"Defund The Police" and "Democratic Socialism" are political losers

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Last edited Fri Nov 6, 2020, 10:32 AM - Edit history (1)

"Defund The Police" and "Democratic Socialism" are political losers though I do have some sympathy for the latter. On the proverbial other hand voters who think we're anarchists and socialists wouldn't vote for us anyway.

ON EDIT- I didn't expect this thread to blow up. As to the police, the police should respect the .citizenry and the citizenry should respect the police. As to socialism, I believe food, shelter, and health care are human rights and in the richest nation on earth, there should be a floor on which no citizen falls below.


Carry on.

[msongs]

1. dem socialists need to rebrand themselves nt

[Qutzupalotl]

30. Social Democracy is more accurate and plays better.

Bernie calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but according to definitions I’ve seen, he’s actually a Social Democrat. Confusing and not helpful. I think his heart is in the right place, though.

[DBoon]

39. I think we should call it "The Great Society"

re-use a very American term for our vision

[ahoysrcsm]

82. You may need to do more research...

According to Liberty Union Party, Bernie Sanders co-founded with Peter Diamondstone, Democratic Socialist is the correct term. A read of multiple articles from the era of Sanders runs for office, as LUP candidate and previous 2020 run for president, will find most are compatible.

Bernie Sanders ran on the LUP in multiple elections before running as Democratic Party member, the declining the Democratic Party in favor of Independent.

If you want more info on "Democratic Socialism" and how they fall in line with Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential run, google it. Because I don't expect you to hand feed me on why Sanders 2020 "Social Democracy" is correct.

[Qutzupalotl]

86. I did.

Sources:
https://qz.com/1805692/bernie-sanders-isnt-a-democratic-socialist-he-is-a-social-democrat/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

[ahoysrcsm]

87. Burry your head in the sand if you like.

Sanders, who describes himself as a “democratic socialist,” provides fuel to Trump’s rants against a socialist takeover of America.

Why Sanders brands himself a democratic socialist remains unclear. It might be, as some have noted, because of a desire to shock. Or it may be a practical choice: Knowing his American audience is likely to equate socialism with a Stalinist, authoritarian regime, he is highlighting the intrinsically democratic aspect of his positions.

From the first article.

Sanders, as everyone knows, calls himself a “democratic socialist.”

From the second article.

Did you read your linked articles? Oh well, moving forward I will call Bernie Sanders what he calls himself, a "democratic socialist."

However you did not do your research on his past and why he calls himself a "democratic socialist." If you did you would find out why he ran on the Liberty Union Party ticket. Look it up if you don't believe me, check the newspaper articles from ths 70s and Bernies own writing from that era. You will then understand why Bernie sticks with the "democratic socialist" ideology.

[NurseJackie]

96. ...

[ahoysrcsm]

100. I totally agree NurseJackie,

there is no reason to rebrand a Socialist as Social Democrat. None what so ever. I was pointing out Bernie wants to be called a Democratic Socialist now, if that makes any difference.

Bernie's positions have not changed since the 70s, when he co-founded the Liberty Union Party.

[Qutzupalotl]

105. The question is not what Sanders calls himself.

Everyone knows he calls himself a Socialist or a Democratic Socialist.

The question is whether he is technically correct in doing so and whether that creates problems for the Democratic Party. I think branding yourself a Socialist conjures up images of authoritarian dictators and regimes, and is counterproductive.

Bernie Sanders did not coin the terms Socialism and Democratic Socialism. They have meaning outside of his influence and that preceded him.

Does Sanders want workers to own the means of production? If so, I will retract my statement. But to my knowledge he does not. He does speak of regulating capitalism and replicating the Scandinavian model of universal healthcare and college, which is properly called Social Democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy?wprov=sfti1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism?wprov=sfti1

[ahoysrcsm]

108. You really should read what you link.

Didn't think I would need to defend the Democratic Party from people in the Socialist Party. And here I am, on Democratic Underground doing just that.

Social democracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This article is about the political ideology within the socialist movement. For the type of capitalism adopted by social democrats in the post-war period, see Democratic capitalism. For socialism emphasizing democracy also commonly described as social democracy, see Democratic socialism. For the policy regime in Northern Europe commonly described as social democracy, see Nordic model. For the social welfare model in Western Europe sometimes described as social democracy, see Social market economy.

Democratic socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Not to be confused with Socialist democracy.
This article is about socialism emphasising democracy. For the ideology focusing on an evolutionary road to socialism or the humanisation of capitalism, see Social democracy.

Emphasis mine.
You may want to read up on your own descriptions and stop relying on extremists editorials. You seem to have reversed the two descriptions in an attempt to claim they are Democratic.

[Qutzupalotl]

110. You should read beyond the intros.

Those democratic socialists believe that the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist mode of production with the socialist mode of production, i.e. replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere in the form of industrial democracy.[31]

Does Bernie say that? If so, I will happily retract my statement.

[ahoysrcsm]

112. I read beyond the intros, I have also read all the refrences posted in my first read through 390...

during the 2020 primary. Over 500 now, guess I need to catch up, but I don't expect much to change. In short, the intro boils down both statements to be socialist, hence being posted in Wikipedia's Part of a series on Socialism.

If it will help, I will post additional links, since you like Wikipedia so much, we can start there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders

Employee ownership

Sanders supports establishing worker-owned cooperatives and introduced legislation in June 2014 that would aid workers who wanted to "form their own businesses or to set up worker-owned cooperatives."[63][68][69] As early as 1976, Sanders proposed workplace democracy, saying, "I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves."[70]

In 1987, Sanders defined democracy as public ownership and workers' self-management in the workplace, stating that "Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, it means decentralization, it means involving people in their work. Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can."[71]

Does this satisfy your requirement to retract your statement?
On edit, I never asked you to retract your statement, you made the offer.

[ahoysrcsm]

109. ...do I dare say more.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/bernie-sanders-mayor/407413/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/03/12/1500299/-The-Great-Whitewash-of-2016

[Celerity]

88. yes, all of the extremely few elected Dems who falsely self-label as dem socs are just social dems

If anyone outside of the US (who lives in any other advanced western democracy) looked at what even the most left of the left of all Democrats supports and then was told that they (the left of the left Dems) were called socialists or considered socialists or even commies, that person would laugh in the face of the person telling them that.

[BainsBane]

113. How about Justice Dems?

Because face it: they aren't socialists.

[AmericanCanuck]

69. They should start their own party instead of attacking Democrats

[Celerity]

89. I see a lot more attacking of them than I do them attacking other elected Dems

They all worked their ass off for Biden and other Dems, and then a couple of first term beneficiary's of a once in a generation Blue Wave lost Red districts (almost all that were Red for decades and decades) when those districts reverted to norm during a giant turnout (for Rethugs too) POTUS topped election and decided to scapegoat them.

8 actual D to R flips (and a net 6 as we flipped 2 districts ourselves) and all but ONE were that exact template. Long time Red districts that were gained under freak circumstances. The other one was Peterson in a hugely Red district (the most Trumpy of all districts held by a Dem in 2018).

It's a bullshit adaptation of a RW meme. The Rethugs have been screaming COMMIE!!!!! about Dems since FDR days. The one termers who lost had never even been in a re-lection fight before. It is like thsi every elections, and Trump has cranked it to ten, and would have done so without the handful who self-label as dem socs (and do so falsely as they are not even remotely close to being actual socialists, so I do agree they need to stop that fake self-labelling)

[AmericanCanuck]

94. Mainstream Democrats defend the attacks by occasionally counterattacking.

Their leader and inspiration is not even a Democrat.

[Celerity]

97. lol, you suggested they (no clue how expansive this 'they' is) go start their own party

I think that shows your level of political acumen

It also sounds like you are advocating for a third party

naughty naughty

[AmericanCanuck]

98. They

means anyone who PUBLICLY attacks the Democratic mainstream and its leaders.

Instead of publicly attacking Claire McCaskill to get headlines and publicity, said person could have picked up the phone and resolved the issue one on one.

[Celerity]

99. oh, so its oki to have a go at anything to the left of say, Klobuchar, on a daily basis (especially

here on this board by a small but vocal section) but when it is some mythical 'mainstream' Dem (and in the non-sitting McCaskill's case, one with a long history of attacking Warren and others) who kicks it off in the first place, then the slightest pushback is verboten.

Also, I find the very term 'mainstream' offensive and divisive. We are a big tent party, and what is mainstream in one part of the country is not mainstream in another. We need to have a wide variety of views and inputs, not some reductionist purity test that states 'it's only moderates, centrists and even some conservative Dems who get to call the shots and the only direction for the overall party is to continue the rightward drift.'

And again your original suggestion that 'they' go start a 3rd party is rubbish, not to mention electorally suicidal.

[AmericanCanuck]

102. The "socialist" label cost us Miami-Dade and the Rio Grande valley

We need to win first before a talk of becoming a radical. All the analyses of the election are showing that the socialist label hurt and hurt badly.

I think the far left wing should spend more time in rural America and do a listening tour. Then they will understand the concerns and laments of the voters there. Perhaps they could explain and clarify how and why the liberal positions are beneficial to them. Maybe the far left will understand where Sen Klobuchar and McCaskill are coming from and what shapes their politics.

It is easy to lecture someone in St. Louis or El Paso while sitting in the Bronx, Cambridge or Berkeley.

I do think there is promise in some of the far left Democrats but attacking other Democrats is not the best way to advance the cause for any Democrat.

[Celerity]

103. there are no socialists in the Democratic party, that is a RW talking point for almost 90 years

years going back to FDR's first term, and the handful of falsely labelling 'democratic socialists' need to drop that ridiculous label, as they are NOT remotely socialist and it only serves to further push a RW meme, Even if that small small group did not exist, the Rethugs would STILL call every Democratic candidate a commie and a socialist. It is what they do.

liberal positions?

in the rest of the world liberal means centre-right (as in deregulation, pro big business, pro big bans, pro free (NEVER fair) trade, doing away with the welfare state as much as is feasible (and even on that it is NOTHING like what the insane RW (and to prove my point, what the CENTRE right in the US wants) in the US wants to do. Liberal in most every other advanced nation is expressed as the right wing form of neoliberalism (as opposed to (yet meeting at certain inflection points) the also odious US so-called leftish, third way form, which is ideologically shared by the Blairites in the UK)

there also is no 'radical' (in reality for anywhere else in a advanced democratic nation) agenda

that is a RW talking point that is so ingrained that many in own our party maddening use it

this (what you are saying)

It is easy to lecture someone in St. Louis or El Paso while sitting in the Bronx, Cambridge or Berkeley.

is framing straight out of the Rethug Giingrich/Hastert/Boehner/Ryan playbook

smdh

What's next? 'San Francisco values'????


also, people in the Democratic Party truly need to stop using the term

far left wing

it is RW talking point (and feeds their shit even further) and ludicrous

their is no actually 'far left' persons in elected national American politics, not on any other advanced democratic nation's scale

not a single Dem would be considered far left in most every other advanced western nation

the US is so artificially skewed to the right that most people have utterly lost all tethering to the reality of what is actually left and right

Bernie and AOC would be milquetoast, bog standard centre left to middle left social democrats in most all advanced Western democratic nations

the entire political axis of the US is SO off centre

if it keeps moving rightward the dystopian nightmare that will arise of a government composed of 'centrists' in terms of THAT axis (if it continues to drift ever-rightward) actually IS will result in a systemic collapse, not to mention that it allows the already batshit crazy RW to go absolutely FULL STOP nationalistic, christofascistic white nationalism

the rightward drift ends now

[AmericanCanuck]

104. I respectfully disagree.

[Celerity]

106. fair enough, cheers

[OnDoutside]

72. They DID !!! They tagged on "Democratic" thinking no one would notice the other half ....

[Klaralven]

77. We need to redefine the fundamental purpose of the economy

The purpose of the economy is to produce the wherewithal for people to have meaningful occupations and a comfortable and satisfying life. To do this, the structure must provide for the accumulation of capital, investment in productive assets, and innovate to improve products, services and efficiency.

as opposed to the present emphasis on

The purpose of the economy is to optimize the accumulation of capital, investment in productive assets, and to innovate to keep ahead of the competition. Theoretically this results in jobs and maximizes income, although with no constraints on inequality and only modest smoothing of booms and busts.

[PTWB]

2. So is gun control generally.

We have to really work on messaging.

“Common sense background checks” is going to go over a lot better than “take their ARs.”

[redstatebluegirl]

3. I have sympathy for both but I totally agree.

If we go any further to the left, we will never see the White House or the Senate ever again. I don't like it, but it is reality.

[JonLP24]

16. We actually moved to the right with Biden

Biden is further right than Hillary Clinton or Obama. At some point people need to realize they aren't that great at strategy because strategy is why we picked Biden.

[ahoysrcsm]

83. Who cares, we beat Trump. That's all that counts right now.

[Turin_C3PO]

17. I don't think it's

the actual left policies that they don’t like. Polls consistently show people want higher minimum wage, wealth tax, universal healthcare, climate control policies, much stricter gun control, etc. But what motivates them is wedge issues that Repubs embrace. We need to somehow get the message across that we’re not Satan-worshiping socialists.

[redstatebluegirl]

22. As long as the Democrats who get the most air time are constantly talking about defunding police

and socialism we have to be concerned.

[JonLP24]

26. I'm concerned about police violating people's rights

You're more concerned with winning elections than solving problems.

[RelativelyJones]

48. So agree with you 100% or she is not interested in solving problems? Nice.

[NYC Liberal]

56. We won't be solving any problems unless we win the elections.

[ahoysrcsm]

84. You should frame the issue as such...

I'm concerned about police violating people's rights

"Police Reform" and "Defund the Police" are hard to get behind. They both put us on the defensive, and the other side can say we are calling for no police presence. Why not use "Hold Police accountable for misconduct" or "Police should not be Judge, Jury, and Executioner"

[dware]

95. How can we solve problems if we don't win elections? nt

[Turin_C3PO]

33. I watch a lot of cable news

and I can tell you most Democrats on those networks were not saying anything like that. AOC was an exception along with a few others but nowhere near the majority.

[BComplex]

55. I have seen no such thing on the air, much less "constantly". We also don't have

anyone going on from OUR side, who talk about "socialism". This thread is really flame bait, and I think it should be stopped.

[ibegurpard]

34. This isn't about actually moving to the "left" or "right"

It's about branding. You can get the public on board with much of what the people who support "defund the police" want to see happen but when you label it "defund the police" you are dead in the water. Why fight over trying to change the public's mind over a brand when you can reinvest the money in the social services that help with the public's support?

[JonLP24]

36. BLM have been asking for it long before this election

And they grew their movement.

[ibegurpard]

40. BLM has to come up with better branding

They aren't going to sell their ideas to middle America with that label. Why not all the same goals with "police reform?"

[get the red out]

38. Me too!

I have been thinking about that with this election so close.

[TwilightZone]

4. Agreed.

I think we'll find out - if we haven't already - that these were particularly influential in Miami-Dade.

[budkin]

5. It's all about the right wing media machine distorting things

That's all.

[Turin_C3PO]

6. But which Dems actually

were supporting “defund the police”. It was some protesters and many probably weren’t Democrats.

[JonLP24]

11. Jamaal Bowman won

His platform included defunding the police. He unseated a longtime Democrat.

[caber09]

46. He unseated a Dem in a very blue district..while being endorsed by alot of local mainstream Dems

[TwilightZone]

15. AOC is probably the most prominent

https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-says-nypds-1-billion-budget-cut-doesnt-go-far-enough-defund-police-1514523

[Turin_C3PO]

20. Ok.

But it certainly wasn’t even close to a majority of Dems saying that.

[TwilightZone]

28. No, but the GOP tried to tie it to all of them.

Trump's ads here in TX linked Biden to it when they weren't busy calling him a communist and a socialist.

It's false, of course, but just the fact that it gained some prominence was arguably an issue for us.

I think most people are behind the concept of shifting resources elsewhere, but our branding can be atrocious at times.

[caber09]

45. It def hurt on local level, especially here in NY...

I have never seen the police union(s) as active, physically and financially involved in the street in defeating specific politicians, they couldnt do it in NYC so instead they take it out on very good dem reps/office holders in the surrounding areas. Candidates that had nothing to do with deblasio/defund the police were lambasted constantly with this...and our side suffers for it...People want to feel safe...overall police and the uniform are respected...defund the police to begin with was a losing slogan...Terrible messaging (and most werent even involved with supporting that) for sure.

[ace3csusm]

7. "Demilitarized the Police" would be good

[gab13by13]

8. What brought this post on?

I like what I heard from a guest yesterday on msnbc, he said Biden is wrong, Republicans are the enemy and we need to treat them as the enemy because they are never going to change.

[JonLP24]

9. Sorry

BLM have been asking to defund the police long before George Floyd was killed and they will continue asking for it long after this election.

Hillary Clinton lost a close race and the electoral map looks nearly the same.

[joshcryer]

10. the rise of the New Democrats comes again

[JonLP24]

12. +1000

[caber09]

13. Agreed 100%....good Dems have gone down here on Long Island..

not because they want to defund the police or are too left, quite the opposite...its because Deblasio, the far left and the defund the police movement got attached to them. I am sure this happened nationwide too. If Biden ran even a tick more to the left there would be a much different mood here today. The far left cost us in 2016 (and 2000)....and look at all the damage since then...elections matter..progress over perfection..can make things better, cant make things perfect...just like Obama has said before.

[stillcool]

23. there is no far-left...

there's center-right, and rabid-right. In the U.S. Government 'We the people' don't figure into the equation at all.

[Captain Stern]

14. Pretty much.

I have sympathy/agreement to both of the actual concepts, but the branding is horrible.

Who in the hell thought 'defund the police' was good idea. That sounds like something conservatives would make up to say it's what liberals wanted to do.

[dawg]

18. Gee, we never should have campaigned using those slogans.

Oh, wait.

We didn't.

Our candidate said "I beat the Socialist!"

It wouldn't matter if we campaigned as hardcore Capitalists who wanted to double police funding. They're still gonna call us Luciferian Communists and there's a large swath of the electorate that is always going to believe them.

For what it's worth, I think think we handled this election pretty damned well. For the most part, the people who didn't vote for us were never going to vote for us.

[caber09]

29. Wrong..

We go lucky because Trump couldnt brand Biden (too tough on crime/too weak on crime, same with Harris...he tried but he failed bec the msg was mixed) because Biden was well known not to be for any of that...AND he immediately came out specifically against defunding the police. Pollsters are going to say this years shy trump voter was the shy law/order voter...for BLM, but not for the looting/business burning/hurting businesses.that they were succesfully able to brand to our side on local levels), and afraid to admit that to pollsters for fear as coming off racist.

[Jspur]

49. I don't like to say this but I feel we just got lucky because of Covid. I know my sister and

brother in law were hardcore Trumpers up until Covid happened. They told me it was the way Trump handled Covid that caused them to switch over to Biden. 4 years ago they were screaming like rabid dogs that Hillary was a socialist.

[alittlelark]

19. I posted about this a few months ago and got scortched.

Linguistics matter.

[redstatebluegirl]

24. Yes they do. I said the same thing a few months ago and was assaulted on here.

[Deacon Blue]

21. De-Militarize the Police...

Who cannot get behind that as we see cops with all this surplus war machinery: armored vehicles, automatic weapons, drones. Very 1984. Used to be shocking to go overseas and see the military armed to the teeth doing police work. Not so much now. Posse comitatus outsourced.

[Clearly fogged in]

25. Agree. they could be called anything else

it's obvious the masses of republican voters don't know the difference between one ism and another. It can be as easy as the outgoing admin did it - draw a line through the title and sharpie in a new one.

[0rganism]

27. "defund the police" is about the stupidest policy slogan ever

why not "Law Enforcement Reform"?

when republicans run on cutting taxes, they don't say "defund the federal/state government", instead they say "tax reform". saves them a lot of time explaining, and wins votes from greedy people who get the sub-text.

Democrats could be a lot smarter about messaging.

[caber09]

31. Spot On...you said it better than I did

[TwilightZone]

32. "Law Enforcement Reform"

That's approximately five million times better a slogan.

[0rganism]

35. what's really sad is ...

it took me nearly no time to come up with it. about as much time as it took to type it out. less than a minute.
how did we miss something this obvious?

[JonLP24]

42. Because law enforcement reform isn't anything new

"Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources. Activists who use the phrase may do so with varying intentions; some seek modest reductions, while others argue for full defunding as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services. Activists that support the defunding of police departments often argue that investing in community programs could provide a better crime deterrent for communities; funds would go toward addressing social issues, like poverty, homelessness, and mental disorders.[1][2] Police abolitionists call for replacing existing police forces with other systems of public safety, like housing, employment, community health, education, and other programs.[3][4][5]

(Snip)

Police defunding and abolition activists argue that the police have a poor track record of resolving cases related to murder, rape, and domestic abuse.[1] Many others further argue that police social work intervention, as known, leads to mass incarceration, risk of physical and mental harm, exposure to violence, and in some instances, death.[44]

(Snip)

Critics argue that police officers and police departments provide too many services. According to this argument, the United States has an over-reliance on law enforcement, which is expected to handle an unrealistically wide range of social issues, such as homelessness, mental health, and substance abuse.[7][49][2] This model may be asking too much of police departments; some police officers have publicly expressed that they feel tasked to "do everything for everybody."[50] Meanwhile, police officers are trained to adopt a "warrior" mentality, which focuses on officer safety over community outreach.[51][52] For these reasons, some activists have called for an unbundling of services. Under this model, many services that were previously provided by law enforcement would be provided by specialized response teams. These teams could include social workers, emergency medical technicians, conflict resolution specialists, restorative justice teams, and other community-based professionals.[53][54][55][56][57]

Police officers may be particularly badly suited for some community issues, such as mental health crises.[55][58] For example, one study found that about 21% of police officer time is spent responding to or transporting people with mental illness.[59] However, 1 in 4 people who are killed by the police have severe mental illness. Some activists argue that, if someone is experiencing a mental health crisis, and if there is no emergent threat to themselves or other people, mental health professionals may be more adept and capable responders. Furthermore, if more funds were diverted to help treat and support those with mental health issues, there could be better outcomes.[60][61][62][63]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police

Link to tweet

[0rganism]

51. yes, it's old and trite, but as a slogan it works where "defund the police" does not

it leads people to assume the most extreme interpretation:
"others argue for full defunding as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services"
which is not a winning position statement.

if you want to understand why, try taking the wikipedia article you just quoted and summarize it in 100 characters or less, preferably as something you could say during a typical news interview in under 10 seconds to handle questions about what "defunded" police departments look like.

effective messaging. we don't do enough of it.

[TwilightZone]

43. If I had to guess, it was intentional.

I think they wanted something attention-grabbing and overt. It's pretty much the only explanation.

It's not even accurate, the way it's often described. It seems that it's more about reallocating funds and restructuring than demanding we just shut them all down, which is the simplistic interpretation some get from "defund the police".

One could say...reform. haha

[Caliman73]

63. Because it isn't about "reforming" police.

It is about using the VAST amount of money that the police get to buy arms and tanks, and using that money instead to fund social services to prevent situations that lead to an increase in crime.

So it is actually defunding police by funding more effective crime prevention.

Republicans ABSOLUTELY run in SHRINKING GOVERNMENT. They have effectively branded government as evil. The talk about "Big Government" all the time AND they actually spend MORE money on certain facets of government than Democrats do, just not the facets that actually help the average person.

I agree that we need to do better on messaging but we need not lie like Republicans do.

[Poiuyt]

37. Democrats have always been terrible at messaging

[Jspur]

50. It's very difficult to combat fear messaging which the Republicans

are great at. How would you suggest Democrats counter the fear messaging that Trump was able to push in Florida with the Cubans when it came to Biden being down for socialism/communism? I'm just curious maybe you can illustrate something to new to me. I just believe it's psychologically very hard to combat fear. Once a person is scared they will become super defensive even when you try to reason with them.

[Poiuyt]

52. Donny Deutsch had a brilliant way that Dems could market themselves.

I can't find it, but it had to do with Dems are the party that wants to protect your Social Security, protect your healthcare, protect your Medicare, etc. Reptiles are the party that want to take away your healthcare, take away your Medicare, etc. He had a whole list of items that the Dems would protect and the Reps would take away.

As far as not getting smear with socialism, that's hard. Especially when nobody refutes it. It would be easy to tell people what socialism actually is and how our candidates are different, but that won't work if we describe ourselves as democratic socialists (which some politicians do). Even social democrats can be easily confused with democratic socialists. We need a better term to call ourselves, one that can't be confused in any way with anything negative. And then we'd need a massive PR campaign to make sure we're associated with that nice, positive term.

Actually, I'd like to see a four year PR campaign that connects the Democratic party with positivity and exactly how all Americans would benefit with these ideas. We could start with emphasizing how the country always does better economically when a Democrat is president. Somehow people associate Republicans with a better economy, but the reverse is true.

[Poiuyt]

53. Here's the Donny Deutsch meme

?

There's a similar one with Dems being the party of protection for healthcare, etc.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/30/1882483/--Donny-Deutsch-has-marketing-advice-that-could-win-it-all-for-the-Democrats

[Jspur]

57. I live in NC so I saw a lot of commercials of Cal Cunningham who was the democratic candidate

for the senate position. In these commercials he kept on stating Tillis voted to get rid of healthcare, and preexisted conditions, and he was down with big pharma raising the cost of drugs. He hit on these points a bunch of times. I actually was impressed by the type of attacks he lobbied against Tillis. Unfortunately he still ended up losing to Tillis in a nail biter when he should have won. So I'm not sure even when you go on the offensive that you can defeat these bozos. They are just now ingrained to believe anything a democrat does is socialism. I also believe a lot of it has to do with racism. If the Dems ran on a campaign of universal health care for white people only then I think they would easily be won over.

[Demsrule86]

41. I agree...

[melman]

44. Counterpoint

They're actually good.

[Jspur]

47. Biden has shown me that even when he run a strong moderate that we are still going to be branded

as socialist. It's gotten to the point of just being a democrat means you are a socialist by default. If you want to do mild policies such as doing a slight tax increase on the rich that is labeled as socialist or make stronger policies for gun checks that is also socialist. Democrats in here need to except that close to half of this country is going to believe any policy a democrat wants to push through will be branded as socialist. It's so bad that I believe if Clinton was president today he would have been called a socialist for passing NAFTA and increasing taxes on the rich. Honestly I wish there was way to combat this but I think unfortunately we are passed that point.

[Celerity]

91. +1000

[alarimer]

54. It doesn't matter.

They will be called socialists no matter what.

I do agree that "Defund that police" is an unfortunate phrase. It is incorrect and requires lots of explanation, which is not useful. Maybe "Police reform" or something.

But I also think pandering to the right in an effort to seem more likable from their point of view is useless. Everything they believe is a lie. It is also impossible to correct people when they believe things that are not true.

Simply stand up for what you believe in and let the chips fall where they may.

[Jspur]

60. Agree with you 100 percent with you have to let the

chips fall as they may. Obama should have taught all of use that these clowns are going to label you a socialist even you try to reach out to them and even pander to them. I have had countless conversations with conservatives for years trying to explain to them what socialism is and they still can't understand what it is.

I also agree Dems need to be smarter with phrases such as "Defund the Police". Outside of that I don't see anything else they can do.

[Silver1]

58. Absolutely.

I'm convinced the term "Defund the Police" really harmed us. Why call it that, it doesn't even accurately convey what the idea is about. Why not turn it to the positive? The most it achieved is to irritate the cops, scare people, and carry an "in your face", snotty tone.

[Straw Man]

59. On the other hand, ...

... debunking is still desirable. The people who "wouldn't vote for us anyway" need to be stripped of these permission slips for vile voting and own up to their ultimate motivation: racism.

[Jspur]

61. I feel socialism is really a cover up to justify their racism.

That's really what it is.

[Straw Man]

62. That's what I said.

Well, that's what I think I said: They claim to be motivated by anti-socialism, but it's just a cover for racism.

[Aepps22]

64. Facts

We need to start calling a spade a spade. People of color are the backbone of the party and we need to start recognizing that trying to be Republican lite won't help.

[Jspur]

66. I was just reinforcing that you were right about

what you said. It really resonated with me because I have had so many conversations with conservatives on what socialism is and they always freeze up. I have even had a few just randomly tell me they are not racist during the conversation when I never brought up race.

[Straw Man]

71. Great minds think alike!

[Caliman73]

67. Socialism is a scare tactic from from the early 1900's.

There may be a link to racism but Socialism is a scare tactic all of its own.

Conservatives are DEATHLY afraid of socialism because it involves shifting ownership of the means of production to the people and away from the wealthy. Socialism seeks class solidarity and non-exploitation of labor.

Conservatives tie Socialism to Authoritarianism when that does not logically follow. They harken back to the Soviet Union and China as despotic dictatorships that were Communist.

They talk about Venezuela, in which the government was nominally socialist, though 81% of the economy was in private hands. Not a socialist system by any means. They point to shortages and bread lines but fail to talk about how economic embargo from other nations adds to the situation.

Conservatives have racist tendencies but they are primarily driven by money and power.

[Clearly fogged in]

65. The police aren't funded nationally, are they?

In any given state could changing which cabinet department the police fall into possibly have a broader impact than direct legislation? Is this even plausible?

[Caliman73]

68. Police are typically funded at the municipal level...

However, they get A LOT of money from the Feds, from the State, County, etc...

It isn't necessarily a policy issue. Police are a third rail political issue. Politicians in both parties think the answer to all problems is to increase police funding, training, etc... when the answer is actually to fund preventative services and allow police to focus on actual safety issues.

[Clearly fogged in]

70. Yes. It's not a national dialog,

however we seem to not control the narrative on this. It goes on faux or wherever and the people think it is. Putting an end to that would do a lot. No?

[Caliman73]

73. Republicans will use whatever lie, hyperbole, or ignorance they can get.

They are not good faith actors. They understand what is being proposed by "defunding the police" rather than disagreeing with it, the lie and say that Democrats want to get rid of all police and let chaos run rampant.

The problem really is that we have a very unmotivated, uninformed, and easily manipulated populace.

[Clearly fogged in]

74. let's look at a county.

If something happens to an employee that requires a non-medical exam to return to duty. Things run their course. Did these cost come out of the department's budget?

If these are no longer covered by the original department, but fall under another department, does the department now paying gain oversight in that program?

[Clearly fogged in]

75. let's look at a county.

If something happens to an employee that requires a non-medical exam to return to duty. Things run their course. Did these cost come out of the department's budget?

If these are no longer covered by the original department, but fall under another department, does the department now paying gain oversight in that program?

[Caliman73]

79. Federalism, it is the system we have.

States give money to Counties and cities and they tie outcomes to the dollars they send. The Federal government sends money to the states and it comes tied to outcomes. It is a complex system, but not a complex concept. When I was studying Public Administration, we had to learn about how funding and outcomes are tied to each other and not just in a governmental context. Grants come attached to certain oversight from endowments and other funding sources.

It really depends. The FBI and Justice Department can intervene in local police matters REGARDLESS of whether there is any funding involved, based on the DOJ's mandate to enforce Civil Rights under the 14th Amendment.

I am not sure where this conversation is headed.

Policing is a national issue because of the Civil Rights implications of an entire system that appears to be biased based on skin color. BLM and other groups are advocating that the Billions and Billions of dollars that are spent on more police, more jails, more guns and armor, be spent on programs that build community. Housing people who are homeless will help to eliminate crimes associated with being vulnerable on the streets. Building an actual mental health system instead of the mishmash that we have now, that is stigmatized and completely underfunded, would help to prevent some of the issues that we face because of crimes AGAINST and by people with mental health problems. Funding jobs programs, community outreach, health care, and other pro-social services, would eliminate having to use police to respond to many many things that they are called out to do and are not trained for.

[Clearly fogged in]

80. Thank you very much for posting this

As far as to where the conversation is going, I agree absolutely with the direction of BLM and other groups. Maybe what I'm asking is, in defunding in this manner, are there plans for introducing additional public disclosure requirements and individual performance suitability reviews? With oversight?

[WyattKansas]

76. The first was a non-starter, but Democratic Socialism was NOT on the ballot.

A VERY tilted election process favoring Donald Dumbass and his Shit Brigade was still outperformed by Joe Biden. And it is simply bullshit to entertain the idea that the Republican Party suddenly developed morals and ethics in down ballot races in the same Republican favored election process to take victories from Democrats... The sleazy bastards cheated again with or without Russian help, just like they have always done. No? Everyone was telling all of us it was happening again on a larger scale. Was every vote carefully read and tallied to the correct candidates with immediate clear auditing for every voter to see the entire tallies from every precinct that does not involve a computer or software company?

Backing away from what they don't want is how you play right into their goals to keep shoving the country right when they do not control the White House and letting them dictate the Ideology to follow.

When Biden is declared winner, it is a mistake to turn the other cheek and ignore the election fraud that is continuing to escalate, all of us have lived under for the last 20 years.

What is so fucked up is that we are now living under 'privatization' of everything, 'gig/temp' jobs being the norm, Vulture Economics that Americans were tricked into investing in portfolios while most do without, and destabilizing everything with the self wealth myth. The overwhelming majority of Americans favor FDR Progressive and Socialist Policies to be the law of the land and solid foundation.

Yet we end up with dumbed down voters choosing to be ruled by the same race to the bottom economics overseen by same Republican frauds and thugs that are elected to also keep Federalist Gatekeepers on the Courts?

[Jspur]

78. Agreed it's really frustrating we can never leave 1980 behind in the

sense that we are constantly reliving all the bs propaganda Reagan pushed in the 80's when it comes to supply side, deregulation, increased privatization, and racial divides.

[SlogginThroughIt]

81. Can we redux this shit later?

Damn man I am stressed out enough!

[Initech]

85. "Reform the police" would be much better messaging.

I don't want to defund the police. What I want is - fire all the white supremacists, encourage more diversity in departments, and hold police accountable when they discharge their weapons or use excessive force. Also, take away their military toys. You don't need tanks or sub machine guns to patrol the suburbs. This isn't Call Of Duty.

[TigressDem]

90. The REAL problem is that "socialism" is being linked to "communism" and taking away people's rights"

Socialism isn't really a BAD thing, but it's being given bad PR. AND the "Defund the Police" sounds awful, but when I found out what it actually meant, I agreed it needs to be done. I live in Minneapolis and it is the only way to cut the cord to the corrupt Police Union which is encouraging bad police behavior.


To move AWAY from the bad PR, I think we go back to "PUBLIC WORKS" projects.


Instead of the idea of "giving away what people need to survive" give them a path to earn it.

It is kind and loving to have a society that takes care of it's own, BUT a lot of people resent seeing others get help when they themselves are struggling.

SO let's build solar, wind and geo-thermal infrastructure so we can decrease the cost of living and help EVERYONE pay less for mere survival. Revamp the electric grid with new power sources from the neighborhoods out.

Let's refine property laws so Tiny Homes can be built, increasing affordable housing.

Let's use hydroponics to have indoor micro farms tended by neighbors to ease the burden on the food supply.

Let's DO THINGS that make society work better and lower the cost of living so people don't NEED as many social programs just to survive.

[jacksonian]

92. Fund justice, not murder in the streets

is the slogan we're looking for, I think.

[oasis]

93. Stay Blue Thru 2022.

Let's not screw this up gang.

[Aepps22]

101. Let's Be Honest

Anything dealing with police reform would net the same result with many of the deplorables. Sure the messaging should be better but Obama wasn't talking about defunding the police and they were flipping out when the Obama DOJ wanted police departments to implement reform and you know what happened? Trump said Hillary and democrats don't support law enforcement and the Republicans ate it up. As a Black man I am tired of seeing my people get murdered by the police with no consequences. The sad reality is that I don't think the Deplorables care about that. What I can say is that IMO part of the huge turnout in places like Detroit, Philadelphia and Georgia was a result of our party acknowledging that systemic racism exists and that we need to do something about the police in this country.

[grobertj]

107. ABSOLUTELY!!! I'm a proud Democrat, not a socialist, and I don't want to defund the police!

Socialism and Defunding the police will make us a minority party. Can't we agree on something so simple. We have sooo much work to do. Pushing Socialism and Defunding police is frankly STUPID!!!