Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

tonedevil

(3,022 posts) Sat Jun 27, 2020, 04:04 PM Jun 2020

Defund the police by 33.8%

Oppressed groups are frequently placed in the situation of being listened to only if we frame our ideas in the language that is familiar to and comfortable for a dominant group. This requirement often changes the meaning of our ideas and works to elevate the ideas of dominant groups.

Patricia Hill Collins

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Defund the police by 33.8% (Original Post) tonedevil Jun 2020 OP

This, I Like ProfessorGAC Jun 2020 #1

But they score military leftovers for free soothsayer Jun 2020 #2

They Pay For Shipping? ProfessorGAC Jun 2020 #3

ProfessorGAC

(65,021 posts)

1. This, I Like

Reply to tonedevil (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2020, 04:07 PM

Jun 2020

We can decide on the number.
First, we eliminate the budget for any further tactical gear. Keep what you've got. Nothing new.
Every bad guy doesn't have an AK-47.

soothsayer

(38,601 posts)

2. But they score military leftovers for free

Reply to ProfessorGAC (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 27, 2020, 05:19 PM

Jun 2020

...if they engage in some nonsensical anti-terror stuff, if I recall correctly. Which is why you see ludicrous terrorism charges sometimes.

So we’ve got to end that practice somehow.

ProfessorGAC

(65,021 posts)

3. They Pay For Shipping?

Reply to soothsayer (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 27, 2020, 05:22 PM

Jun 2020

Don't know it for sure, but I can't envision the military saying "Come take it.", then paying for shipping.
Prohibit funds used to transport.
Same effect. Assuming of course, my guess is correct.

Reply to this discussion