French election results - Macron vs Le Pen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Oh hey in other news Le Pen is apparently leaving the FN... for some reason? It really just seems like a desperate last minute attempt at distancing herself, but I don't see how that'll change anything...

Meiam:
Oh hey in other news Le Pen is apparently leaving the FN... for some reason? It really just seems like a desperate last minute attempt at distancing herself, but I don't see how that'll change anything...

It's a mostly symbolic move at this point, I'm not sure it'll change anything as you say.

It might also be a way for her to leave the door open for Philippot to succeed her once she loses, try to detoxify the FN even further.

Meiam:
Oh hey in other news Le Pen is apparently leaving the FN... for some reason?

I expect she'll explain in more detail.

"Hahahaha... I made it into the last round by tricking the racists, now vote for me for collectivized agriculture and mass immigration!"

Probably not that.

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

Otherwise, hell to the fucking no.

This statement is somewhat telling if you remember that Clinton lost in 2016 because several "safe" Democrat states unexpectedly flipped red.

In other words, Democrats in those states went "Well, this isn't a battleground state, so I'm not voting for that bitch." Do enough of that, and suddenly it is a battle, one that the Democrats lost.

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

Can we stop the No True Scotsman'ing?

"You voted for Hillary Clinton, so you aren't a real left-winger." That's bullshit logic. When I was in university I had people telling me I wasn't a genuine left-winger because I thought nuclear power was a good idea. I'll let you guess how effective that argument was in changing my mind.

Sonmi:
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 sympathise with Hamon, but Melenchon had legitimately bad policies. A 100% income tax on high-income earners would accomplish nothing except make all the rich people in France move to Germany. Seriously, I'm a fan of taxing rich people more than poor people, but 100%? That's a dumb fucking idea.

Not to mention how he wants to withdraw from NATO and the EU, or his thoroughly anemic approach to refugee intake. Melenchon would've been a terrible president. I say that honestly.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
snip

Voting for the racist candidate to spite the people who called you racist is not a winning strategy in the long term.

bastardofmelbourne:
This statement is somewhat telling if you remember that Clinton lost in 2016 because several "safe" Democrat states unexpectedly flipped red.

In other words, Democrats in those states went "Well, this isn't a battleground state, so I'm not voting for that bitch." Do enough of that, and suddenly it is a battle, one that the Democrats lost.

Democrats? Not really.

Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden all told Clinton she should campaign in the Rust Belt during her campaign, she ignored her advice. The "Firewall" was only ever seen as safe by the most zealous Clintonites, even independent analysts like Nate Silvers pointed out that they were in danger.

They were never "safe" if you listened to anyone other than Hilary.

bastardofmelbourne:
Can we stop the No True Scotsman'ing?

Absolutely not.

Some things are not up for debate. An apple is not an orange, a cat is not a dog, and an American politician that claims that the rich are a victimized class and that winning Republican votes is more important than helping her own base is not left wing.

bastardofmelbourne:
"You voted for Hillary Clinton, so you aren't a real left-winger." That's bullshit logic. When I was in university I had people telling me I wasn't a genuine left-winger because I thought nuclear power was a good idea. I'll let you guess how effective that argument was in changing my mind.

Sucks for you, your personal anecdote has nothing to do with the matter at hand. (Though I agree nuclear is a good idea, I sympathize with the frustration of having to defend nuclear to fellow left-wingers)

Choosing the mother of neoliberalism over a social democrat like Sanders either makes you a right-winger or, if you did it in the name of left-wing progress, a useful idiot.

bastardofmelbourne:
I sympathise with Hamon, but Melenchon had legitimately bad policies. A 100% income tax on high-income earners would accomplish nothing except make all the rich people in France move to Germany. Seriously, I'm a fan of taxing rich people more than poor people, but 100%? That's a dumb fucking idea.

Reread his plan, the highest tax bracket is 90%, not 100%. I have n clue where you found the 100% figure. 100% is confiscation, and technically anticonstitutional.

bastardofmelbourne:
Not to mention how he wants to withdraw from NATO and the EU, or his thoroughly anemic approach to refugee intake. Melenchon would've been a terrible president. I say that honestly.

Nothing wrong with pulling out of NATO, it has proven to be nothing more than a tool for American/Western imperialism, at the detriment of the countries it's meant to help.

Stop buying into the notion that he wants to pull out of the EU too, it's sensationalist BS peddled by the masses urging you to vote Macron, read his actual program. He wants a reform of the EU, something he already had support for. Denmark and Italy were both fans of the project as well.

His position on refugees was the most open out of all the candidates, again read his plan and compare it to his opponents instead of jumping on the anti-FI bandwagon.

"Macron is a former investment banker who served as a civil servant and economic minister"
No wonder he doesn't give a shit about the french working class and is the establishment candidate.
He says that terrorism in the country was an "imponderable" threat that "will be a fact of daily life in the coming years."

Well done France, fitting the stereotype of absolute coward.

Lee Brocklebank:
"Macron is a former investment banker who served as a civil servant and economic minister"
No wonder he doesn't give a shit about the french working class and is the establishment candidate.
He says that terrorism in the country was an ?imponderable? threat that ?will be a fact of daily life in the coming years.?

Well done France, fitting the stereotype of absolute coward.

What are they supposed to do. All kinds of crime happens every year and the police is unable to stop it before it happens, why? Because they can't read our minds and it would be a dystopian police state if they could. What are they supposed to do to stop terrorism as a phenomenon? The only way to eliminate it would be to have such heavy surveilance and extensive police authority that privacy and legal security essentially became non-existant. Maybe "This is something we have to live with now" isn't a satisfactory answer, but it is the hard truth. Terrorism is something every society experiences to some degree, and Le Pen's policies owuld be innefective at best and fuel to the fire at worst

Sonmi:
Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden all told Clinton she should campaign in the Rust Belt during her campaign, she ignored her advice. The "Firewall" was only ever seen as safe by the most zealous Clintonites, even independent analysts like Nate Silvers pointed out that they were in danger.

That's a dodge. Your words were "If I lived in what I felt was a battleground state." It's not about whether the Democrat higher-ups and commentators thought the states were in danger, it's about whether the voters thought the states were in danger.

Sonmi:
Absolutely not.

Some things are not up for debate. An apple is not an orange, a cat is not a dog, and an American politician that claims that the rich are a victimized class and that winning Republican votes is more important than helping her own base is not left wing.

I hate to be ironic here, but saying that the left-wing and the right-wing are as easy to distinguish as cats and dogs is, to further torture a painfully twisted metaphor, comparing apples and oranges.

A political ideology's exact definition is not an objective, self-evident fact in the same way that a cat's physical identity is an objective self-evident fact. Any political ideology - especially a binary one such as the left/right spectrum - that tries to encompass the entire breadth of conceivable policy questions cannot hope to have that level of coherence. It will inevitably encompass some level of dispute between adherents.

You're going to get left-wing people who are religious and left-wing people who are secular. You're going to get left-wing people who want to invade Syria and left-wing people who want to stay out of it. You're going to get left-wing people who think that wealth inquality should not exist, and left-wing people who think that the freedom to make more money than your neighbour is inalienable. All of these disputes exist simultaneously within the umbrella term "left-wing."

And what basis is there for any adherent of left-wing ideology to say that so-and-so isn't a "real" leftist? Is there are grand arbiter of What Leftism Is who set down a list of principles that all leftists must abide to? There isn't. The "left-wing" is informed by a massive, loosely affliliated body of political theory by people as far apart as Adam Smith and Karl Marx, none of whom would agree with each other if you put them in a room together and told them to govern a country.

So...no. With respect, you don't get to say to someone like Saelune that they're not really left-wing because they disagree with you on Hillary Clinton. That is, and always has been, bullshit politics.

Sonmi:
Choosing the mother of neoliberalism over a social democrat like Sanders either makes you a right-winger or, if you did it in the name of left-wing progress, a useful idiot.

The "mother" of neoliberalism is classical liberalism. "Neoliberalism" simply describes a modern-day revival of the principles of classical economic liberalism.

If you consider the principles of classical economic liberalism to be incompatible with the ever-nebulous, never-certain "left wing," then I regret to inform you that many people would disagree. Including myself, and I'm a freaking socialist who votes for the Greens. Capitalism is not inherently right-wing, and classical economic liberalism is the foundation of both capitalism and neoliberalism.

If you disagree with neoliberalism, focus on the substantive flaws in its approach to world politics and economy. Don't simply dismiss neoliberals out-of-hand as either right-wingers or "useful idiots." It's a waste of time, honestly. We end up going back and forth arguing about semantics of what it means to be a "true" left-winger, when what we're really arguing about is whether the government ought to regulate and control the national marketplace or leave it to its own devices.

Sonmi:
Reread his plan, the highest tax bracket is 90%, not 100%. I have n clue where you found the 100% figure. 100% is confiscation, and technically anticonstitutional.

I got it from here and here.

Incidentally, Melenchon also wanted to rewrite the French Constitution.

Sonmi:
Nothing wrong with pulling out of NATO, it has proven to be nothing more than a tool for American/Western imperialism, at the detriment of the countries it's meant to help.

The countries it's meant to help? It's meant to help the countries that are members of NATO. The "Western" countries whose imperialism you're condemning. And it does so mostly by requiring the US to give a shit about the national security of those countries. If NATO worked to the detriment of anyone, it'd be the countries that are not members of NATO, in which case those aren't the countries NATO is supposed to help.

Speaking of imperialism, now's a nice time to mention that the collapse of NATO would only help Putin in his goal to steadily annex chunks of the Ukraine. That's not whataboutism; dismantling NATO would measurably advance an imperialist geopolitical agenda. If you oppose imperialism, oppose the imperialists who are actively annexing new territory.

Sonmi:
His position on refugees was the most open out of all the candidates, again read his plan and compare it to his opponents instead of jumping on the anti-FI bandwagon.

I did read it, and it's nowhere near as open as Macron's. Macron wants to adopt the Merkel open-door policy. The most Melenchon will say on the topic is that he'd prefer it if France tackled "root causes" of the refugee crisis rather than letting the refugees into France, which is a statement that baffles me because it would only be possible if he somehow managed to end the Syrian civil war while remaining committed to pacifism and non-interventionism.

Lee Brocklebank:

He says that terrorism in the country was an ?imponderable? threat that ?will be a fact of daily life in the coming years.?

Oh no a politician being honest about terrorism. Any politician that promises you they can stop terrorism from happening ever is lying to you. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight terrorism and prevent it, but just like you can't promise murder for example will be totally obliterated, promising you can 'stop terrorism' is a lie.

Just look at Russia. They still have terrorist attacks.

bastardofmelbourne:

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

Can we stop the No True Scotsman'ing?

"You voted for Hillary Clinton, so you aren't a real left-winger." That's bullshit logic. When I was in university I had people telling me I wasn't a genuine left-winger because I thought nuclear power was a good idea. I'll let you guess how effective that argument was in changing my mind.

If caring about human rights more than "sending a message" makes me not "left", then I dont think I want to be left. It is easy to get wrapped up in labels rather than purpose.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Try the German police force?

If someone wants to translate the German accurately for me, that's fine. I could use Google Translate, but it can screw up a great deal of vital nuance because German words may have numerous viable English equivalents, and it might pick the contextually wrong one and change the meaning.

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.

Now, this I did come across, and it is an important point. Syrians appear to be low crime refugees. In fact, it suggested the most criminally-inclined non-citizens were North Africans, Serbians and Georgians. In other words yes, why not give immigrants like the poor Syrians a break, but be less accomoodating towards the more problematic groups? Isn't this exactly what smarter immigration policy should be? And shouldn't we use it to make rather more sensible assessments than "bloody Muslims ruining our country"?

What I also came across is that a whopping ~20% of refugees were suspects for not paying public transport fares. About another 20% for similar minor infractions readily associated with poverty. Nor are the usual suspects noting the crime rate amongst refugees dropped ~20% in a very short period as policy kicked in to deal with them.

All of this is indicative that some sort of vast refugee-driven crime wave are grossly overstated scare stories. Problems to be sure, but nothing like a crisis.

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.

And then you go and ruin all the good work you put in.

(Also, as a quick note, the right is responsible to a large extent. Merkel has been running the country for a long time, you know.)

Politics have been one big massive "fuck you" to the populations of France, Germany or Britain in these past few decades...

I don't entirely disagree with this.

But if you'd be following anything I'd been writing in this thread, it's that the woes of the much-abused population do not largely derive from immigrants. They derive from political adherence to neoliberal capitalism and the whims of the wealthy.

For instance, barely a fraction as many column inches and debate threads are devoted to mass tax avoidance by corporations and the rich - to the effect of increased tax budern on the lower end and/or degraded public services. Cutting "red tape" is lionised by many - but "red tape" as often as not includes regulation that exist to protect employees from abuse, the public from pollution, and everyone from things like fraud. Half the Tory Party in the UK has been theorising that the UK needs to be more like China - i.e. deregulated drones slaving away 70 hours a week in sweatshops - to be successful. The UK has a housing problem for no reason more complex than that the government hasn't bothered ensuring enough are built. Someone recently did a huge study of the USA, and found that the only consistent trend in legislation was that it tended to serve the interests of business and the rich. I'll bet if the same was done in Europe, it might not be so extreme (the EU enshrines plenty of protections... that's actually why many Tories wanted to leave) but it could look very similar. UKIP, behind the odd populist policy, is actually a bastion of economic libertarianism.

At the point we unleash nationalism and protectionism, our countries get poorer. Trade, broadly, is good. Our countries need more effective ways at ensuring all its people benefit from growth and development, not less growth and development.

I totally get that lots of Europeans are pissed off. I just wish they'd be pissed off about the things that have been most seriously affecting them, rather than that cities now have more darker skinned people in. And when plenty of these people are calling migrants cockroaches who should be gunned in the sea if their boats collapse, to a vacuum of criticism from the others, and when you talk up parties and politicians that deny the Holocaust and propose obvious restrictions on reasonable civil liberties... what the hell do you expect? "I don't like XXX, but I hope they win so they wreak havoc" is a childish tantrum, not wisdom.

Saelune:
If caring about human rights more than "sending a message" makes me not "left", then I dont think I want to be left. It is easy to get wrapped up in labels rather than purpose.

Being part of a blocking coalition (which doesn't even block much of the time) when the country needs real change is counterproductive.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
If caring about human rights more than "sending a message" makes me not "left", then I dont think I want to be left. It is easy to get wrapped up in labels rather than purpose.

Being part of a blocking coalition (which doesn't even block much of the time) when the country needs real change is counterproductive.

Letting Donald Trump be President is counter-productive.

Like, literally. Getting the opposite of what you want is what "counter-productive" means. Getting someone closer to what you want that could leave the door open for what you want is well, not counter-productive.

Unless you think Trump's big changes is what you want, which then I have a different problem with you.

"More of the same" is alot better than whatever BS Trump is. All Trump has done is make way more people suffer.

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
If caring about human rights more than "sending a message" makes me not "left", then I dont think I want to be left. It is easy to get wrapped up in labels rather than purpose.

Being part of a blocking coalition (which doesn't even block much of the time) when the country needs real change is counterproductive.

Letting Donald Trump be President is counter-productive.

Like, literally. Getting the opposite of what you want is what "counter-productive" means. Getting someone closer to what you want that could leave the door open for what you want is well, not counter-productive.

Unless you think Trump's big changes is what you want, which then I have a different problem with you.

"More of the same" is alot better than whatever BS Trump is. All Trump has done is make way more people suffer.

I'm definitely with you on this Saelune. When it comes down to choosing between two options, Neoliberalism and unhinged right-wing populism, Neoliberalism is the only fucking choice. The way to change that setup is to ensure that a liberal candidate makes it to that final round (French run-off and US Presidential Election). However, once those two options are the only ones available (pretty damn obviously the case for France and if someone tells me that a 3rd party candidate could both win a presidential election with the current rules and not be 100% hamstrung by Congress if that miracle occurred, they're delusional), you hold your damn nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. The electorate fucked up its chance to get a liberal candidate on the only tickets that matter, so make the best with what you have. Of course one should focus on ensuring the same thing doesn't happen next time, but the reality of now doesn't acquiesce to one's wishes.

tldr: The shitty system we have is the shitty system we have. You have 2 choices to effect change: work within the system or blow the whole thing up revolution style. The 3rd option of sitting with thumbs up butts in protest won't make a fucking difference other than to possibly allow the system to slide even further down hill.

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
If caring about human rights more than "sending a message" makes me not "left", then I dont think I want to be left. It is easy to get wrapped up in labels rather than purpose.

Being part of a blocking coalition (which doesn't even block much of the time) when the country needs real change is counterproductive.

Letting Donald Trump be President is counter-productive.

Like, literally. Getting the opposite of what you want is what "counter-productive" means. Getting someone closer to what you want that could leave the door open for what you want is well, not counter-productive.

Hillary Clinton did not show any signs of "leaving the door open" for what I want. Her whole party apparatus is and was devoted primarily to making sure I don't get what I want. They would rather lose with corporate support than win without it. And anyway, that's not how politics works. Backsliding on policy has no very predictable effect on future legislation: Congress can literally write any bill that is Constitutional at any time. It is not limited to incremental change. You can go from Jim Crow back to slavery and then straight to full legal equality if it weren't for the 13th amendment-- and probably the 14th as well, but that's academic. When the opponent is making unpopular policy decisions, exploit that for political gain. When your political gains translate into power over policy, make popular policy decisions. It's really very simple.

The Democrats right now, apart from ~100 in the House and a few in the Senate, refuse to get behind a medicare-for-all bill. One of their excuses is that they "couldn't pass it in a Republican controlled Congress". The obvious rebuttal is: "so?" Fucking fight for it and make the Republicans block it: it's a popular policy. Losing that legislative fight because of Republicans means political gains for Democrats. Not even having that fight because Democrats are bought by health insurance companies means yet more political losses for Democrats.

What I want is an actual left party to exist in the United States so that the people actually have a choice that is productive. The Democratic Party as it exists now is mostly in the way of that. There are exceptions to varying degrees: Pramila Jayapal, Sheila Jackson Lee, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, Nina Turner, John Conyers, and others, but they are not in control of the Democratic Party, and they won't come to be in control of the Democratic Party so long as we keep electing corporate shills like Hillary Clinton. What I want, in short, is to remove (or reshape, if they'll cooperate) the major obstacle for change: the corporate Democrats. Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton is mostly irrelevant to that goal. I look beyond the question of distribution of short term pain: electing politicians like Hillary Clinton does not at all help get me to where I want to go. Donald Trump doesn't help either, but he at least is not preventing the Democrats from being a real party of the people.

Saelune:
Unless you think Trump's big changes is what you want, which then I have a different problem with you.

"More of the same" is alot better than whatever BS Trump is. All Trump has done is make way more people suffer.

"More of the same" is why we have Trump to begin with. People are sick and tired of being screwed-- so much so that they'll even vote for a serial liar if he says a few of the right lies. If it weren't for the Hillary cultists who apparently didn't mind so much that Clinton had no clearly articulated reason that she wanted to be President (other than, we may assume, "to be President"-- and no, vacuous platitudes like "break down the barriers" and "stronger together" aren't rationales to run for President), we could have had a productive election in 2016. Hillary Clinton was counterproductive because the success of candidates like her delay necessary change in the Democratic Party.

bastardofmelbourne:
That's a dodge. Your words were "If I lived in what I felt was a battleground state." It's not about whether the Democrat higher-ups and commentators thought the states were in danger, it's about whether the voters thought the states were in danger.

It absolutely isn't.

People, especially on the left, saw it was in danger, said it was in danger, polls showed it was in danger, analysts claimed it was in danger, it was in danger.

The only people that saw the Firewall as "safe" were playing ostrich, and those saying no one saw it coming are projecting.

bastardofmelbourne:
I hate to be ironic here, but saying that the left-wing and the right-wing are as easy to distinguish as cats and dogs is, to further torture a painfully twisted metaphor, comparing apples and oranges.

A political ideology's exact definition is not an objective, self-evident fact in the same way that a cat's physical identity is an objective self-evident fact. Any political ideology - especially a binary one such as the left/right spectrum - that tries to encompass the entire breadth of conceivable policy questions cannot hope to have that level of coherence. It will inevitably encompass some level of dispute between adherents.

You're going to get left-wing people who are religious and left-wing people who are secular. You're going to get left-wing people who want to invade Syria and left-wing people who want to stay out of it. You're going to get left-wing people who think that wealth inquality should not exist, and left-wing people who think that the freedom to make more money than your neighbour is inalienable. All of these disputes exist simultaneously within the umbrella term "left-wing."

Yeah... no... what a political spectrum is supposed to represent can be pretty accurate, playing this vague "Anybody can fit anywhere" game helps no one, least of all the left. The ideological right and ideological left can both be boiled down to their most basic positions concerning the state of the world as is.

The right sees the natural balance of the world as something fair, something just, something even sacred, hence its infatuation with highly stratified hierarchy and general inequality within its system, the left in comparaison sees the world as unfair, unjust, and in need of chance through human intervention. That's the base on which you build on, all of the dichotomies you enumerated exist outside of the Left-Right axis, except for the last one. Bellicosity is not inherently left or right, religiosity either, these positions are completely different criteria by which you judge an ideology.

Your view on wealth inequality, though, very much indicates where you belong on the left-right spectrum. If you think your personal freedom to massively enrich yourself trumps others' rights to a decent living, then I'm sorry, but I can't call you "left-wing". To let someone who claims that she thinks the rich Americans are unjustly treated by society claim the label of "Left" is like letting a fox within your chicken roost on the basis of pointless inclusiveness, it's simply absurd and will end poorly for the roost in question.

bastardofmelbourne:
The "mother" of neoliberalism is classical liberalism. "Neoliberalism" simply describes a modern-day revival of the principles of classical economic liberalism.

By "mother of neoliberalism" I implied Queen of Bill, who popularized Third Way politics within the anglosphere's left-wing parties, along with Blair.

bastardofmelbourne:
If you consider the principles of classical economic liberalism to be incompatible with the ever-nebulous, never-certain "left wing," then I regret to inform you that many people would disagree. Including myself, and I'm a freaking socialist who votes for the Greens. Capitalism is not inherently right-wing, and classical economic liberalism is the foundation of both capitalism and neoliberalism.

If you disagree with neoliberalism, focus on the substantive flaws in its approach to world politics and economy. Don't simply dismiss neoliberals out-of-hand as either right-wingers or "useful idiots." It's a waste of time, honestly. We end up going back and forth arguing about semantics of what it means to be a "true" left-winger, when what we're really arguing about is whether the government ought to regulate and control the national marketplace or leave it to its own devices.

Capitalism is an inherently right-wing ideology though, as socialism is inherently left-wing.

You can have a mix of both in a system, and it can work pretty well like within Social Democracies, but when your whole ideology is based around pure growth and capital, market deregulation and laissez-faire insanity, and privatization of social services at the depend of the civilian, then you fall pretty far within the realm of capitalism, and therefore the right.

And no, it's not a waste of time to tell right-wingers who tell you what you should do "in the name of the left" to fuck off.

bastardofmelbourne:
I got it from here and here.

Incidentally, Melenchon also wanted to rewrite the French Constitution.

The Vox article uses your Time article as a source, and your Time article gives... none?

Again, it's not the case, read his programme. The highest bracket is of 90%, not 100%.

On the matter of rewriting the Constitution, this Anglo-Saxon point of view that a Constitution should be immutable is absolutely absurd, Melenchon wanting to abolish the 5th Republique and rewrite the legal basis of society is not that much of a controversial or tyrannical position, hell, Hamon, that you previously claimed you'd support, and his supporters like Montebourg wanted the exact same thing and had a similar proposition in their programme.

bastardofmelbourne:
The countries it's meant to help? It's meant to help the countries that are members of NATO. The "Western" countries whose imperialism you're condemning. And it does so mostly by requiring the US to give a shit about the national security of those countries. If NATO worked to the detriment of anyone, it'd be the countries that are not members of NATO, in which case those aren't the countries NATO is supposed to help.

Yeah, because I'm sure that Ukraine or the Baltic countries are really glad to have an antsy Russia, getting progressively more and more trapped and surrounded by an alliance that 30 years ago promised them they would leave them alone. Russia is getting cornered by the West, of course it's going to get snappy.

bastardofmelbourne:
Speaking of imperialism, now's a nice time to mention that the collapse of NATO would only help Putin in his goal to steadily annex chunks of the Ukraine. That's not whataboutism; dismantling NATO would measurably advance an imperialist geopolitical agenda. If you oppose imperialism, oppose the imperialists who are actively annexing new territory.

I'm of the opinion that Russia is simply reacting to the way the West acts.

We're in no position to condemn the Russian annexation of Crimea when our economic imperialism is far more active and perfidious. The UN should be well enough to deal with Russia diplomatically and keep the peace where it needs to be kept. Melenchon is 100% right when he says that NATO is a tool to further American interests.

bastardofmelbourne:
I did read it, and it's nowhere near as open as Macron's. Macron wants to adopt the Merkel open-door policy. The most Melenchon will say on the topic is that he'd prefer it if France tackled "root causes" of the refugee crisis rather than letting the refugees into France, which is a statement that baffles me because it would only be possible if he somehow managed to end the Syrian civil war while remaining committed to pacifism and non-interventionism.

And yeah, we had that discussion earlier in another thread.

Displacing entire populations (and even worse, prioritizing those with ressources and talent) and insisting on forceful regime changes in the Middle East is not how you will end up helping these countries get back on their feet, you're propping them as instable puppet regimes that will eventually explode and let way for extremism. France should abide by the UN's decisions, offer refugee status to the most vulnerable (orphaned children and specifically targeted minorities like the Yazidis), and most than anything, help the neighboring countries like Turkey or Lebanon that deal with the massive majority of refugees.

Sonmi:
Yeah... no... what a political spectrum is supposed to represent can be pretty accurate, playing this vague "Anybody can fit anywhere" game helps no one, least of all the left. The ideological right and ideological left can both be boiled down to their most basic positions concerning the state of the world as is.

It's not a case of everybody can fit everywhere. It's just what you get when you apply a binary division onto the entire spectrum of conceivable policies. You end up with something vague and weird that doesn't make sense and which includes a bunch of people who contradict one another.

I have met people who said that you cannot be left-wing without being an atheist. I have met people who have said that you cannot be left-wing and support an overseas military intervention. I have met people who have said that it is impossible to be a right-wing homosexual. I have met people who have said that gun control and abortion are essential left-wing policies. I have, just now, met someone who said that it is not possible to be a left-wing capitalist, and you are that person.

The point I'm getting at is that left-wing does not exclusively mean what you say it means. The left-right distinction is exactly what it sounds like; a partition of the entire political spectrum into two categories. If you want to subdivide that further, feel free to do so, but don't act like everyone whose policy stance differs to yours are automatically "the right wing." It's not that simple.

Sonmi:
The right sees the natural balance of the world as something fair, something just, something even sacred, hence its infatuation with highly stratified hierarchy and general inequality within its system, the left in comparaison sees the world as unfair, unjust, and in need of chance through human intervention.

This definition of the left is indequate. It basically makes military intervention an essential quality. If you define "left" as "believes the world is inherently unfair and must be remedied through human intervention," then you'd find it difficult to justify leaving a country like Syria to work out its issues on its own.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Sonmi:
And no, it's not a waste of time to tell right-wingers who tell you what you should do "in the name of the left" to fuck off.

You say that, but I feel like a lot of time is still wasted in the process.

No-one's telling you what to do or not do. I'm saying that it's unfair of you to tell Saelune that they're not left-wing just because they don't rate Sanders higher than Clinton. It's poor form, not to mention counterproductive, to respond to an ideological dispute by attacking the other person's ideological purity.

Sonmi:
The Vox article uses your Time article as a source, and your Time article gives... none?

Here.

Sonmi:
On the matter of rewriting the Constitution, this Anglo-Saxon point of view that a Constitution should be immutable is absolutely absurd, Melenchon wanting to abolish the 5th Republique and rewrite the legal basis of society is not that much of a controversial or tyrannical position, hell, Hamon, that you previously claimed you'd support, and his supporters like Montebourg wanted the exact same thing and had a similar proposition in their programme.

I don't know the current situation with the French Constitution, or what would need to be changed, or whether or not it's a good idea to do so. I just mentioned it because you mentioned that a 100% income tax would be unconstitutional.

Sonmi:
Yeah, because I'm sure that Ukraine or the Baltic countries are really glad to have an antsy Russia, getting progressively more and more trapped and surrounded by an alliance that 30 years ago promised them they would leave them alone. Russia is getting cornered by the West, of course it's going to get snappy.

Are you seriously suggesting that Russia annexed the Crimea in self-defence?

Sonmi:
I'm of the opinion that Russia is simply reacting to the way the West acts.

...by annexing the Crimea.

Whatever, that's off-topic. Let's table the question of whether Russia's imperialism is really America's fault for now.

Sonmi:
Displacing entire populations (and even worse, prioritizing those with ressources and talent) and insisting on forceful regime changes in the Middle East is not how you will end up helping these countries get back on their feet, you're propping them as instable puppet regimes that will eventually explode and let way for extremism. France should abide by the UN's decisions, offer refugee status to the most vulnerable (orphaned children and specifically targeted minorities like the Yazidis), and most than anything, help the neighboring countries like Turkey or Lebanon that deal with the massive majority of refugees.

What I'm asking is this: how would Melenchon remedy the root cause of the Syrian refugee crisis without intervening in Syria? The root cause of the Syrian refugee crisis is that Syria has been in a state of civil war for six years. A civil war that has continued partly because of Russia's direct military intervention in the region.

If Melenchon can provide a solution to that which doesn't involve military intervention, doesn't involve resettling refugees, doesn't involve butting heads with Russia and doesn't involve NATO, then give that man a pointy hat and a stick because he is basically a wizard.

bastardofmelbourne:
This definition of the left is indequate. It basically makes military intervention an essential quality. If you define "left" as "believes the world is inherently unfair and must be remedied through human intervention," then you'd find it difficult to justify leaving a country like Syria to work out its issues on its own.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

What, are Syrians not humans?

bastardofmelbourne:
It's not a case of everybody can fit everywhere. It's just what you get when you apply a binary division onto the entire spectrum of conceivable policies. You end up with something vague and weird that doesn't make sense and which includes a bunch of people who contradict one another.

I have met people who said that you cannot be left-wing without being an atheist. I have met people who have said that you cannot be left-wing and support an overseas military intervention. I have met people who have said that it is impossible to be a right-wing homosexual. I have met people who have said that gun control and abortion are essential left-wing policies. I have, just now, met someone who said that it is not possible to be a left-wing capitalist, and you are that person.

The point I'm getting at is that left-wing does not exclusively mean what you say it means. The left-right distinction is exactly what it sounds like; a partition of the entire political spectrum into two categories. If you want to subdivide that further, feel free to do so, but don't act like everyone whose policy stance differs to yours are automatically "the right wing." It's not that simple.

Again, I gave you the definition I use, which englobes vast swathes of opinions and positions, and I very much do believe that people with opposite views to mine can also be left-wing.

Neoliberals, however, are not.

bastardofmelbourne:
This definition of the left is indequate. It basically makes military intervention an essential quality. If you define "left" as "believes the world is inherently unfair and must be remedied through human intervention," then you'd find it difficult to justify leaving a country like Syria to work out its issues on its own.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

It makes action a prerequisite. Whether military, humanitarian, or diplomatic, that's all up to what the situation requires.

Some left-wingers would also rather have an insular vision of the world, that you can't force change upon other countries through force after all. Not all left-wingers are Trotskyites, mate.

bastardofmelbourne:
You say that, but I feel like a lot of time is still wasted in the process.

No-one's telling you what to do or not do. I'm saying that it's unfair of you to tell Saelune that they're not left-wing just because they don't rate Sanders higher than Clinton.

Better to potentially waste time than to let a movement be compromised by corrupting influences.

If we're to go back to Saelune, I think it's unfair that she blames "purists" for Trump's ascension for not being willing to sell off their souls. "Unity" is meaningless if you put the reins in the hands of someone who doesn't have your interests at heart.

bastardofmelbourne:
Here.

Oh great, a blog post from 2011 where he flirts with the idea of a 100% tax rate.

Face it, wasn't in his 2017 plan. To pretend like he campaigned for this confiscatory rate is ridiculous and downright slanderous.

bastardofmelbourne:
I don't know the current situation with the French Constitution, or what would need to be changed, or whether or not it's a good idea to do so. I just mentioned it because you mentioned that a 100% income tax would be unconstitutional.

Melenchon is a man of the law, he operates within the confines of it, and stated several times that were he to win the presidentielles, he'd operate within the cadres of the Fifth Republique, not the Sixth.

bastardofmelbourne:
Are you seriously suggesting that Russia annexed the Crimea in self-defence?

From NATO? Absolutely.

Russia has pretty much been on the defensive since NATO started its progressive creep into ex-Soviet territories and further threatened to completely isolate Russia.

To be honest, I completely decry the unlawful invasion of Crimea. But to say that it's completely unprovoked is a falsehood.

bastardofmelbourne:
...by annexing the Crimea.

Yes, by annexing Crimea.

bastardofmelbourne:
What I'm asking is this: how would Melenchon remedy the root cause of the Syrian refugee crisis without intervening in Syria? The root cause of the Syrian refugee crisis is that Syria has been in a state of civil war for six years. A civil war that has continued partly because of Russia's direct military intervention in the region.

If Melenchon can provide a solution to that which doesn't involve military intervention, doesn't involve resettling refugees, and doesn't involve NATO, then give that man a pointy hat and a stick because he is basically a wizard.

The civil war has continued because of American intervention and funding/training of rebel forces, not because of Russia trying to restore the status quo.

Oh yeah, NATO, military interventions, and regime changes have always worked so perfectly for the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa. That's why Iraq has been in shambles for almost 20 years, why Libya is still in an active civil war, why Iran turned the way it is now (TWICE), and why Syria's so f*cked at the moment.

Humanitarian aid, lots of it, is what is required. That, and non-interventionism, more war and chaos in the region is a net negative.

Im a right-winger? Ok.

Personally, I dont care for Clinton or Sanders. I'd champion Bernie just as I did Clinton if he won over her, and would be criticizing Clinton-cultists who refused to vote for Bernie out of spite. But I feel there would be fewer of them had the tables been turned.

Really, I wish we could put Obama back in. I loved him. Though he then, and Bernie cultists now keep proving to me that "Compromise" is bad apparently.

Obama tries to compromise with the right, not because he is right-wing, but because he would rather put in a healthcare plan that atleast leans more towards socialism than keep the awful one we had. Ofcourse it took alot of hits for the right to let it pass, but I myself personally benefited from Obamacare, staying insured and preventing my family from getting a 10k$ medical bill when I had a nasty stomach virus.

I'd hope that from there we could eventually replace that with something even better one day, but I guess now it has to survive Trump.

Fuck right and left. Im a progressive, and I mean it literally. Move forward not back. Moving forward slowly is better than not moving forward at all.

@Sonmi: Humanitarian aid is intervention too.

Saelune:
Im a right-winger? Ok.

Pretty much. But with how tilted American politics are to the right, it's pretty much standard if you follow and support mainline candidates.

Saelune:
Really, I wish we could put Obama back in. I loved him. Though he then, and Bernie cultists now keep proving to me that "Compromise" is bad apparently.

"Shut up and do as you're told, all in the name of unity" is not compromise.

Saelune:
Obama tries to compromise with the right, not because he is right-wing, but because he would rather put in a healthcare plan that atleast leans more towards socialism than keep the awful one we had. Ofcourse it took alot of hits for the right to let it pass, but I myself personally benefited from Obamacare, staying insured and preventing my family from getting a 10k$ medical bill when I had a nasty stomach virus.

Obama didn't have to compromise with the right to pass Obamacare. He had a majority in the House AND the Senate.

Saelune:
Fuck right and left. Im a progressive, and I mean it literally. Move forward not back. Moving forward slowly is better than not moving forward at all.

"Progressive" is a completely empty term. Progress towards what, exactly? The sunny days when workforce will be almost entirely automatized and most of the population will live on a basic subsistance alone? Progress towards a one-world oligarchic government? Progress towards establishing a fascist colony on the Mars? Who's to say that Trump doesn't consider himself to be the way "forwards"?

It's a completely meaningless etiquette.

Saelune:
@Sonmi: Humanitarian aid is intervention too.

You're being pedantic, you know damn well I mean military intervention.

bastardofmelbourne:
Voting for the racist candidate to spite the people who called you racist is not a winning strategy in the long term.

Whether the candidate is racist is debatable in this case. Whether its a winning strategy is not; it clearly is. You are evidently wrong on that considering conservatives and nationalists are making comebacks, winning back voters they had lost, sometimes rising from the ashes after they had died out almost completely.

Again, mental gymnastics. You see certain candidates and parties gaining traction all over the Western world. Your response is that the people associated with them are not persuing a winning strategy. Sorry, but they are, unless you think we're playing the "who can get the most gold stars for being a useful idiot" game and not the "who can gain voters and win elections" one.

Agema:
If someone wants to translate the German accurately for me, that's fine. I could use Google Translate, but it can screw up a great deal of vital nuance because German words may have numerous viable English equivalents, and it might pick the contextually wrong one and change the meaning.

Yes, you could, so stop being lazy and do that. People have provided numerous links from all sorts of sources, google translate them and you'll get the picture.

Agema:
Now, this I did come across, and it is an important point. Syrians appear to be low crime refugees. In fact, it suggested the most criminally-inclined non-citizens were North Africans, Serbians and Georgians. In other words yes, why not give immigrants like the poor Syrians a break, but be less accomoodating towards the more problematic groups? Isn't this exactly what smarter immigration policy should be? And shouldn't we use it to make rather more sensible assessments than "bloody Muslims ruining our country"?

What I also came across is that a whopping ~20% of refugees were suspects for not paying public transport fares. About another 20% for similar minor infractions readily associated with poverty. Nor are the usual suspects noting the crime rate amongst refugees dropped ~20% in a very short period as policy kicked in to deal with them.

All of this is indicative that some sort of vast refugee-driven crime wave are grossly overstated scare stories. Problems to be sure, but nothing like a crisis.

What do you want Syrians to be given a break from? Virtually no one has a problem with people coming from Syria or Iraq. When they do, its usually a knee jerk reaction to our border and policing policies which are frustratingly lax across the board. In fact, our government is still unsure exactly how many people came here from Syria two years ago since they just trusted anyone who showed up to tell the truth about who they are.

There are uncomfortable facts which people like you will refuse to acknowledge until the end of days, to the immense detriment of all of Europe unfortunately. German and to a lesser extent British and French governments are becoming less and less reliable about telling their populations the real impact immigration has on crime. This isn't just an attempt to cover up their own incompetence and protect a failing narrative, although it is sometimes (Silvesternacht 2015/16, thank you for that one by the way) but also because they are simply not equipped to deal with crime anymore. For example: Germany has cut funding and staffing for police for years now. The direct result: http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/kriminalstatistik-2016-warum-der-staat-bei-kriminellen-nordafrikanern-so-machtlos-ist_id_7020813.html. When you live in a city where the police is widely known to be a useful as nipples on a breastplate, people stop relying on them. If I lived in Duisburg I wouldn't bother calling the police either because they don't do shit. I can tell you from experience there is a staggering amount of crime in that city which simply goes unreported and uninvestigated. A large number of that comes from first and second generation immigrants. And when crimes are reported the police often can't prove who did it. So for example: break ins. When these cases are solved perpetrators from northern Africa and Eastern Europe are grossly overrepresented, but they usually aren't. Hell, you're lucky if the police even send someone out to take a look at your flat or house, and you don't have to live in a city for that one either.

Now, obviously, you wouldn't know this, because you're an armchair expert who will continuously cling to a comfortable narrative without leaving your ivory tower until the problem arrives at your own doorstep and you can no longer claim ignorance. A day which I look forward to greatly by the way. Please keep telling people who have been dealing with and suffering from the worst side effects of mass immigration for decades that they should simply start being accomodating to more of the same, it will probably bring that day a good bit closer. I second what Pie said in the video. What, you think a bunch of disenfranchised people just got up and decided to be racist shitbags because - why? For fun and giggles?

This isn't a refugee crime wave, its a more of a continuous immigrant crime tsunami which is showing no sign of stopping. When you're already drowning in it seeing your government open the floodgates further is a little alarming. The situation before 2015 was bad enough, the refugee crises is just the straw that broke the camels back.

Agema:
(Also, as a quick note, the right is responsible to a large extent. Merkel has been running the country for a long time, you know.)

Merkel and right wing. You're not serious, are you? Because it says conservative on the tin? I'm looking forward to seeing you give Trump a free pass for Syria and Korea because he claimed to be anti-interventionalist.

Agema:
I don't entirely disagree with this.

But if you'd be following anything I'd been writing in this thread, it's that the woes of the much-abused population do not largely derive from immigrants. They derive from political adherence to neoliberal capitalism and the whims of the wealthy.

For instance, barely a fraction as many column inches and debate threads are devoted to mass tax avoidance by corporations and the rich - to the effect of increased tax budern on the lower end and/or degraded public services. Cutting "red tape" is lionised by many - but "red tape" as often as not includes regulation that exist to protect employees from abuse, the public from pollution, and everyone from things like fraud. Half the Tory Party in the UK has been theorising that the UK needs to be more like China - i.e. deregulated drones slaving away 70 hours a week in sweatshops - to be successful. The UK has a housing problem for no reason more complex than that the government hasn't bothered ensuring enough are built. Someone recently did a huge study of the USA, and found that the only consistent trend in legislation was that it tended to serve the interests of business and the rich. I'll bet if the same was done in Europe, it might not be so extreme (the EU enshrines plenty of protections... that's actually why many Tories wanted to leave) but it could look very similar. UKIP, behind the odd populist policy, is actually a bastion of economic libertarianism.

At the point we unleash nationalism and protectionism, our countries get poorer. Trade, broadly, is good. Our countries need more effective ways at ensuring all its people benefit from growth and development, not less growth and development.

I totally get that lots of Europeans are pissed off. I just wish they'd be pissed off about the things that have been most seriously affecting them, rather than that cities now have more darker skinned people in. And when plenty of these people are calling migrants cockroaches who should be gunned in the sea if their boats collapse, to a vacuum of criticism from the others, and when you talk up parties and politicians that deny the Holocaust and propose obvious restrictions on reasonable civil liberties... what the hell do you expect? "I don't like XXX, but I hope they win so they wreak havoc" is a childish tantrum, not wisdom.

We're almost in agreeance here, I'd just add that if anything, mass immigration is a consequence of neoliberals and the whims of the wealthy. Of course immigrants aren't the root of the problem, but they are a problem. The refusal to ackknowledge this basic fact is going to be the rightfully earned downfall of what I can only call traitors in Br?ssels and Berlin.

Agema:
"I don't like XXX, but I hope they win so they wreak havoc" is a childish tantrum, not wisdom.

I like them more than anyone else. I like Le Pen more than Melenchon. I like Petry more than Merkel. Hell, I like Farage more than May, although I like Corbyn more than either of those.

Its not just about wreaking havoc, because really, our current governments are already wreaking havoc. We're already experiencing a slow, excrutiating slip into downfall, its just not quite visible to the wealthy yet.

Spare me the lecture about wisdom. You're the third person in this thread to give me this bullshit houlier-than-thou performance. Again, all these people who are so keen to tell others to calm down and sit down - where the hell were you when all these problems were taking root? Nowhere. Your methods are unproductive, you've already shown you're not half as smart as you want everyone to believe, you've lost. Now go sit yourselves down for a change instead of berating others for having the audacity to try something else instead of taking it in the ass from the next selfish neoliberal fucktard who's just going to spend years trying to get reelected while sucking up to a select few and sticking it to everyone else. At least with Le Pen there is the slightest chance something will change.

Seanchaidh:
What, are Syrians not humans?

Don't be ridiculous, we can't have these non-Western countries have anything approaching national self-determination.

@Sonmi: I am for human rights above all. Though I care less about economic policy, corrupt and unfair economic ideologies and practices tend to stamp on human rights, so there is alot of crossover. Right-wing is usually anti-people and anti-equallity, so I find it difficult to believe I am truly "right-wing" but I care for intent more than labels.

From what I understand, I am socially left, and...thats it. But call me what you want.

As for being pedantic, I do not intend to be as snarky as I usually may be on that. I am pro-intervention, but maybe alot of people take that to mean I am pro-bombing the shit out of "evil" countries. I am not against shooting up some terrorists, but if we are killing innocent civilians, well, -that- is counter-productive. One of the few fair criticisms of Obama is continuing that, but honestly, I doubt Bernie would not drone bomb more than his share of innocent people too. Comes with being President of the US. (Hopefully he would not be so haphazard like Trump though).

So when I say I am pro-intervention, I mean going in and helping, and fixing, and providing medical aid, as well as combatting a corrupt government or terrorist presence. But the less innocent blood shed the better.

Seems alot of people just take "intervention" to mean bombing.

It makes little difference. If Macaron cookie wins, that will buy the french establishment some time, but unless they manage to significantly improve the situation, FN will simply earn more votes the next round.

Last chance.

Problem is, France with it's 100% GDP debt, negative balance and lawless banlieus is a major cluster fuck. What are the odds that this bankster will fix shit for the common voter?

I wouldn't be surprised if France becomes a Yugoslavia2.0 within 10 year time.

Saelune:
@Sonmi: I am for human rights above all. Though I care less about economic policy, corrupt and unfair economic ideologies and practices tend to stamp on human rights, so there is alot of crossover. Right-wing is usually anti-people and anti-equallity, so I find it difficult to believe I am truly "right-wing" but I care for intent more than labels.

Economic policy is a pretty freaking huge part of the government.

Those you call "right-wing" would probably that they care about human rights and people too. Simply saying "I care about human rights" doesn't not magically make you a "socialist."

Saelune:
From what I understand, I am socially left, and...thats it. But call me what you want.

I have no problem believing you're socially liberal, there's nothing wrong with that.

Saelune:
As for being pedantic, I do not intend to be as snarky as I usually may be on that. I am pro-intervention, but maybe alot of people take that to mean I am pro-bombing the shit out of "evil" countries. I am not against shooting up some terrorists, but if we are killing innocent civilians, well, -that- is counter-productive. One of the few fair criticisms of Obama is continuing that, but honestly, I doubt Bernie would not drone bomb more than his share of innocent people too. Comes with being President of the US. (Hopefully he would not be so haphazard like Trump though).

War always affects civilians, mate. Especially modern warfare. You don't simply swoop into a country, liberate it and be treated like a hero, that's a naive, childish view of war that ignores its horrible realities. You will have civilians fighting back, you will have civilians killed.

Thinking that Obama had no say in pursuing the USA's military ambitions and illegal bombings is also reductionist and extremely naive, as is thinking that Bernie would have pursued Obama's hawkish legacy simply because "It's the thing America does". The status quo is not immutable, and the United States doesn't have to illegally bomb and invade countries.

Saelune:
So when I say I am pro-intervention, I mean going in and helping, and fixing, and providing medical aid, as well as combatting a corrupt government or terrorist presence. But the less innocent blood shed the better.

And replace said corrupt government by what exactly?

By the rebels, who are also murderous theocrats? By the Kurds, who have ethnic tensions with the rest of the population and grudges to settle (and aren't angels either)? By a puppet fascist regime to do your bidding in the region and will proceed the atrocities of the Assad regime, like Batista's or Pinochet's? Or will you delve in nation building and establish a weak democracy that'll eventually be torn down by will of the people and thrown into another civil war?

I know you want America to be the chivalrous defender of democracy, spreading it wherever it lands and fighting corrupt despots left and right, but the truth is that the world doesn't world like that. Depose a despot, and you usually leave the country in an even worse state than it was before.

You're not the world police, just let people do their thing.

Saelune:
Seems alot of people just take "intervention" to mean bombing.

That's because that's what most modern warfare is, mate.

veloper:
It makes little difference. If Macaron cookie wins, that will buy the french establishment some time, but unless they manage to significantly improve the situation, FN will simply earn more votes the next round.

With the relative blockage Macron might encounter during the Legislatives, and that might burden his quinquenat, I rather agree with this. Especially if the FN ditches Le Pen in favour of the comparatively more palatable Florian Philippot.

A civil war within the FN might yet happen though, the interests of Northern voters and of Southern voters vary greatly on economic issues, and that might end of tearing the party in half.

veloper:
I wouldn't be surprised if France becomes a Yugoslavia2.0 within 10 year time.

That's a tad bit alarmist and hyperbolic though.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

What do you want Syrians to be given a break from? Virtually no one has a problem with people coming from Syria or Iraq. When they do, its usually a knee jerk reaction to our border and policing policies which are frustratingly lax across the board. In fact, our government is still unsure exactly how many people came here from Syria two years ago since they just trusted anyone who showed up to tell the truth about who they are.

The Front National do have that exact problem, and make no distinction between refugees and economic immigrants, either in speech or policy.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Now, obviously, you wouldn't know this, because you're an armchair expert who will continuously cling to a comfortable narrative without leaving your ivory tower until the problem arrives at your own doorstep and you can no longer claim ignorance. A day which I look forward to greatly by the way. Please keep telling people who have been dealing with and suffering from the worst side effects of mass immigration for decades that they should simply start being accomodating to more of the same, it will probably bring that day a good bit closer. I second what Pie said in the video. What, you think a bunch of disenfranchised people just got up and decided to be racist shitbags because - why? For fun and giggles?

Below, you berate somebody else for acting "holier than thou". The sheer rank hypocrisy-- the lack of self-awareness-- on display here is frankly staggering. This is the most dismissive, sneering, snide behaviour anybody here is exhibiting, bar none.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Yes, you could, so stop being lazy and do that. People have provided numerous links from all sorts of sources, google translate them and you'll get the picture.

I checked the initial source with Google Translate, as is evident from post #40. If I recall correctly, Google Translate informed me things like that however many people were accused of the crime of "bagpipes", and I'm pretty sure that's a Scottish instrument, not a crime. Some parts of it were in too garbled English to be clear what was being discussed. Further to that, I also read posts #44 & #45 of this thread, which further reinforced my lack of confidence in Google Translate as safe. And you can also notice I neither disputed nor disagreed with the source provided, after Dornedas was kind enough to expand.

So if you have any additional evidence, no I'm not accepting Google Translate as a reliable translation, as already stated.

And whilst we're on this comment, let me make something clear. I am lenient about reporting insults because I accept people get a bit heated and it's no big deal. I do not, however, do it so people like you can repeatedly be aggressive and gratuitously rude to me as you have been this year. So this comment I am replying to now is your last free pass, okay?

What do you want Syrians to be given a break from?

I think they deserve a shot at a productive life whilst their country is a warzone. To provide them with money to support their families with something better than a desert refugee tent, educate their kids decently, and to help them rebuild when they can go back.

There are uncomfortable facts which people like you will refuse to acknowledge until the end of days, to the immense detriment of all of Europe unfortunately. German and to a lesser extent British and French governments are becoming less and less reliable about telling their populations the real impact immigration has on crime.

How do you know these governments are hiding this information?

Now, obviously, you wouldn't know this, because you're an armchair expert who will continuously cling to a comfortable narrative without leaving your ivory tower...

Ha ha! I live in a city with one of the highest immigrant populations in the country, you know. I can see the problems on the doorstep, that's how I know they're not the crises people characterise them. I'm not without noticing, for instance, the places where people are more inclined to rage against immigrants in my country appear to the places with lower proportions of immigrants.

I second what Pie said in the video. What, you think a bunch of disenfranchised people just got up and decided to be racist shitbags because - why? For fun and giggles?

Firstly, I suspect at least some of them were racists in the first place. Albeit quiescent ones, because other races were all but invisible to their daily lives so not any cause for upset. Secondly, I suspect a bunch of people became racist because potent voices in the political and media sphere spent decades telling them (often via lies) that foreigners were the cause of all their ills. And plenty of them aren't racist, they're just anti-immigration, although it's not always easy to tell the difference.

This isn't a refugee crime wave, its a more of a continuous immigrant crime tsunami...

It's more a gentle swell. Immigrants are associated with more crime, but not that heavily.

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-has-become-safer/a-19444826
http://www.dw.com/en/more-murder-and-violence-in-germany/a-38567642

Merkel and right wing. You're not serious, are you?

Yes. Because you can't arbitrarily choose to declare someone not right wing just because they don't agree with you on immigration.

We're almost in agreeance here, I'd just add that if anything, mass immigration is a consequence of neoliberals and the whims of the wealthy. Of course immigrants aren't the root of the problem, but they are a problem. The refusal to ackknowledge this basic fact is going to be the rightfully earned downfall of what I can only call traitors in Br?ssels and Berlin.

Mass immigration is connected to a neoliberal agenda. After all, economic liberalism is not just the free movement of goods, services and capital, but also labour - the means by which all the others are created.

Brussels, Berlin etc. certainly are concerned about immigration. But there are a lot of heavy complications. It is unjust to simply cancel the rule of law and chuck immigrants out at whim. The existing EU system put the greatest burden on now struggling states (Italy, Greece) least capable of coping. No-one predicted such vast quantities would suddenly try to access Europe - it happened pretty suddenly. We can't just sink immigrant-containing boats crossing the Med. Immigration is an EU-wide problem, so co-ordinated action is required within the EU; it further requires co-operation internationally, because they are citizens of non-EU countries. And that means disagreements, negotiations to sort out, etc.

I don't say immigration policy has been perfect by any means. But immigration problems are also complex and difficult to resolve - or at least within the ambit of the civilised values and rights our society is supposed to cherish and make us better.

I like them more than anyone else. I like Le Pen more than Melenchon. I like Petry more than Merkel. Hell, I like Farage more than May, although I like Corbyn more than either of those.

French people who associate with chums of unrepentant SS members, who deny the Nazi collaborator Vichy regime has anything to do with France, who denies French police rounded up Jews to go to the gas chambers, whose parties and fathers have long and deep histories of Holocaust denial... these should be almost nobody's idea of fit for highest public office.

Habilitate that, we may as well rehabilitate the Nazis themselves whilst we're at it.

Spare me the lecture about wisdom. You're the third person in this thread to give me this bullshit houlier-than-thou performance. Again, all these people who are so keen to tell others to calm down and sit down - where the hell were you when all these problems were taking root? Nowhere.

Let me give you some idea of my perspective from times I've had to live through:

How do I compare mass immigration to catastrophic unemployment and social disorder in the 1980s? Islamic terrorism to IRA terrorism and the perpetual threat of NATO-USSR war? Immigrant crime to the massive violence crime wave of the 1990s?

Pretty modest.

The world turns, circumstances change, things happen. There's always the latest problem. The downfall of society is predicted every few years (and basically never happens). Do you know what people like me were doing whilst mass immigration was a speck on the horizon? We were busy looking at all the major problems that had to be looked at then. Just like whilst you're obsessing over immigrants now, you'll be blind to the zeitgeist woe creasing brows in ten to twenty years' time. (Perhaps the problem will even be one caused by solutions to what we were trying to deal with now - such is life, you have to learn to roll with it). And I was spared the stagflation, strikes and so on of the 70s (well, I was too young to understand it occurring), or the rationing debt and austerity of the 50s. Before that was WW2 - now THAT was a crisis.

So I'm sorry I just don't see immigration as the crisis you are convinced it is. I accept there are significant problems. I know people are unhappy. But... I've lived through worse going on in society, and I can see what a disaster is from history.

bastardofmelbourne:
[
Calling him right-wing would be a mistake. Right-wing implies a whole host of socially conservative positions that he does not ascribe to. Neoliberal is a better term.

Liberal/right-wing has been an acceptable term for people to use for people like Macron, snd has always been this way in Europe.

Its more of an American/Anglo-saxon phenomenon to put only conservatives in the right wing box.
Going all this, he is seen as the most right wing out of the candidates(but not extreme).

Left -> Right.

Melechenon -> Hamon -> Le Pen -> Fillion -> Macron.

Or to use European parties as examples(excluding christian ones),
GUE-NGL -> Greens -> S&D -> ALDE

Dutch parties, since im most familiar with them,

SP = PvdD -> Groenlinks(greens) -> PvdA(labour) -> CU(conservative center-left) -> D66 -> CDA -> VVD = PVV(wilders).

Greens tend to be more socially progressive, but they don't push for as many economic change as much as the democratic socialist parties(mostly parties part of the GUE-NGL in the euro parliament)

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Its the same kind of shit I've seen you and Agema fling at anyone who disagrees with them over the most inane things. Feels good, doesn't it? I'll take the last bit as a compliment. It takes quite a bit of trying to become the most dismissive, sneering and snide poster in R&P when the competition is so stiff.

Yeah.

I freely accept I am a prickly and combative debater - it's the way I am. But I do at least accept that, and am prepared to take what I give. I think that better than the dozens who fill their comments with petty slights, condescension, rage and hatred, and either lack the self-awareness to even realise, or feign innocence (I am not necessarily referring to you personally, by the way).

Also - at least 99.9% of the time - despite the irritation I may cause, I keep it within the boundaries of civil conduct. You, of late, have been testing or exceeding them.

Zontar:

It's anyone's game at this point despite what the media has been saying again about it being a done deal (because apparently the past few elections didn't happen).

Not 100%, but he is so far ahead in the polls that something has to go wrong fot him if he loses this.
He is lucky to be against somebody as authoritarian as Le Pen.

Saelune:

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

No party here wants to work with Wilders. Same goes for the AfD in Germany.
Extreme authoritarians don't have the same chances in west Europe as they do in the US. It mostly reeks of US media fear mongering.

Macron needs to fuck up big. Which should not be expected.

double post.

rederoin:

bastardofmelbourne:
[
Calling him right-wing would be a mistake. Right-wing implies a whole host of socially conservative positions that he does not ascribe to. Neoliberal is a better term.

Liberal/right-wing has been an acceptable term for people to use for people like Macron, snd has always been this way in Europe.

Its more of an American/Anglo-saxon phenomenon to put only conservatives in the right wing box.
Going all this, he is seen as the most right wing out of the candidates(but not extreme).

Left -> Right.

Melechenon -> Hamon -> Le Pen -> Fillion -> Macron.

Or to use European parties as examples(excluding christian ones),
GUE-NGL -> Greens -> S&D -> ALDE

Dutch parties, since im most familiar with them,

SP = PvdD -> Groenlinks(greens) -> PvdA(labour) -> CU(conservative center-left) -> D66 -> CDA -> VVD = PVV(wilders).

Greens tend to be more socially progressive, but they don't push for as much economic change as much as the democratic socialist parties(mostly parties part of the GUE-NGL in the euro parliament)

Oi Red, glad to see you're more active here.

Just a quick correction as to the French parties: Fillon is far more to the right than Macron is. He might be more of sovereignist than Macron, but he's also more for deregulation all across the board.

But yeah, Macron is way more right-wing than people give him credit for, the fact that he's already started to court Republicains to make up his cabinet should be enough proof of that.

 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