5 ms·

I agree with you but it could also get much worst... for example if Soros' plan to federalize US police[1] becomes a reality, I think that it would get worst.

• kombucha2 10y ago
  >Soros' plan to federalize US police Oh wow, what a bad a idea, maybe just more oversight is the answer, certainly federalization can't be the best answer?
  • whamlastxmas 10y ago
    I don't think it's so bad on the surface. Problems with policing is overwhelmingly due to lack of accountability on such local levels. Federalization would add a ton of uniformity and oversight that doesn't exist today.
• sammydavis 10y ago
  I don't think either of those documents says that Soros wants to federalize US police. Soros is a progressive, and progressives want to limit the power of police, and limit the militarization of police forces. I believe Soros is on board with both of those things. If I sent a letter to the secretary of state or my own representatives in govt asking for something, like say changing our govts investigation about Syria, you could claim that I somehow influenced the govt. Of course Soros is really rich and could convince people to do things. But HRC is really rich too.
  • awqrre 10y ago
    With his "letter", he also sent millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton's campaign... but I get your point (ie: of course you don't necessarily need money to influence)
• dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Soros' plan to federalize US police The memos supposedly "supporting" this idea are not about an effort to "federalize US police", but efforts to implement different common federal standards than those currently applied through existing federal funding streams. To the extent the application of federal standards through access to federal funding streams is "federalization" of the recipient forces (I probably wouldn't describe it that way, but there's a perspective from which it makes some sense), that's already been done, the recommendation is to change the specific policies applied through the existing federalization.