[Patrickov]

You fail to see that the extreme left in Western nations are religious zealots. They do not believe in a deity, they believe in totalitarianism and control of the people. It is a lot like Maoism who had its own bible "the red book". They cannot have arguments! All they do is throw insults and shut people down with cancel culture. In a deity religion known as excommunication.

Don't get me wrong, I am at the receiving end for so many times, and right now I am arguably under one.

But while I do think it's a good thing if some of them are destroyed, I strongly disagree with your attempt to use their behaviour as a point of argument.

To make things short, I think your point is not as relevant as you suggest.

[Patrickov]

:lol: The rich people in power have the minds of poor people?

People who have been poor for years or even generations simply do not have the same mindset of people who have been consistently well-off.

It looks like you don't think "parvenu" even exists.

Although I did make a mistake when raising examples. Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were both from rich families, although Ho Chi Minh was not (at least in comparison).

I should have checked Hong Kong DAB and PLU, collaborators of CCP, many of whom were actually modest before their rise to power. For example, this guy, who's been recently sanctioned by Biden administration for his part in China's crimes against humanity.

[Patrickov]

Japan stagnated because its a puppet state of the US and was forced to sign the disastrous Plaza Accord to protect Western interests.

I primarily wanted to point out that there's flaw in trying to relate the graph to Istanbuller's rationale.

In response to your information, I agree that if China was to fall it would be for different reasons.

[Godstud]

delete double post

[Godstud]

People who have been poor for years or even generations simply do not have the same mindset of people who have been consistently well-off.

No. That's asinine. Absolute ignorance and arrogance.

That's as dumb as when rich people say that poor people have no idea of the problems that come with being rich...

Are you going to tell me the travails of the rich. How hard it is to reserve a good table at a restaurant and other such "hard work"? Piss off.


That's the worst kind of classist shit I have seen in a very long time.

[Julian658]

Don't get me wrong, I am at the receiving end for so many times, and right now I am arguably under one.

But while I do think it's a good thing if some of them are destroyed, I strongly disagree with your attempt to use their behaviour as a point of argument.

To make things short, I think your point is not as relevant as you suggest.

Hyper-religiosity about their extreme views and left wing intolerance bothers you less because you are closer to them in the political spectrum. I am a libertarian and their views are an abomination. The problem with the extreme left is that there are no limits to the wokeness. The more woke the better. The more strict and intolerant the more acceptable to the left.

These type of zealots also exist in the other end of the political spectrum. However, in the right there is a line that 99% of people agree should never be crossed and that is white nationalism. That line is quite solid and anyone that crosses the line pays. ON the left there is no such line. The more left the better.

Adam Smith said: Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. That lack of regulation is the essence of the extreme left. On top of that you can add the no so smart followers that are narcissists and love virtue signaling. The message of socialism is always compelling to the young members of every generation. Colleges and high schools do not teach the MAO and Stalin holocaust. Colleges only teach the evils of colonialism by those of European heritage. The West has created the most prosperity in world history; nations where everybody in the world wants to migrate to. And yet the lefties think it is hell.

[Patrickov]

Hyper-religiosity about their extreme views and left wing intolerance bothers you less because you are closer to them in the political spectrum.

I think the likes of Godstud will happily state that I am actually closer to you than to them.

From what I see:
1. They don't pose a threat to me (as well as you), and
2. There are other entities which actually pose a threat to us, and who you have been referring to are at worst useful idiots.

[Patrickov]

No. That's asinine. Absolute ignorance and arrogance.

When I first replied your post my main point was that I am against your statement that "Conservatives are assholes who only care about the rich".

You then asked a question to challenge me to come up with a place where the poor are in power, which I am happy to point out it's China. Not that the top leaders themselves are necessarily poor, but a significant number of the people who empowered them or are in the decision making process themselves are not well-off. As I said, many of them may become rich by taking power, but it's not wealth of their own, so they don't think like those who gained their wealth through means of their own, like Ma Yun or Li Ka Shing. (Similarly, I don't think Bernie Sanders has the same mindset as, say, Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates)

This is not always a bad thing, but in Stalinist regimes and Middle East dictatorships, the rise of the poor often end up with persecution of more well-off people. Saddam Hussein was born a poor boy. Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, while themselves from rich families, led policies which effectively destroyed millions of people, many of them rich. All their movements would not be such a "success" if the poor were not active participants.

I definitely won't say these regimes care for the rich.

Therefore (or by extension?), I think caring for the rich, even to the point of "only", is not as bad as you suggest. In democracies like Britain or the United States, I am not against Conservatives. Sometimes good intentioned projects may end up with roads paved towards Hell, and I don't mind having some opposite voices to keep our brains cool.

Admittedly I enjoy debating with Julian658 than you, as I regard you as a person of higher standard. Still, I am slightly disappointed that you have discarded the rest of my previous post in your reply. It seems you are only interested in scolding people unjustly.

P.S. Pol Pot did think himself a good-intentioned road-to-Hell paver towards the end of his life.

[Julian658]

I think the likes of Godstud will happily state that I am actually closer to you than to them.

From what I see:
1. They don't pose a threat to me (as well as you), and
2. There are other entities which actually pose a threat to us, and who you have been referring to are at worst useful idiots.

You should talk to old expats from Cuba and expats from Venezuela. The left wing movement in these countries did not seem like a threat at the onset. Take for example BLM. Once or twice a year a cop is going to shoot a black man unjustly and the sky is falling. Buildings burn and stores are looted. Corporate America stands behind BLM for virtue signaling purposes. Meanwhile on any given weekend dozens of black men are mowed down in the US major cities by other black men and that is considered business as usual. Why? Because behind BLM what we have is a marxist movement that uses race in the same manner Marx used the oppressed proletariat to push authoritarian socialism. The average black person in America does not have a clue about this. They have been brain washed 24/7 that racism is the only reason why blacks are behind. The issue is analyzed with ONE variable. The whole thing is a joke, but it could very well open the door for a lefty authoritarian system. Meanwhile Cuba, one of the last socialists nations on Earth has now recognized private property rights as of 2019.

[AFAIK]

Why do you think people hold the police to a higher standard than criminals @Julian658?

[Julian658]

Why do you think people hold the police to a higher standard than criminals @Julian658?

American cops are poorly trained. With regards to using firearms they are trained to shoot if there is any perception of danger to their lives. The concept of the training is that they should be able to come home alive after every shift. Most cops are not rocket scientists. The few with higher education move up the ranks and do not deal with street crime. IN any event they represent the law and it is wise to treat them accordingly. Otherwise, cops are just like anyone out there.

[B0ycey]

American cops are poorly trained.

...and this guy's is the first line of defence!

They are not poorly trained but if they were I would suggest more training to get them up to scratch wouldn't you?

[Julian658]

...and this guy's is the first line of defence!

They are not poorly trained but if they were I would suggest more training to get them up to scratch wouldn't you?

The training they receive is to shoot if they feel there is any hint of danger. The purpose of the training is to make sure they come back home alive after every shift. If a subject has an unidentified object in hand and comes closer than 10 feet he (or she) will get shot. However, there are cops that are way too trigger happy and in my opinion murderers.

Watch how this young man (a white kid) gets murdered. Once he is on the ground moribund he gets shot two more times for moving his hands.

[B0ycey]

The training they receive is to shoot if they feel there is any hint of danger. The purpose of the training is to make sure they come back home alive after every shift. If a subject has an unidentified object in hand and comes closer than 10 feet he (or she) will get shot. However, there are cops that are way too trigger happy and in my opinion murderers.

Well they are trigger happy because the law protects them not because of training. If you made every officer who shot and killed someone have to goto court for their action you would only see officers fire if they believe their lives were in danger because most people like their freedom so would make sure their actions were justifiable.

[Julian658]

Well they are trigger happy because the law protects them not because of training. If you made every officer who shot and killed someone have to goto court for their action you would only see officers fire if they believe their lives were in danger because most people like their freedom so would make sure their actions were justifiable.

You are correct, but it is actually the unions (the ones that protect cops). And the democrats will not go against the unions.

Of lot of police brutality happens in cities where the chief of police and mayor are black and a large percent of cops are POC. The problem is about bad policing and improper training. IN addition many black people act up when confront by the police. The over reaction is due to racial PTSD a very real phenomenon. However, cops are not trained for this. Instead the cops are hardened by observing and dealing with crime 24/7.

[late]

You are correct, but it is actually the unions (the ones that protect cops). And the democrats will not go against the unions.

Your divorce from reality is duly noted.

Obama was reforming police departments, and Biden will do the same. This is policy, not politics, but you can safely say police unions don't like it.

[Julian658]

Obama was reforming police departments

I guess he did a lousy job.

[MistyTiger]

I guess he did a lousy job.

You cannot blame Obama for the sad state of police departments. The President cannot do a complete overhaul of the police training programs. Department heads are in charge of making the changes which the instructors enforce. Presidents have no time to micromanage city police departments.

[late]

I guess he did a lousy job.

You aren't helping yourself when you don't know a thing about it.

"The Obama administration did more with respect to police reform and misconduct than any administration in the modern area and it was a personal commitment for the president and for Attorney General Eric Holder," said David Kennedy, director of the National Network for Safe Communities at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Obama in December 2014, through an executive order, established the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing in the wake of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.

The task force issued its final report in May 2015, after holding public listening sessions across the country and getting testimony and recommendations from community and faith leaders, law enforcement officers, academics, and others."

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/06/19/fact-check-did-obama-and-biden-lsquonever-evenrsquo-try-to-do-police-reform/42465895/

[Julian658]

You aren't helping yourself when you don't know a thing about it.

"The Obama administration did more with respect to police reform and misconduct than any administration in the modern area and it was a personal commitment for the president and for Attorney General Eric Holder," said David Kennedy, director of the National Network for Safe Communities at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Obama in December 2014, through an executive order, established the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing in the wake of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.

The task force issued its final report in May 2015, after holding public listening sessions across the country and getting testimony and recommendations from community and faith leaders, law enforcement officers, academics, and others."

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/06/19/fact-check-did-obama-and-biden-lsquonever-evenrsquo-try-to-do-police-reform/42465895/

That did not stop police errors and people getting shot for no good reason (all ethnic groups included except Asian). That is what I meant.