French election results - Macron vs Le Pen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Zontar is back. yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

rederoin:

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.

I don't know, for both the Communists and the Socialists she's far closer to their views then Macron (who is a literal modern day aristocrat incapable of even pretending to understand the plight of the working class), and Macron's pro-immigration, anti-counterterrorism stance is one that is the opposite of why Fillon got the Republican nomination in the first place. You could very well see enough Republicans vote on security and Socialists vote on ideology for her to reach 50% + 1, though Macron does have the advantage of having the corrupt establishment and media behind him, and I don't know if the French are as jaded towards both as those in the Anglosphere are (re: where you'd have to be insane to believe either one at this point, something less then 1 in 10 of us do)

Parasondox:
Zontar is back. yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

I've been back for a few months.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

"Giving Syrians a break" in this context means not making them responsible for increases in crime. My point was that almost nobody does. Le Pen as well as large parts of the FN reject all forms of immigration, even importing highly qualified people for specific positions, on an ideological basis rather than a practical one. Personally I don't have much of a problem with that provided the party would stick to an anti-interventionist path while trying to minimize negative impact on foreign countries. Unfortunately they can't be trusted to do the latter. Anyway, point is: your argument here is a little flimsy.

My argument was that the FN do have a problem with immigration from Syria, quite explicitly, and make no effort to hide it (contrary to what you said). That's not flimsy; the party itself would agree.

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.

When the level of discussion is reasonable and people aren't slinging shit, I don't tend to be personally insulting. I can be prickly-- as I'm being right now-- but people generally have to have crossed a threshold, and shown themselves utterly unwilling to engage in the slightest good faith.

Mere disagreement doesn't provoke that response from me; you're just making that up because it's easy, and cheap.

So, no. Nobody here is acting as condescending as you are. Either way, it wasn't the aggression I took issue with, but the sheer lack of self-awareness in then proceeding to berate somebody else for acting holier-than-thou.

Zontar:

I don't know, for both the Communists and the Socialists she's far closer to their views then Macron (who is a literal modern day aristocrat incapable of even pretending to understand the plight of the working class), and Macron's pro-immigration, anti-counterterrorism stance is one that is the opposite of why Fillon got the Republican nomination in the first place. You could very well see enough Republicans vote on security and Socialists vote on ideology for her to reach 50% + 1, though Macron does have the advantage of having the corrupt establishment and media behind him, and I don't know if the French are as jaded towards both as those in the Anglosphere are (re: where you'd have to be insane to believe either one at this point, something less then 1 in 10 of us do)

You have, in the past, shown a true lack of awareness about what socialists or social-democrats will actually prioritise, merely projecting your own assumptions onto their voting patterns and then stating that as received wisdom.

Do you have any numbers to back the above up, or is this the same situation?

Agema:
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.

Can't really comment on this without going into "debate about refugees #3621246235" and derailing the thread. As you probably remember I disagree on this. No reason to reopen this can of worms right here though.

Agema:
How do you know these governments are hiding this information?

2 parts. Firstly that they have been caught hiding that kind of information multiple times in the past, so that it stands to reason that they do it more often but don't always get found out. Second just from personal experience - anyone who lives outside of all but the richest districts of the cities I listed knows that the police have lost their authority and influence.

Agema:
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.

Perhaps those people are simply smart enough to learn from mistakes made in other places? In the parts of the country that are hit worst voter turnout is typically the lowest anyway, simply because everyone has given up on the government and its arms (see that bit about the police). Naturally right wing parties won't have most of their voters in high crime areas - but centrists and leftists don't either.

Agema:
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[/quote]

In the name of adjusting my posting habits to the acceptable standard in R&P, I'm not going to bother answering this bit properly. If we all readily scoff at a number of outlets as being unreliable, we may as well add DW to that blacklist, it being the German Russia Today and all.

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

Based on immigration? What about based on climate and energy policy, taxes, government subsidies, how the military is used, essentially anything you can think of aside from austerity in certain sectors of public spending? Merkel is not right wing by any standard, she is the absolute archtype of the nightmare politician I mentioned before: all that matters is balancing the chances of being reelected with the whims of a select few. Her flip flopping on controversial issues shows that she has no proper position to speak of. (On a side note, initially, opening the borders wasn't an active decision by Merkel, but rather a consequence of radio silence from Berlin as she tried to avoid having to make a decision.) Thats why large parts of her own party which do hold conservative values have tried to kick her out multiple times.

So no, she is not right wing, nor is she left wing. That isn't an arbitrary choice, its the logical and factual conclusion when you look at how she has governed for the past 12 years. Just about the only traditional right wing position I can see her consequently clinging to is refusing to give gay marriage the same tax benefits as straight marriage.

Agema:
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.

"No one predicted" is wrong. Many did and a few even reacted to it. Even the EU did, in a minor half arsed way, which suits their general line of doing things. Others did not, for fear of catching negative PR.

It does not require EU wide cooperation. There is this strange idea going around that countries cannot do things on their own. Even Hungary, a country regularly regarded as a bit of a shit hole, managed to put up a fence and stick a few blokes in uniform with assault rifles behind it. Italy, Spain and Greece can manage the same. There will be a difficult period but after that wanna-be immigrants will get the message and stay home. Frontex has a budget of a measily 281 million Euros a year. Every country to the south could stem that without outside help.

We can't sink immigrant-containing boats? Yes, yes we can. Make it perfectly clear Europe is no longer as linient on illegal immigration as it once was. Make it perfectly clear that they are not welcome. Stop fucking around in the middle East and stop flirting with African dictators so you aren't actively causing the problems which make people want to get out. If anyone still attempts to cross the border, its perfectly valid and morally sound to shoot them down.

Agema:
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.

Again, the old nazi card. Not every FN voter and not every FN member is guilty of those things, far from it. Rehabilitating the Nazis doesn't sound like a bad idea actually, considering that they would have never come into power if someone had thought to start doing so in 1923.

Agema:
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.

Evidentally you can't. Considering we're already in a disaster right now (one which has precious little to do with immigrants mind, that one is still coming). I get your point, problems are temporary, solutions are found and things move on. This situation is a little different from the ones you listed though because it hasn't reached its apex yet. Concerning immigrants and Islam, the worst is yet to come and we're not even close to it yet. You're not convinced - don't worry, you will be, birth rates coupled with democracy will make absolutely sure of it.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
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.

I'll clarify. What I meant was that by choosing to vote for a transparently racist candidate as a kind of "fuck you" to the people who mistakenly identified you as a racist, you are proving those people correct. It's like a Sith Lord saying to a Jedi, "man, you Jedi are hypocrites, you get angry all the time" and the Jedi responds with "No! No I don't get angry! Graaagh! Fuck you!"

If you want self-righteous idiots to stop calling you a racist, then a) ignore them, they're idiots and b) don't vote for people like Trump or Le Pen.

Seanchaidh:

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?

If you define "remedy inequalities through human intervention" as "that human or group of humans can intervene in themselves to remedy their own inequalities," then you're not really talking about intervention at all. You're basically saying "sort your own shit out," which incidentally is closer to what Sonmi described as the right-wing approach to inequality.

I mean, all the disenfranchised, impoverished middle class people left behind by globalisation are humans, too. We don't tell them that all they have to do to solve their problems is intervene in their own welfare.

Anyway, I have to go do a mammoth post addressed to Sonmi now. It's gonna be big. Seriously, it's huge.

tl;dr - Sonmi, you have contradicted yourself multiple times and I find your apology for Russian territorial expansion and intervention to be disconcerting. I do not disagree with your assessment of neoliberalism's flaws but I do certainly believe that neoliberalism can be compatible with left-wing politics, so long as one does not define left-wing politics so narrowly as to exclude the entire concept of capitalism.

I think Macron is a better choice than either Melenchon or Le Pen because he doesn't want to lock immigrants out of the country and he doesn't want to disrupt the European political community by pulling out of NATO and "renegotiating" the EU.

I am not convinced that Melenchon's policies are practical, desirable, or in any way achievable, and trust me, I spent a lot of time last night reading about Melenchon's policies. He has a lot of good ideas in there, I can't disagree with all of it, but I can disagree quite strongly with a few key points of it. Jean-Luc Melenchon is not Bernie Sanders; the problematic parts of his platform are difficult to ignore.

Anyway, that's basically what I think, and I'm going to step out now, because fuck me if I'm doing another post that long anytime soon.

Agema:
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?

Just about this bit - listen, all it takes for you to get personal and rude is someone politely disagreeing with you. Don't worry, I'm not talking about myself here. Considering that I really do not give a single fuck whether you judge my posts have crossed a certain line or not. Leave that to the moderators please. If you have a boner for giving people free passes or threatening them with reports apply for a moderator position. Otherwise - keep it to yourself. Nobody cares about your arbitrary free passes. Stop whining because for once you're getting the same as you give.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Agema:
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?

Just about this bit - listen, all it takes for you to get personal and rude is someone politely disagreeing with you. Don't worry, I'm not talking about myself here. Considering that I really do not give a single fuck whether you judge my posts have crossed a certain line or not. Leave that to the moderators please. If you have a boner for giving people free passes or threatening them with reports apply for a moderator position. Otherwise - keep it to yourself. Nobody cares about your arbitrary free passes. Stop whining because for once you're getting the same as you give.

In what country is calling someone lazy polite? Also accusations of boners...saying he's ...you know I don't remember him doing this to you. You can't really call someone else out for being rude while doing the same (well claiming that it is). Not without undermining your point anyway.

bastardofmelbourne:
So why should I value your definition higher than anyone else's?

I mean, if I had you on the one hand saying that neoliberalism was incompatible with the left-wing, and I had Macron on the other hand saying that neoliberalism is totally compatible with the left-wing, why should I believe one over the other? What is it about neoliberalism specifically that makes it incompatible with the left-wing?

So why should you take offense in my definition of "right-wing" then?

Neoliberalism doesn't seek to fight economic equality, in fact, in all of its trickle-down rhetoric it actually finds it to be a desirable thing. It's not a left-wing ideology, it'll never be.

bastardofmelbourne:
I didn't say it was a bad definition. It was a decent crack at it. But I thought it odd that earlier, you'd said that overseas intervention was not a necessary quality of left-wing ideology, and then later on provided a definition of left-wing that makes intervention a necessity.

It seemed contradictory, is what I'm saying.

Depending on whether you think national insularism, altermundialism, or downright globalism is the way to go, it's another one of these political axis that exists outside of the overused left-right dichotomy.

If you believe, even a little bit, that a country needs to get involved in the affairs of others, then yeah, action is a necessity. In what form, that all depends on the situation.

bastardofmelbourne:
Firstly, there's no need to accuse me of slander. I spent three hours yesterday using what remained of my high-school French education reading Melenchon's policy programme and navigating his website, all to investigate a claim I've seen repeated multiple times from fairly reputable news sites, and which you've repeatedly denied while providing no contradictory citations whatsoever. And now you're accusing me of slander because I have the gall to actually try and provide citations when asked.

I feel like you're not appreciating the effort I'm putting in, is what I'm saying.

Incidentally, Melenchon's program does mention a salary cap on high-income earners; it just doesn't describe specifics of how it would work. It elsewhere refers to a "surcharge" on income over 360,000 euros, and a 100% income tax rate on income higher than 360,000 euros would, in effect, be a salary cap. It seems like that's the source of the confusion. The effect would be the same; high-income earners would simply leave the country, to the detriment of the French economy.

I mean, if you want to tax rich people, you need them around in order to tax them. You don't want rich people leaving, because then you can't tax them at all.

I apologize if I accused you of slander, I realize it must be taxing to go through so much French information about a candidate that until two or three weeks ago was rarely covered in the media. There was a lot of slander against Melenchon though, press coverage being far from objective in detailing his plan and positions.

I have provided a counterargument to your 100% claim in the form of the interview with Pujadas and Salame earlier.

http://melenchon.fr/2017/04/14/meeting-a-lille/

Here's an alternative source for the 90% figure. The use of the outdated 100% figure was meant, I believe, to discourage people from voting for him out of fear of a Melenchon/Le Pen second round. It could simply have been bad fact-checking, but I believe it might have been done on purpose. Also, he does explain the salary cap in the link you just provided, he'd something similar to what Corbyn propositioned in the UK a few months ago, a maximum salary ratio of 1/20 between the least paid employee and the CEO.

I do agree that is explanation for high earners staying in France is shoddy though, banking on "Patriotism" to keep them there. I don't want you to be mistaken, Melenchon wouldn't have been my first choice either.

bastardofmelbourne:
I don't want to talk about Putin here because it's not especially relevant. But I find it super weird that so many people on the internet seem more energetic about condemning the nebulous threat of Western economic imperialism while glossing over or apologising for Russia's actual, proven imperialism.

It doesn't make any sense. Do you care about wealth inequality? Putin is worth over two hundred billion dollars and Russia is the most unequal country in the world when it comes to the distribution of wealth. Do you care about imperialism? Putin is actively annexing territory from Georgia and the Ukraine. Do you care about military interventions? Putin has spent the last two years bombing Syria indiscriminately for the sole purpose of protecting his pet dictator.

But no; let's bitch about neoliberals instead. I don't understand it. I simply don't. What basis does Russia have to feel threatened by NATO? To the extent that NATO is threatening Russia, it is in respect to the countries that were conquered by the USSR. Russia is turning to imperialism in self-defence against a circumscription of their earlier imperialism. That is not justifiable. Not in the least, not by any standards of left-wing ideology you care to name, and it thoroughly perplexes me why you would condemn wealth inequality and imperialism but respond to criticism of the world's wealthiest emperor with "well, it's understandable that he felt threatened."

Whatever. We ought not to be talking about Putin.

Let's be clear about something, I think Putin is bastard and that life in Russia must be rather miserable, the wealth disparity there being absolutely terrible. I'm not advocating for the world to try and turn into Russia, I'm advocating for the West to stop using Russia (and the Soviets) for just about any sort shitty behaviour, to stop rationalizing foreign coups as "preemptive strikes against the forces of Russia" in the Middle-East, Africa, and South America, and to stop silencing dissenting opinions as being "Pro-Russia" as they just did in the French elections with Melenchon and Le Pen (but oddly enough, not Fillon).

It's hypocritical for us to get in arms about Russian imperialism when we've done the same ever since the end of the second World War.

bastardofmelbourne:
None of that answers my question. How will humanitarian aid help end the Syrian civil war? Assad won't let the aid workers into the country. He attacks humanitarian convoys to prevent them from resupplying his enemies. He bombs hospitals treating the victims of his earlier bombings. He does all of this with Russian military support making him effectively unbeatable and with Russian patronage paralysing the United Nations.

I simply cannot see a way that Melenchon could stop the root causes of the refugee crisis while also remaining committed to pacifist non-interventionism and pulling out of NATO.

Incidentally, and more importantly, why the fuck are you so quick to defend Putin? "They were only trying to restore the status quo!" When did that become a good thing? [/spoiler]

Humanitarian aid will appease the ailing Syrian population finding refuge in neighbouring countries (which obviously should also be compensated by the international community), keep them safe, keep them fed, keep them healthy. The civil war will have to solve itself, it's not like there is any other proper solution out of that one. The UN can deal with Assad later.

As for Putin, it's not a question of "restoring the status quo", it's a question of not pissing off angry Russians and to try to help them integrate the international community willingly rather than to keep threatening and antagonizing them. We can all move forward without the need of menacing one another.

bastardofmelbourne:
tl;dr - Sonmi, you have contradicted yourself multiple times and I find your apology for Russian territorial expansion and intervention to be disconcerting. I do not disagree with your assessment of neoliberalism's flaws but I do certainly believe that neoliberalism can be compatible with left-wing politics, so long as one does not define left-wing politics so narrowly as to exclude the entire concept of capitalism.

The entire concept of capitalism? No. As I said in an earlier post, you can have elements of capitalism within a left-wing system.

Neocapitalism, on the other hand, is capitalism on steroids, it is not compatible with left-wing politics.

bastardofmelbourne:
I think Macron is a better choice than either Melenchon or Le Pen because he doesn't want to lock immigrants out of the country and he doesn't want to disrupt the European political community by pulling out of NATO and "renegotiating" the EU.

And why the hell shouldn't the parameters of the EU be renegotiated should it be toxic for the populations of the countries involved? German-imposed super-austerity and central control of European currency has proven to be negative for a good deal of European countries, he's not alone in wanting away with certain elements of the EU, and there's no reason why they shouldn't make their displeasure heard.

bastardofmelbourne:
I am not convinced that Melenchon's policies are practical, desirable, or in any way achievable, and trust me, I spent a lot of time last night reading about Melenchon's policies. He has a lot of good ideas in there, I can't disagree with all of it, but I can disagree quite strongly with a few key points of it. Jean-Luc Melenchon is not Bernie Sanders; the problematic parts of his platform are difficult to ignore.

Anyway, that's basically what I think, and I'm going to step out now, because fuck me if I'm doing another post that long anytime soon.

I don't find much wrong with anything this article on The Guardian reproaches to Melenchon, to be quite honest.

His comment about migrants "stealing the bread of French workers" is rather gauche, but there is a truth in European governments using the migrant crisis as a way to boost growth and deal with an aging population, make sure that Europe stays competitive against the US and China. Frustration is understandable, targeting the migrants is wrong.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

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?

If you define "remedy inequalities through human intervention" as "that human or group of humans can intervene in themselves to remedy their own inequalities," then you're not really talking about intervention at all. You're basically saying "sort your own shit out," which incidentally is closer to what Sonmi described as the right-wing approach to inequality.

The implicit assumption you're making is that military intervention would "remedy inequalities" and not just get blood on our hands. Also, there is something to be said for limiting the problems to be solved to those within our own national spheres: that's not inconsistent with the values of the left, especially when there are a great many immediate problems to be solved. There is such a thing as limited resources-- don't make things worse abroad, but focus on remedying inequalities at home. The kind of intervention the left could support is humanitarian aid for refugees, not veiled largesse to military industry in order to fight a war which the people of in this case Syria don't even want us to fight.

When talking about European politics, I really think you should use the definitions that are in common usage here.

Silvanus:
My argument was that the FN do have a problem with immigration from Syria, quite explicitly, and make no effort to hide it (contrary to what you said). That's not flimsy; the party itself would agree.

And my argument is that the FN do have a problem with any sort of immigration, so its not exactly singling out Syrians. If you take crime out of the equation, FN is still against taking in refugees because they fear it will contribute to the death of their culture and people.

Silvanus:
When the level of discussion is reasonable and people aren't slinging shit, I don't tend to be personally insulting. I can be prickly-- as I'm being right now-- but people generally have to have crossed a threshold, and shown themselves utterly unwilling to engage in the slightest good faith.

Mere disagreement doesn't provoke that response from me; you're just making that up because it's easy, and cheap.

So, no. Nobody here is acting as condescending as you are. Either way, it wasn't the aggression I took issue with, but the sheer lack of self-awareness in then proceeding to berate somebody else for acting holier-than-thou.

Can you just stand in front of a mirror and read your previous comments about self awareness out loud so I save some time? Thanks.

bastardofmelbourne:
I'll clarify. What I meant was that by choosing to vote for a transparently racist candidate as a kind of "fuck you" to the people who mistakenly identified you as a racist, you are proving those people correct. It's like a Sith Lord saying to a Jedi, "man, you Jedi are hypocrites, you get angry all the time" and the Jedi responds with "No! No I don't get angry! Graaagh! Fuck you!"

If you want self-righteous idiots to stop calling you a racist, then a) ignore them, they're idiots and b) don't vote for people like Trump or Le Pen.

The problem here is that when you look at the candidates in any election in Western Europe, you have a clear choice: either vote for someone who is willing to keep ignoring the problem of uneven birthrates and immigration or vote for someone like Le Pen.

So again, I will repeat myself: you had two decades to do something about it. You didn't. Even now you don't. I see absolutely no effort from anybody to create a viable right wing, anti immigration alternative to the AfD, FN or SD. This is a valid criticism you can hurl at Trump and Le Pen voters; most of them aren't trying either. However, when you're not only part of the crowd who willingly voted and tolerated shitbags like Blair, Schr?der or Schmidt but also part of the crowd who will advocate continuing to vote for them, please for once just look to yourselves before you worry about what I or someone else thinks about token minority #356. Very rarely even on the Escapist do I see people dispute that Europe is now more than ever facing serious challenges in regard to the issues which drive the most voters to the right. Again: the hardcore, racist right was not even alive when these issues started. And even now the only parties which seem to be willing to name and tackle these issues are part of the right wing.

To make an absolutely hilarious abstract metaphore, imagine you're completely paralyzed, laying in a hospital room. In the room with you are 6 people. One of them has been continually nibbling at your fingers for the past half hour; you've already lost 4 on your right hand. Even worse, he seems to be growing bigger and is taking chomps with increasing frequency! The 5 able bodied people seem a bit uncomfortable about the whole thing but none of them do anything. Eventually, finally, when you're sure you're about to lose a hand, one of them steps forward and says: "Blink twice quickly if you want me to take this guy out of the room and shoot him." You blink so quickly your eyes begin to water. At this point the other 4 people spring into action and begin berating you for being a sadistic, misanthropic asshole. One even denies anyone was chewing on your fingers in the first place. Your reaction, quite understandably, is frustration because any of these people could have stepped in and done something much earlier. You don't want anybody to get shot but when its either that or getting eaten, the cannibals got to go. The soon to be murderer is much preferable to these people who are screaming at you; at least he's doing something instead of turning his back on you. Hell, if they had acted earlier, perhaps another solution could have been found.

By the way, one of the 4 people is a bastard of Melbourne. His piece of advice to you? "Next time, don't blink." And to the others? "Lets go back to ignoring this guy."

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Can you just stand in front of a mirror and read your previous comments about self awareness out loud so I save some time? Thanks.

Aye. To revisit:

Silvanus:

When the level of discussion is reasonable and people aren't slinging shit, I don't tend to be personally insulting. I can be prickly-- as I'm being right now-- but people generally have to have crossed a threshold, and shown themselves utterly unwilling to engage in the slightest good faith.

What is it you're saying above, about monstrous cannibals who aught to be shot? You're so far past the threshold of rational discussion it's ludicrous.

I'm out. I'd have a better time trying to engage one of the guys with home-made placards on the wooden boxes near Hyde Park, decrying the thunder as a sign from god.

Silvanus:
snip

The thing is, you consider "crossing the threshold" to be "disagreeing with me even after I make one half arsed post telling you you're wrong".

Silvanus:
What is it you're saying above, about monstrous cannibals who aught to be shot? You're so far past the threshold of rational discussion it's ludicrous.

I'm out. I'd have a better time trying to engage one of the guys with home-made placards on the wooden boxes near Hyde Park, decrying the thunder as a sign from god.

image

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Silvanus:
What is it you're saying above, about monstrous cannibals who aught to be shot? You're so far past the threshold of rational discussion it's ludicrous.

I'm out. I'd have a better time trying to engage one of the guys with home-made placards on the wooden boxes near Hyde Park, decrying the thunder as a sign from god.

image

Dude you said that shit all of 1 fucking post ago. You don't get to claim strawman when the proof is staring all of us in the face.

Monstrous Cannibal:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

To make an absolutely hilarious abstract metaphore, imagine you're completely paralyzed, laying in a hospital room. In the room with you are 6 people. One of them has been continually nibbling at your fingers for the past half hour; you've already lost 4 on your right hand. Even worse, he seems to be growing bigger and is taking chomps with increasing frequency! [...] Eventually, finally, when you're sure you're about to lose a hand [...] the cannibals got to go.

Should Be Shot:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
"Blink twice quickly if you want me to take this guy out of the room and shoot him." You blink so quickly your eyes begin to water. [...] the cannibals got to go.

Do you think we're stupid or did you honestly completely forget what you wrote 1 post above where you replied?

To quote @Silvanus "You're so far past the threshold of rational discussion it's ludicrous. [...] I'd have a better time trying to engage one of the guys with home-made placards on the wooden boxes near Hyde Park, decrying the thunder as a sign from god."

Avnger:
Do you think we're stupid or did you honestly completely forget what you wrote 1 post above where you replied?

You're pulling "should be shot" out of your ass by taking single sentences out of an entire paragraph and presenting them out of context. Thats why its a strawman. I don't advocate the death penalty, by the way, least of all for belonging to one race and not another.

What coarse of action I do find preferable should be blindingly obvious even if you just read that one paragraph and ignore the rest of my posts.

EDIT: Also bonus points for doing the "you don't get to" thing. Fucking hell. Don't worry about finding me insufferable; the feeling is completely mutual.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
By the way, one of the 4 people is a bastard of Melbourne. His piece of advice to you? "Next time, don't blink." And to the others? "Lets go back to ignoring this guy."

Hey, man. The next time you're stuck in a room with a cannibal, you'd damn well better keep your eyes open or you're going to lose a fingernail for not paying attention.

I do actually understand your analogy, though it seems to have been too graphic for Silvanus. My counter-point would be that immigration (the "cannibal" in your scenario) is not something one can solve by just walling the country off from migrants (the "shoot the cannibal" in your scenario). Illegal immigration will always occur, and will always be a burden on the state. The economic and social causes of mass migration will not stop if Le Pen is elected.

I'm speaking as an Australian, we've had to deal with refugee migration for decades because we live next door to Asia. The harder you make it for a person to legally migrate or seek asylum in your country, the more likely it is that those people will risk migrating illegally. And that kind of migration is dangerous for the migrants, not all of whom are a danger to the society they're migrating to. (The vast majority aren't, really.)

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

We can't sink immigrant-containing boats? Yes, yes we can... If anyone still attempts to cross the border, its perfectly valid and morally sound to shoot them down.

That's called murder. It is murder by the laws and morals of your country, mine, and I'm pretty sure everywhere else in the EU.

I would hope, especially as you're German, you would recognise the perils of state-organised murder as an acceptable way to deal with social problems. And then you might understand why large sections of society start wondering parallels between you and certain ideologies.

Again, the old nazi card. Not every FN voter and not every FN member is guilty of those things, far from it.

You probably didn't notice, but I was specifically describing Marine Le Pen. She's not merely a FN member.

Rehabilitating the Nazis doesn't sound like a bad idea actually

Yes, so you already explained earlier in the post - although more implicitly than you do here.

Based on immigration? What about based on climate and energy policy, taxes, government subsidies, how the military is used, essentially anything you can think of aside from austerity in certain sectors of public spending?

In political science, the right wing across history is largely considered to reflect conservatism and belief in social hierarchy. In the modern day, it tends to be pro-capitalist, because the existing social hierarchy has the wealthy business elite at the top.

In the name of adjusting my posting habits to the acceptable standard in R&P, I'm not going to bother answering this bit properly. If we all readily scoff at a number of outlets as being unreliable, we may as well add DW to that blacklist, it being the German Russia Today and all.

Quelle amusant. But still only a refusal to address the issue.

2 parts. Firstly that they have been caught hiding that kind of information multiple times in the past, so that it stands to reason that they do it more often but don't always get found out. Second just from personal experience - anyone who lives outside of all but the richest districts of the cities I listed knows that the police have lost their authority and influence.

Unless Germans are increasingly not reporting crime (which is of course possible), I'm not sure how police statistics would fail to assess the overall German crime rate: a rate which - as far as I can tell - is not particularly high with respect to post-reunification standards. It seems throughout the 1990s there were around 6.7 million crimes a year. It dropped to about 6.1 million by 2008, and the latest available figures I could find were about 6.4 million. Its crime rate per person is well within usual Western European levels.

bastardofmelbourne:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
By the way, one of the 4 people is a bastard of Melbourne. His piece of advice to you? "Next time, don't blink." And to the others? "Lets go back to ignoring this guy."

Hey, man. The next time you're stuck in a room with a cannibal, you'd damn well better keep your eyes open or you're going to lose a fingernail for not paying attention.

I do actually understand your analogy, though it seems to have been too graphic for Silvanus. My counter-point would be that immigration (the "cannibal" in your scenario) is not something one can solve by just walling the country off from migrants (the "shoot the cannibal" in your scenario). Illegal immigration will always occur, and will always be a burden on the state. The economic and social causes of mass migration will not stop if Le Pen is elected.

I'm speaking as an Australian, we've had to deal with refugee migration for decades because we live next door to Asia. The harder you make it for a person to legally migrate or seek asylum in your country, the more likely it is that those people will risk migrating illegally. And that kind of migration is dangerous for the migrants, not all of whom are a danger to the society they're migrating to. (The vast majority aren't, really.)

To clarify, the cannibal isn't meant to be an immigrant. As Agema has (correctly, imo) pointed out, immigration (illegal or otherwise) is more of a side effect of a bigger issue than a cause. Its true that many FN/AfD/whatever voters don't recognize that, but personally I think more do than is commonly admitted. I agree that Le Pen isn't going to solve Frances issues, however, even the chance that she could attempt to do so puts her a point ahead of Macron in my book. And while many FN voters may be racist shitbags I do suspect those are outnumbered by people who simply think that giving it a try is better than resigning to enduring more of the same. I mean, a former invest banker for Rothschild? Really?

Its funny you critizise Australian policy because here its used as a positive example of how things could be managed. From a German perspective it seems very much preferable to the current model of inviting everyone and worrying about the consequences a few years or even decades later. Of course making something illegal will increase the chances of someone doing it anyway and becoming criminal, but that on its own is not an argument. You can follow the same logic with murder - the harder you make it for someone to murder while avoiding punishment, the more likely they are to murder illegaly. The crux comes whether you think immigration is an inherently bad thing or not. And I suppose thats where we differ and why we will struggle to find common ground on this topic - I believe immigration in large numbers is an inherently bad idea regardless of the immediate effect on the crime rate. The real damage which people should worry more about comes 3 or 4 decades later. That goes doubly when the people immigrating come from a part of the world with a different habitat, culture and value system and thrice over when you consider current birth rates. Because when you combine those three, hell, just to scratch the surface of one logical consequence: what impact is that going to have on, say, the elections in 2035?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Its funny you critizise Australian policy because here its used as a positive example of how things could be managed.

I've heard about that, and it's bollocks. Australia's immigration policy has been a race to the bottom for two decades now. Both parties have spent considerable time trying to one-up each other on who can have a more hard-line immigration policy. So they make it harder and harder to migrate legally, so more and more people turn to people smugglers out of desperation, and you end up with an absolutely shameful record of refugee deaths.

And what's the reaction to that? Tighten border security even further, to "stop the boats." It's a cycle that betrays a complete lack of understanding of why illegal immigration occurs in the first place. None of these politicians talk about what happens after border patrol intercepts a boat - because it's not pretty; it turns out the only options are either transferring everyone to an offshore detention centre located in a literal shithole where they will stay for an indefinite period of time - potentially years - or just turning the goddamn boats around, which doesn't make the people on the boats any safer at all.

So yes: I am aware of how the rest of the world has decided that Australian immigration policy is suddenly the gold standard. I am completely baffled as to how this occurred.

Huh, how did addendum get suspended for that post? Can't understand these forums at times.

bastardofmelbourne:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Its funny you critizise Australian policy because here its used as a positive example of how things could be managed.

I've heard about that, and it's bollocks. Australia's immigration policy has been a race to the bottom for two decades now. Both parties have spent considerable time trying to one-up each other on who can have a more hard-line immigration policy. So they make it harder and harder to migrate legally, so more and more people turn to people smugglers out of desperation, and you end up with an absolutely shameful record of refugee deaths.

And what's the reaction to that? Tighten border security even further, to "stop the boats." It's a cycle that betrays a complete lack of understanding of why illegal immigration occurs in the first place. None of these politicians talk about what happens after border patrol intercepts a boat - because it's not pretty; it turns out the only options are either transferring everyone to an offshore detention centre located in a literal shithole where they will stay for an indefinite period of time - potentially years - or just turning the goddamn boats around, which doesn't make the people on the boats any safer at all.

For that information to affect anybody, they must first actually care about the lives of these people. But that shouldn't cease efforts to try of course. Just that some facts get conveniently brushed aside when empathy is involved.

So yes: I am aware of how the rest of the world has decided that Australian immigration policy is suddenly the gold standard. I am completely baffled as to how this occurred.

I don't think it's the rest of the world, just the rest of the right-leaning world. There are plenty more still who disagree with Aussie immigration standards. I have never heard anybody praise their treatment of refugees thus far.

Xsjadoblayde:
Huh, how did addendum get suspended for that post? Can't understand these forums at times.

I think it's because specific members were called out in a critical fashion.

I think suspension was over-the-top as a response too, though.

Sonmi:

Xsjadoblayde:
Huh, how did addendum get suspended for that post? Can't understand these forums at times.

I think it's because specific members were called out in a critical fashion.

I think suspension was over-the-top as a response too, though.

Ah alrighty then, perhaps there was a complaint or something. It just looked rather mild and inoffensive compared to a lot of posts before on here. Even ones referencing other users.

bastardofmelbourne:
I've heard about that, and it's bollocks. Australia's immigration policy has been a race to the bottom for two decades now. Both parties have spent considerable time trying to one-up each other on who can have a more hard-line immigration policy. So they make it harder and harder to migrate legally, so more and more people turn to people smugglers out of desperation, and you end up with an absolutely shameful record of refugee deaths.

From my point of view the only reason its shameful is that Australia doesn't adjust their foreign affairs policies enough to minimize negative impact. Your government makes perfectly clear that illegal immigrants won't be welcomed. As such, anyone that tries to do so despite that fully knows what risk they are taking, and that is their own responsibility. No country on earth should have an obligation to make legal migration easy, quick and generous. Every single own should be obligated to make sure they are not the reason others are fleeing though.

bastardofmelbourne:
And what's the reaction to that? Tighten border security even further, to "stop the boats." It's a cycle that betrays a complete lack of understanding of why illegal immigration occurs in the first place. None of these politicians talk about what happens after border patrol intercepts a boat - because it's not pretty; it turns out the only options are either transferring everyone to an offshore detention centre located in a literal shithole where they will stay for an indefinite period of time - potentially years - or just turning the goddamn boats around, which doesn't make the people on the boats any safer at all.

So yes: I am aware of how the rest of the world has decided that Australian immigration policy is suddenly the gold standard. I am completely baffled as to how this occurred.

Yeah... Again, they're taking a risk. If they lose out, well, they knew it might happen. People smugglers are a problem though because they do a lot of sweet talking.

Agema:
That's called murder. It is murder by the laws and morals of your country, mine, and I'm pretty sure everywhere else in the EU.

I would hope, especially as you're German, you would recognise the perils of state-organised murder as an acceptable way to deal with social problems. And then you might understand why large sections of society start wondering parallels between you and certain ideologies.

Debatable. If someone breaks into my house and I whack him over the head with something its far from certain I'll be charged with murder even in Germany. Its not like we're regularly popping over to Algiers to kill a few blokes over there. We reserve that kind of thing for Syria.

(Actually thats not entirely true. There was a detailed plan to keep refugees from fleeing Africa by mistreating them in their homes before they acted on any stupid ideas about going North. Not popping over to Algiers per-se, but rather helping countries like Eritrea keep up their "shoot to kill" border policy working effectively, to stop people from getting out obviously. A lot more inhumane than sinking a smuggler boat before the coast of Italy. I'm actually not completely sure whether it was ever put into effect, the whole thing was very hush-hush and nobody was supposed to find out about it in the first place. Funnily enough this wasn't thought up by racist right wing murderers, but rather by the people many oh so empathetic and caring posters in this thread put so much effort into defending. http://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2016/05/europe-s-secret-deal-africa-s-dictators)

Also, that holocaust reference was about as far out there as my terrible metaphore about cannibals, if not further. I don't even know how many hoops your had to jump through to make that parallel work in your mind.

Agema:
Unless Germans are increasingly not reporting crime (which is of course possible), I'm not sure how police statistics would fail to assess the overall German crime rate: a rate which - as far as I can tell - is not particularly high with respect to post-reunification standards. It seems throughout the 1990s there were around 6.7 million crimes a year. It dropped to about 6.1 million by 2008, and the latest available figures I could find were about 6.4 million. Its crime rate per person is well within usual Western European levels.

Correct. The crime rate isn't particularly high in Germany all things considered. People generally percieve it to be higher than it actually is. AFAIK it was dropping for an odd 7 consecutive years until 2016 in which it went up again. I already explained my reasoning behind why its not unreasonable to suspect the crime rate is higher than reported, believe it or don't, its not really the alarming thing about it though. If we just stick to the cold, hard statistics we do have, I worry less about the crime rate over all and more about crime increasingly becoming concentrated on small areas and a rise in violence and rape. Thats why large portions of the population drowing in a crime wave and a comparably low crime rate aren't contradictory when the crimes being committed are more horrific and more concentrated on certain places, trend: downward.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Debatable. If someone breaks into my house and I whack him over the head with something its far from certain I'll be charged with murder even in Germany.

The rationale of personal self-defence is to have good reason to believe one is under direct physical threat in that instant. The violence employed must be reasonable and proportional. And a person would be expected to demonstrate that the use and level of violence was reasonable to the satisfaction of the police and, if necessary, the court.

This does not apply to bulk extermination of refugees, none of which can be reasonably ascertained to pose a direct physical threat to anyone. Some of them may of course also be genuine asylum seekers who are theoretical legally permitted access to our countries.

(Actually thats not entirely true. There was a detailed plan to keep refugees from fleeing Africa by mistreating them in their homes before they acted on any stupid ideas about going North...

No. The EU has not set African countries to do any such thing.

The EU has attempted to help African countries with border control and policing (e.g. targetting smuggling gangs) to reduce refugee numbers. The unfortunate reality is that some African countries may have - deliberately or incidentally - used inhumane methods to do on their own account. Hence the EU initiatives are not, per se, offensive to human rights, although it is certainly morally dubious where the EU is partnering with and encouraging particularly brutal regimes (such as Eritrea).

Breaking the smuggler networks is a big deal. They kicked off initially because of demand from the Middle East (relatively wealthy compared to Africans). With the Syrian migration ended, the smugglers sought to generate and encourage a new market to keep their business model going. This smuggling needs to be stamped out not just for the EU's good, but for - and perhaps most importantly - its abuse of the migrants themselves en route.

Also, that holocaust reference was about as far out there as my terrible metaphore about cannibals, if not further. I don't even know how many hoops your had to jump through to make that parallel work in your mind.

You are advocating mass murder of civilians you consider to be social undesirables. What's confusing about that, and the obvious parallels it brings to mind?

Correct. The crime rate isn't particularly high in Germany all things considered. People generally percieve it to be higher than it actually is. AFAIK it was dropping for an odd 7 consecutive years until 2016 in which it went up again. I already explained my reasoning behind why its not unreasonable to suspect the crime rate is higher than reported, believe it or don't, its not really the alarming thing about it though. If we just stick to the cold, hard statistics we do have, I worry less about the crime rate over all and more about crime increasingly becoming concentrated on small areas and a rise in violence and rape. Thats why large portions of the population drowing in a crime wave and a comparably low crime rate aren't contradictory when the crimes being committed are more horrific and more concentrated on certain places, trend: downward.

"Large proportions" of the population is an exaggeration. In reality, crime - especially serious violent crime - tends to be committed within communities, hence the well known statistic that most perpetrators of rape and murder are known to their victims. Criminality also tends to be focused in a relatively small number of people, true in any demographic.

Consequently I agree that concern about heavy increases in localised crime is much more reasonable, even if its mostly refugee victimising refugee. But this is far from insuperable with adequate community planning and policing, and it seems to me Germany takes both seriously. I would naturally hope for vigorous and efficient deportation of refugees found guilty of serious offences (after their jail sentences, naturally).

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Agema:
That's called murder. It is murder by the laws and morals of your country, mine, and I'm pretty sure everywhere else in the EU.

I would hope, especially as you're German, you would recognise the perils of state-organised murder as an acceptable way to deal with social problems. And then you might understand why large sections of society start wondering parallels between you and certain ideologies.

Debatable. If someone breaks into my house and I whack him over the head with something its far from certain I'll be charged with murder even in Germany. Its not like we're regularly popping over to Algiers to kill a few blokes over there. We reserve that kind of thing for Syria.

What if you shoot someone coming up your front yard asking for a cup of sugar?

Doesn't have much to say here (and I won't comment on the "unpleasant" post about me). Le Pen will likely lose (didn't she switch for her party's second in command?), extremes in politics (not that I think she is the second coming of Hitler I sometimes hear about) have a chance when they are against the political opposite (at least according to the country in question, left wing in the USA is not like the left wing in Europe) then they can use the fracture to their benefits.

About the whole immigration and crime debate, police not investigating small crimes or certain areas is actually a good point and there is definitely a problem of low able immigration being better for the rich class, so money can be a factor in how it is displayed BUT it's very easy to fall into conspiracy side and just ignore actual facts.

Sooo..... Maybe?

inu-kun:
Doesn't have much to say here (and I won't comment on the "unpleasant" post about me). Le Pen will likely lose (didn't she switch for her party's second in command?), extremes in politics (not that I think she is the second coming of Hitler I sometimes hear about) have a chance when they are against the political opposite (at least according to the country in question, left wing in the USA is not like the left wing in Europe) then they can use the fracture to their benefits.

About the whole immigration and crime debate, police not investigating small crimes or certain areas is actually a good point and there is definitely a problem of low able immigration being better for the rich class, so money can be a factor in how it is displayed BUT it's very easy to fall into conspiracy side and just ignore actual facts.

Sooo..... Maybe?

Well, she's the opposite of Macron on several fronts, politics go further than simply left and right.

She represents a national communitarism while he's for extreme liberalism, on the political level as well as on the economic one.

I highly doubt she'll win, but she's currently got wind in her sails. Melenchon just officially announced he wouldn't give any voting order to his supporters, her outreach to the Insoumis, while clumsy, might have paid off according to some polls (going from 9% of the second round Insoumis votes to 19%), Dupont-Aignan should announce his support for her later today if the rumours are true, she's slowly gain more support amongst Republicains, and absentionism is rising rapidly to Macron's disadvantage, with smaller candidates like Poutou, Arthaud, and Lassalle all calling for their voters to refuse to vote in next week's elections.

She is juggling with two very different electorates though, one in the South that is far more economically right-wing and closer to Fillon's electorate, and one in the North that is mostly made up of old Communist voters (and people who defected to Melenchon in the last weeks of the first round). She's trying to please two groups that are diametrically opposed on economic policy, which might end up blowing up in her face.

I really don't think she'll win, Macron is way too far ahead for that to happen, but the race will be closer than what the current polls suggest, and if the party is spared from a civil war and leadership is passed to Philippot, then I believe the FN will likely to considerably better in 2022.

Sonmi:

inu-kun:
Doesn't have much to say here (and I won't comment on the "unpleasant" post about me). Le Pen will likely lose (didn't she switch for her party's second in command?), extremes in politics (not that I think she is the second coming of Hitler I sometimes hear about) have a chance when they are against the political opposite (at least according to the country in question, left wing in the USA is not like the left wing in Europe) then they can use the fracture to their benefits.

About the whole immigration and crime debate, police not investigating small crimes or certain areas is actually a good point and there is definitely a problem of low able immigration being better for the rich class, so money can be a factor in how it is displayed BUT it's very easy to fall into conspiracy side and just ignore actual facts.

Sooo..... Maybe?

Well, she's the opposite of Macron on several fronts, politics go further than simply left and right.

She represents a national communitarism while he's for extreme liberalism, on the political level as well as on the economic one.

I highly doubt she'll win, but she's currently got wind in her sails. Melenchon just officially announced he wouldn't give any voting order to his supporters, her outreach to the Insoumis, while clumsy, might have paid off according to some polls (going from 9% of the second round Insoumis votes to 19%), Dupont-Aignan should announce his support for her later today if the rumours are true, she's slowly gain more support amongst Republicains, and absentionism is rising rapidly to Macron's disadvantage, with smaller candidates like Poutou, Arthaud, and Lassalle all calling for their voters to refuse to vote in next week's elections.

She is juggling with two very different electorates though, one in the South that is far more economically right-wing and closer to Fillon's electorate, and one in the North that is mostly made up of old Communist voters (and people who defected to Melenchon in the last weeks of the first round). She's trying to please two groups that are diametrically opposed on economic policy, which might end up blowing up in her face.

I really don't think she'll win, Macron is way too far ahead for that to happen, but the race will be closer than what the current polls suggest, and if the party is spared from a civil war and leadership is passed to Philippot, then I believe the FN will likely to considerably better in 2022.

Wasn't he a centralist candidate? Anyways considreing the last results, the best shot she's got is probably either having the opposite camp so sure in his winning and not voting or something world ending. Looks at North Korea.... Shit.

inu-kun:
Wasn't he a centralist candidate? Anyways considreing the last results, the best shot she's got is probably either having the opposite camp so sure in his winning and not voting or something world ending. Looks at North Korea.... Shit.

He was a centrist only in the optics that he could meet the left and the right halfway on social and economic issues respectively, it would be more appropriate to say that he was the candidate of hyper-liberalization, which is why some people on the left find him even more abject than a standard right-wing candidate would have been.

Centrist Jean Lassalle suggested to his voters not to vote today, describing him as the source of the evil that is Le Pen. "Ni la peste, ni le cholera" puts it in pretty clear terms.

Well shit, Dupont-Aignan announced his support for Le Pen.

I genuinely want Le-Pen to win.

Interesting article from Politico: some polls are suggesting that up to 36% of Melenchon voters do not intend to vote in the May 7 runoff. Some 12% even plan to vote for Le Pen.

For context:

- 30% of Fillon's supporters also plan to abstain, and 23% plan to vote for Le Pen. 47% have followed Fillon's endorsement and plan to vote for Macron.
- 76% of Hamon's voters say they will vote for Macron, 21% say they will abstain, and only 3% say they will back Le Pen.

Hamon garnered only 6% of the vote in the first round, whereas Fillon and Melenchon both got around 20% each; essentially, it's Fillon and Melenchon's voters who will determine the likely outcome of the runoff. Unlike Fillon, Melenchon has not come out in support of Macron, though he did urge his supporters not to vote for Le Pen.

Macron is still coming out ahead, as the poll indicates roughly half of both Fillon and Melenchon's supporters plan to vote for him. France elects its president by popular vote, unlike the US, so there are no electoral college shenanigans to plan around. But the abstention rates are still quite large, and bode poorly for turnout numbers on May 7.

Le Pen has apparently made a direct appeal to Melenchon voters, outlining purported similarities in their policy platforms and urging them not to vote for Macron. Macron himself isn't helping matters by acting as if he'd already won. There are already rumblings of potential Russian interference.

Fingers crossed that the French are smarter than the Americans, and that they remember to actually vote.

Macron acting like he won is pretty much the worse thing he could do. It's might lead to a repeat of the american election, lots of people don't want Le Pen, but they're not crazy about Macron so they'd rather not vote for him too. So when they see that poll are giving him as a winner they think they can just stay home and not vote, that way they don't feel "tainted". On the other side Le Pen voter feel they absolutely have to show up and some might even think they can vote for her in protestation cause "hey, she's not going to win anyway, it'll at least send a message". Enough of that and she can actually win, still think Macron will win, but I think it'll be a lot closer than people realize.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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