So all we need to do is find a way to put people in prison!

Win-win!

  • bishbosh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Well that’s only fair, because I’m pretty tired of dealing with their policies.

      • bishbosh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Lots, but currently pretty fucking infuriating to see cops get an increase of 160 million, while the fire department gets ~17 million cut. But I guess it balances out if they use those police to build an indentured class that they can pay next to nothing to fight the fires instead!

        • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Yeah totally policies set forth by liberals. Totally not ancient federal and state laws

          • bishbosh@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            See part of why I have so much of a gripe with liberals is this sort of mentality here. California is one of the most solidly blue states in the country. Since you didn’t defend it on the merits, it seems you agree the choice I described in my post was not great, correct? But instead of realizing that it may be possible that rich politicians from your team are not actually on your side, you just defer to nebulous ‘ancient laws’ that apparently make it impossible for helpful choices in, and lets be clear here, a city deciding it’s own budget. Care to point to the federal and/or state laws that just hamstring the benevolent liberals of LA and force them to increase the police budget by 160 million dollars? Laws that apparently can’t be challenged, or circumvented by the liberals in those positions, since they would certainly do so if they could, right??

              • Omnipitaph@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                Honestly, at the time they probably were the left. Depending on which definition of left vs right we are using, because of course there are multiple stances on what left vs right means :(

                cries in recently educated

                • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  Kinda hard to say but youre probably right considering the 13th amendment passed in 1865 and it was between the mid 1800s and early 1900s the parties switched