it with (on-brand, I’ll give you that) full-blown dumb.

It was always and remains about reinvesting in the community in ways other than more policing. The “slogan” is in large part “bad” because RW media chose to (conveniently) redefine it. But that would be true of whatever words were used to represent the concept.

It’s really wild how unable people are to understand things. The safe neighborhoods are safe in part due to all of the non-policing investments made into them—many funded by the tax base in other neighborhoods, mind you. Yet when the concept is attempting to be applied to those neighborhoods and communities of disinvestment, suddenly it’s some crazy idea.
 
I live in an extremely dangerous neighborhood. The slogan didn’t originate with rioters. If you’re going to go down the, “says the white guy who lives in an extremely safe neighborhood,” road, don’t follow it with (on-brand, I’ll give you that) full-blown dumb.

It was always and remains about reinvesting in the community in ways other than more policing. The “slogan” is in large part “bad” because RW media chose to (conveniently) redefine it. But that would be true of whatever words were used to represent the concept.

It’s really wild how unable people are to understand things. The safe neighborhoods are safe in part due to all of the non-policing investments made into them—many funded by the tax base in other neighborhoods, mind you. Yet when the concept is attempting to be applied to those neighborhoods and communities of disinvestment, suddenly it’s some crazy idea.
Okay, dick lick. I agree in principle there are some common sense restructuring that would be good for society as a whole, but you can't honestly defend the term "de-fund the police" as simply being a...I don't know...innocuous misnomer? Lol. Given the time frame of when this "de-fund the police" movement was first presented, it was unquestionably in response to the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd fiasco, in which the police department was being viewed as the enemy of the people by many on the left.

In short, "de-fund the police" was a knee-jerk reaction to the cultural upheaval of the time. Regardless of its merits--of which there are many I agree with in principle--the messaging was very poor. And the messaging only further fanned the flames of animosity toward policing in America; the fact the right-wing media turned it into a boogeyman and that there are ideas within the movement worthy of consideration and implementation are beside the point.

Lol at me, brah. I've got @Herkmeister lined up ready to violate that "wet Rudy booty." Come at me, mutha f#cker.
 
I live in an extremely dangerous neighborhood. The slogan didn’t originate with rioters. If you’re going to go down the, “says the white guy who lives in an extremely safe neighborhood,” road, don’t follow it with (on-brand, I’ll give you that) full-blown dumb.

It was always and remains about reinvesting in the community in ways other than more policing. The “slogan” is in large part “bad” because RW media chose to (conveniently) redefine it. But that would be true of whatever words were used to represent the concept.

It’s really wild how unable people are to understand things. The safe neighborhoods are safe in part due to all of the non-policing investments made into them—many funded by the tax base in other neighborhoods, mind you. Yet when the concept is attempting to be applied to those neighborhoods and communities of disinvestment, suddenly it’s some crazy idea.
We have several posters on here alone who say ACAB (All cops are bad). There's no spinning that. It's what they and millions of others believe. Every time you, Obama and others try to re-define what they mean by "Defund the police", Cori Bush, AOC, Keith Ellison and the rest have to come out and correct you. After years now of being able to "re-word" their phrase, they refuse to do so. They keep saying it because they keep meaning it. Hell, Cori Bush tweeted it again last night. Please stop blaming the shit on RW media. It's incredibly dishonest and lazy.

Why is it you think the people who say and believe "All Cops Are Bad" don't really want to "Defund the police"?

 
We have several posters on here alone who say ACAB (All cops are bad). There's no spinning that. It's what they and millions of others believe. Every time you, Obama and others try to re-define what they mean by "Defund the police", Cori Bush, AOC, Keith Ellison and the rest have to come out and correct you. After years now of being able to "re-word" their phrase, they refuse to do so. They keep saying it because they keep meaning it. Hell, Cori Bush tweeted it again last night. Please stop blaming the shit on RW media. It's incredibly dishonest and lazy.

Why is it you think the people who say and believe "All Cops Are Bad" don't really want to "Defund the police"?

Not all cops are bad, many are worthless though. That said, some are scum , as with any job...
 
We have several posters on here alone who say ACAB (All cops are bad). There's no spinning that. It's what they and millions of others believe. Every time you, Obama and others try to re-define what they mean by "Defund the police", Cori Bush, AOC, Keith Ellison and the rest have to come out and correct you. After years now of being able to "re-word" their phrase, they refuse to do so. They keep saying it because they keep meaning it. Hell, Cori Bush tweeted it again last night. Please stop blaming the shit on RW media. It's incredibly dishonest and lazy.

Why is it you think the people who say and believe "All Cops Are Bad" don't really want to "Defund the police"?

Fixate on the extreme voices, which of course Twitter amplifies. Stay off Twitter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Fixate on the extreme voices, which of course Twitter amplifies. Stay off Twitter.
Also, some of
We have several posters on here alone who say ACAB (All cops are bad). There's no spinning that. It's what they and millions of others believe. Every time you, Obama and others try to re-define what they mean by "Defund the police", Cori Bush, AOC, Keith Ellison and the rest have to come out and correct you. After years now of being able to "re-word" their phrase, they refuse to do so. They keep saying it because they keep meaning it. Hell, Cori Bush tweeted it again last night. Please stop blaming the shit on RW media. It's incredibly dishonest and lazy.

Why is it you think the people who say and believe "All Cops Are Bad" don't really want to "Defund the police"?

some of those acab posts are trollings
 
Okay, dick lick. I agree in principle there are some common sense restructuring that would be good for society as a whole, but you can't honestly defend the term "de-fund the police" as simply being a...I don't know...innocuous misnomer? Lol. Given the time frame of when this "de-fund the police" movement was first presented, it was unquestionably in response to the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd fiasco, in which the police department was being viewed as the enemy of the people by many on the left.

In short, "de-fund the police" was a knee-jerk reaction to the cultural upheaval of the time. Regardless of its merits--of which there are many I agree with in principle--the messaging was very poor. And the messaging only further fanned the flames of animosity toward policing in America; the fact the right-wing media turned it into a boogeyman and that there are ideas within the movement worthy of consideration and implementation are beside the point.

Lol at me, brah. I've got @Herkmeister lined up ready to violate that "wet Rudy booty." Come at me, mutha f#cker.
Nope. Defund the police is a term from long before those incidents.

Not saying it was ideal for mass consumption, the masses being what they are. But it was misrepresented from the jump. Why? Because we don’t want to talk about the real shit. We want to talk about slogans.

Fuçk off, fathead.
 
Nope. Defund the police is a term from long before those incidents.

Not saying it was ideal for mass consumption, the masses being what they are. But it was misrepresented from the jump. Why? Because we don’t want to talk about the real shit. We want to talk about slogans.

Fuçk off, fathead.
Hey, fart-knocking, scrotum-sucking desecration:

There’s a reason the term became popularized when it did. Don’t be cheeky with me, or I’m gonna have to bend you over my knee and make you my son.
Whether twenty months or twenty years ago, the term “de-fund” has a negative connotation regardless of the best efforts from the right to distort, hyperbolize, and insert heads in rectums. It also became a rallying cry for the mental midgets on the left with “f#ck the po po” sensibilities, since we’re on the subject of those inspired by cute slogans and taglines.

Language matters.

Suck a Chis 💣!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jan Itor
Fixate on the extreme voices, which of course Twitter amplifies. Stay off Twitter.
Here we are a day after the SOTU mostly talking about Bobert and MTG. Right?

You're here trying to convince us that everyone who differs from you on this topic are the biproduct of the RW media. I would bet that most of the people who take issue with this, have nothing to do with RW media. If anything it was the mainstream and LW media outlets blasting that stuff full throttle in the aftermath of George Floyd, and the consumers of it were just flatly turned off by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhiteSoxClone
Hey, fart-knocking, scrotum-sucking desecration:

There’s a reason the term became popularized when it did. Don’t be cheeky with me, or I’m gonna have to bend you over my knee and make you my son.
Whether twenty months or twenty years ago, the term “de-fund” has a negative connotation regardless of the best efforts from the right to distort, hyperbolize, and insert heads in rectums. It also became a rallying cry for the mental midgets on the left with “f#ck the po po” sensibilities, since we’re on the subject of those inspired by cute slogans and taglines.

Language matters.

Suck a Chis 💣!
I’m a brand strategist/designer, cockmunch. We’re in agreement on all of this. All I’m saying is the concept nor the phrase-cum-slogan originated with Floyd or Ferguson, and RW media simply jumped on it as expected. Nothing more.

Are there some on the far left proposing abolishment? Sure, of course there are. Hell, it used to be something hardcore libertarians also liked. Some still might, who knows. But defunding the police was and is predominantly a reallocation of resources concept.

Now fùck off. I have work to do.
 
I live in an extremely dangerous neighborhood. The slogan didn’t originate with rioters. If you’re going to go down the, “says the white guy who lives in an extremely safe neighborhood,” road, don’t follow it with (on-brand, I’ll give you that) full-blown dumb.

It was always and remains about reinvesting in the community in ways other than more policing. The “slogan” is in large part “bad” because RW media chose to (conveniently) redefine it. But that would be true of whatever words were used to represent the concept.

It’s really wild how unable people are to understand things. The safe neighborhoods are safe in part due to all of the non-policing investments made into them—many funded by the tax base in other neighborhoods, mind you. Yet when the concept is attempting to be applied to those neighborhoods and communities of disinvestment, suddenly it’s some crazy idea.
What is the name of your “extremely dangerous neighborhood”?
 
A political mistake, like “read my lips”.

No big deal IMO. November was going to be ugly anyway for them.
 
I pointed out the hypocrisy of your post.

No you didn't. Pointing out Democratic slogans says NOTHING about the statement that republicans are only good at slogans. And even less about the person who posted it.

Quit being a moran every second of the day.
 
No you didn't. Pointing out Democratic slogans says NOTHING about the statement that republicans are only good at slogans. And even less about the person who posted it.

Quit being a moran every second of the day.
Neither party is good at anything but slogans. They've built an entire infrastructure from the ground up around saying lots and doing nothing.
 
Okay, dick lick. I agree in principle there are some common sense restructuring that would be good for society as a whole, but you can't honestly defend the term "de-fund the police" as simply being a...I don't know...innocuous misnomer? Lol. Given the time frame of when this "de-fund the police" movement was first presented, it was unquestionably in response to the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd fiasco, in which the police department was being viewed as the enemy of the people by many on the left.

In short, "de-fund the police" was a knee-jerk reaction to the cultural upheaval of the time. Regardless of its merits--of which there are many I agree with in principle--the messaging was very poor. And the messaging only further fanned the flames of animosity toward policing in America; the fact the right-wing media turned it into a boogeyman and that there are ideas within the movement worthy of consideration and implementation are beside the point.

Lol at me, brah. I've got @Herkmeister lined up ready to violate that "wet Rudy booty." Come at me, mutha f#cker.
It's true.
 
ADVERTISEMENT