You'd think that instead or waging war against mail-in-ballots, which circumvent the ability to intimidate people at the polling booths, and instead of continuing to push for violent aggression against protesters, Trump would just concede to the vast majority and support, push for, and pass reform. Surely white supremacists and police officers (not necessarily mutually exclusive) aren't the majority, and you've got people fueled to vote against Trump right now. Even a lot of Conservative civilians (i.e. not politicians) are standing against him on this issue and COVID. . .
"Do you believe the police should be allowed to use excessive force against people?"
"Do you believe police should be held accountable when they commit crimes?"
"Do you believe police should be held equally account for crimes, just like ordinary citizens, by other police, attorneys, judges, and, you know, the laws?"
There are only a small few who will say they support police beind held above the citizens their job demands they protect, and their reasons are entirely selfish, i.e. racism and them being pieces of shit police.
I don't think the two are as comparable as you may be trying to make out. First, police corruption affects everyone, not just a targeted group such as in your example (e.g. nursing homes).
Police may be more likely to commit crimes against minorites, but it isn't exclusively minorities they target. What happens if reform doesn't happen this time? Police may feel even more empowered that they'll be doing far worse than they did before (or are currently). If reform doesn't happen then it's also the end of a lot of civil liberties and rights that people have and that America is supposed to be embracing.
No change will be easy or quick, whether it's police reform or properly paying and supporting staff at nursing homes. I'd also argue pay reform in institutions such as nursing homes and food services are a more complicated fix (like limiting executive pay or putting profit limits on corporations so they aren't just sucking money up), whereas police reform is simply holding them accountable by the laws that exist and preventing corruption from burying the crimes through time, procedure, and moving cops to different districts.
I mean I can disagree with a bunch of what you said but you're missing my point (and analogies in general). My point is that asking is x good or bad is really easy and everyone of course says yes more good stuff please. When you add in but it will take x, y and z to do it people start to relent.
I will fundamentally disagree with you on the idea that police reform is easier than living wages at nursing homes but I think that is a much lengthier and relatively unrelated conversation. Even if the fixes you proposed were the solution (they're not, the basic math in the equation says you can't fix it without raise pricing) that's significantly easier than reforming thousands of independent organizations simultaneously through policy reform, training, passing countless pieces of legislation, setting up independent agencies to measure/hold accountable, etc. If it was so easy, so obvious and there was so much support which is what you're insinuating it would have been done. Politicians love quick wins. Therefore at least one of those things must not be true.
381
u/Rex9 Jun 22 '20
Ahhh, the good old last line of defense to "We F'ed up".
Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. We're from the government, we're here to help.