The Yes 4 Minneapolis charter amendment, explained

[bradman]

So was the point about threads going off topic some sort of blatant passive aggressive trolling game set up by the poster and friends who are now talking about buses and stinky fish?

No Drak, given the 2 prior comments to my asking to stay on subject, the intent was to try and stop what was obviously coming. Personal insults and a flame war.

i should have known better, eh.

[Drak]

Oh, ok....

[carmenjonze]

No Drak, given the 2 prior comments to my asking to stay on subject, the intent was to try and stop what was obviously coming. Personal insults and a flame war.

i should have known better, eh.

The thread wasn't off-topic 2 prior comments to your remark.

For next time, try to stay away from vague accusations of other people going off-topic when you yourself go WAY off topic on lutefisk.

[carmenjonze]

Oh, ok....

These guys still don't get that passive aggression is really just more aggression.

Actually...yes, they do get that. It's why they do it.

Bradman will do anything to distract from criticism of corrupt, killer cops, because he himself is just as corrupt. Same for Sam Lefthand. At least self-identified cons have the integrity to just come with it. Not the ones around here, but these weak so-called moderates and blue grass blue dogs don't, so they just go run and hide behind the cons.

Can't be trusted. MLK pointed this out about this type of white so-called moderate, decades ago.

It's really sick that we still have to deal with grown men who act like they are still on the playground in 6th grade. :problem:

[bradman]

I would suggest you never again complain about anyone going off-topic. If you do, you'll be shown this thread, where you join in on lutefisk.

What do you make of this comment GU?

viewtopic.php?p=1796#p1796

It was followed by this comment.....

viewtopic.php?p=1811#p1811

Where do you think that conversation was headed?

It becomes obvious a little later when another poster misuses the quote option.....

viewtopic.php?p=1900#p1900

That's why i said what i said.

i have no problem with a thread meandering of course when it's obviously not headed to a flame war.

[carmenjonze]

It becomes obvious a little later when another poster misuses the quote option.....

viewtopic.php?p=1900#p1900

You have an issue with the word "Bluegrass"?

[ZoWie]

I try to stay on-topic, but sometimes it's more convenient to deal with a temporary aside in the same thread rather than start a new one and add to clutter and jumping around. I try to get it back on topic asap. Of course there are instances where subthreads are interrupted, as when the Earth's predicted magnetic storm was pronounced dead, but then it got some reinforcement days later. Last night, it produced some of the best aurora in a decade, causing red horizon glow all the way down in central CA. That merited another brief interruption in that particular current in the Earth thread.

https://www.spaceweather.com/

We now return you to our regular programming.

[carmenjonze]

I try to stay on-topic, but sometimes it's more convenient to deal with a temporary aside in the same thread rather than start a new one and add to clutter and jumping around. I try to get it back on topic asap. Of course there are instances where subthreads are interrupted, as when the magnetic storm was pronounced dead, but then it got some reinforcement days later and produced some of the best aurora in a decade. That merited another brief interruption.

https://www.spaceweather.com/

We now return you to our regular programming.

Yeah threads go off and on topic - it's the nature of threads, it's true. But then you get this guy who is known for going off-topic as a tactical diversion for when things get hot under the collar for him, just as he's whining about a thread that didn't even go off-topic.

Lol f. these guys.

[sam lefthand]

Anytime ad hominem rears it's ugly head, the thread has been taken off topic.



QED

[gounion]

What do you make of this comment GU?

viewtopic.php?p=1796#p1796

It was followed by this comment.....

viewtopic.php?p=1811#p1811

Where do you think that conversation was headed?

It becomes obvious a little later when another poster misuses the quote option.....

viewtopic.php?p=1900#p1900

That's why i said what i said.

i have no problem with a thread meandering of course when it's obviously not headed to a flame war.

Thank you Mrs. Grundy. Why don't you netcop Sam and the shit he does to Carmen?

You're a fucking hypocrite.

[carmenjonze]

Anytime ad hominem rears it's ugly head, the thread has been taken off topic.



QED

Sez the guy who calls me a bitch. :problem:

The thread didn't go off-topic until you and your pals and your lutefisk. Take a seat.

[Drak]

What do you make of this comment GU?

viewtopic.php?p=1796#p1796

It was followed by this comment.....

viewtopic.php?p=1811#p1811

Where do you think that conversation was headed?

It becomes obvious a little later when another poster misuses the quote option.....

viewtopic.php?p=1900#p1900

That's why i said what i said.

i have no problem with a thread meandering of course when it's obviously not headed to a flame war.

When threads go off topic with pictures of trucks and stupid trivial shit and for pages on end, it can be viewed as just as disruptive and passive aggressive. You have no problem with that. But it's hypocritical to then complain about it happening here, and then doubling down by participating it, here. I have no problem with threads going off topic sometimes as they do, most of us ignore that stuff.

[carmenjonze]

When threads go off topic with pictures of trucks and stupid trivial shit and for pages on end, it can be viewed as just as disruptive and passive aggressive. You have no problem with that. But it's hypocritical to then complain about it happening here, and then doubling down by participating it, here. I have no problem with threads going off topic sometimes as they do, most of us ignore that stuff.

Petty, insecure, conservative men.

This is the best they've got.

[carmenjonze]

Even when on national TV, allegations of police misconduct regularly ignored by internal affairs - KTSP

That morning, Jimenez was trying to show the world the widespread destruction that followed the murder of George Floyd. Instead, the world watched as police officers led a black journalist away in handcuffs.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” CNN anchor John Berman said as his colleague was taken into custody without any explanation.

Hours later, Gov. Tim Walz publicly apologized, saying there was no justification for the arrest.

[carmenjonze]

Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project
@ACLEDINFO

While the vast majority of Black Lives Matter demonstrations were peaceful, @ACLEDINFO data show that they were met with disproportionately high levels of police intervention and force.

https://twitter.com/ACLEDINFO/status/14 ... 0492705794
__________

A YEAR OF RACIAL JUSTICE PROTESTS: KEY TRENDS IN DEMONSTRATIONS SUPPORTING THE BLM MOVEMENT - ACLED, May

Key Findings

• The BLM movement has remained overwhelmingly non-violent.

•Police have taken a heavy-handed, militarized approach to the movement, escalating tensions.

[bradman]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-nothing- ... 55642.html
'What We Did Was Nothing To Sneeze At.' Activists in Minneapolis Look Ahead After 'Defund' Vote Fails

Though much community-led work was already being done to reshape policing, the work and activism Frey referenced was kicked into a new gear nearly 17 months ago when George Floyd was killed at the hands of a then-MPD officer, Derek Chauvin, during a May 2020 arrest. A movement to reform police departments across the country, and hold officers accountable for their conduct, was reignited.

But when the “defund the police” slogan was birthed out of that movement, it quickly became divisive. There has been much consternation across the U.S. with regard to reforms for troubled police departments, as well as concerns over what those changes would—or could—entail. In many contexts, the subject has become a moral panic. And in Minneapolis, the “defund” vote and surrounding conversations have served to crystalize many of the issues at hand.

The ballot question asked voters if they would like to replace the police department with a “Department of Public Safety.” And even the road to the ballot was a tough one—it took over 20,000 signatures from Minneapolis residents.

But according to activists, the question was presented in the same way the “defund” movement is often framed by those who oppose it: as about simply getting rid of police officers, without offering adequate or community-focused alternatives. This was not actually the proposal at hand in Minneapolis.

“The charter change did not explicitly defund anything,” says Minister JaNae Bates, director of communications for Yes 4 Minneapolis. “We were very clear that we wanted to expand public safety.”

The overarching idea, according to activists, was to look at 911 data across the city and match the safety needs of specific neighborhoods with a range of resources to address them—so it would not necessarily be the case that armed police officers respond to all 911 calls, for example, but trained social and health workers.

That was the problem. They didn't explicitly define the future role of armed police. As the badly worded ballot question said, they would only go as far as "if needed".

[carmenjonze]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-nothing- ... 55642.html
'What We Did Was Nothing To Sneeze At.' Activists in Minneapolis Look Ahead After 'Defund' Vote Fails


That was the problem. They didn't explicitly define the future role of armed police. As the badly worded ballot question said, they would only go as far as "if needed".

The problem is white backlash. The problem is always white backlash. White backlash is the reason for the cops being as they are, in the first place. White backlash is the reason you support(ed) Kyle Rittenhouse.

Happens, when your history is an outgrowth of slave patrols.

[bradman]

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/loc ... b722dedd0f
Breaking down voting data on Minneapolis ballot Question 2

First: "no" votes. Several neighborhoods on the northside, downtown and southwest side opted to keep the Minneapolis Police Department intact.

"I think the turnout really was a combination of race and resources," Amara said. "On the race side, you had communities of color — predominantly the African-American community — voting in high numbers for the 'no' campaign. And in addition to that, you had southwest voters, voters near lakes, more affluent voters turning out to vote 'no,' so the combination of those two bases was able to get them over the top."

[bradman]

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/11/ ... amendment/
5 Mpls. City Council Members Lose Seats Amid Controversy Over Failed Policing Amendment

Another sign of just how angry voters are with the current city council: they approved charter amendment one, which strips away significant powers from the council and gives them to the mayor.

In total, of the 13 city council members elected or re-elected this week, eight supported Question 2 while five opposed it.

4 of them that lost their seats were for defunding the police.

A 5th, Ellison, squeaked by.

imo, he only won because of name recognition.

[Ted]

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/11/ ... amendment/
5 Mpls. City Council Members Lose Seats Amid Controversy Over Failed Policing Amendment


4 of them that lost their seats were for defunding the police.

A 5th, Ellison, squeaked by.

imo, he only won because of name recognition.

Do you know how badly they lost their elections?

[bradman]

Do you know how badly they lost their elections?

Correction: i'm only counting 3 that supported question 2 being defeated.

Keep in mind, it was ranked-choice voting (RCV)

https://vote.minneapolismn.gov/results- ... l-ward-11/
Michael Rainville 6,027 6,907 51.7%
Steve Fletcher 5,229 5,658 42.4%

LaTrisha Vetaw 4,391
Phillipe M. Cunningham 2,196

Emily Koski 7,789
Jeremy Schroeder 4,049

Ellison squeaked by...

Jeremiah Ellison 1,752 2,117 38.6%
Kristel Porter 1,355 2,024 36.9%

Wards 9 and 10 were vacated seats won by supporters of Question 2...(defund)

Jason Chavez 3,792
Mickey Moore 906

Aisha Chughtai 3,934 5,360 50.3%
Alicia Gibson 1,999 3,581 33.6%

For ward 2, both were supporters of question 2..
Robin Wonsley Worlobah 2,763 4,056 42.6%
Yusra Arab 2,719 4,037 42.4%

Worlobah who was endorsed by DSA (Twin Cities Democratic Socialists of America) unseated Arab.

(It's rather confusing to me. i think i got all that right.)

[bradman]

None.

What is being said is that defund the police is effectively being used against the party and the party failed to get out front of the problem when defund reared it’s ugly head. We all know the party doesn’t support defund. But it did nothing to defuse that problem.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11 ... ion-2.html
Minneapolis Kept Its Police Department. But We’ll Be Here Again.
By Zak Cheney-Rice

I’m on record as being generally bearish about the durability of the George Floyd protests and the prospective changes they put on the table. Too many of the social conditions that informed them seemed fleeting, and now that several of those conditions have lost their salience — including many of the toughest restrictions wrought by the pandemic and the presence of Donald Trump in the White House — that skepticism has been largely borne out. In this light, it’s easy to conclude, perhaps correctly, that advocates who wanted big change missed their moment. The possibility of a new public-safety apparatus in Minneapolis might’ve been possible once, but it got squandered by poor framing, shoddy construction, and a general lack of preparedness for how far so many everyday people would be open to going, and then how fickle their conviction would be.

But if there’s one thing we can be sure of, as plenty of more moderate reforms are alternately adopted and discarded across the country, it’s that the police violence that got people into the streets after George Floyd’s murder isn’t going away, and in all likelihood will persist at similar rates as before. The rage that led to that fleeting summer of 2020 energy will be back, and it would behoove everyone to get ready for next time.

About the only thing i couldn't see.....

This was especially significant given how unclear much of the measure was and how badly it was demagogued. The amendment, had it passed, would have meant replacing the police department with a new “public health”–oriented Department of Public Safety, the functions of which would’ve been determined by the mayor and the City Council. It would have included police officers “if necessary” — a good indication that the cops probably weren’t going anywhere, even if there might’ve been slightly fewer of them, since a minimum staffing-level requirement that’s been in the city charter since the 1960s would have been eliminated.

[bold] i disagree. and think it had the opposite effect.

[bradman]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/editorial-de ... 00060.html
EDITORIAL: Dems should decommission 'defund police'

Seattle is known as one of the country's most liberal cities, with a municipal government controlled almost entirely by Democrats. If there were ever a place where "defund the police" could succeed, it's Seattle. The concept had a vocal advocate in city attorney candidate Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, a far-left firebrand who envisioned that her path to power would come through insulting police on Twitter. When Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz posted a holiday well-wishing message on Christmas Eve last year, Thomas-Kennedy responded "eat some covid laced s**t & quit ur jobs." In another tweet, she stated: "I'm way left but atm (at the moment) can only tweet about my rabid hatred of the police. I currently read like a single issue law enforcement abolition anarchist."

When asked by the Seattle Times if she wanted to apologize, Thomas-Kennedy refused, saying she didn't choose her words carefully because "I am not a political insider." Her opponent, Ann Davison, was a Republican running on a law-and-order platform, and she won with 59 percent of the vote.

[carmenjonze]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/editorial-de ... 00060.html
EDITORIAL: Dems should decommission 'defund police'

Nobody even ran on "defund the police," please give the pro-cop propaganda a rest.

[Bludogdem]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/editorial-de ... 00060.html
EDITORIAL: Dems should decommission 'defund police'

I really liked this part of the editorial. Good common sense and rational.

“ But setting aside from the politically suicidal nature of "defund the police," it's simply misguided, reckless policy. There is certainly some merit to the argument that police have too much on their plates, and that some of this burden could be shouldered by other municipal departments. And those who decried the Pentagon's transfers of surplus combat gear to police raised important questions about whether such equipment is appropriate for civilian settings.

But the challenging nature of police work requires skilled professionals, and they deserve to be paid accordingly. Experts on corruption in developing countries have known for some time that low pay and benefits for police (and legislators, for that matter) create an incentive for bribery. Make these jobs desirable, and they will be filled with desirable candidates who don't want to risk losing them.

And most of us understand the misery that comes from lacking the staff or resources to do a job right. In our city, Oneonta Police Chief Christopher Witzenburg urged the Common Council on Tuesday to provide him with an assistant chief and an additional officer, lamenting that the burdens of the last year on his department have been exacerbated by a lack of manpower.

Voters expect their police to be held to high standards. But the verdict is in: candidates who misinterpret this as a sign that police aren't wanted at all are bound to fail at the ballot box.”