Truck Drivers Say They Won’t Deliver To Cities with Defunded Police Departments

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I agree.

I'm wondering if they realize how much they sound like socialists wanting nanny-state to keep them safe even as the govt ingrains more and more "protections" that allow the police to violate everyone's rights.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in some folks.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Yes, the people breaking laws are the problem!

That's what this is all about.
People who break the laws, even if they wear a badge, should be held accountable.

This has gone too far because year after year the justice system protects themselves by giving more and more immunity to their LE departments.

a reply to: Identified

Thomas Jefferson: Hello Colonists, here's your Declaration of Independence.
Colonists: Where's my damn Guarantee?
Ben Franklin: Well, we can't guarantee it's going to be all sunshine and lollypops anytime in the foreseeable future but we don't think the status quo is particularly brilliant.
Colonists: Nah, I'll keep bowing down to the King then because I need a guarantee.

You meant that as sarcastic, but that's pretty much what happened.

The colonists didn't all wake up one morning and decide "Hey! I don't like the King! Let's overthrow him and do it better!" The process leading up to the American Revolution was filled with the Colonists doing everything they could to appease the King. They wrote letters, visited him across a wide ocean, protested, begged, pleaded, reasoned... and even after the Revolution broke out, quite a few still didn't want to revolt. They wanted a guarantee.

It's an indictment to our educational indoctrinational system that you didn't realize that. of course, AugustusMasonicus above said this, too:

That's my main problem with Conservatism, the total inflexibility when it comes to change, even if it's 100% correct and needed.

I guess he missed the definition of conservatism: opposition to change. Another indictment.

Look, I am not opposed to trying something new, when and if that something new makes sense to me. Sometimes I get it wrong; when Bill Clinton came out with the "don't ask; don't tell" policy for the military I thought it was the dumbest thing I had ever heard. A couple years later, I was shaking my head, saying "damn, it worked!" I was wrong about that; I admit it. On the other hand, I felt the same way about Obamacare... and after a couple of years of watching businesses close and jobs being lost and sitting without a shred of insurance because of the damn thing, I figure I was right.

I have stated clearly what my concern is with the idea of changing the police. First, I understand that there are just bad people in the world. Not misunderstood people, not disadvantaged people, bad people who don't give a crap about anyone but themselves and have no morality. I've met them. They cannot be reasoned with and they cannot be placated. If allowed to do so, they will rob, rape, pillage, plunder, kill... it's just the way they are. I do not wish to live in a society that refuses to protect the vast number of good, decent people from these animals.

I also believe that the fact that such exist will mean that there will be no change for the better. I have gone over that in detail several times. Removing the police will not cause anyone to think they should act better; it will embolden those few who are already the problem. People will demand protection, and they will get it, from a larger, more corrupt, more distant police force with a different name but the same people in it and will pay more for it. In what universe is that a positive change?

I have listed several things that could be changed... restrict police unions. Force total transparency in internal investigations. Allow citizens to demand the firing of problem cops. Stop militarization. Get the police back into the neighborhoods and interacting socially with the community. Psyche exams. But you'll not consider any of these because they're not what you want.

Well, guess what, little boy... you don't get whatever you want. This ain't Burger King and you can't have it your way. You'll take it the way it is or you don't get it at all.

Worse of all, you started this whole thing off with a claim that you don't have police. That was a lie. You already stated that you do have county and state police, in a rural area. You obviously don't understand the problem if you think that not having a city police department in a rural area is the same as not having a police department in a city, and if you think this is about what law enforcement is called.

So spare me your proof of incompetency. I'll cede that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

See that's the problem I have. Antifa and Anarchists is a convenient narrative that people are latching onto for their own benefits. Think about why that narrative is being played. Who benefits from it?

The truth is the police and their govts have screwed up this time because they have brought out a wide range of people who aren't "radicals" but who have had enough with police behavior. That's why we are seeing such a response from govt. Govt doesn't respond to anarchists because then they wouldn't have a job. Govt responds to tax payers!

originally posted by: Identified
I agree.

I'm wondering if they realize how much they sound like socialists wanting nanny-state to keep them safe even as the govt ingrains more and more "protections" that allow the police to violate everyone's rights.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in some folks.

As a someone who is very pro-Second Amendment I constantly hear 'the cops don't keep you safe' as one of the rationales for gun ownership and I agree with this. Now the cops somehow do keep me safe and shouldn't have accountability because the other party seems to be the one initiating the call for reform.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The radicals want to police gone.

But most people don't.

This is the snapshot from D.C. They, of course, want more money for more programs, but I think they're missing some of the obvious here. The people are at least part of the problem. Until the people themselves acknowledge that and start to take advantage of what's being offered to help them instead of blaming all the problems on everyone and everything else, then we aren't going anywhere. The issue is two-sided.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The process leading up to the American Revolution was filled with the Colonists doing everything they could to appease the King. They wrote letters, visited him across a wide ocean, protested, begged, pleaded, reasoned... and even after the Revolution broke out, quite a few still didn't want to revolt. They wanted a guarantee.

It also included them getting murdered by the government's representatives assigned to enforce the law. Sound familiar?

originally posted by: ketsuko
The radicals want to police gone.

But most people don't.

Okay? So why focus on something that you 100% know isn't going to happen?

Get behind reform, it's long overdue.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

WHAT REFORM?

Show it to me. Otherwise, it's like asking me to get behind Obamacare. We have to pass it to find out what it is.

originally posted by: ketsuko
WHAT REFORM?

Accountability. Training. Oversight.

The current methods are not working, we need to do better.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm well aware of what lead up to the Declaration, thank you. Don't assume my level of realization, education or knowledge.

Want to discuss the The Gaspee Affair? Want to discuss how way less than half even supported the War to begin with yet it seems to have still worked....

They had no guarantee about anything. Wanting is not having.

Okay, at what point with the police have we tried to appease them and yet they ask for more concessions to violate our rights?

Yes there are bad people. Did you read the link? It stated 3-5% of people commit 50% of crimes. Clearly there is a problem with the system when that few people are permitted to commit all those crimes and yet we have all these police take all this money and violating all these rights to not do much.


You believe whatever you want; I guess you will just have to hope none of this comes to fruition then.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You already stated that you do have county and state police, in a rural area. You obviously don't understand the problem if you think that not having a city police department in a rural area is the same as not having a police department in a city, and if you think this is about what law enforcement is called. 

I live 25 miles from Detroit and my entire county has a population of 800,000. We aren't rural.

a reply to: Identified

Anarchists with a capital "A" are about as likely to force their vision on others as they are to want other's vision forced on them.

Which is essentially not at all. Thats a "rules for thee, but not for me" type of deal. Which is not just in opposition to being an Anarchist.. But actually being the oppressor.

Calling these folks Anarchists is about as true as saying antifa is actually antifascist. Just donning the title doesnt make it so.

Now, Ill take a bit different angle, but keep those things in mind.. some people want cops in their community. Why should the loudest voices be given credence simply because they shout and riot?

At least put it to an actual vote. Preferably with open debate and many experts and non-experts giving their opinion. Not some technofascist monolith..

I can see why people would have trust issues when the same ones calling for the abolishment for police are literally rioting.

Now, I am of the opinion that a truly effective solution here is to arm everyone and provide education and training in the school system. That takes time though. And, there are forces in this world that hijack others ideals for their own end.

You, and the others, may not like the cops.. But I guarantee you will like the non-human enforcement and "community led public safety system" of narc-ing Karens even less..

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No matter what angle he wants to focus on regarding the American Revolution it isn't going to help him.

originally posted by: Identified
No matter what angle he wants to focus on regarding the American Revolution it isn't going to help him.

The Revolution is possibly the most anti-Conservative thing we've ever done.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I agree it should go to a vote. Every single thing the govt does should go to a vote. That goes for hiring police, buying tasers, giving them immunity, etc...

On the face of it, I don't agree with riots but you have to admit it seems to be working since govts are sitting up and taking notice. And I admit at some point riots become the only way to effect change. America has a long history of rioting to get what they want from the govt.

Like I said: I don't think keeping the deeply flawed that we have because the change might be worse is a good course of action. But you vote how you feel.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: face23785
Sampling is a well-established and sound method. That's not why polls wind up being inaccurate. Polls wind up being inaccurate because of pollster bias.

Then you trust them, I don't.

And it still doesn't minimize my point, people are going to take the money if someone else doesn't.

Considering you've had several truckers come in here and correct you, maybe you should tone down the arrogance? Especially when it's unjustified, as in this case.

Perish the thought, maybe you were wrong. Can't be...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Identified
I'm not understanding all the hysteria over some self-governance, requiring govt accountability, and trying something new.

That's my main problem with Conservatism, the total inflexibility when it comes to change, even if it's 100% correct and needed.

Just saw this gem too. From someone who is totally inflexible when he's 100% wrong.

originally posted by: face23785
Considering you've had several truckers come in here and correct you, maybe you should tone down the arrogance? Especially when it's unjustified, as in this case.

Correct me about what? Nothing has happened. Zip. It's all hand wringing speculation at this point. Kind of like the biker nothing burger.

a reply to: Identified

And what happens when things go to a vote and people vote against what you want?

In my experience lately, people only call for a vote when they think the vote will go their way, and when it doesn't, all of a sudden they system of the vote was illegitimate or rigged.

a reply to: SolAquarius

I completely support the truck drivers. The cities are nothing but centers of evil and corruption. Let them starve in the dark!