I also think accused criminals should have an organization that advocates for them. We can call them public defenders. And so on.

The problem isn't that there is a police union, or even that it's an effective or powerful one, it's that the union should not be in the business of overseeing misconduct investigations, except in a clearly understood adversarial role as an advocate for the accused.

You can throw out insults to liberals and insert your preconceived bias against public sector unions all you want if it serves your political agenda, but at the end of the day nobody rational is arguing in favor of this system, liberals especially so.

This blanket assumption is probably why you're being down-voted. The easiest way to avoid this is by supporting your statements with as many facts as possible.

A simple google search proved that this is not at all the case, for example, and that Republicans show much stronger support of police unions.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/12/the-gop-and...

This selective support among Republicans suggests that you're addressing the wrong crowd.

The downvotes are just knee-jerk stupidity because the MSM doesn't report much on union abuse and unions largely get a free pass in the US for political reasons. Democrats won't go after them as they more or less pay for Democratic campaigns.

Is America that polarized? Or, are the people with more complex views (i.e., having both liberal and conservative viewpoints) just less likely to speak out?

America is that polarized, and when people with more nuanced views speak up, they tend to get shouted down immediately by the "side" that sees some aspect of "the other side"'s views in the nuance, drowning them out in the noise.

Want to make a nuanced point in a discussion about gun control? You're probably from Kenya, too. Want to make a subtle distinction in a debate about investment banks, or energy policy? You must hate poor people, or the planet, or...

Net, we (or at least I) tend not to get involved in political discussions, as I'm almost invariably going to have to spend more time arguing about how I'm not actually a filthy lib'ral or whatever, than about the point I'd wanted to make in the first place, so fuck it. You guys have fun shouting yourselves hoarse and slapping yourselves on the back for how hateful you can be towards random strangers on the internet.

"Why should I have to pay for a fire department? My house isn't on fire!" Yeah, that guy needs to move to Somalia. Not so he can experience what that degree of government-free state is actually like, but rather so the rest of us don't have to put up with that kind of idiocy.

I'm going to pass on getting into another Freedom discussion, seeing as you're already off to referring to certain ideas as "idiocy". Hardly the platform for a decent, logical debate on the topic.

The most "libertarian" example of a community funded fire service I've ever heard of is the one where you pay "dues" to the fire department, and they'll come put out the fire if your house ever catches. If you don't, they'll come up to your property line and make sure the fire doesn't spread, but otherwise just stand there, watching your shit burn.

This actually happens, and I have exactly zero sympathy for the people who don't pay in.

That's what I'm talking about when I say "idiocy": people who claim to be Libertarian, but whose attitude is more, "Fuck you, I've got mine!" punctuated by, "Oh, shit! Someone expend community resources to help me with this!" You don't get to have it both ways; either you contribute meaningfully to the upkeep of the society whose membership you wish to benefit from, or you don't get to benefit from participation in that society.

EDIT: Sorry, I guess, if my tone is dismissive or offensive. I'm just sick to death of people walking around, talking a "Taxes Я theft!" position, but who expect to benefit from the things that those taxes pay for.

I'm not sure how you'd handle delinquency in paying those dues, but it would probably be somehow legally actionable.

EDIT: It's probably somewhat moot, anyway, as the overwhelming majority of these dues-based fire brigades exist in predominantly rural areas, where party walls aren't typically a thing.

In my experience it's more that people with complex viewpoints get some combination of shouted down by zealots on either side or sick of arguing with ideologues who aren't capable of having rational discussion with an open mind.

Basically the "us against them" message has been sold the members of both parties and prevents intelligent discourse.

Even if someone subscribes to say "85%" of "most liberal beliefs and ideologies" they're still a liberal/Democrat and will be held to believe 100% of the "commonplace beliefs".

This is why all Republicans are blanket-washed as religious nutcase, global warming denying bigots. While all the Liberals are caricatures of 1984's Thought Police.

Often the media enforces that.

You aren't helping yourself.

All cycles, top donors EVER are dominated by unions giving to democrats. Its 100% a partisan issue.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that a lack of political opposition in any circumstance, regardless of the party itself, will lead to anti-democratic behavior.

The real issue is that police overwhelmingly enjoy an uncritical view by the voting public such that no politician can afford not to support them. What needs to disappear is the misplaced support for police among the public.

From 1977 to 2003 Republicans were in control of Illinois executive office. 26 years in a row.

From 1972 to 1991, Jon Burge running the show as Chicago police commander.

Are you trying to say that Republican governors had no power to investigate/curtail the evil that was brewing under his leadership?

hehe.