Kamala Interview About Defunding the Police: She Even Praised Violence

[WestCanMan]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html

(CNN) Vice President Kamala Harris voiced support for “defund the police” in a radio interview in June 2020 amidst nationwide protests for police reform

Quotes from the village id10t:

• "any progress we have gained has been because people took to the streets,” Harris added.
• A day before her “Ebro in the Morning” radio interview, Harris appeared on MSNBC where she explicitly called to “demilitarize police departments” and said it was “backward” to think more police officers created more safety.
• In an interview a day earlier, Harris also lauded Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for his decision to slash $150 million from the police budget and move it into social services.

• “We need to have this conversation and critically examine and understand this is not working,” Harris said on “Ebro in the Morning.” “It’s not working. So, this is an important conversation and not just a conversation – cause to your earlier point, can’t just be about talk. It has to be about forcing change.”

She's not just violent, and she's not just stupid enough to talk about defunding police, she's really stupid. Check this out:

• “For too long, the status quo thinking has been, you get more safety by putting more cops on the street,” Harris added. “Well, that’s wrong, because by the way, if you wanna look at upper middle class suburban neighborhoods, they don’t have that patrol car.”

Ummm, it's good to have the most cops where the most crime is, Kamala, you stupid bimbo. I'm not even gonna explain that to all the leftards lol. 

[Deluge]

On 8/7/2024 at 6:35 PM, WestCanMan said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html

(CNN) Vice President Kamala Harris voiced support for “defund the police” in a radio interview in June 2020 amidst nationwide protests for police reform

Quotes from the village id10t:

• "any progress we have gained has been because people took to the streets,” Harris added.
• A day before her “Ebro in the Morning” radio interview, Harris appeared on MSNBC where she explicitly called to “demilitarize police departments” and said it was “backward” to think more police officers created more safety.
• In an interview a day earlier, Harris also lauded Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for his decision to slash $150 million from the police budget and move it into social services.

• “We need to have this conversation and critically examine and understand this is not working,” Harris said on “Ebro in the Morning.” “It’s not working. So, this is an important conversation and not just a conversation – cause to your earlier point, can’t just be about talk. It has to be about forcing change.”

She's not just violent, and she's not just stupid enough to talk about defunding police, she's really stupid. Check this out:

• “For too long, the status quo thinking has been, you get more safety by putting more cops on the street,” Harris added. “Well, that’s wrong, because by the way, if you wanna look at upper middle class suburban neighborhoods, they don’t have that patrol car.”

Ummm, it's good to have the most cops where the most crime is, Kamala, you stupid bimbo. I'm not even gonna explain that to all the leftards lol. 

Comrade Harris will not rest until 99% of the country is living under 100% communism. 

[Hodad]

Hey, look. Another eruption from the volcano of hate and lies! 

Super stupid post that in no way supports the headline. This is why no one takes you seriously. Any of those topics are worth discussing, but you can't manage an honest discussion to save your life. Just hate and lies. So boring.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Hey, look. Another eruption from the volcano of hate and lies! 

Super stupid post that in no way supports the headline. This is why no one takes you seriously. Any of those topics are worth discussing, but you can't manage an honest discussion to save your life. Just hate and lies. So boring.

Holy pot/kettle Batman!

[WestCanMan]

54 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Hey, look. Another eruption from the volcano of hate and lies! 

Super stupid post that in no way supports the headline. This is why no one takes you seriously. Any of those topics are worth discussing, but you can't manage an honest discussion to save your life. Just hate and lies. So boring.

Hey dummy, when Kamala talked about "people taking to the streets" and "forcing change", do you think she was talking about "mostly peaceful protests"?

Hint: That's a trap, because "mostly peaceful protests" aren't peaceful. You're welcome, dummy.

When she was praising people like Garcetti for slashing police budgets by as much as $150M, at the height of riting, do you think she wasn't praising violence, and pimping the Defund Police narrative? 

Grow up. Your "liar liar pants on fire" gimmick is getting old.

Do you honestly not believe that Harris was an early adopter of the "defund police" movement? 

Edited August 9, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Hey dummy, when Kamala talked about "people taking to the streets" and "forcing change", do you think she was talking about "mostly peaceful protests"?

Hint: That's a trap, because "mostly peaceful protests" aren't peaceful. You're welcome, dummy.

When she was praising people like Garcetti for slashing police budgets by as much as $150M, at the height of riting, do you think she wasn't praising violence, and pimping the Defund Police narrative? 

Grow up. Your "liar liar pants on fire" gimmick is getting old.

Do you honestly not believe that Harris was an early adopter of the "defund police" movement? 

No, you knuckle-dragging simpleton, "take to the streets" does not mean rioting. It simply means protesting. You've been shown multiple times Harris' statement regarding protesters vs. rioters and her disapproval of the later, but it's one of the lies you repeat and nauseum.

And if I thought for a second you could have an adult conversation I'd point out that demilitarizing the police was quite recently a libertarian and sometimes conservative objective. Or that shifting funds from enforcement to prevention or mitigation is a viable--and often more effective--strategy. But fark it, you don't care about reality in the slightest.

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Hey dummy, when Kamala talked about "people taking to the streets" and "forcing change", do you think she was talking about "mostly peaceful protests"?

Hint: That's a trap, because "mostly peaceful protests" aren't peaceful. You're welcome, dummy.

When she was praising people like Garcetti for slashing police budgets by as much as $150M, at the height of riting, do you think she wasn't praising violence, and pimping the Defund Police narrative? 

Grow up. Your "liar liar pants on fire" gimmick is getting old.

Do you honestly not believe that Harris was an early adopter of the "defund police" movement? 

She did not praise violence, you knuckle-dragging simpleton. She described exactly what she mean by the phrase “defunding,” which doesn’t mean “eliminating”. And I don’t think police departments should be militarized.  If military force is needed, the governor can call up the National Guard, not use the cops as a military force.  

[WestCanMan]

9 minutes ago, Rebound said:

She did not praise violence, you knuckle-dragging simpleton. She described exactly what she mean by the phrase “defunding,” which doesn’t mean “eliminating”. And I don’t think police departments should be militarized.  If military force is needed, the governor can call up the National Guard, not use the cops as a military force.  

Those are her own quotes in the OP, dummy.

When she says "Take to the streets" and "forcing change" she's talking about a period of violence. 

You know as well as anyone that's not even a dog-whistle, she's overtly alluding to violence.

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Hey, look. Another eruption from the volcano of hate and lies! 

Super stupid post that in no way supports the headline. This is why no one takes you seriously. Any of those topics are worth discussing, but you can't manage an honest discussion to save your life. Just hate and lies. So boring.

Hey look another butt hurt post from a leftie who can't actually address the issue or offer any kind of rebuttal. 

Yawn. 

58 minutes ago, Rebound said:

She did not praise violence, you knuckle-dragging simpleton. She described exactly what she mean by the phrase “defunding,” which doesn’t mean “eliminating”. And I don’t think police departments should be militarized.  If military force is needed, the governor can call up the National Guard, not use the cops as a military force.  

Dude, she wanted to defund the police and did indeed endorse violent protest during a time of violent protest. 

You can say maybe she's rethought her position but that is something she did. You can't put lipstick on that. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, you knuckle-dragging simpleton, "take to the streets" does not mean rioting. It simply means protesting. You've been shown multiple times Harris' statement regarding protesters vs. rioters and her disapproval of the later, but it's one of the lies you repeat and nauseum.

And if I thought for a second you could have an adult conversation I'd point out that demilitarizing the police was quite recently a libertarian and sometimes conservative objective. Or that shifting funds from enforcement to prevention or mitigation is a viable--and often more effective--strategy. But fark it, you don't care about reality in the slightest.

Right wing lDIOTS still don't understand that "defund" means shifting SOME resources to professionals who are TRAINED to deal with the mentally ill, instead of those with NO TRAINING except how to use guns and tasers.

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Those are her own quotes in the OP, dummy.

When she says "Take to the streets" and "forcing change" she's talking about a period of violence. 

You know as well as anyone that's not even a dog-whistle, she's overtly alluding to violence.

You always pretend you know exactly what left wingers mean, but can never figure out Trump's double talk. LMAO

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Right wing lDIOTS still don't understand that "defund" means shifting SOME resources to professionals who are TRAINED to deal with the mentally ill, instead of those with NO TRAINING except how to use guns and tasers.

You always pretend you know exactly what left wingers mean, but can never figure out Trump's double talk. LMAO

 Left wing loser lies to try to minimize the truth. 

She said out right that it was 'not true' that having more cops means we're safer or there's less crime. She wanted to have significantly fewer cops.  SHe feels that police don't help with crimes. 

We've seen the result where they tried that.  It was horrible. 

She's a radical left wing freak 

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 Left wing loser lies to try to minimize the truth. 

She said out right that it was 'not true' that having more cops means we're safer or there's less crime. She wanted to have significantly fewer cops.  SHe feels that police don't help with crimes. 

We've seen the result where they tried that.  It was horrible. 

She's a radical left wing freak 

You can stop telling us what she said because we can read the article and see exactly what the former prosecutor and attorney general said and meant.  
 

Kamala Harris out criminals in jail. 
Donald Trump is going to jail.  

[gatomontes99]

19 hours ago, Hodad said:

Hey, look. Another eruption from the volcano of hate and lies! 

Super stupid post that in no way supports the headline. This is why no one takes you seriously. Any of those topics are worth discussing, but you can't manage an honest discussion to save your life. Just hate and lies. So boring.

Uh, no, that post nailed it. Even more so, how stupid is it to say that the lack of cops is why there is no crime. The cops don't go to neighborhoods with no crime because there is no crime. The cops go to neighborhoods with crime because there is crime to respond to because someone called the police for help. I mean, how big of a more-on is she? She thinks data is just floating in clouds and the lack of police lead to no crime? How does that even work? Are the cops out there handing out Marijuana and then arresting people for possession of marijuana?

 

[Rebound]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Those are her own quotes in the OP, dummy.

When she says "Take to the streets" and "forcing change" she's talking about a period of violence. 

You know as well as anyone that's not even a dog-whistle, she's overtly alluding to violence.

English. Do you speak it? The US Constitution: Have you heard of it?

Take to the Streets: According to Merriam-Webster: “to go outside on the streets.”

Please refer to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Examples of ‘Take to the Streets’ from Webster:

“The protests occurred last week and Odinga has urged his followers to take to the streets twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays.”

“President Emmanuel Macron’s government is redoubling its efforts to secure a parliamentary majority as citizens increasingly take to the streets to protest a reform to raise the retirement age to 64 from 62.” 

Edited August 10, 2024 by Rebound

[Aristides]

Well, the US has the largest incarceration rate and prison population in the world so putting even more people in jail doesn't seem to be working very well. Putting more resources into dealing with the causes of crime seems logical. 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

You can stop telling us what she said because we can read the article and see exactly what the former prosecutor and attorney general said and meant.  

LOL you can see what she said - but what she 'meant' is your own twisted imagining and take on the issue. 

What she meant is likely what she said - more cops does not mean more safety and they should be defunded. Which was a very popular opinion at the time.  Not so much now, it did NOT age well. 

Just like when she said ban all fracking, what she meant was ban all fracking

Just like when she said "I  AM a radica" what she meant was she's a radical. 

And so on. 

Your sad attempts to retcon what her words mean aren't going to impress anyone who's not already facing mental health issues over trump. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

English. Do you speak it?

...

“The protests occurred last week and Odinga has urged his followers to take to the streets twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays.

“There were both violent and non-violent protests which resulted in a change. Kamala praised her followers for taking to the streets to force that change."

 

Which protesters was Kamala was praising when she used the term "forced change", dummy? The non-violent ones? Do nonviolent protests "force change"? Is that the correct assumption there? 

Because believe you me - any violent protesters out there feel vindicated by the overt support they received from the woman who you're pimping for president. 

You're literally choosing Nero Walz and Fidel Harris to lead the country.

If you ere a violent rioter and you saw those two in the WH, wouldn't you just assume that it was 100% ok to get violent at a riot? Why on God's green earth wouldn't you? THEY BOTH OPENLY SUPPORTED VIOLENT RIOTS IN THE RECNT PAST. And not just "got surprised by one riot". THEY SUPPORTED ONGOING VIOLENT RIOTING you halfwit. 

"The riots yesterday and last week and last month were awesome! I hope this goes on until after Christmas!" - Kamala Harris [paraphrasing]

Edited August 10, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

“There were both violent and non-violent protests which resulted in a change. Kamala praised her followers for taking to the streets to force that change."

 

Which protesters was Kamala was praising when she used the term "forced change", dummy? The non-violent ones? Do nonviolent protests "force change"? Is that the correct assumption there? 

Because believe you me - any violent protesters out there feel vindicated by the overt support they received from the woman who you're pimping for president. 

You're literally choosing Nero Walz and Fidel Harris to lead the country.

If you ere a violent rioter and you saw those two in the WH, wouldn't you just assume that it was 100% ok to get violent at a riot? Why on God's green earth wouldn't you? THEY BOTH OPENLY SUPPORTED VIOLENT RIOTS IN THE RECNT PAST. And not just "got surprised by one riot". THEY SUPPORTED ONGOING VIOLENT RIOTING you halfwit. 

"The riots yesterday and last week and last month were awesome! I hope this goes on until after Christmas!" - Kamala Harris [paraphrasing]

Neither of them supported violent riots, let alone openly. Like Trump, you just can't stop yourself from lying in absurd and obvious ways. So weird.

Edited August 10, 2024 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

Hmmm...

Ya know what's "weird"?

The term "Summer of love" is "weird".

Calling for a reduction of police is "weird".

Encouraging people to bur down businesses and cop shops is "weird".

Putting tampon machines in boys washrooms in schools is "weird".

Those things are weird.

On the other hand, lying about your military service is slimy.

Lying about your political record is also...slimy.

Edited August 10, 2024 by Nationalist

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Uh, no, that post nailed it. Even more so, how stupid is it to say that the lack of cops is why there is no crime. The cops don't go to neighborhoods with no crime because there is no crime. The cops go to neighborhoods with crime because there is crime to respond to because someone called the police for help. I mean, how big of a more-on is she? She thinks data is just floating in clouds and the lack of police lead to no crime? How does that even work? Are the cops out there handing out Marijuana and then arresting people for possession of marijuana?

 

No, it was literally made up nonsense. Like the kids who reads the passage on his SATs and can't manage to identify the point, so just guesses. 

Again, any if those topics are worth discussing, but you'd have to talk about the actual issues rather than his ridiculous straw men. 

 

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, it was literally made up nonsense. Like the kids who reads the passage on his SATs and can't manage to identify the point, so just guesses. 

Again, any if those topics are worth discussing, but you'd have to talk about the actual issues rather than his ridiculous straw men. 

 

No. She is dumb enough to believe that the more cops there are the more crime there is. That is why she wanted to defund the police. That and a problem that didn't exist but the media hyped anyway.

[Hodad]

26 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. She is dumb enough to believe that the more cops there are the more crime there is. That is why she wanted to defund the police. That and a problem that didn't exist but the media hyped anyway.

Again, this is just a silly strawman. Very silly. It's not about defending the police in isolation. It's about shifting funds from enforcement to intervention, prevention and mitigation. 

The premise (a correct one) is that people aren't inherently criminal. They are I born that way, but turn to crime in reaction to circumstances. Changing the circumstances can change the trajectory of crime. 

Basic implementations of this have been mental health services for the homeless rather than arrests for vagrancy. Or treating heroin addiction as a manageable medical condition than forcing the afflicted to become criminal. 

The incarceration rates in the United States are wildly out of line with most of our developed nation peers. We have more than twice the Police officers per capital relative to Canada or the UK. And we are not winning with rudimentary enforcement and imprisonment. We absolutely need to be thinking about crime in smarter ways. Proactively rather than reactively.

 

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Again, this is just a silly strawman. Very silly. It's not about defending the police in isolation. It's about shifting funds from enforcement to intervention, prevention and mitigation. 

The premise (a correct one) is that people aren't inherently criminal. They are I born that way, but turn to crime in reaction to circumstances. Changing the circumstances can change the trajectory of crime. 

Basic implementations of this have been mental health services for the homeless rather than arrests for vagrancy. Or treating heroin addiction as a manageable medical condition than forcing the afflicted to become criminal. 

The incarceration rates in the United States are wildly out of line with most of our developed nation peers. We have more than twice the Police officers per capital relative to Canada or the UK. And we are not winning with rudimentary enforcement and imprisonment. We absolutely need to be thinking about crime in smarter ways. Proactively rather than reactively.

 

Lol, do you really believe that fantasy? I mean seriously. Woman said the less cops there are the less crime there is. That isn't a strawman. That's what she said.

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

“There were both violent and non-violent protests which resulted in a change. Kamala praised her followers for taking to the streets to force that change."

 

Which protesters was Kamala was praising when she used the term "forced change", dummy? The non-violent ones? Do nonviolent protests "force change"? Is that the correct assumption there? 

Because believe you me - any violent protesters out there feel vindicated by the overt support they received from the woman who you're pimping for president. 

You're literally choosing Nero Walz and Fidel Harris to lead the country.

If you ere a violent rioter and you saw those two in the WH, wouldn't you just assume that it was 100% ok to get violent at a riot? Why on God's green earth wouldn't you? THEY BOTH OPENLY SUPPORTED VIOLENT RIOTS IN THE RECNT PAST. And not just "got surprised by one riot". THEY SUPPORTED ONGOING VIOLENT RIOTING you halfwit. 

"The riots yesterday and last week and last month were awesome! I hope this goes on until after Christmas!" - Kamala Harris [paraphrasing]

Yes. Non-violent protests are usually more effective at creating change. 

The Civil RIghts Movement of the 1960’s worked specifically because it was non-violent. Had they resorted to violence, they would have fallen right into the hands of their enemies and lost. Same thing with Gandhi. 

Edited August 10, 2024 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Yes. Non-violent protests are usually more effective at creating change. 

 

Guess she shouldn't have been praising the violence then. 

She DID help raise bail money for the violent ones after all.