French election results - Macron vs Le Pen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Le pen in going to win for sure. Probably by alot. Then France will leave the eu, eu collapses, Russia will annex an entire country. Germany and russia will go to war after trump pulls out of nato over a tweet.

Thanks Obama.

Sonmi:

In what world do you live in that either Clintons were "left-wing", they're only left by comparison with the Republicans, that was the whole basis of Bill's electoral pitch in 92. Abandon all pretense of left-wing economic policies in favour for a decidedly free market and right wing structure, simply without being socially conservatives like the GOP was (And social conservativism has very little to do with the left-right dynamic, despite what most pundits would have you believe, since the adoption of the Third Way by the Democrats, there has no mainstream left-wing party in the States.

Precisely.

Nixon, a Republican, is the last of the true centrists and possibly the last true liberal in the U.S.

So much so that Texas voted blue, and practically the rest of the country went red (including California).

Nixon ended conscription, Nixon ended segregation, Nixon wanted a universal income and universal healthcare, wanted to make peace with communism (and in so doing helped pave the way towards a Deng Xiaoping election), Nixon wanted a nation that run on green energy, to end fuel dependence from the Middle East, started detente and SALT which arguably saved the world, lowered the voting age to 18, created the EPA (though he did want to abolish it later down the track because he feared it had gotten too powerful).

Back when Republicans actually stood for something more than God and bigger military spending.

Now if you were to propose anything of like what he was elected on, and his principles, you'll be called a socialist. Despite in his words to one of his advisors; "The only people you need to fear more than the kooks on the far left, is right wingers."

There is a reason why he said this. Because the positions he took a stand on were actually centrist positions. He wanted to couple liberty with a social conscience and a guarantee that a government will seek to balance ambition with moral conscience for those that do not benefit from it. To balance government spending on initiatives that will uplift an entire populace ...

I would go so far as to say we haven't had a real centrist politician anywhere in the West since the 60s and 70s. It's basically market liberalism ... and the philosophy of liberalism when taken to ideas of LGBTQ rights and immigration ... and market liberalism ... and the philosophy of hypocrisy concerning dimininishing the human agency of people that conservatives don't traditionally like.

Pick your poison.

I for one like the taste of market liberalism and the philosophy of liberalism taken to empowering all members of society to get rich or poorer regardless of race, religion, or whether you're LGBTQ. Because it's the least bitter of the options provided and I have high hopes that capitalism can still be a force for good in the long run over concepts of religion and isolationism. That and true liberals are always a better pick than true conservatives, because they are by definition the 'got mine' crowd of wanting to be rich and pretend like God is important in being allowed to be, or continue to be, rich.

But those are the only two options availaible. And that's because megacorporations have long since gotten extraterritoriality by this point, so why bother?

Once again, I have to echo the sentiment in this thread an I throw my hat in the "Nixon is underrated and unfairly judged by history" camp.

image

And I say this as a left-winger.

Sonmi:
In what world do you live in that either Clintons were "left-wing", they're only left by comparison with the Republicans, that was the whole basis of Bill's electoral pitch in 92. Abandon all pretense of left-wing economic policies in favour for a decidedly free market and right wing structure, simply without being socially conservatives like the GOP was (And social conservativism has very little to do with the left-right dynamic, despite what most pundits would have you believe, since the adoption of the Third Way by the Democrats, there has no mainstream left-wing party in the States.

This is literally exactly what I was talking about. The left-right distinction is not sufficiently distinctive to be useful in political discussion. If you can't decide whether a guy like Bill Clinton (or Paul Keating, for that matter) was on the left wing or the right wing, then those terms are useless in practice.

Though I still disagree with this apparent belief on the part of you and Addendum that the left-right distinction is defined solely by economic policies. By that logic, Stephen Bannon is left-wing. Whatever the popular definition of "left-wing" ultimately is, it's sufficiently nebulous that economic concerns are not the sole determining factor.

I mean, let's talk about Bill Clinton. He's a neoliberal, which you're equating with "right-wing." But he also attempted to introduce universal health care, an unambiguously left-wing policy. Or this budget reconciliation plan that cut taxes for low-income houses and raised taxes for the highest 1.2% of earners. Those are left-wing economic policies.

I mean, I'm not tyring to up-sell Bill Clinton here; the man had snake oil instead of blood. But it's not just a matter of saying "free market = right-wing, controlled market = left-wing."

Zontar:
So the working class having immigration levels as what they currently are being a bad thing isn't enough? The fact that the British economy was doing better for the working class before the floodgates where opened in the late 90s isn't enough? The fact that the working class in the US has had a similar problem since a similar opening of the floodgates in the late 60s isn't enough?

The British working classes were doing not so badly until ~2008... and we all know what happened then.

UKIP was barely an electoral blip back in those days. Then came 2010 Conservative-led austerity, and three years later UKIP's more than 15+%.

[https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/article161906621/Neun-Prozent-der-Tatverdaechtigen-sind-Fluechtlinge.html

That seems to be Hamburg crime statistics, not Germany.

Safety and security are one of the pillars of the function of government. A government which cannot assure the safety of its citizens has violated the social contract, and the fact so many these days have a "just deal with it" attitude despite the fact there is absolutely nothing about being a first world nation that means we have to deal with any of this shit is infuriating.

Safety and security, as Benjamin Franklin was pointing out, do not outweigh every other consideration in government. Far from it.

Have you not noticed that this sort of agenda is how authoritarian rule generally justifies itself? Take in the modern day, for instance, people like Erdogan granting himself vast new powers. Or Putin's stress on Russian enemies. Or note the way such people inevitably turn to populism to ram authoritarian changes through. Although I suppose those that figure they'll get jobs as concentration camp guards rather than end up as inmates may find it appealing.

Terrorism, as I have pointed out to you before, is barely a blip on the average Western country's murder statistics, never mind the wider death statistics. The idea that ~1% of annual murders justifies staggering sums of effort, money and erosion of civil liberties is a sick joke.

And maybe you can understand why people like me don't want the country run by greedy politicians who claim imbecilic globalist mandates that before the 1990s would have been seen by the left as a declaration of war on the working class.

You are completely incoherent here. You're the guy who thought the UK should become a tax haven post-Brexit, and supports a US president that would gut benefits and social services. You lionise the world's great globalisers of the 80s. The people you're supporting into office are half the time rampant, globalist capitalists.

You just seem to ignore / forget that gloablist bit whenever they're right wing.

You're also not really interested in the working classes per se - you're interested in your country's native, white working class. The people you want kicked back to sit around in desert refugee camps are working class too, after all - and you have negative solidarity for them.

You're also the guy living in a country that is vastly dependent on exports to its southern neighbour. Trump declaring an America First tantrum, kicking down NAFTA and slapping tariffs all over your country's products might be an interesting way for you to learn the perils of nationalism and protectionism. (Although we all know even if Trump did do that, you'd just twist it into somehow being Trudeau's fault.)

In the end, the only position you ever take is right wing good, left wing bad. You're just a right winger, not some sort of warrior for working class justice.

bastardofmelbourne:
This is literally exactly what I was talking about. The left-right distinction is not sufficiently distinctive to be useful in political discussion. If you can't decide whether a guy like Bill Clinton (or Paul Keating, for that matter) was on the left wing or the right wing, then those terms are useless in practice.

That's the thing though, I have no trouble pointing to Clinton has a right wing politician, I've rarely seen anyone doubt as to that either. It's not some farfelu claim to make.

bastardofmelbourne:
Though I still disagree with this apparent belief on the part of you and Addendum that the left-right distinction is defined solely by economic policies. By that logic, Stephen Bannon is left-wing. Whatever the popular definition of "left-wing" ultimately is, it's sufficiently nebulous that economic concerns are not the sole determining factor.

I think the difference between philosophical left and right lie in their perception of nature and the inequalities in it. The Left sees in the inequalities something unfair to change through human intervention, while the Right sees the natural order of the world as something almost sacred, just, and working properly as is. Left-Right is more a question of world views than economical policies, though those world views specifically end up influencing economic policy greatly.

And yeah, by that definition Bannon is more left-wing than the rest of the Republicans (though I wouldn't put him on the level of the Democrats just yet), not that it makes him any more palatable. He's still mostly a right-wing politician, as are most American political figures.

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, let's talk about Bill Clinton. He's a neoliberal, which you're equating with "right-wing." But he also attempted to introduce universal health care, an unambiguously left-wing policy. Or this budget reconciliation plan that cut taxes for low-income houses and raised taxes for the highest 1.2% of earners. Those are left-wing economic policies.

Neoliberalism specifically includes throwing a bone from time to time to the populace, while maintaining the growing economic disparity is not especially a problem in society, its rather lax approach to wealth and welfare redistribution quite clearly make it a right-wing approach, even if it might fool some.

His tax changes do not make up for his considerable deregulation of banks, his laissez-faire capitalist approach to free trade, and his welfare "reforms".

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, I'm not tyring to up-sell Bill Clinton here; the man had snake oil instead of blood. But it's not just a matter of saying "free market = right-wing, controlled market = left-wing."

Of course it's not as simple as that, but to deny that economic policy doesn't reflect whether someone is ideologically on the side of the left or the right is simply playing the ostrich.

A lot of the discourse has been tarnished by Third Way types taking the Left-wing label as a way to masquerade themselves as something diametrically opposed to traditional Right-wingers and thus attract the type of voters that would have rather preferred to vote for someone on the Left.

Left-wing politics are in shambles all across the Western world and are undermined by neoliberalism left and right. This year alone, just look at how the Socialistes brass abandoned Hamon when he attempted to veer the party back to being, well, a socialist party. Look at how Melenchon was portrayed as the Anti-Christ and a bizaro Le Pen. Look at how Jeremy Corbyn is facing mutiny from embittered Blairites trying to take leadership back from him at any cost.

I'm not saying things won't change, but right now, it's looking quite dire.

Zontar:
And maybe you can understand why people like me don't want the country run by greedy politicians who claim imbecilic globalist mandates that before the 1990s would have been seen by the left as a declaration of war on the working class.

Quick correction: They do see it as declaration of war on the working class, of all countries. The Left has simply been left in shambles and is unable to defend itself from the malignant growth that has taken over the parties and popular perception of the Left. It's the very basis of the left-wing alter-globalization.

Agema:

[https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/article161906621/Neun-Prozent-der-Tatverdaechtigen-sind-Fluechtlinge.html

That seems to be Hamburg crime statistics, not Germany.

Seems you are right but I'm afraid that the numbers for all of Germany don't look much better.
There it is 8,6% if you remove illegally entering the country.

Here you can download the official police statistics for all of Germany under PKS 2016 - fachliche Broschueren

https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInformationen/StatistikenLagebilder/PolizeilicheKriminalstatistik/PKS2016/pks2016_node.html

on page 10 it is the second statistic.
"Tatverdaechtige insgesamt" is all suspects
and "Zuwanderer" is refugees
2.022.414 suspects in total and 174.438 refugee suspects.
I would make a screenshot and mark the important part but I have no clue where to upload pictures without hassle.

Dornedas:

and "Zuwanderer" is refugees

Incorrect, "Zuwanderer" is immigrants in general.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Dornedas:

and "Zuwanderer" is refugees

Incorrect, "Zuwanderer" is immigrants in general.

Not in this context.
"Zuwanderer im Sinne dieser Darstellung sind tatverd?chtige Personen mit Aufenthaltsstatus ?Asylbewerber", ?Duldung", ?Kontingentfl?chtling/B?rgerkriegsfl?chtling"
und ?unerlaubt". "

One more things for Nixon, he took the US off the gold standard, which was incredibly important.

I don't know about unfairly judged, Watergate and the cover up was a big deal. But it does tend to over shadow everything else he did and tried to do. Which, in hindsight, was incredibly good. But at the same time, I think politic was just different back in those days.

SO yeah, we can all look forward to the year 3000 when he get re-elected.

I'm really REALLY scared of the possibility of another terrorist attack in the next two weeks with the intention of giving Le Pen more support. She saw a boost in popularity after the last one and it's pretty much ISIS' goal to boost the popularity of the far right to assist their apocalyptic culture war agenda, I'm afraid that it might have given some of these thugs the idea that terrorism works.

I hope the police remain vigilant, Paris has been a target range for these nutjobs in the last few years.

Dizchu:
I'm really REALLY scared of the possibility another terrorist attack in the next two weeks with the intention of giving Le Pen more support. She saw a boost in popularity after the last one and it's pretty much ISIS' goal to boost the popularity of the far right to assist their apocalyptic culture war agenda, I'm afraid that it might have given some of these thugs the idea that terrorism works.

I hope the police remain vigilant, Paris has been a target range for these nutjobs in the last few years.

She didn't really see a boost of support after last week's attack, in fact, she went a bit down and is generally underperforming on this level. Fillon is likely the candidate to have benefited from the terror attack on the Champs Elysees. He was seen as more steady and experienced.

That being said, if something big like the Bataclan happens, she might see her support nudged positively. Nothing sufficient to make her win the election though. I expect something to the likes of maybe 60-40 for Macron, tops.

People afraid of Le Pen taking the presidency are being completely irrational if you ask me, the real danger comes in five years.

I always think it's very strange how people believe that winning a single election will make all the issues the other party campaigned about go away.

FN has been part of France's political landscape for a while now, gradually growing from a fringe party to potentially running the country.

If you fail to address those issues, it will only grow. This is why a moderate needs to win in order to appease these calls.

Take UKIP for example. After their main issue has been resolved, the draw to that party has basically gone and people have moved back to a more moderate party, in the form on the conservatives.

En Marche seems to represent the very opposite of what people in FN want. He wants closer ties with the EU and seemingly has no solutions to France's massive migration issues.

Tip for our French fellows on the site if any, do not think this is over for Le-pen. We thought the same thing about Trump, Fucking vote when round two comes.

tf2godz:
Tip for our French fellows on the site if any, do not think this is over for Le-pen. We thought the same thing about Trump, Fucking vote when round two comes.

False equivalence.

Clinton was never up by 20 points as Macron is.

@Sonmi: Clinton isnt President despite having more votes. Until victory is decided, it is better not to presume you won.

Even a 99% chance of victory is a 1% chance of defeat.

Saelune:
@Sonmi: Clinton isnt President despite having more votes. Until victory is decided, it is better not to presume you won.

Even a 99% chance of victory is a 1% chance of defeat.

Mate, Saelune, political analysts give Le Pen a literal 0% chance of winning the second round.

This is not American politics, where Trump was always given around 20-30% chances of winning due to how the system works. Comparing the French election with the American ones shows a massive lack of insight, they are night and day.

Again, the Legislatives are what will be interesting to follow (and worrying), and that will decide the next five years. Macron, as much as I dislike him, has the second round in the bag.

Sonmi:

She didn't really see a boost of support after last week's attack, in fact, she went a bit down and is generally underperforming on this level. Fillon is likely the candidate to have benefited from the terror attack on the Champs Elysees. He was seen as more steady and experienced.

Okay I googled it and most of the results that claimed a boost seem to be right-wing/conspiracy sites so maybe I jumped the gun on that one. Still, considering what's written in ISIS manifestos I think they'd consider a Le Pen win a victory.

@Sonmi: Arrogance and complacency lead to downfall. The US learned that, and France...well, France has learned that many times throughout history. Lets hope they dont have to add another notch to that particular belt.

Dizchu:

Sonmi:

She didn't really see a boost of support after last week's attack, in fact, she went a bit down and is generally underperforming on this level. Fillon is likely the candidate to have benefited from the terror attack on the Champs Elysees. He was seen as more steady and experienced.

Okay I googled it and most of the results that claimed a boost seem to be right-wing/conspiracy sites so maybe I jumped the gun on that one. Still, considering what's written in ISIS manifestos I think they'd consider a Le Pen win a victory.

They sure would.

On the topic of ISIS and influencing the Western powers, I'm wondering if they are seeing Trump's flip-flopping on the issue of non-interventionism as a positive or a negative. On one hand, it could lead to the destabilization of Al-Assad and lead to an Islamist takeover of Syria, on the other hand, America re-affirming they'll militarily oppose them can't possibly lead to anything good for them.

Saelune:
@Sonmi: Arrogance and complacency lead to downfall. The US learned that, and France...well, France has learned that many times throughout history. Lets hope they dont have to add another notch to that particular belt.

To ask the Insoumis and the betrayed Socialistes to submit themselves to Macron by threatening the possibility of a Le Pen presidency is patently ridiculous. There is no need to bolster Macron's mandate so that he can carry around inflated shows of support, Le Pen is simply not going to win.

Also, stop bringing up the American elections, they are not the same and any use of them as a warning is inappropriate.

And when has complacency ever led to France's downfall? If anything, it's over-zealousness that led France to its darkest moments like the Terreur or the race for Africa. You could blame complacency for Vichy France, but I think the we all realize that the political and military elites are the ones to blame for that. I do suppose you could also blame them in being complacent with modern day Germany and its European austerity regime, but Hamon and Melenchon both fought against that, and Hollande was elected on the promise that he would fight it to (but never delivered).

The idea that 24% and 21.3% are enough to advance to the second round, but 20% and 19.6% aren't strikes me as incredibly silly. Not much sillier than what happens in my own political system, but still.

I really hope I dont need to buy a whole new bag of "I told you so's".

I will stop bringing up the American Elections when everyone else stops having their own potential Trumps and Neo-Nazis as potential new leaders.

Seanchaidh:
The idea that 24% and 21.3% are enough to advance to the second round, but 20% and 19.6% aren't strikes me as incredibly silly. Not much sillier than what happens in my own political system, but still.

I agree that the system should be reformed to include a third round, where every candidate above 15% of support could participate. Democratization of the electoral system was also a big point of the programs of both Hamon and Melenchon, another reason why one was strung up and hanged by his own party while the second one was vilified by the media.

Saelune:
*snip*

Pointless fear-mongering bleating in the name of strengthening the status quo helps no one, and more than anything, ends up normalizing terrible politicians like Le Pen when people realize that most of the noise against them is people crying wolf. (And it's not like there isn't already enough to oppose her without resorting to hyperbole)

@Sonmi: I wouldnt expect someone who disregarded Trump's dangers to appreciate it elsewhere I guess.

Trump proved his critics right...in two weeks. Hell, I thought it would take atleast a year, but no, he went into overdrive.

Right-Wing Bigotry needs to be stopped, not spread to the entire world. I get it, you want it to be further left than what is available, but better to start on a weak foot than no foot at all.

Meiam:
One more things for Nixon, he took the US off the gold standard, which was incredibly important.

I don't know about unfairly judged, Watergate and the cover up was a big deal. But it does tend to over shadow everything else he did and tried to do. Which, in hindsight, was incredibly good. But at the same time, I think politic was just different back in those days.

SO yeah, we can all look forward to the year 3000 when he get re-elected.

Also Native American self-determination. Basically all the things Trump is working to dismantle in less than a year in power.

Cryogenics is looking good.

Saelune:
@Sonmi: I wouldnt expect someone who disregarded Trump's dangers to appreciate it elsewhere I guess.

Someone who disregarded the dangers of Trump? Where do you take that shit? I've never a single time claimed that Trump wasn't a danger or that he was unelectable, if anything, I'm the camp that thought he would get elected because Clinton and her team kept fucking hope their campaign.

We were the Cassandras here, not the pro-Clinton people.

Saelune:
Right-Wing Bigotry needs to be stopped, not spread to the entire world. I get it, you want it to be further left than what is available, but better to start on a weak foot than no foot at all.

Right-wing politics is not fought with right-wing politics.

And it's not further left than what is available, Bernie was a valid option, Hamon and Melenchon were too in France.

Validating a progressive creep to the right instead of a brusque one is not "fighting the right", against what you keep telling yourself.

@Sonmi: I guess I should ask, since you arent a US Citizen.

Would you have voted for Clinton?

Honestly, my opinion of Bernie, independent of his followers, is pretty equal to Clinton. I am certainly not in love with him like so many others. I also dont love Clinton, if that is not understood.

But I hate Trump, and bigoted right-wing views and policies. Maybe Bernie would have been some bastion of lefist ideals, but he wasnt the one running directly against Trump. And Clinton is far more in line with Bernie's ideals and goals. If nothing else, she would not have made implementing them later far more difficult.

But Trump is President, and is doing everything he possibly can to taint and poison this country. Tearing down what safeguards, regulations, and organizations he can, and taking control or bastardizing what he cant.

Getting to what Bernie promised is now a much longer walk, for we are MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANY steps back.

Maybe Clinton would not have progressed us forward much, but atleast she would not have turned around and sprinted towards the past.

And now it is France's turn. Do they hold the line, or risk a backwards sprint?

Sonmi:

Seanchaidh:
The idea that 24% and 21.3% are enough to advance to the second round, but 20% and 19.6% aren't strikes me as incredibly silly. Not much sillier than what happens in my own political system, but still.

I agree that the system should be reformed to include a third round, where every candidate above 15% of support could participate. Democratization of the electoral system was also a big point of the programs of both Hamon and Melenchon, another reason why one was strung up and hanged by his own party while the second one was vilified by the media.

Approval voting sits better with me if we must elect just one leader. Or better, some process that pares down the competition by approval voting, then takes into account first preferences among those who approve of multiple candidates, then (somehow) spits out a reasonable head to head for a final vote-- basically putting a decision which resembles a general election before a decision which might resemble a party primary in a lot of cases. "This coalition wins, now which among them is going to be the leader", essentially.

Saelune:
@Sonmi: I guess I should ask, since you arent a US Citizen.

Would you have voted for Clinton?

If I lived in what I felt was a battleground state, yes.

Otherwise, hell to the fucking no.

Saelune:
Honestly, my opinion of Bernie, independent of his followers, is pretty equal to Clinton. I am certainly not in love with him like so many others. I also dont love Clinton, if that is not understood.

Then I'm sorry, but I highly doubt you stand for anything "Left".

Putting Hillary "I think rich people are unfairly treated by society - We should try to attract urban Republicans instead of Rural Democrats - America is already great" Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the same level is patently absurd.

Saelune:
But I hate Trump, and bigoted right-wing views and policies. Maybe Bernie would have been some bastion of lefist ideals, but he wasnt the one running directly against Trump. And Clinton is far more in line with Bernie's ideals and goals. If nothing else, she would not have made implementing them later far more difficult.

The Clintons, both her and Bill, are pretty much the architects of the American Third Way. Essentially implementing right-wing policies through and through while profiting from the good PR being "leftish" would gain them. They are political opportunists, and I highly doubt she would have implemented half of what she promised, and as Trump's sudden flip on foreign policy and her praise of it showed, they have very much in common with one another.

Also, this portrayal of Bernie as a left-wing maverick is ridiculous, he's barely center-left as far as the rest of the world goes.

Saelune:
But Trump is President, and is doing everything he possibly can to taint and poison this country. Tearing down what safeguards, regulations, and organizations he can, and taking control or bastardizing what he cant.

Whataboutism.

Trump being terrible doesn't make Hilary any better.

Saelune:
Getting to what Bernie promised is now a much longer walk, for we are MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANY steps back.

They said the same thing of the New Deal, and of Nixon's reforms, or of anything that defies the status quo.

This "It'll never happen" mentality and adversity to taking any risks is specifically what's keeping you so far right compared to the rest of Western world.

Saelune:
Maybe Clinton would not have progressed us forward much, but atleast she would not have turned around and sprinted towards the past.

Again, Clinton was not an agent of progress, she would have taken you back.

Saelune:
And now it is France's turn. Do they hold the line, or risk a backwards sprint?

France crucified Melenchon and threw Hamon under the bus. They've already lost, there is no line to be held, and Le Pen is not a factor or a danger, she'll be lucky to get 40%.

...I dont understand you. Do you like Bernie or not? And my whole point that initially got all this started was me criticizing the idea that "It'll never happen", then you throw that back at me as a point? Uh...ok.

I hope you're right that Le Pen has no chance in hell, but Id rather be cautious and wrong in a good way, than arrogantly sure and wrong in a bad way.

And if Clinton sent us back, it still would be far less back than Trump. I cant even tell to what decade. It feels simultaneously like the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s AND 80s. But no matter what, it doesnt feel like we just had Obama as president.

Saelune:
...I dont understand you. Do you like Bernie or not? And my whole point that initially got all this started was me criticizing the idea that "It'll never happen", then you throw that back at me as a point? Uh...ok.

I like Bernie, but I think that your notion that it'd be a long and arduous fight to obtain what he planned to be counter-productive. His ideas are popular, and if the Democrats actually had threatened their rightmost members, they could have achieved all of it easily.

Saelune:
I hope you're right that Le Pen has no chance in hell, but Id rather be cautious and wrong in a good way, than arrogantly sure and wrong in a bad way.

Beating the drums of establishment legitimacy is counterproductive.

Macron has no chance of losing, for Christ's sake, don't make it look as if he had a popular mandate if you disagree with all of his policies, as most of the Left does.

PsychedelicDiamond:
At this point I genuinely wonder if they don't even know what they're doing. If they're still assuming all of this is just gonna blow over. The far right extremists that are rising to power have made it quite clear that they not only view the left but also the moderate right as their enemy. Hell, Angela Merkel, a conservative is almost as hated by them as any left wing politician. We need to be tougher on the right if we want to preserve our values. Right now I'm wondering if Merkel is gonna be the last democratically elected chancellor Germany's gonna see for a long time. Ain't that a depressing thought. As of now all I hope is that I can get outta here before shit hits the fan. And I hope the same for anyone else threatened by neofascist ideology. I imagine the next few decades are gonna be though for homosexuals, muslims, leftists and anyone not sufficiently white in Europe. I wish there was more that I could do.

Spectacular mental gymnastics. Watches the government fuck the nation in the ass for close to 2 decades. Watches a wave of criminal illegal immigrants wash over his country. Watches a few nice folks allahu akbar shit up all over Europe. Conclusion: "neofascist ideology is the real enemy guys!"

Tougher on the right, get real. Look at what has happened to this country. None of it has to do with the right. In fact, the only reason we're even talking about the right is because of what happened to this country while they were nowhere to be found. I will probably bail out of Germany too at some point, but I won't be running from a pitiful AfD with 12,5% voters and no influence or a 0,3% NPD who's supporters took like 10 years to kill 3 turks. The next few decades are going to be tough on anyone and everyone, not just those precious homosexuals and muslims we need to preserve so we can get another gold star in our tolerance rating.

Agema:
I ask because I cannot find a reputable (i.e. non-xenophobic) source that corroborates those figures you mention. And several seem to suggest a very different, more complex picture from the one you suggest.

Try the German police force?

PS: The by far most criminal groups actually come from North Africa. They're not even from Syria or elsewhere in the middle East. Man, its almost like just throwing open your doors to anyone and everyone without bothering to check who ends up coming in is a shitty idea! And we didn't even save that many people from being torn apart by an assortment of American, British or Russian bombs in the process.

Oh, sorry, not very German of me. What I meant to say is that the right is responsible for this somehow. The racist, xenophobic AfD and the ~5% of voters they had before the migrant crisis provoked poor innocent kids from Morocco until they couldn't help but rape, beat and steal.

Agema:
These piss-stain terrorists can't break our societies. But people in government who'd waste time, money, effort and hope at whatever prejudicial whims pass their fancy that day can. They can even make things much worse. And people like you who'd put them into power are the greatest danger to civil rights and democracy, giving up essential liberties for temporary security.

So, bluntly, perhaps you can understand why people like me don't want the country run by greedy politicians who claim imbecilic populist mandates. People who easily cause more damage than they prevent, whilst flailing wildly trying to solve a problem they haven't even bothered to understand.

I'm not by any means instrinsically opposed to tighter immigration policy. I am however against immigration policy based on lies, prejudice, incompetence, hate, and ignorance. Consequently, if you want to convince me your way of doing immigration is better, I suggest you don't defend your way with evidence of that sort.

People typically aren't complaining about piss-stain terrorists breaking their society all that much. Its more about Duisburg, north Dortmund, Oberhausen, Freiburg, Berlin, Marsielle, Paris, East London, I can go on and on. They're complaining about parts of cities or sometimes entire cities being torn apart by swaths of first, second or third generation immigrants who have no respect for their countries laws, culture, values, no respect for the people living along side them. They're complaining about no longer being able to visit the street they grew up in alone.

__________________________________________

You know what? I don't even like Le Pen or the alt-right or whatever boogeyman people are currently trying to make responsible for problems which appeared when said boogeyman was not even in existence. But I seriously hope Le Pen wins in two weeks, and if she doesn't, I hope she wins in 5 years, just so you can all choke on that insane arrogance. Politics have been one big massive "fuck you" to the populations of France, Germany or Britain in these past few decades. And when large portions of the population turn to the only people who at least pretend to be listening, you'd rather demonize them than create a real, proper alternative. Gotta vote for Mama Merkel or Papa Schulz to keep those evil xenophobes out of power! Whats even better, almost everyone who is currently whining about the right wing in Europe was around to see a spectacularly incompetent Sarkozy, a downright traitorous SPD-Green coalition, a Blairite destruction of the labour party. Schr?der and Blair even got elected twice, I believe. You were perfectly happy to see them roll back on promises and stick the middle finger to the population back then, why don't you shut up and display the same kind of politeness to the new guys in town? Where was this solidarity you have with refugees and Muslims and homosexuals and whatever minority-of-the-minute when the people under threat were just random old average folks with no unusual religion or sexuality to set them apart? Nowhere, and thats the biggest reason you'll get zero sympathy from me. You made the bed, sleep in it.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

__________________________________________

You know what? I don't even like Le Pen or the alt-right or whatever boogeyman people are currently trying to make responsible for problems which appeared when said boogeyman was not even in existence. But I seriously hope Le Pen wins in two weeks, and if she doesn't, I hope she wins in 5 years, just so you can all choke on that insane arrogance. Politics have been one big massive "fuck you" to the populations of France, Germany or Britain in these past few decades. And when large portions of the population turn to the only people who at least pretend to be listening, you'd rather demonize them than create a real, proper alternative. Gotta vote for Mama Merkel or Papa Schulz to keep those evil xenophobes out of power! Whats even better, almost everyone who is currently whining about the right wing in Europe was around to see a spectacularly incompetent Sarkozy, a downright traitorous SPD-Green coalition, a Blairite destruction of the labour party. Schr?der and Blair even got elected twice, I believe. You were perfectly happy to see them roll back on promises and stick the middle finger to the population back then, why don't you shut up and display the same kind of politeness to the new guys in town? Where was this solidarity you have with refugees and Muslims and homosexuals and whatever minority-of-the-minute when the people under threat were just random old average folks with no unusual religion or sexuality to set them apart? Nowhere, and thats the biggest reason you'll get zero sympathy from me. You made the bed, sleep in it.

Empathy > Spite.

Your mentality is a very dangerous and unproductive one.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here