>BLM's problem[1] is that it's a national movement about local problems. It's city cops, not the FBI, that kill people with impunity. The presidential election is generally not the right place to take action, IMHO [2].
and there are some cities which have done some minimalist attempts to help the situation. I think though it's not a per-state thing. So federal I guess is appropriate but yes so divided from the actual level of government responsible.
>In any event, it seems to me that BLM should focus on police money, and ways to put that money in the hands of people who feel that killing unarmed civilians is wrong, the militarization of the police is wrong, and who is willing to peel off some of that money to fund wholly independent police accountability policies, and non-police solutions to community problems (e.g. community intervention, mental health, etc.)
I think we are divided here. The whole 'defund the police' thing is such a bad approach. If the black community is already interacting with law enforcement so often. Defunding will only harm them.
What's more important to note is there is a problem. There are countless studies and real life examples proving the problem. Even wider, you can clearly prove the bias. Do some action as a white dude and police drive by and nod. Do example the same action as a black guy and you will have a dozen cop cars.
Yet here we are with BLM and they are 99% ineffective. That's an impossible task. In fact like I said in my first post, the only person to have actually done something for them is Trump and he's painted as racist. The democrats who control the government entirely have done absolutely nothing. This is intentional. This is expected. If the democrats solve the problem, blm goes away and then they have to figure out another way to attract the black vote.
So they are intentionally doing nothing.