Defund the Police?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Accountability is always the issue with gubmint workers. They want authority and no responsibility. This is endemic to gubmint work and so must be fought always. Also, gubmints tend to grow and get more power if they can. This too must be fought.

However, with the topic of police, there must be accountability for EVERY SINGLE TIME force of ANY type is used. Most times the force will be deemed appropriate I have no doubt, but subject to such scrutiny it must be held.

Unions have till now help thwart such scrutiny and so their power should be curtailed. I believe this will occur in the not so distant future.

[heyjoe]

National Right To Work is not an unbiased source. You of course believe what you want to believe despite the facts. You present no facts.....only a statement that says suggests this or that. You can spin it anyway you want,but it is against the law for a union to use union dues for political contributions period. If they were doing so they right would and should be prosecuted. I get it that you dont like unions but you have yet to counter with a fact and only your "feelings"

[heyjoe]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Nope, factual. All taxes are forced with the threat of violence for non-compliance. Makes the point of the corruption and the lack of not being able to opt out.



Just a money shell game played by the unions. They often get around that with Super PACS. Janus helped that partly with the "opt in" requirement but as stated above at the local level particularly it is naive to believe that those dues don't get funneled to candidates friendly to the union.

Janus had nothing to do with the opt in for union political pacs. they have always been opt in by law. you have a far right libertarian philosophy about the coercion of taxes or asa usually put that taxes are theft, which is in the minority in this country. you have also responded with your "feelings" and with nothing but incorrect "facts". You also have a big problem as most on the far right do with some of the other amendments such as the first, freedom of association.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by heyjoe

National Right To Work is not an unbiased source.

What sources have you presented? I must have missed them. What sources will you accept? I think the issue with feelings belongs more with you than us. I'm guessing you or family members were big union folks? Sorry if we've touched a nerve but police unions are a big part of the problem of police brutality. Unions really have no place in the public sector and we have laid out strong facts for why that is so. You may call them feelings that's not true.

Originally Posted by heyjoe

Janus had nothing to do with the opt in for union political pacs.

That's true. I misspoke Janus changed the opt in for non-union employees where as in many states in order to not be automatically in the union you had opt out each year. Now they can't make you do that and you must opt in.

Originally Posted by heyjoe

against the law for a union to use union dues for political contributions period.

But he showed you evidence that in practice unions are doing just that. Also, not every state prohibits doing such at the state level which is where the real problem lies.

Further, as I stated the unions give dues to Super PACS which then support candidates so yes it is a shell game they play. As to freedom of association, have at it....just not on my (taxpayer) dime!

As to taxes I think pretty much everyone agrees they are not optional.

[ghbucky]

You present no facts....

Fair enough.

Link

Wash. Union Charged in Campaign-Finance Case

The Allegations
The commission's report alleges the union:

Failed to properly disclose a total of $162,255 in donations from its general funds to its political arm, the WEA-PAC, in September 1994 and January 1995;
Failed to properly disclose approximately $170,000 in contributions given to the WEA-PAC in the form of free office space and other overhead expenses from September 1994 through this past August; and
Formed a second political-action committee, its "Community Outreach Program," which has not registered as a political committee.

Per OpenSecrets
These figures only account for federal election spending:
The American Federation of Teachers, for example, spent $17.5 Million during the 2016 election cycle.
The American Federation of State/Cnty/Munic Employees spent $25.6 Million during the same cycle.

Lets say that they gathered all of that money legally. Why are public employee unions spending that amount of money to influence elections? The money they are donating originates from taxpayers. There is a glaring conflict of interest happening there.

[zoo]

This thread has turned out to be far more interesting than I thought it would. Good cross section of perspectives for the most part.

I still maintain my response to the OP's original question regarding the funding of law enforcement.

Their pay checks have gotten outrageous, their egos ridiculous, and their respect for the law minimal. It is indeed time to clean house.

It should be noted however that but for the outrageous paychecks, the other two issues with law enforcement have been a problem for, well, just about forever.

But coupled with decades of control and governance by the rapacious tyrannical oligarchy in this country, it has gotten to... at least feel worse.

Can't we at least pretend to support the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Principles under which this nation was founded and that our public servants actually work for the people, all the people, and not just the stinking rich?

[FITASC]

We are world leaders in terms of incarcerations: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...0-inhabitants/

We are outsourcing corrections to the private sector, so this is now a profit center. If the folks who want to defund the police could do a better job of articulating this problem I think we might be able to have a real conversation.

I saw a local officer pull his cruiser over the other day and jump out to play football with some kids on the street. I think this is a policy issue that got perverted into a debate about police.

Quote:
Who would you then have go against the well-armed international drug cartels who, in today's world, have no problem with killing cops? Do we keep a separate military/National Guard/State Police unit for that action?
The cartels wouldn't have the funds to create their own armies if the demand here for their drugs wasn't so gigantic. Ignoring that part of the issue while engaging in an arms race with them won't end well.

No other country in the world has, or even allows, the sheer number of immigrants from different races, cultures, ethnicities, religions, morals and beliefs; that means constant conflict as old world traditions are forced to coexist. Add in the destruction of the family for certain groups, major depression and poverty and drug use bvecomes a way of daily life for a lot of these folks and thus crimes become huge; so we incarcerate more than anyone except for maybe China. Now throw in the desire by Soros and others to destroy this country so the NWO becomes a reality and you get the current social unrest by mostly spoiled agitated white young people.

Most of this started with LBJ and continues to this day because of those who control the education of your children - the old "hand that rocks the cradle rules the world".

So, eliminate the need for drugs, you eliminate the need for narcotics units; get the DAs to actually prosecute criminals and make prison a deterrent and not a vacation and maybe you eliminate a lot of repeat offenders who police have to arrest over and over only to see them released or given a joke of a sentence. Thus these folks have NO fear of using violence, especially gun violence, because they rarely suffer any consequences, at least from the justice system.

[Spats McGee]

This has drifted far from the OP, and I'm not entirely convinced it was a L&CR question to begin with.