Politics 2020

[Malcador]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

You do know that Austria is considered part of Germany by most people?

The Anschluss never ended

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

more skarp_one tripe

People Are Coming Together Across The Country To Clean Up Neighborhoods After A Weekend Of Protests

same stories o' destruction. same stories o' rebuild.

you see blm motivation as insufficient and thus police state action is warranted. predictable. would be tragic if not so predictable.

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I do have some ideas which I can share with you ?

please do, 'cause at the moment you would appear to be doing same shtick as skarp_one and approving police state tactics o' protest suppression. 

bruce is buying into a narrative much different from what is actually happening.

HA! Good Fun!

[Skarpen]

48 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

same stories o' destruction. same stories o' rebuild.

What a bunch of crap. Not the same people doing the cleaning though, but the people that were hurt by those unlawful rioting. Must be a new low for the "moral" Grommie to give a pass to criminals because the victims cleaned after them. Makes me sick 

[majestic]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Holy smoke young grasshopper ....the way you rejected being German you would assume I was suggesting you might be ....Russian?? Sorry for insulting you 

You do know that Austria is considered part of Germany by most people? Austrian dialect is basically the same and you guys have very close history and friendship ? Thats why your meal you posted seemed so familiar, it was an Austrian cooking school....Ostrich seemed a bit decadent for Germans but not for Austrians 

Man, don't compare German "German" to our beatiful language. Seriously. Pssh! The gall.

I mean historically you're not wrong, but in a more contemporary view there's a huge divide these days. Might as well tell a Bavarian he's German and wait for the reply. It's going to be similar.

 

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But on a serious note I didnt know you were from Austria, thats a huge distinction for me because Austria is where our families go  skiing....it is our favorite EU country  outside of UK because we have spent  the most time their on holiday. And you how each EU country is brilliant in its own way and could  easily become a tender for "favorite " country so well done for being the best EU country !!! And for South Africans there seems to be a competition between Italy, Switerland or Austria for best skiing destinations ....we always go to Austria and we stay in Lech. Switzerland is amazing  but far too expensive ....staying in Zug is just ridiculous to justify 

If you want I can tell you more what  I like about Austria but only if you interested because you will know these things so its more about discussing things in your country if you keen?

 Do you snowboard or ski ?

 

You stay in Lech, one of the most ridiculous overpriced touristy trap locations you could potentially find on the planet and think Switzerland is overpriced? Heh. Okay. Why not. Sure Switzerland is more expensive overall, but Lech is not a budget destination. Not by a long shot. 

But no, I don't ski or snowboard. I did once, a long time ago, because our schools always had a week of skiing in winter and a week of hiking in spring/early summer as part of our curriculum, but then I had basic military training during the coldest winter of the past thirty years (-20° and heavy snow) and now I stay as far away from that hellish white stuff as I possibly can.

We can discuss whatever you like.

How about a fun little fact: Most years the most criminal group of migrants in Austria are actually... Germans. Even though they're by not the largest group of immigrants (not that there's that much of an overlap, you can just cross the border after all). They're sometimes beaten by Romanians.

Yet when our politicians talk about importing crime through migration we're usually talking about Turks, or Afghans... sometimes Chechnyans. Oh, and people from Morocco, they're like all thieves for some reason.

But since this is the political thread, you'd be in luck if you'd live here and have citizenship, you could vote for an actual successor party of the NSDAP and let out that inner facist of yours. Yay?

[ShadySands]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

bruce is buying into a narrative much different from what is actually happening.

I was getting at this earlier. Specifically, what about this narrative is so appealing to Bruce and others. Is it just that it fits preconceived notions better?

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

What a bunch of crap. Not the same people doing the cleaning though, but the people that were hurt by those unlawful rioting. Must be a new low for the "moral" Grommie to give a pass to criminals because the victims cleaned after them. Makes me sick 

missed all the blm t-shirts in those pictures o' people cleaning?

https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/06/03/thousands-in-north-side-march-told-if-serious-about-helping-come-to-south-and-west-side-cleanup-events-this-week/

regardless, your bs 'bout the difference 'tween peaceful hk protests v. blm protests evaporated in an instant and you then retreated to some kinda cleanup effort story in an attempt to distinguish. turns out the same stories exist for blm. so, now what?

you efforts to legitimize is transparent. you approve o' the motivation and goals o' the hk protesters who has resorted to violence frequent. converse, you disapprove o' blm motivations, so you see unconstitutional police state tactics employed by the government as a legit response to the blm protests. you clear ain't self aware enough to realize the hypocrisy and boarderline insanity o' such a position. 

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

I was getting at this earlier. Specifically, what about this narrative is so appealing to Bruce and others. Is it just that it fits preconceived notions better?

am not surprised oro and skarp_one glomp onto the fox narrative. a few o' the other trump supporters is indulging in the sunk cost fallacy we mentioned earlier as a way to justify their mistake. how do you continue to support trump w/o believing he represents the last defense against an existential threat? if such a threat don't exist, then one must be imagined. the threat doesn't need be reasonable; just needs be plausible enough to allow trump supporters to sleep at night w/o having to face their personal colonel nicholson moment.

am uncertain 'bout bruce. am disappointed in bruce. again, given his awareness o' the sa apartheid government tactics, one would think bruce would be particular suspicious o' a government narrative which frames protesters as seditious terrorists. we would expect a doubting thomas approach from bruce. am not over surprised by bruce and others buying into the +100 days of rampant and uncontrolled lawlessness reducing dozens o' US cities to smoking ruins narrative. am disappointed.

HA! Good Fun!

[ComradeYellow]

Eh, the more lawlessness the better!  Someone has to take these meathead authorities and their lacky's and crunch 'em down several notches.  I'm too much of a coward to fight authority on my own whim but these front line skirmishers are quite tenacious!

[Skarpen]

48 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

regardless, your bs 'bout the difference 'tween peaceful hk protests v. blm protests evaporated in an instant and you then retreated to some kinda cleanup effort story in an attempt to distinguish. turns out the same stories exist for blm. so, now what?

LoL. What exactly evaporated? You didn't addressed anything about what I said. You just keep repeating the same lie that violent thugs that rioted, looted, beat and killed people are somehow the same as the peaceful protesters fighting with an actual regime. All you are doing is trying to convince people that rioting and looting is ok in US and that you support the China regime actions in Hong Kong. Not a surprise as many leftist shills are licking the chinese boots this days. And the audacity to call hypocrisy on someone... 

[Zoraptor]

Bruce's views are exactly those you'd expect from a white South African banker. The dude trolls like long lines behind a fleet of Chinese tuna boats denuding the Pacific but him being terrified of anything even close to 'violent left wing anarchists' on the streets is and has always been 100% consistent.

eg his views are also absolutely consistent with those he has expressed about more local issues like the Marikana massacre.

[Elerond]

What I have gathered in past 8 years is that Bruce supports western nations regardless of who is currently in power and what they do.

If western nations disagree with each other his priority seems to be USA > UK > EU > Germany > Northern Europe > Southern Europe

 

[ComradeYellow]

25 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

 Not a surprise as many leftist shills are licking the chinese boots this days. And the audacity to call hypocrisy on someone... 

Eastern countries are rule of thumb authoritarian and leftist.  We don't want authoritarian leftism here in the West we want libertarian leftism.

What's going on with authoritarian tendencies here in the West right now is right wing authoritarianism which I consider far worse than the left counterpart you'd find in Eastern countries like China.

Edited September 20, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Darkpriest]

55 minutes ago, Elerond said:

What I have gathered in past 8 years is that Bruce supports western nations regardless of who is currently in power and what they do.

If western nations disagree with each other his priority seems to be USA > UK > EU > Germany > Northern Europe > Southern Europe

 

*sarcasm on*

Typical xenophobic and racist comment not noticing fellow central and eastern europeans, which apparently are good only for calling them white privilaged people when narrative suits it. 

*sarcasm off*

 

But on a more serious note, i think it's related to Bruce's work, which is most likely very dependent on what is going on at Wall St. and at Earl St. 

 

Can't blame him. My wealth is also locked to such places, but the difference is, that i lived early years of my life in a socialst / communist dream and still remember chockolate like products, meat and other essentials distributed via coupons and top down limits... 

 

Edit: oh, and i forgot the hours/days long lines and queue committees... For things like suggar or butter... yay socializm! 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Gromnir]

27 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

LoL. What exactly evaporated? 

you claimed the hk protests were peaceful. confronted with visual evidence to the contrary, you showed a story 'bout hk protesters involved in post violence cleanup.

poof

so, strict speaking not universal "peaceful," similar to blm protests.

you didn't even try and refute the spurious peace claim. instead you tried a pivot... to cleanup?  huh? *shrug* also failed 'cause is similar stories o' blm cleanup efforts.

furthermore, 'ccording to skarp_one, blm is "looting in the name of junkie that overdosed in police presence." your own tortured words makes apparent that the justification for unconstitutional and illegal use o' force by the government to suppress blm is 'cause you disapprove o' the motivations o' blm. has been numerous posts by Gromnir showing how the doj efforts to suppress protests in places such as portland is unconstitutional and illegal. no pushback from skarp_one on that point which is a good thing as the pas has shown how ill-equipped you are to deal with questions o' law. 

so again, hk ain't been exact peaceful and nevertheless creates sympathy. 

the US response to blm protests has been illegal and thus by definition lawless. nevertheless, skarp_one sees US actions as justified.  

...

now am s'posed a china supporter? okie dokie. makes as much sense as calling us a leftist shill, but go ahead and channel your inner vol if such deflection helps you endure your embarrassments. am a scalia quoting, obama critical (foreign policy and domestic,) defender o' police and state rights who decries national debt and activist judges... not to mention we defend bush from the wmd lies claims. the left is not gonna be inviting us to run for office anytime soon.  

our lefty views put us in good company. am similar lefty to mattis, former admiral mcraven, the late john mccain, jeff flake, chuck hagel, william howard taft iv, michael vickers, thomas ridge, mitt romney and 1000 former fed prosecutors

add lindsey graham to the list... circa 2015 lindsey that is.

oh, and the governator

the problem is that a bunch o' alt-right nutters (and trump) has hijacked the republican party so that traditional conservative values is actual criticized and ridiculed by trump loyalists. is no room in the republican party for traditional conservatives.

pro china accusation is even more amusing. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

the problem is that a bunch o' alt-right nutters (and trump) has hijacked the republican party so that traditional conservative values is actual criticized and ridiculed by trump loyalists. is no room in the republican party for traditional conservatives.

 

HA! Good Fun!

You are correct of course. But where do the traditional conservatives turn? Certainly NOT the goddamned Democrats. They are even more hostile to traditional conservatives than the new Republican party. They will be happy for your votes but offer nothing but scorn, derision, and hostility in return even of those votes bring them to power. The Democrat Party of today is NOT a Big Tent.

"Taking back" the Republican party is likely a futile as third party support. I've said before Reagan and Goldwater would vomit if they saw it but the neo-cons LIKE what they have created.  nd there are more of them than "us" as it turns out.

So where do the traditional small government conservatives turn? 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

Eastern countries are rule of thumb authoritarian and leftist.  We don't want authoritarian leftism here in the West we want libertarian leftism.

What's going on with authoritarian tendencies here in the West right now is right wing authoritarianism which I consider far worse than the left counterpart you'd find in Eastern countries like China.

Libertarianisim leftisim is a thing but I am really convinced it only works on paper. Leftisim requires government control to even work. There is nothing "libertarian" about that.

[Gorth]

13 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But on a serious note I didnt know you were from Austria, thats a huge distinction for me because Austria is where our families go  skiing....it is our favorite EU country  outside of UK because we have spent  the most time their on holiday.

In a few months time, Austria will be your favorite EU country then

 

Just a tip, you'll need separate visas to go Austria and the UK when that time comes... don't get stuck at the border

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

10 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Libertarianisim leftisim is a thing but I am really convinced it only works on paper. Leftisim requires government control to even work. There is nothing "libertarian" about that.

I recall us having a similar conversation before where you conceded that government control (in the form of police enforcing property and laws I believe) was necessary for your ideology to work. Does that mean there is nothing "libertarian" about the US Libertarian Party and (most of) its fellow travelers?

[Gromnir]

20 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

 

So where do the traditional small government conservatives turn? 

where? for a start, away from trump and his mendacity and corruption. call it a good start.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

Oh look, it's not only the Australian banks that are rotten to the core...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54225572

 

HSBC allowed fraudsters to transfer millions of dollars around the world even after it had learned of their scam, leaked secret files show.

Britain's biggest bank moved the money through its US business to HSBC accounts in Hong Kong in 2013 and 2014.

Its role in the $80m (£62m) fraud is detailed in a leak of documents - banks' "suspicious activity reports" - that have been called the FinCEN Files.

HSBC says it has always met its legal duties on reporting such activity

[ComradeYellow]

4 hours ago, KaineParker said:

I recall us having a similar conversation before where you conceded that government control (in the form of police enforcing property and laws I believe) was necessary for your ideology to work. Does that mean there is nothing "libertarian" about the US Libertarian Party and (most of) its fellow travelers?

I'd say both right and left libertarians want just enough government to act as an adhesive to their respective viewpoints so yeah, kinda pointless being overly critical on the matter.

Clint Eastwood is considered a right libertarian and I love most of his movies (refuse to watch 'American Sniper' though!) so yeah if you're a right winger and not a ultra authoritarian meathead you're bearable in my book, especially if you churn out good content like Eastwood and Paul Harrell (<-- the absolute best gun instructor on Youtube in my view).

Edited September 21, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[BruceVC]

12 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

bruce is buying into a narrative much different from what is actually happening.

HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir I am going to respond to this shortly because my concern around the violence and protracted strikes around current BLM  is being misunderstood, this is partly my fault and how I framed a previous question around "  I am surprised so few members are fine with the violence protests " ( or something I said similar ) 

But since you also raising this I will clarify this in the  proper way but just to summarize what I was really meaning is " the violence and protracted nature of some of the ostensibly BLM  protests  should be  condemned by all in civil society but more importantly it needs to addressed legally by the police and preferably state security, federal intervention isnt necessary unless the state resources are overwhelmed "

I will explain this properly later,  I just want to respond to Shady first  but I want to add I am glad you raised this because I consider you  someone who understands and more importantly  respects the etiquette of a " normal debate " , what I mean by that  is I assume you will read what I will say and then either agree or disagree based on the actual argument and is it true based on your own views. 

But what I dont like is spending time responding to someone's question but the person doesnt want to debate as they already have an incorrect and biased view of me based on an assumption  of why I say what I say...and to be fair no one wants to spend time in a meaningless debate 

The exception to this is when someone I like misunderstands my view or I think they misunderstand my view but I will still spend time trying to make my point even if they dont appear to read my posts which explain my motivation

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Oh look, it's not only the Australian banks that are rotten to the core...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54225572

 

HSBC allowed fraudsters to transfer millions of dollars around the world even after it had learned of their scam, leaked secret files show.

Britain's biggest bank moved the money through its US business to HSBC accounts in Hong Kong in 2013 and 2014.

Its role in the $80m (£62m) fraud is detailed in a leak of documents - banks' "suspicious activity reports" - that have been called the FinCEN Files.

HSBC says it has always met its legal duties on reporting such activity

add to the file o' news which should shock nobody.
 

HSBC Escapes Prosecution as U.S. Ends 5-Year Deferred Deal

Justice Department Announces Deferred Prosecution Agreement with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA

Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail

got these record setting fines, which amounts to a functional wink and a nod given what hsbc makes in a year, fines which is evential paid for by hsbc customers. no criminal prosecutions.

as an aside, deutsche bank and jp morgan is also 'mongst the possible nogoodniks mentioned in icij report. am stressing "possible" 'cause this is a classic smoke w/o fire situation. the manner in which the baks handled and seeming manipulated their sars responsibilities is enough to make any reasonable person suspicious, but isn't conclusive proof. however, gotta be kinda obtuse not to be suspicious and concerned.

7 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Bruce's views are exactly those you'd expect from a white South African banker.

am not thinking it is fair to generalize in such a way. however, we do agree his past posts regarding totalitarian government responses, as well as his frequent indifference to state actions to limit liberties of citizens, were representing an unfortunate trend. is why we specific said we were not overly surprised but were disappointed.

nevertheless, to make broad generalizations based on a person's race, national origin and occupation is, at the very least, unfair. make assumptions 'bout a woman latino judge from the US? am talking J. sotomayor or trumps' appointee candidate, barbara lagoa? both catholic and children o' immigrant parents. 

that said, am thinking bruce deserves a chance to respond as 'posed to need fight stereotype.

@BruceVC

will once again appeal to you to consider that the US federal government, which already has overwhelming advantages o' resources and law when dealing with groups and individual protesters, nevertheless resorted to overt illegal and unconstitutional means to suppress protesters in multiple american cities. those arrested by unnamed fed police is frequent denied due process. sedition laws do NOT apply to local protesters asking for a mayor to resign, and it is patent unconstitutional for the fed to send troops to states and cities where they has not been welcomed either the governor or the legislature. 

if the US government can't deal with protesters w/o routine breaking its own rules, we suggest there is cause for concern and more than a little suspicion.

am not suggesting protesters is always right. we has even criticized blm for making it too easy for fox and trump to create a false narrative. even so, if the federal government is consistent violating its own traditions, rules and laws to bring about law and order, am thinking even bruce would have cause to be suspicious o' the suppression o' protests.

you, more than many o' us here, do not need set the wayback machine to the 1950s thru early 70s to be recalling the last time we had lasting protests in multiple major us cities for an extended period o' time. civil rights and vietnam war protesters were not popular with the public at large at the time. nevertheless, for most americans, this is the stuff o' movies, grain black & white news footage, and snippets from a high school textbook. you should be acute aware o' the advantages a government has in framing the narrative regarding protests. 

not all protests is worthy o' sympathy. violence is never ok; am talking to all you closeted antifa supporters. setting fires to property is almost never a good look.

etc.

nevertheless, where the Government is routine breaking its own rules and laws to suppress protests, am thinking there is a duty to serious consider the possibility that the villains is not blm and other such groups.

HA! Good Fun!

ps is effective a response to the most recent bruce post.

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

if the US government can't deal with protesters w/o routine breaking its own rules, we suggest there is cause for concern and more than a little suspicion.

Well said.

[BruceVC]

12 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I was getting at this earlier. Specifically, what about this narrative is so appealing to Bruce and others. Is it just that it fits preconceived notions better?

I want to specifically respond to this because similar to last time  when you asked me a questions around my interest in BLM  I dont want you to think less of me based on a misunderstanding of what you believe are my motivations. This is not the same as you having a negative view of my opinion based on my actual view 

And since you have raised this type of question twice I do believe you are misunderstanding me. Also there are people who will have issues with the protests around BLM but they arent really concerned with the violence and its real impact but they just want to undermine BLM on all levels or its purely a political view so its about weakening the Democrats and there support for BLM. Now its almost impossible to know the real intent of anyone on a forum  because what I have raised as a concern about the protests is the same argument others may make  but there  motives will be different to mine 

So I initially framed that question " I am surprised so few members are fine with the violence protests " incorrectly and I should have added better context because it can add to the view you mentioned that " their is a narrative " . Just on that point there are real narratives that exist and these can be true and then there are false narratives  which is not what I am part of

  What would help me understand your question  based on certain narratives that do exist around BLM is what would think would be my reason for being concerned about the violence outside of the actual reason I will explain? For example I could be part of a  right wing group that is racist and is just using the examples of real violence to undermine BLM because they represent certain real societal issues around unfair and illegal targeting of African Americans? I  am not  suggesting this is what you think I am saying but because I am not a US citizen and I dont vote I honestly cant think of a valid reason why I would what I say outside of my explanation which will come 

The reality of fake news and propaganda is real but its normally when people are directly involved in the country which I am not so its confusing for me to understand which " narrative " you are referring to  

So in summary, I am concerned  with the level of violence in some of the  US cities because it has been allowed to continue and this leads to some groups believing that violence and lawlessness to be justified or it leads to pure criminal activity like looting, and this criminal element  hides behind the view "we care about structural racism " but they dont care about racism and just use this as an excuse for there own illegal agendas

So for anyone who believes in the legitimate right of anyone to protest based on the true objective you dont want people being part of these protests who dont really care about the objective 

And then equally important is the reality of how violence that is not stopped leads to the violence becoming normalized and it will continue in future protests. A good example of this is occurred a few years ago in the UK where a drug deal called Mark Duggan was killed by police in a legitimate shooting but there were accusations of police illegally killing him or he had been unfairly targeted because he was black. This was before BLM but the nature of the protests were the same. There were several days of normal protests  but also looting started and that grew and many shops were damaged and vandalized ....the police were caught off guard and in come UK cities there was both fear and anarchy.

But after a few days of the police not arresting anyone they changed there entire approach and started arresting anyone who  was caught breaking the law, they arrested dozens of people over 2 nights and most of these people  were both charged and prosecuted. Almost immediately there was no more criminal activity but peaceful protests continued which was fine and supported 

I want to specifically respond to this because similar to last time  when you asked me a questions around my interest in BLM  I dont want you to think less of me based on a misunderstanding of what you believe are my motivations. This is not the same as you having a negative view of my opinion based on my actual view 

And since you have raised this type of question twice I do believe you are misunderstanding me. Also there are people who will have issues with the protests around BLM but they arent really concerned with the violence and its real impact but they just want to undermine BLM on all levels or its purely a political view so its about weakening the Democrats and there support for BLM. Now its almost impossible to know the real intent of anyone on a forum  because what I have raised as a concern about the protests is the same argument others may make  but there  motives will be different to mine 

So I initially framed that question " I am surprised so few members are fine with the violence protests " incorrectly and I should have added better context because it can add to the view you mentioned that " their is a narrative " . Just on that point there are real narratives that exist and these can be true and then there are false narratives  which is not what I am part of

  What would help me understand your question  based on certain narratives that do exist around BLM is what would think would be my reason for being concerned about the violence outside of the actual reason I will explain? For example I could be part of a  right wing group that is racist and is just using the examples of real violence to undermine BLM because they represent certain real societal issues around unfair and illegal targeting of African Americans? I  am not  suggesting this is what you think I am saying but because I am not a US citizen and I dont vote I honestly cant think of a valid reason why I would what I say outside of my explanation which will come 

The reality of fake news and propaganda is real but its normally when people are directly involved in the country which I am not so its confusing for me to understand which " narrative " you are referring to  

So in summary, I am concerned  with the level of violence in some of the  US cities because it has been allowed to continue and this leads to some groups believing that violence and lawlessness to be justified or it leads to pure criminal activity like looting, and this criminal element  hides behind the view "we care about structural racism " but they dont care about racism and just use this as an excuse for there own illegal agendas

So for anyone who believes in the legitimate right of anyone to protest based on the true objective you dont want people being part of these protests who dont really care about the objective 

And then equally important is the reality of how violence that is not stopped leads to the violence becoming normalized and it will continue in future protests. A good example of this is occurred a few years ago in the UK where a drug deal called Mark Duggan was killed by police in a legitimate shooting but there were accusations of police illegally killing him or he had been unfairly targeted because he was black. This was before BLM but the nature of the protests were the same. There were several days of normal protests   and  then some protestors started looting and damaging shops in numerous UK cities, the police initially were not suppose to intervene and suddenly citizens were faced with the potential of criminal attacks and this created a view that the UK government weren't applying the rule of law and order

But then the police approach changed and they started arresting anyone who was found breaking the law during any protest in any city. Dozens pf people were initially arrested and prosecuted over 2 nights but then the actual violence stopped but the protests continued 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

The UK story can be used to support my overall point that can be proven in other examples throughout the world where there are protests. Most modern societies understand the importance of protests but if you allow violence to be ignored during these protests this criminal activity will continue and often gets  worse  

Finally the way you achieve real and meaningful changes in any society is you need most people in that society to support and  agree to these changes. What we see in the  USA around these latest BLM protests  is because there is a perception ,that is real and embellished, that criminal activity is being ignored is that you lose the support of many people who could be part of the reasonable changes people talk about because the moment most movements are linked to anarchy they lose much legitimacy and just add to the current ideological divide we see 

In summary my view on this " narrative " is clear, if the police allow criminal conduct you undermine the core and understandable objectives of the movement. And a good way to understand  this in the current US reality is ask yourself a simple question " can you think of one positive outcome that the days of unabetted protests have created in cities like Portland" 

I honestly would like to know one positive outcome from allowing any violence to be part of any protest ?

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Elerond said:

What I have gathered in past 8 years is that Bruce supports western nations regardless of who is currently in power and what they do.

If western nations disagree with each other his priority seems to be USA > UK > EU > Germany > Northern Europe > Southern Europe

 

As I mentioned to Shady you are another member who I like and I dont want you to misunderstand why I make certain points even if the above post has some truth to it

I dont just support Western countries, I support any country that believes in things like Democracy, human rights, independent and transparent courts and freedom of speech as the best way to run any country because this leads to proven examples where countries have strong and growing economies and where most citizens have  a good quality of life 

But there are also countries that arent these things but the citizens are generally fine with this so you cant change these things especially when you work or trade with these countries. So you have to accept the sovereignty of these countries especially when these countries are functional and not expecting economic help from others. This includes places like Russia, China and certain Middle East  countries