And thorough study so we know how to proceed on an issue is important lest we end up doing more harm than good...

Probably because any actual change was completely removed from the republican bill. The only positive the republican bill had was it encouraged the use of body cam footage, though we've already seen how often those are just 'accidently' turned off when something happens.

The republican bill removed any additional limitations to qualified immunity, one of the major sticking points of the bill. It also removed restrictions on chockeholds and no-knock warrants. The bill went from banning cops from these things to just saying, please do your best not to do these things, but there is no change in the consequences if you do these things.

The Tim Scott proposal doesn’t sound like a good faith compromise, especially in regards to black people being disproportionately targeted, here is the summary:

This bill addresses policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability. The bill funds state and local grants, incentivizes state and local reporting on the use of certain policing practices, creates new federal offenses for certain misconduct, establishes a commission to study the conditions affecting Black men and boys, and establishes best practices and training requirements.

The Democrat House bill mentions ways to “prevent and remedy racial profiling by law enforcement” while the Republican Senate bill will “establish a commission to study the conditions affecting black men and boys”

To me that sounds like shifting the blame from the people doing the racial profiling to the people who are being racially profiled.

I don’t really even know how to respond at this point, it’s like you’re just arguing to argue.

Me: Collaboration & compromise are important but how do black people unite with the people who refuse to acknowledge they are disproportionately targeted my police

You: Republicans refuse to acknowledge it?

Me: yes, refuse to acknowledge or do nothing about it. Democrats introduced a bill that got essentially no Republican support.

You: Republicans introduced their own bill

Me & others: the bill was terrible and took out almost every meaningful aspect of the democrat bill

you: it doesn’t matter if the bill sucked, they did something

It’s clear to anyone who pays attention to this type of stuff that Democrats wanted to fix the issue and Republicans had no intention of doing anything about it. Republicans released a counter proposal that they knew would get no support from Democrats and knowing that most people don’t pay attention to the details of bills, this was good enough to show that they “tried to do something”.

Perhaps Democrats shouldn't have started with a bill they knew would get no support form Republicans.

Gonna fault Republicans for passing a doomed-to-fail bill, be sure to do the same for Democrats. You consider yourself impartial, don't you?

No, I’m not impartial, none of us are but I feel like in this thread I’ve done a pretty good job of backing up my views with data, sources & quotes which can’t be said for some of the people I’ve argued with.

As we went over, the democrat bill actually addressed the issue at hand, the republican bill didn’t. A good faith compromise is not to strip out all the notable pieces and replace them with “a commission to study”.

Look at how the two parties operate, in general the basic argument is over the size & role of the federal government. The Democratic Party believes that the federal government can be functional and fix problems while the Republican Party argues that the federal government is too big and wasteful and needs to be stripped down.

This means that Democrats have an actual incentive to govern and pass meaningful legislation, if they don’t get stuff done then their basic argument of being functional and fixing problems goes out the window. Republicans don’t have this incentive, their argument is that big government isn’t functional so their incentive is obstruction, their goal is to water down or outright block things from passing.

Why are liberals afraid of the study?  Why does collecting meaningful data scare them?

Genuinely curious.  As a scientist collecting data and execution of robust science plans seems reasonable to me.  

“If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it,” Albert Einstein said.

We aren’t? I already said earlier that the study in and of itself is fine, the two issues I have are:

1. Taking out various provisions about accountability & training requirements and replacing them with this commission. If they wanted to add this to the bill that would be fine, taking out the main parts of the bill however is not.

2. The way it’s worded in the summary sounds like victim blaming to me, why go with “study the conditions affecting black men” instead of “study the conditions causing police to use excessive force & racial profiling”.

As for the quote, you’re acting like this is a brand new issue that nobody has put any thought into and are coming up with knee jerk reactions. It’s a problem that has been going on for decades, you don’t think there have been countless studies over that time evaluating ways to remedy the issue?