Defunding Police

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Defunding Police

Post by Gloominary »

Yea, defunding the police while funding a Marxist cultural revolution, provoking a race war, disarming and locking down law abiding citizens is a recipe for disaster, and they know it, the radicals have taken over.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9573
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Defunding Police

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:28 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:33 am That's what I keep saying. PCturd religious extremism has destroyed the 'left' and played into the hands of neo-'liberal' political parties everywhere.
Veg, I'm apolitical and have no use for any political system, but I'm not anti-political, in the sense that I oppose anyone else's desire for some agency of force, (government), to run their life for them, or to make them safe, or happy, or whatever else they think a government can do for them.

But being apolitical the concepts of, "left," and, "right," "liberal" and "conservative" seem totally confused to me, especially when comparing how those terms are used in Europe verses the US for example.

All that just ask what you mean by the, "left." I'm assuming you feel that is the right position politically, since you criticize its destruction. What, in your view, if I'm not asking too much, is the correct, "left," position or view. What does it advocate and what does it reject?

I have no intention of debating your view, I'm truly interested in what it is.
You tell me. It's Americans who insist on calling everything 'left' and 'right'. I'm referring to whatever is the opposite of so-called 'neo-liberal' political parties. Most Western democracies have two major parties.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Defunding Police

Post by Gary Childress »

I think Veg has a good point. I don't know if the terms "left" and "right" really apply anymore. They may have during the French Revolution but most Western countries aren't strictly monarchies anymore and it doesn't appear to be true anymore that "conservatives" are for monarchy and "liberals" are not. Both conservatives and liberals are generally against monarchy because it is believed that Monarchy is more prone to lead to tyranny.

However, there seem to be other things that people diverge on. Everyone wants something called "justice", however, there seems to be disagreement over what exactly entails justice and over how society should be organized (if at all) in order to best achieve it.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2218
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Defunding Police

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:45 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:28 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:33 am That's what I keep saying. PCturd religious extremism has destroyed the 'left' and played into the hands of neo-'liberal' political parties everywhere.
Veg, I'm apolitical and have no use for any political system, but I'm not anti-political, in the sense that I oppose anyone else's desire for some agency of force, (government), to run their life for them, or to make them safe, or happy, or whatever else they think a government can do for them.

But being apolitical the concepts of, "left," and, "right," "liberal" and "conservative" seem totally confused to me, especially when comparing how those terms are used in Europe verses the US for example.

All that just to ask what you mean by the, "left." I'm assuming you feel that is the right position politically, since you criticize its destruction. What, in your view, if I'm not asking too much, is the correct, "left," position or view. What does it advocate and what does it reject?

I have no intention of debating your view, I'm truly interested in what it is.
You tell me. It's Americans who insist on calling everything 'left' and 'right'. I'm referring to whatever is the opposite of so-called 'neo-liberal' political parties. Most Western democracies have two major parties.
Well, I wasn't interested in what South Africans, Americans, Chinese, or Italians, might mean by the word you used. I was interested in what you mean. You may be right, but, quite frankly, when I've been in America, I do not think I've read or heard the particular term, "neo-liberal," used. The Mexicans I've asked all say," nada!" Do Mexicans count as Americans?

Since you were reluctant to say what you mean, I looked it up. Wikipedia says, "Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism," but that does not seem to be what you mean, and it is certainly not anything I have observed going on in any North or South American country.

I'm not your opponent. I was really curious.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2218
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Defunding Police

Post by RCSaunders »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:10 pm I saw a political ad yesterday on YouTube for the Donald Trump campaign. The ad showed a telephone which you heard ringing and then you get a recorded message or something saying you've reached 911 but there are no police because they've been defunded. So if you're a victim of "rape, domestic violence, or home intrusion", etc. you're just going to be left high and dry. (At the end of the phone message it says "someone should be there to help you in five days". And at the end of the ad, it shows a picture of Joe Biden, implying that Biden would be sympathetic to Black Lives Matter's "defund police" campaign.

I don't know what Biden's official position is on BLM's demands but I have to say it was probably one of the most powerful political ads I've yet witnessed--very emotive. You can certainly bet that Donald Trump isn't going to get behind defunding police. And the idea seems absolutely absurd to me. It sort of makes me want to vote for Trump myself this time around.

It seems to me that BLM is really shooting progressive causes in the foot. Back in 2016, a couple of girls with BLM seized control of the microphone at a Bernie Sanders rally, basically shutting it down. Now they're all about defunding police, lending even more credibility to Trump. Ultimately it's good news for Republicans and conservatives that BLM is forcing progressive candidates into embarrassingly absurd and unrealistic campaign positions. Just makes me want to shake my head.

EDIT: Actually here's the ad itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNav5wO5dh0
It is not the question you are addressing, but I'm not interested in the politics, only the principle. I would love to see police, "defunded," meaning not payed for with money extorted from those who have no interest in supporting a gang of thugs payed to support government oppression. I have no objection to anyone paying someone else to protect themselves and their property, so long as it is by choice and they actually get what they pay for.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Defunding Police

Post by Gary Childress »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:36 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:10 pm I saw a political ad yesterday on YouTube for the Donald Trump campaign. The ad showed a telephone which you heard ringing and then you get a recorded message or something saying you've reached 911 but there are no police because they've been defunded. So if you're a victim of "rape, domestic violence, or home intrusion", etc. you're just going to be left high and dry. (At the end of the phone message it says "someone should be there to help you in five days". And at the end of the ad, it shows a picture of Joe Biden, implying that Biden would be sympathetic to Black Lives Matter's "defund police" campaign.

I don't know what Biden's official position is on BLM's demands but I have to say it was probably one of the most powerful political ads I've yet witnessed--very emotive. You can certainly bet that Donald Trump isn't going to get behind defunding police. And the idea seems absolutely absurd to me. It sort of makes me want to vote for Trump myself this time around.

It seems to me that BLM is really shooting progressive causes in the foot. Back in 2016, a couple of girls with BLM seized control of the microphone at a Bernie Sanders rally, basically shutting it down. Now they're all about defunding police, lending even more credibility to Trump. Ultimately it's good news for Republicans and conservatives that BLM is forcing progressive candidates into embarrassingly absurd and unrealistic campaign positions. Just makes me want to shake my head.

EDIT: Actually here's the ad itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNav5wO5dh0
It is not the question you are addressing, but I'm not interested in the politics, only the principle. I would love to see police, "defunded," meaning not payed for with money extorted from those who have no interest in supporting a gang of thugs payed to support government oppression. I have no objection to anyone paying someone else to protect themselves and their property, so long as it is by choice and they actually get what they pay for.
I don't know. Sounds like a pretty radical departure from what most civilized countries have. I mean, there are a few places like Somalia that don't have large organized governments. It's a bit like the Wild West. Warlords simply take over and there's plenty of piracy. It doesn't seem like what I would call "civilization"; more like the so-called "dark age" in Europe between the fall of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne. But maybe that "dark age" wasn't such a bad time?
commonsense
Posts: 3314
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Defunding Police

Post by commonsense »

Gary Childress wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:37 am
No idea what the point of barging into churches is about. I guess it's just to prove that the protestors can be complete assholes?
Apparently (per the links that were provided in the post that came next) they are upset about portrayals of Jesus as if he were white.
commonsense
Posts: 3314
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Defunding Police

Post by commonsense »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:08 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:34 pm In a community where most are self-responsible, self-directing, and willing to self-defend: police aren't needed.

In a community where most are irresponsible, craving direction by others, and aren't willing to self-defend: police can't save the day.

It's a pickle.
Well, Henry...I think you're being a little harsh. :wink:

Shouldn't we at least TRY the theory these people are foisting on everyone? But it wouldn't be fair to inflict it on those who never called for defunding the police; that would be paternalistic and oppressive. They can have their police force if they want to.

We should let all the communities that voted for politicians who support the idea have the privilege of achieving their dream -- to defund policing in their districts. Meanwhile, we could transfer officers to districts that like cops.

That way, everybody wins: the police keep their jobs, so they can still feed their families, and are no longer resented for what they do. Places that like cops get as many as they want. And places that hate cops get what they're asking for.

And we'll see who's right; after all, this idea worked so wonderfully in Seattle.
It’s like Henry said. It’s a pickle—a dill pickle.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Defunding Police

Post by Gary Childress »

commonsense wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:12 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:37 am
No idea what the point of barging into churches is about. I guess it's just to prove that the protestors can be complete assholes?
Apparently (per the links that were provided in the post that came next) they are upset about portrayals of Jesus as if he were white.
I'm just waiting for the book burning to commence. Or has it already?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2218
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Defunding Police

Post by RCSaunders »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:16 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:36 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:10 pm I saw a political ad yesterday on YouTube for the Donald Trump campaign. The ad showed a telephone which you heard ringing and then you get a recorded message or something saying you've reached 911 but there are no police because they've been defunded. So if you're a victim of "rape, domestic violence, or home intrusion", etc. you're just going to be left high and dry. (At the end of the phone message it says "someone should be there to help you in five days". And at the end of the ad, it shows a picture of Joe Biden, implying that Biden would be sympathetic to Black Lives Matter's "defund police" campaign.

I don't know what Biden's official position is on BLM's demands but I have to say it was probably one of the most powerful political ads I've yet witnessed--very emotive. You can certainly bet that Donald Trump isn't going to get behind defunding police. And the idea seems absolutely absurd to me. It sort of makes me want to vote for Trump myself this time around.

It seems to me that BLM is really shooting progressive causes in the foot. Back in 2016, a couple of girls with BLM seized control of the microphone at a Bernie Sanders rally, basically shutting it down. Now they're all about defunding police, lending even more credibility to Trump. Ultimately it's good news for Republicans and conservatives that BLM is forcing progressive candidates into embarrassingly absurd and unrealistic campaign positions. Just makes me want to shake my head.

EDIT: Actually here's the ad itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNav5wO5dh0
It is not the question you are addressing, but I'm not interested in the politics, only the principle. I would love to see police, "defunded," meaning not payed for with money extorted from those who have no interest in supporting a gang of thugs payed to support government oppression. I have no objection to anyone paying someone else to protect themselves and their property, so long as it is by choice and they actually get what they pay for.
I don't know. Sounds like a pretty radical departure from what most civilized countries have. I mean, there are a few places like Somalia that don't have large organized governments. It's a bit like the Wild West. Warlords simply take over and there's plenty of piracy. It doesn't seem like what I would call "civilization"; more like the so-called "dark age" in Europe between the fall of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne. But maybe that "dark age" wasn't such a bad time?
Civilized country? Where is one of those today (or, actually, ever was).

I Grew up in the forties and fifties in what was, at that time, the largest leather manufacturing city in the world. It was about as cosmopolitan as possible in those days. I lived at the intersection of two residential streets. In almost every house there was a family of different ethnic background, Jewish, Polish, English, Finish, Irish, French, Chinese, Turkish, Black, and Labonese. Their children were all my friends and school mates. My grandfather was a barber in that city (considered a very respectable business in those days, with eight chairs and tables where men spent afternoons playing checkers and discussing business, philosophy, and technology). My grandfather walked the mile home from the Barbershop every Saturday night through unlighted streets with the weeks receipts in his bag. There were no police and he was perfectly safe.

No one locked their doors and left keys in their cars parked on the street at night. Children and women could safely go anywhere in that city, night or day, and children enjoyed a level of freedom that would horrify anyone today. I spent frequent afternoons in one of the leather factory chemical labs when I was in grade school (already a nerd), hopped freight trains going slowly through the center of town (when the conductor waved us on) to go swimming in an abandoned quarry.

Everyone was polite, and everyone had a job, and though every imagineable religion and ethnic background was represented there was little conflict (except for, some reason, between the Turks and the Greeks, and they kept that to themselves).

That was pretty close to civilization, but it didn't last. By the early seventies it was gone, and there is no real civilization left in the US today. Most people today have no idea what freedom and civilization are, partly because they have never experienced them.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9573
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Defunding Police

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:28 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:45 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:28 pm
Veg, I'm apolitical and have no use for any political system, but I'm not anti-political, in the sense that I oppose anyone else's desire for some agency of force, (government), to run their life for them, or to make them safe, or happy, or whatever else they think a government can do for them.

But being apolitical the concepts of, "left," and, "right," "liberal" and "conservative" seem totally confused to me, especially when comparing how those terms are used in Europe verses the US for example.

All that just to ask what you mean by the, "left." I'm assuming you feel that is the right position politically, since you criticize its destruction. What, in your view, if I'm not asking too much, is the correct, "left," position or view. What does it advocate and what does it reject?

I have no intention of debating your view, I'm truly interested in what it is.
You tell me. It's Americans who insist on calling everything 'left' and 'right'. I'm referring to whatever is the opposite of so-called 'neo-liberal' political parties. Most Western democracies have two major parties.
Well, I wasn't interested in what South Africans, Americans, Chinese, or Italians, might mean by the word you used. I was interested in what you mean. You may be right, but, quite frankly, when I've been in America, I do not think I've read or heard the particular term, "neo-liberal," used. The Mexicans I've asked all say," nada!" Do Mexicans count as Americans?

Since you were reluctant to say what you mean, I looked it up. Wikipedia says, "Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism," but that does not seem to be what you mean, and it is certainly not anything I have observed going on in any North or South American country.

I'm not your opponent. I was really curious.
Hence the quotation marks. As a rule, so-called 'left' wing governed countries are the ones with the highest standard of living eg. minimal homelessness, good healthcare and education for everyone, good welfare system, fair taxes, decent minimum wage, good overall well-being which translates into lower crime rates...i.e. civilised, evolved societies.
Makes you wonder why anyone would vote any other way doesn't it?
Here, every time we get a so-called 'neo-liberal' govt. (aka social eugenicism) the standard of living goes down, homelessness and poverty escalate, borrowing goes through the roof (with nothing to show for it), the environment suffers, services are 'cut back', there's less money for health and education (but more for their Big Business friends), more corruption.....
Makes you wonder why anyone would vote that way. But people are stupid for the most part--hence their confusion over the difference between PC fuckwitism and 'the 'left' as a political ideology.
But there's really no point in explaining any of this to an American, especially one who has to ask what a 'left wing' govt. looks like. I suppose it's what you lot would call 'commie bastards' :roll:
Ironically, the kind of govts. that Americans say 'take away their freedoms' actually offer by far the the most freedom for their citizens.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2218
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Defunding Police

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:28 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:45 am

You tell me. It's Americans who insist on calling everything 'left' and 'right'. I'm referring to whatever is the opposite of so-called 'neo-liberal' political parties. Most Western democracies have two major parties.
Well, I wasn't interested in what South Africans, Americans, Chinese, or Italians, might mean by the word you used. I was interested in what you mean. You may be right, but, quite frankly, when I've been in America, I do not think I've read or heard the particular term, "neo-liberal," used. The Mexicans I've asked all say," nada!" Do Mexicans count as Americans?

Since you were reluctant to say what you mean, I looked it up. Wikipedia says, "Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism," but that does not seem to be what you mean, and it is certainly not anything I have observed going on in any North or South American country.

I'm not your opponent. I was really curious.
Hence the quotation marks. As a rule, so-called 'left' wing governed countries are the ones with the highest standard of living eg. minimal homelessness, good healthcare and education for everyone, good welfare system, fair taxes, decent minimum wage, good overall well-being which translates into lower crime rates...i.e. civilised, evolved societies.
Makes you wonder why anyone would vote any other way doesn't it?
Here, every time we get a so-called 'neo-liberal' govt. (aka social eugenicism) the standard of living goes down, homelessness and poverty escalate, borrowing goes through the roof (with nothing to show for it), the environment suffers, services are 'cut back', there's less money for health and education (but more for their Big Business friends), more corruption.....
Makes you wonder why anyone would vote that way. But people are stupid for the most part--hence their confusion over the difference between PC fuckwitism and 'the 'left' as a political ideology.
But there's really no point in explaining any of this to an American, especially one who has to ask what a 'left wing' govt. looks like. I suppose it's what you lot would call 'commie bastards' :roll:
Ironically, the kind of govts. that Americans say 'take away their freedoms' actually offer by far the the most freedom for their citizens.
Well, I already explained that I am apolitical. I belong to no party or movement and have no political ideology. So what's with the ethnic prejudice that decides where someone might have been born (about which they have no choice) or where they temporarily reside (because everyone has to reside somewhere) determines what kind of person they are or what they believe or think. Do you do that with all races and nationalities. (I do not identify with any race or nationality, by the way.)

Except for the fact that you think poverty is bad as I do, I'm sure we do not have the same view of governments, which doesn't matter, because I'm perfectly content for you to advocate any kind of government you like. I don't have one, don't need one, and certainly don't support one.

For those capable of it, personal freedom beats any political ideology, but I readily admit, it's not for most people. I do appreciate your answering.
commonsense
Posts: 3314
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Defunding Police

Post by commonsense »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:14 pm
Here, every time we get a so-called 'neo-liberal' govt. (aka social eugenicism) the standard of living goes down, homelessness and poverty escalate, borrowing goes through the roof (with nothing to show for it), the environment suffers, services are 'cut back', there's less money for health and education (but more for their Big Business friends), more corruption.....
What you’re describing is generally what we would call the landscape of the Republican Party in the States.

You wondered why people would vote this way. They’re not bad people. They just have a different viewpoint.

In some ways it all mirrors the rugged individualism of the old time American West.

As enthusiastic individualists, who believe their fortunes are the result of their efforts alone, they may view social programs as handouts to people who may be too lazy to make it on their own.

For roughly 80% of the American population the standard of living becomes eroded while the other 20% are able to advance their lot.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class is transformed into the so-called working poor. The top 1% have all the wealth.

Personal debt (credit cards and other loans) increase because the 80% try to maintain former levels of living.

The environment is under attack because the rich make more money when corporations make more profits, which often requires a loosening of environmental protections.

:mrgreen:
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9573
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Defunding Police

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:28 pm
Well, I wasn't interested in what South Africans, Americans, Chinese, or Italians, might mean by the word you used. I was interested in what you mean. You may be right, but, quite frankly, when I've been in America, I do not think I've read or heard the particular term, "neo-liberal," used. The Mexicans I've asked all say," nada!" Do Mexicans count as Americans?

Since you were reluctant to say what you mean, I looked it up. Wikipedia says, "Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism," but that does not seem to be what you mean, and it is certainly not anything I have observed going on in any North or South American country.

I'm not your opponent. I was really curious.
Hence the quotation marks. As a rule, so-called 'left' wing governed countries are the ones with the highest standard of living eg. minimal homelessness, good healthcare and education for everyone, good welfare system, fair taxes, decent minimum wage, good overall well-being which translates into lower crime rates...i.e. civilised, evolved societies.
Makes you wonder why anyone would vote any other way doesn't it?
Here, every time we get a so-called 'neo-liberal' govt. (aka social eugenicism) the standard of living goes down, homelessness and poverty escalate, borrowing goes through the roof (with nothing to show for it), the environment suffers, services are 'cut back', there's less money for health and education (but more for their Big Business friends), more corruption.....
Makes you wonder why anyone would vote that way. But people are stupid for the most part--hence their confusion over the difference between PC fuckwitism and 'the 'left' as a political ideology.
But there's really no point in explaining any of this to an American, especially one who has to ask what a 'left wing' govt. looks like. I suppose it's what you lot would call 'commie bastards' :roll:
Ironically, the kind of govts. that Americans say 'take away their freedoms' actually offer by far the the most freedom for their citizens.
Well, I already explained that I am apolitical. I belong to no party or movement and have no political ideology. So what's with the ethnic prejudice that decides where someone might have been born (about which they have no choice) or where they temporarily reside (because everyone has to reside somewhere) determines what kind of person they are or what they believe or think. Do you do that with all races and nationalities. (I do not identify with any race or nationality, by the way.)

Except for the fact that you think poverty is bad as I do, I'm sure we do not have the same view of governments, which doesn't matter, because I'm perfectly content for you to advocate any kind of government you like. I don't have one, don't need one, and certainly don't support one.

For those capable of it, personal freedom beats any political ideology, but I readily admit, it's not for most people. I do appreciate your answering.
I did say it was pointless discussing it with the average Americans. Gary Childress seems to be a rare exception--someone with a broad mind who 'gets' things.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9573
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Defunding Police

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

commonsense wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:48 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:14 pm
Here, every time we get a so-called 'neo-liberal' govt. (aka social eugenicism) the standard of living goes down, homelessness and poverty escalate, borrowing goes through the roof (with nothing to show for it), the environment suffers, services are 'cut back', there's less money for health and education (but more for their Big Business friends), more corruption.....
What you’re describing is generally what we would call the landscape of the Republican Party in the States.

You wondered why people would vote this way. They’re not bad people. They just have a different viewpoint.

In some ways it all mirrors the rugged individualism of the old time American West.

As enthusiastic individualists, who believe their fortunes are the result of their efforts alone, they may view social programs as handouts to people who may be too lazy to make it on their own.

For roughly 80% of the American population the standard of living becomes eroded while the other 20% are able to advance their lot.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class is transformed into the so-called working poor. The top 1% have all the wealth.

Personal debt (credit cards and other loans) increase because the 80% try to maintain former levels of living.

The environment is under attack because the rich make more money when corporations make more profits, which often requires a loosening of environmental protections.

:mrgreen:
In other words it's short-sighted, self-centred arseholes who vote 'neo-lib'. That's what I've noticed too.
A couple of examples are the UK govt. (Conservative) and Australian (Liberal). The Australian govt. seems to be made up of science-denying religious fuckwits (but apparently that's not 'bad'; it's just a 'different point of view' :roll: ). New Zealand at the moment has a Labour majority govt. which is the Party that's considered 'left'.
Interesting to note that as soon as a crisis came along, in the form of this pandemic, the 'neo-lib' parties turned 'left', showing that so-called 'neo-liberalism' is unworkable if you want your country to survive and ultimately thrive.
While NZ was busy helping out small businesses and out-of-workers, Australia has put 300 billion into preparing for war with China.
Funny how 'wild west neo-libs' are never bothered by how much of THEIR precious taxes go on the military.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply