I wonder how many administration and elected officials will be willing to follow Trump straight into indictment for Nuremberg-style trials.

Sure, maybe he was the best we could do nationally at the time, but city council, state legislative and school boards might have been the best focus of time and energy for reformers at that time.

This sort of realpolitik gave us Bill Clinton and his subservience to Wall Street and his capitulation to racist impulses among the white voting majority ("welfare reform").

My starting point for justice is from John Rawls, with his "veil of ignorance" as a template. The question should always be "how does this proposed thing affect the most vulnerable members of society?"

Not "how can we package this to appeal to voters?"

But to me, if anything can bring about a just society, it has to be viewed as developing a practical working definition of justice, and then approaching it like a huge jigsaw puzzle, where reformers take one win at a time, then defend it at whatever governmental level is appropriate.

Some things have to take place at the national level: breaking the chokehold Wall Street has on American life, comprehensive health care reform that includes long-term care, dental and vision care, all of which are fundamental to the health care system, SCOTUS reform

I remember when Lynn Westmoreland, at the time the congressman from Georgia's District 3, was pushing Ten Commandments mandates, and was asked to recite the commandments. He came up with two, plus a garbled half-right answer for a third one.

With a change of specific locations, the same is true here in metro Atlanta. To paraphrase Tom Lehrer, "The right wing is winning the battles, but we have all the good songs."

If you want a better slogan, go with defund or abolish. If you actually want the American body politic to address police reform and change some things, maybe not. Because that shit made political consensus impossible. But hey, sloganeering is fun.

1) Its own advocates conflated it. As soon as one supporter would arrive to assert that it was only a redirection of some assets, another would declare on the same thread that no it meant defund in full.
2) The slogan itself misleads. Which is why candidates and the political center fled en masse.

There is so much to target in reality: militarization of policing, the racism of the drug war, the need for civilian review of police violence, the reemphasis of targeting violence as job one. Instead, these dumb mooks cling to defund and abolish rhetoric as it it achieves anything.

There are many other people I'd contact if I were in the city's communications office, to see if they'd be willing to make similar statements: Ted Nugent, James Woods, Scott Adams, and all the Fox News opinion talking heads come to mind.