199
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 59 points 1 week ago

The fact they are pushing forward after everything shows how deep politicians are in the pockets of the police union.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 6 points 1 week ago

This is more than just the police union wanting this. They want to build these things everywhere, and there's bipartisan support for them.

[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

But why would our politicians want domestic police trained to be a military force that doesn’t have the code of conduct of the military and is only accountable to the local bureaucracy?

It’s like they want an a military force in every city that can act with impunity, or something.

(I kid. It’s because they’re fascists, and the U.S. is becoming a police state.)

[-] ComradePorkRoll@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago

So if the state tries to stop the will of the people when they go through the "proper channels," what recourse do the people have left to get their voices heard?

[-] grue@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

I'm afraid to tell you because this would happen to me. (I'm not even exaggerating about that: I live in Atlanta and am genuinely afraid to do so much as put a yard sign up opposing Cop City.)

[-] Daxtron2@startrek.website 19 points 1 week ago
[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Thats my means of production! I don't know youuu!

[-] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 10 points 1 week ago

Revolution.

[-] throw4w4y5@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

a man’s rights rest in three boxes; the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box.

[-] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 1 week ago

The blocking of peaceful, democratic means to get things done fully justifies more violent direct action to work towards those ends.

Considering the IDF will be training the Atlanta PD in the complex, I really hope the protestors and activists manage to stop cop city.

I hope more machinery burns.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 41 points 1 week ago

Many onlookers have struggled to understand why the city has invested so much energy and risked so much bad press in continuing to block a vote.

I'm one of those people? Why is the group supposedly elected by the people of the city, to serve the people of the city, going to such lengths to deny them from having their voice heard?

These obstructive actions leave people little alternative to civil disobedience. Every effort needs to be made to obstruct and delay construction efforts, and further to name and shame the contractor companies, insurance companies, politicians and other figures that support this police pet project.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Take a look at how much the Fraternal Order of Police gives them for their campaigns.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

In the USA, most politicians don't seem to feel like they are really elected by their voters. They pretend that they do, when they are at the podium addressing crowds during election season, but they really don't feel that way. Thanks to gerrymandering, most state and local elections lean strongly towards one party or the other. Because of that, the candidates really win the game when they win the primary, not the general. The general election is often a foregone conclusion. The candidates suck up to their donors, not making promises of course, because that would be illegal if it's too blatant, but strongly suggesting to those donors how they will vote if elected. The donors, for their part, strongly suggest the results they would like should the candidate win, with everyone carefully avoiding making anything looking too quid pro quo. If they suck up enough and they get the bulk of the donor's they get a very large edge in the primary.

By the time the general election rolls around, the candidate is only running against a foe from the other party who is already at a disadvantage because of that. If the district/state/whatever leans red and their opponent is blue, then they are fighting an uphill battle. If they're an incumbent, then they have another big advantage. Finally, those donors are back again paying for everything they legally can, and probably a few less-than-legal things too. When they have advantage because of party, name recognition, and money, they are very likely to win unless there is some big wedge issue that upends things.

Because of this, most politicians think voters are people that they just have to appease, or at least just avoid pissing off, because if they can do that bare minimum they are probably going to get (re)elected. Other than doing that, they don't need to worry much about the voters. What they really have to work on is keeping the donors happy. Candidates nowadays are not out shaking hands and kissing babies, other than during the occasional staged promotional appearance set up to make it look like that's what they are out doing. What they are really doing is spending the vast majority of their time meeting with donors and lobbyists and shaking their hands and kissing their asses. When you are the right party, have name recognition, and are the incumbent, money is the only variable. That's what they generally need to do to win, appease the donors not the voters.

In this case, I have to assume that the politicians feel that they have all the advantages. They are clearly not worried about pissing off the voters. It's not like they are going to vote for the other party in enough numbers to matter. They are only concerned with pleasing their donors who must have a very huge stake in Cop City for some reason or another.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

First of all, Atlanta has a "strong Mayor, weak Council" system. With the Mayor apparently having come out as a vehement card-carrying fascist (despite giving basically zero hint of such before the election, by the way), there are a lot of tricks he could use to push this shit through even against the opposition of Council.

Second, the Council basically has three factions: the rich white people from Buckhead, the mostly-poor (but not entirely poor -- a point I'll come back to) black people from Bankhead (more southwest Atlanta, but I liked the symmetry), and the and the middle-class progressives from the east side.

  • The Buckhead people are perfectly happy to support Cop City -- and its location as far away from themselves as possible, along the dividing line between the progressives and the poor blacks -- because of course they are.

  • The poor black people are (perhaps surprisingly) often also inclined to support it because they're so beaten-down by both crime and institutional racism that they think more police presence + "development" (even shitty development) will help them. Moreover, Atlanta is called "the city too busy to hate" for a reason, and that reason is because of the long-standing alliance between the black leadership of the city (centered on HBCUs like Morehouse, plus the black churches) and the Buckhead business community.

  • So, the east side progressives are the pretty much the only faction in strong opposition (in part because it's a fascist training camp, but also because the location for it is close to some of the east side neighborhoods).

In other words -- and less charitably, but accurate -- too many poor black people in Atlanta are class traitors.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Thanks for the local context. So of course the group most supportive is the wealthy area least affected by the development.

Sounds similar to me to up north in the Canadian province of Ontario, the Conservatives gave cities' Mayors veto power, but only where it's in the interest of the province..

Toronto responded next year by electing progressive Mayor Olivia Chow, of course.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago

I really can't figure out what is wrong with these people that they are so openly oppressing the wishes of their populace over something so stupid.

[-] lemmyman@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

I get so frustrated when an article introduces a new term, says what somebody thinks about it, then goes off on some tangent before finally describing the issue at hand two thirds of the way through the article.

Signature matching is supposedly a way to prevent fraud, in which a voter’s signature on a ballot, or in this case petition, is confirmed to correspond with a signature from the same voter registered in the state’s database. But it has been criticized widely as a method of voter suppression.

this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
199 points (98.5% liked)

politics

16984 readers
3682 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

For non-political US news see, "News"!
For news OUTSIDE the US, see "World News"!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS