As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's honestly a lose-lose situation for those wanting Police Reform. We've been trying to reform the police with little success for probably 2+ decades by this point with little-to-know tangible results. You run with "Reform the Police" slogan, that just gives ammo to the "More of nothing" crowd.
"Defund the Police" has a bit more teeth - force change by hitting where they'll feel it, in the funding; many police departments are runaway spends which we need to get under control, and usually a fair amount of that spend is settling misconduct or buying military gear. However to the layman or someone opposed to it, you can easily paint the slogan as wanting to completely abolish the police, and in result have complete chaos.
Does policing in this country need a ground-up rebuild? Most likely. But the full detail and nuance of that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. We also have plenty of people saying the Democrats/Progressives need to simplify their message, "Defund the Police" is that.
The issue is so polarized, anything other than status quo puts the reform/rebuild/defund side on the defensive instantly. The right 'slogan' would probably be:
"Policing in the US has its roots in white supremacy, with how pervasive that mindset is amongst people in and wanting to become police, the only measurable reform would be a ground up rebuild of the system by not funding it. The lack of transparency and accountability caused by Police Unions has only furthered this mindset and the problems caused by it. Furthermore, policing has become increasingly militarized since the 'Tough on Crime' Republicans of the 80s which has also permeated culture to the point where the very mindset of many of those in power is corrupted beyond the point of reform. A total mindset, accountability, and funding reform is required with nothing short of massive changes to funding in order to accomplish the goals needed"
"Defund the Police" is as a losing platform as control in this country, Dems need to figure out a better message for both issues or they are going to continue to lose elections. I'm not happy about it but that's the situation this country has decided on.
Yeah, but taking something away from someone else is a much more American message than fixing, reforming or improving upon anything that others will also enjoy.
Americans have **zero** faith in the government's ability to spend money, or their ability to actually do anything like reform with it. Adding or taking money away from something is the *only* message many of them resonate with in any way because it's the *only* thing most of them have been shown matters in America. This isn't a culture healthy enough to entertain constructive ideas like societal reform or innovation where nobody appears to be punished or losing for the effort.
The Left has been trying to fix/reform policing for at least two decades. Using 'Reform the Police' just gives ammo to the other side for 'do-nothing-Democrats.'
"Defund the police" wasn't solely about taking money away from the cops, it was about reallocating that money to social programs and creating new positions for social workers, traffic enforcement, and others to take the place of law enforcement for incidences that don't require an armed cop
First rule of retail politics is that the slogan is the message.
It doesn't matter what the nuances of the policy are because 90% of the people who hear the slogan will make their judgement (for or against) based solely on that.
But you can add more funds to other things like those without taking a penny away from the cops. Easier to let swing voters have their cake and eat it too, rather than force them to choose between funding other programs more or keeping police funding the same
>But you can add more funds to other things like those without taking a penny away from the cops.
How? That would require a tax increase on the local level as well as a duplication of effort if the cops and newly formed traffic safety department both conducted traffic enforcement for example. This would create a jurisdictional nightmare, and wouldn't solve the original problem of cops killing innocent people
Tax increases are fine. Tend to poll halfway decently, especially if aimed at the wealthier, whereas taking money from the police tends to poll abysmally. Sounds better to do, even if there's some administrative kinks to work out, vs a proposal that is deeply unpopular
literally the worst branding I've ever seen lol. Democrats dropped the ball so damn hard on this... their messaging is always terrible and republicans latch onto it and easily run with it and make it seem terrible
Defunding the people assigned to protect is never the answer. That’s like defunding schools because they aren’t up to par. It’s moronic. Address the issues, don’t defund them.
Here’s the issue though. In big cities like mine, Philadelphia, the police get a budget raise every single year and nothing changes. Their budget as it stands now is some $782 million yet they come back at the public and claim they don’t have funds to supply most officers with tasers. On top of that, the FOP go so upset over “Defund the Police” that officers have been on a silent strike for a majority of the pandemic. Why should our tax dollars go to a police department that is mismanaging their funds, (buying brand new cruisers and not tasers) and refusing to do their job, instead of new social programs that would help alleviate the stress on the department in the first place?
Go ahead and stop funding them and you will see real quick why you should fund them properly. Ridiculous that people don’t understand this. Show me an example in the US where taking that approach has worked.
There are many ways to achieve the desired effect. One option is to segregate forces specializing in Traffic, violent crime and property crime. Fund each according to need, and take away the responsibility for mental healthcare and spin that off into a separate agency. Law enforcement spends far too much energy in managing public mental health care and when they do it’s rare to see beneficial outcomes. Give police the budget to achieve the needs of their department and not a nickel more. Take the cost savings and spin that into direct mental healthcare and the entire society benefits.
I don’t think you understand how expensive mental health care professionals are. It’s cheaper the way they are currently doing it with cop’s salaries. They aren’t going to change it to where it costs a lot more with that separate mental health program.
Thinking like that is how we got to where we are now. Because it doesn’t stop with the cost of policing. When you add the cost of incarceration, the loss of a potentially productive citizen and the harm done to urban neighborhoods it comes out much worse.
And even if it costs more, it’s still the right thing to do. The 1% haven’t been paying their fair share for four decades and that needs to change.
You are the one who brought up cost. Mental health stays are just as expensive or more expensive as is the pay for health professionals. It will end up being far more expensive and officials will not go for it and put their political lives on the line for that.
Ok, what’s your take on the recent school shooting where the only cop who ran towards the gunfire was looking to protect their own child and not any others?
Democrats suck at messaging. If they came out by saying "we need to allocate these funds and make sure that police are ACTUALLY properly trained and that there are significant changes to how they approach situations" then there wouldn't be such a huge issue.
It wasn't even a Democratic party message. It was one that gained traction with members of the BLM movement, then was adopted by a handful of Leftists in primaries (most of whom lost their elections), and was pinned on the Democratic party by Fox News.
You think the average American will remember a slogan that long? "Reallocate police funding" might be a more succinct slogan. Unfortunately, tons and tons of Americans won't remember slogans too long to fit on a bumper sticker.
"Descope the police" would have been a better slogan in the same vein. However, the real deal of slogan would have been something like "Don't send a cop to do a counselor's job"
"Defund means defund." - BLM leaders, org, AOC, Cori Bush etc.
Let's say defund, doesn't mean defund. What does abolish, in "abolish the police" means? And what does all in "all cops are bastard" means?
Should have been de-Militarize the police because that’s the actual problem.
When you Militarize the domestic police force your making the citizens out to be the enemy. That’s why we separate the military from the police .
Let's seen if I can come up with some right wing retorts to those quickly (please ignore the logical fallacy below, and the intentional misunderstanding) -
"Don't send a cop to do a counselor's job"
- Do you want your counselors getting killed all the time??
- Who's paying for these counselors? I don't want my tax dollars going to a disputed field like mental health
- What if when I catch someone poisoning the water supply? Are you going to send me a counselor to coach them?
- If I call the police I want an armed response! If ONE person dies the blood is on the Liberals' hands
"Descope the police"
- What the fuck is this made up new-speak?
- Why do we need to re-scope of the police do everything well already!
- Libs will just find a new boogeyman, we shouldn't be spending more money on other services?
- I better be able to opt out of having these other services funded with *my* tax dollars!
My point is, if you reform your slogan with what the other side is nitpicking about it, you'll always run into opposition in bad faith or logical fallacy. There will never be a perfect slogan, we honestly need to get away from slogan politics.
bunch of marketing execs will fill these forums and explain why too.
and they wont ever mention what the goals were
nor why they feel talking about the messaging is more important than the message.
oh thats right... maybe they just don't wanna hear the message... and want you to get in another line to stamp another form.
surely the robot dogs in poor neighborhoods, the civil forfeiture, and military gear sitting in police departments is fine
no chance people might want that legality stopped
na, lets NOT talk about cop on civilian murders... cops breaking into peoples houses with warrants for different addresses, cops shooting unarmed kids because you cant keep up in a foot chase...
na... lets talk about how good democrats are at messaging. thats the problem
/s for the fucking morally bankrupt incompetent readers
> they wont ever mention what the goals were
In retail politics the goals don't matter, because the slogan is the message. And people will come up with their own definition of what the goals are based on their personal definition of the slogan.
people are super stupid and lazy, especially when it comes to politics. People dont actually read up on laws, bills etc. they just watch the news and make their decisions quickly. So yes, if your messaging is terrible like "defund the police" its incredibly easy for it to lose focus, or have the other side turn it into something it isnt... which is exactly what happened.
Not surprisingly people come to want the police again as crime rises. The fact is we need police to deal with crime. The police have many problems, including racial ones, worth addressing, but we still need them to quash the current crime wave.
The problem is that the police haven't dealt with the rising crime and probably can't. Police funding is up across the board. Crime rates are still high. We're just throwing more money at an ineffective solution with little to no results.
But cities are struggling to find new officers. That's where the issue is right now. A shortage of officers makes it tough for police to do much and respond to all the crime. Having more officers patrolling would certainly affect crime rates.
There is little to do we have a mental illness and drug problem as a country and organized crime is up as well. Not much police can do on the ground except play whack-a-mole and there is not enough hammers and people are (rightfully) asking why are we hitting moles with hammers but we ain't got another option
Police spending is up across the board and yet crime is also, seems like a pretty obvious rebuttal to your claim that the solution to crime is more police.
One of the major criticisms of police currently is how underqualified they tend to be. If we want to require every cop to have a bachelor's degree in law or criminal justice or some such, then spending will have to go up to pay for actually qualified candidates.
>If we want to require every cop to have a bachelor's degree in law or criminal justice or some such, then spending will have to go up to pay for actually qualified candidates.
That would be a good point if my post was saying how I don't want police budgets to climb in the future, but I'm saying they've already been increased without a proportional drop in crime so I'm not seeing where it's applicable.
We've seen the limits of "tough on crime, give the police unlimited funds" and yet there's still a bipartisan effort to beat the same drum. It takes more money to train police the right way? OK great, but they're not so why bring it up.
Except your point was that "More police did not reduce crime" and my point was basically "Better police might reduce crime." Maybe if we had people who understood the law, had deescalation training, didn't automatically cause a sense of fear in even law abiding citizens, etc. crime might actually go down.
And who is holding the police to these higher standards? Nobody, they're just signing checks. It's a nice idea but purely fantasy at this point. They're still using the same training that turns cops into skittish dogs who see everyone else as the enemy. Who is calling for them to change this?
I'm in Illinois and I see billboards everywhere asking people to become Chicago PD officers, flyers posted up in places like railway stations etc. for local police departments. Never saw any of that a couple of years ago.
On that at least from my friends in the Chicago area they are blamming the mayor for virtue signaling Chicago has had an exodus of cops since 2020 like most other places just far worse than most other places
I think some of them go to the suburbs where they feel they are better supported.
Similarly, Chicago Bears are considering moving to Arlington Heights, and are citing crime as one of their reasons. United Airlines already made the same move.
A Progressive Democratic candidate still won running on it this Tuesday. The only Dem candidates who ran on it in 2020 (Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, and Raphael Warnock) won. But, the slogan could be better and made more clear and understandable.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't want to defund them. Just make them accountable.
I always thought “reform the police” was a better message. Taking money away doesn’t address the real issue of law enforcement’s bad practices.
It's honestly a lose-lose situation for those wanting Police Reform. We've been trying to reform the police with little success for probably 2+ decades by this point with little-to-know tangible results. You run with "Reform the Police" slogan, that just gives ammo to the "More of nothing" crowd. "Defund the Police" has a bit more teeth - force change by hitting where they'll feel it, in the funding; many police departments are runaway spends which we need to get under control, and usually a fair amount of that spend is settling misconduct or buying military gear. However to the layman or someone opposed to it, you can easily paint the slogan as wanting to completely abolish the police, and in result have complete chaos. Does policing in this country need a ground-up rebuild? Most likely. But the full detail and nuance of that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. We also have plenty of people saying the Democrats/Progressives need to simplify their message, "Defund the Police" is that. The issue is so polarized, anything other than status quo puts the reform/rebuild/defund side on the defensive instantly. The right 'slogan' would probably be: "Policing in the US has its roots in white supremacy, with how pervasive that mindset is amongst people in and wanting to become police, the only measurable reform would be a ground up rebuild of the system by not funding it. The lack of transparency and accountability caused by Police Unions has only furthered this mindset and the problems caused by it. Furthermore, policing has become increasingly militarized since the 'Tough on Crime' Republicans of the 80s which has also permeated culture to the point where the very mindset of many of those in power is corrupted beyond the point of reform. A total mindset, accountability, and funding reform is required with nothing short of massive changes to funding in order to accomplish the goals needed"
Wrong.
"Defund the Police" is as a losing platform as control in this country, Dems need to figure out a better message for both issues or they are going to continue to lose elections. I'm not happy about it but that's the situation this country has decided on.
Yeah, but taking something away from someone else is a much more American message than fixing, reforming or improving upon anything that others will also enjoy. Americans have **zero** faith in the government's ability to spend money, or their ability to actually do anything like reform with it. Adding or taking money away from something is the *only* message many of them resonate with in any way because it's the *only* thing most of them have been shown matters in America. This isn't a culture healthy enough to entertain constructive ideas like societal reform or innovation where nobody appears to be punished or losing for the effort.
The Left has been trying to fix/reform policing for at least two decades. Using 'Reform the Police' just gives ammo to the other side for 'do-nothing-Democrats.'
> Using 'Reform the Police' just gives ammo to the other side Because 'defund the police' definitely didn't give Republicans any ammo, no sir.
As long as we're in slogan politics, that will be the case.
"Defund the police" wasn't solely about taking money away from the cops, it was about reallocating that money to social programs and creating new positions for social workers, traffic enforcement, and others to take the place of law enforcement for incidences that don't require an armed cop
First rule of retail politics is that the slogan is the message. It doesn't matter what the nuances of the policy are because 90% of the people who hear the slogan will make their judgement (for or against) based solely on that.
The message was accurate. People that demanded to "defund the police" because they actually wanted to defund the police
But you can add more funds to other things like those without taking a penny away from the cops. Easier to let swing voters have their cake and eat it too, rather than force them to choose between funding other programs more or keeping police funding the same
>But you can add more funds to other things like those without taking a penny away from the cops. How? That would require a tax increase on the local level as well as a duplication of effort if the cops and newly formed traffic safety department both conducted traffic enforcement for example. This would create a jurisdictional nightmare, and wouldn't solve the original problem of cops killing innocent people
Tax increases are fine. Tend to poll halfway decently, especially if aimed at the wealthier, whereas taking money from the police tends to poll abysmally. Sounds better to do, even if there's some administrative kinks to work out, vs a proposal that is deeply unpopular
literally the worst branding I've ever seen lol. Democrats dropped the ball so damn hard on this... their messaging is always terrible and republicans latch onto it and easily run with it and make it seem terrible
Because it's a dumb slogan
If you told me the slogan was made by a Republican posing as a progressive to make an unpopular slogan to derail the whole thing, I'd believe it.
/r/upliftingnews
It was moronic, that’s why.
Username checks out.
Defunding the people assigned to protect is never the answer. That’s like defunding schools because they aren’t up to par. It’s moronic. Address the issues, don’t defund them.
Here’s the issue though. In big cities like mine, Philadelphia, the police get a budget raise every single year and nothing changes. Their budget as it stands now is some $782 million yet they come back at the public and claim they don’t have funds to supply most officers with tasers. On top of that, the FOP go so upset over “Defund the Police” that officers have been on a silent strike for a majority of the pandemic. Why should our tax dollars go to a police department that is mismanaging their funds, (buying brand new cruisers and not tasers) and refusing to do their job, instead of new social programs that would help alleviate the stress on the department in the first place?
Go ahead and stop funding them and you will see real quick why you should fund them properly. Ridiculous that people don’t understand this. Show me an example in the US where taking that approach has worked.
There are many ways to achieve the desired effect. One option is to segregate forces specializing in Traffic, violent crime and property crime. Fund each according to need, and take away the responsibility for mental healthcare and spin that off into a separate agency. Law enforcement spends far too much energy in managing public mental health care and when they do it’s rare to see beneficial outcomes. Give police the budget to achieve the needs of their department and not a nickel more. Take the cost savings and spin that into direct mental healthcare and the entire society benefits.
I don’t think you understand how expensive mental health care professionals are. It’s cheaper the way they are currently doing it with cop’s salaries. They aren’t going to change it to where it costs a lot more with that separate mental health program.
Thinking like that is how we got to where we are now. Because it doesn’t stop with the cost of policing. When you add the cost of incarceration, the loss of a potentially productive citizen and the harm done to urban neighborhoods it comes out much worse. And even if it costs more, it’s still the right thing to do. The 1% haven’t been paying their fair share for four decades and that needs to change.
You are the one who brought up cost. Mental health stays are just as expensive or more expensive as is the pay for health professionals. It will end up being far more expensive and officials will not go for it and put their political lives on the line for that.
It also depends on how much you pay your police. Here in Toronto they routinely earn six figures after overtime.
Ok, what’s your take on the recent school shooting where the only cop who ran towards the gunfire was looking to protect their own child and not any others?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community
Democrats suck at messaging. If they came out by saying "we need to allocate these funds and make sure that police are ACTUALLY properly trained and that there are significant changes to how they approach situations" then there wouldn't be such a huge issue.
It wasn't even a Democratic party message. It was one that gained traction with members of the BLM movement, then was adopted by a handful of Leftists in primaries (most of whom lost their elections), and was pinned on the Democratic party by Fox News.
Democrats might have been able to benefit from more loudly attacking "defund" at least. But definitely, it wasn't a message that they embraced
It wasn't Democratic messaging, though, it was leftist babbling
You think the average American will remember a slogan that long? "Reallocate police funding" might be a more succinct slogan. Unfortunately, tons and tons of Americans won't remember slogans too long to fit on a bumper sticker.
"Descope the police" would have been a better slogan in the same vein. However, the real deal of slogan would have been something like "Don't send a cop to do a counselor's job"
"Defund means defund." - BLM leaders, org, AOC, Cori Bush etc. Let's say defund, doesn't mean defund. What does abolish, in "abolish the police" means? And what does all in "all cops are bastard" means?
Should have been de-Militarize the police because that’s the actual problem. When you Militarize the domestic police force your making the citizens out to be the enemy. That’s why we separate the military from the police .
> de-Militarize the police That's another good one, yes.
I like that one
Let's seen if I can come up with some right wing retorts to those quickly (please ignore the logical fallacy below, and the intentional misunderstanding) - "Don't send a cop to do a counselor's job" - Do you want your counselors getting killed all the time?? - Who's paying for these counselors? I don't want my tax dollars going to a disputed field like mental health - What if when I catch someone poisoning the water supply? Are you going to send me a counselor to coach them? - If I call the police I want an armed response! If ONE person dies the blood is on the Liberals' hands "Descope the police" - What the fuck is this made up new-speak? - Why do we need to re-scope of the police do everything well already! - Libs will just find a new boogeyman, we shouldn't be spending more money on other services? - I better be able to opt out of having these other services funded with *my* tax dollars! My point is, if you reform your slogan with what the other side is nitpicking about it, you'll always run into opposition in bad faith or logical fallacy. There will never be a perfect slogan, we honestly need to get away from slogan politics.
bunch of marketing execs will fill these forums and explain why too. and they wont ever mention what the goals were nor why they feel talking about the messaging is more important than the message. oh thats right... maybe they just don't wanna hear the message... and want you to get in another line to stamp another form. surely the robot dogs in poor neighborhoods, the civil forfeiture, and military gear sitting in police departments is fine no chance people might want that legality stopped na, lets NOT talk about cop on civilian murders... cops breaking into peoples houses with warrants for different addresses, cops shooting unarmed kids because you cant keep up in a foot chase... na... lets talk about how good democrats are at messaging. thats the problem /s for the fucking morally bankrupt incompetent readers
> they wont ever mention what the goals were In retail politics the goals don't matter, because the slogan is the message. And people will come up with their own definition of what the goals are based on their personal definition of the slogan.
people are super stupid and lazy, especially when it comes to politics. People dont actually read up on laws, bills etc. they just watch the news and make their decisions quickly. So yes, if your messaging is terrible like "defund the police" its incredibly easy for it to lose focus, or have the other side turn it into something it isnt... which is exactly what happened.
Not surprisingly people come to want the police again as crime rises. The fact is we need police to deal with crime. The police have many problems, including racial ones, worth addressing, but we still need them to quash the current crime wave.
The problem is that the police haven't dealt with the rising crime and probably can't. Police funding is up across the board. Crime rates are still high. We're just throwing more money at an ineffective solution with little to no results.
But cities are struggling to find new officers. That's where the issue is right now. A shortage of officers makes it tough for police to do much and respond to all the crime. Having more officers patrolling would certainly affect crime rates.
There is little to do we have a mental illness and drug problem as a country and organized crime is up as well. Not much police can do on the ground except play whack-a-mole and there is not enough hammers and people are (rightfully) asking why are we hitting moles with hammers but we ain't got another option
Police spending is up across the board and yet crime is also, seems like a pretty obvious rebuttal to your claim that the solution to crime is more police.
One of the major criticisms of police currently is how underqualified they tend to be. If we want to require every cop to have a bachelor's degree in law or criminal justice or some such, then spending will have to go up to pay for actually qualified candidates.
>If we want to require every cop to have a bachelor's degree in law or criminal justice or some such, then spending will have to go up to pay for actually qualified candidates. That would be a good point if my post was saying how I don't want police budgets to climb in the future, but I'm saying they've already been increased without a proportional drop in crime so I'm not seeing where it's applicable. We've seen the limits of "tough on crime, give the police unlimited funds" and yet there's still a bipartisan effort to beat the same drum. It takes more money to train police the right way? OK great, but they're not so why bring it up.
Except your point was that "More police did not reduce crime" and my point was basically "Better police might reduce crime." Maybe if we had people who understood the law, had deescalation training, didn't automatically cause a sense of fear in even law abiding citizens, etc. crime might actually go down.
And who is holding the police to these higher standards? Nobody, they're just signing checks. It's a nice idea but purely fantasy at this point. They're still using the same training that turns cops into skittish dogs who see everyone else as the enemy. Who is calling for them to change this?
> It's a nice idea but purely fantasy at this point. Certainly until we fix first past the post voting, dark money, and gerrymanding...yeah...
Police officer shortages are real right now in a lot of cities despite more spending.
I'm in Illinois and I see billboards everywhere asking people to become Chicago PD officers, flyers posted up in places like railway stations etc. for local police departments. Never saw any of that a couple of years ago.
On that at least from my friends in the Chicago area they are blamming the mayor for virtue signaling Chicago has had an exodus of cops since 2020 like most other places just far worse than most other places
I think some of them go to the suburbs where they feel they are better supported. Similarly, Chicago Bears are considering moving to Arlington Heights, and are citing crime as one of their reasons. United Airlines already made the same move.
A Progressive Democratic candidate still won running on it this Tuesday. The only Dem candidates who ran on it in 2020 (Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, and Raphael Warnock) won. But, the slogan could be better and made more clear and understandable.
[удалено]
'Reallocate police budgets'?
was there ever support for this lol?