> But at a moment's notice their allegiance can switch.

Is that true, though? I don't expect that the individual biases of officers or judges, or the institutional biases of the police or immigration departments, can switch at a moment's notice.

It’s so cute that some people imagine the armed forces and police were on the other side or are on their side. If you’re average Joe, the police in a tyrannical state are never on your “side”.

Our armed officers are supposed to be upholding a constitution, not party preferences.

Why is this being voted down? This is fundamentally how states and governance work. The state has a monopoly on legitimate violence, and can, at any moment, make that a problem for its citizenry.

I'll take unfalsifiable statements for $300, Alex.

Both-sides-ism is probably the single worst stance to take here. You're tacitly siding with whoever actually holds and wields the power. Not caring which one wins isn't helping anyone at all, even you.

>But at a moment's notice their allegiance can switch.

Or, more appropriately, on an election's notice.

A plurality of voters preferred to have leaders of a certain political persuasion.

Now, we can complain about the fine print in the platform of those leaders, but..

I mean..

democracy is a team sport. We voted them in.

It's like football:

Yes.

That's an awesome DB. Guy got 2 interceptions and 4 TFLs in that game. I'd love to get that safety for my team.

All that said, his offense didn't score. So guess what? He gets to take an "L" too. That's just how it works.

[dead]

When, in the history of the U.S., have police forces ever been on the left?

Heck, historically the cops have even broken up peaceful union protests, despite being in unions themselves, throwing away all class solidarity in favor of their right wing leanings.

And the police unions have uniquely been extremely right wing, other than during rare highly localized conditions (often involving the democratic candidate being center right at least).