On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote: You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.
This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.
So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.
And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.
Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet. It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.
Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.
About the only good thing that the average EU citizen has gotten out of the whole EU deal is the freedom of travel and work. So NO, let's not close the borders. If you do, there is no point to EU itself whatsoever.
Short analysis of the results in my departement (Ardennes - 08)
Hollande is ahead in 3 sous-préfecture cities (Charleville, Vouziers, Sedan) by +50% from Le Pen or Sarkosy. But he is behind in Rethel (near Marne).
The former industrial valley (north towards Belgium) is massively voting for the left.
Except minor exceptions, every other small village is voting for either Le Pen or Sarkosy with sometimes +50% from Hollande. Le Pen is ahead in about 40% of them.
All of this makes me think, the xenophobic attitude of Le Pen isn't the reason people from the rural world are voting for her. These people (some of them are not very educated) are not exposed to an high criminality nor to foreign immigrants (contrary to Charleville) so I think it's a vote of rejection from all form of politics (or actual politics) similar to the vote blanc.
On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote: You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.
This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.
So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.
And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.
Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet. It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.
Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.
Nothing wrong with immigration, the problem is the Welfare State which subdizies and encourages the poor of the world rushing into the country, which results in a heavy drain of the countries prosperity and wealth. So, then, what's the answer? Get rid of the Welfare System. The last thing you want is a Welfare State and a Police State. As long as that incentive is there to come into your country no matter what (surely better to be in a French prison with food and shelter than languishing in a third world hell hole or more than likely on the dole without need of work and toil), then if you want to stop the flood of people it requires massive violence and Police State. Not desirable. Immigration in sustainable numbers (e.g. without a Welfare State) is highly desirable and wanted.
Open borders + Welfare State = a disaster. Welfare State + Police State = disaster. Open borders + No Welfare State = healthy & desirable.
Brilliant line of reasoning: let's worsen the living conditions (at least for the poor) in our country so that immigrants won't want to come anymore. Genius.
The Welfare State decreases societies progress and prosperity. Poor is relative. There will always be poor folks. The poor in the USSR were the saps unlucky to be born outside of the Party and its apparitchiks, and those not attached to the State (e.g. pretty much 90% of the country). They had much worse lives than the poor in the US, and other relatively more free societies. I'd much rather be a poor man in wealthy country than a poor man in a poor country. You may think you are doing the poor a service, but you aren't. You are making their standard of living much worse especially so by advocating for Open Borders and a Welfare State, and it is as worse if the advocates are for closed borders / immigration + Police State to enforce it. The humane and beneficial position for the poor is Open Borders + No Welfare State.
Another one of those people who can't see further than the nose on their face. Do you ever think through your position further than a cursory glance? See what the consequences are down the line? To society as a whole?
Depends what's the ultimate goal of a society. If it's to provide for all safety, education and health care? I'd rather be poor (which I am) in France than in the US. TIL that the US had some of the highest tax rate for rich people (around 90%) for 60 years and at the same time experiencec some of its most spectacular growth.
Most economists nowadays agree that on the long run too much inequalities is counter productive.
Stupid question and maybe a little OT, are most countries states/counties/etc drawn like France's?
Each state in US usually has several straight lines, sometimes it's a complete square or rectangle. But with the diagram, each state is so uniformly jagged, almost seeming identical to every other state, imagine it would be difficult to memorize them without lots of practice, as you can't go by shape.
Sorry for any ignorance, just not something I've really thought of before. Seen Mexico and Cananda's before and they weren't anywhere near as randomly uniform as France's.
On April 24 2012 08:03 Zooper31 wrote: Stupid question and maybe a little OT, are most countries states/counties/etc drawn like France's?
Each state in US usually has several straight lines, sometimes it's a complete square or rectangle. But with the diagram, each state is so uniformly jagged, almost seeming identical to every other state, imagine it would be difficult to memorize them without lots of practice, as you can't go by shape.
Sorry for any ignorance, just not something I've really thought of before. Seen Mexico and Cananda's before and they weren't anywhere near as randomly uniform as France's.
On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote: You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.
This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.
So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.
And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.
Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet. It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.
Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.
Nothing wrong with immigration, the problem is the Welfare State which subdizies and encourages the poor of the world rushing into the country, which results in a heavy drain of the countries prosperity and wealth. So, then, what's the answer? Get rid of the Welfare System. The last thing you want is a Welfare State and a Police State. As long as that incentive is there to come into your country no matter what (surely better to be in a French prison with food and shelter than languishing in a third world hell hole or more than likely on the dole without need of work and toil), then if you want to stop the flood of people it requires massive violence and Police State. Not desirable. Immigration in sustainable numbers (e.g. without a Welfare State) is highly desirable and wanted.
Open borders + Welfare State = a disaster. Welfare State + Police State = disaster. Open borders + No Welfare State = healthy & desirable.
Brilliant line of reasoning: let's worsen the living conditions (at least for the poor) in our country so that immigrants won't want to come anymore. Genius.
The Welfare State decreases societies progress and prosperity. Poor is relative. There will always be poor folks. The poor in the USSR were the saps unlucky to be born outside of the Party and its apparitchiks, and those not attached to the State (e.g. pretty much 90% of the country). They had much worse lives than the poor in the US, and other relatively more free societies. I'd much rather be a poor man in wealthy country than a poor man in a poor country. You may think you are doing the poor a service, but you aren't. You are making their standard of living much worse especially so by advocating for Open Borders and a Welfare State, and it is as worse if the advocates are for closed borders / immigration + Police State to enforce it. The humane and beneficial position for the poor is Open Borders + No Welfare State.
Another one of those people who can't see further than the nose on their face. Do you ever think through your position further than a cursory glance? See what the consequences are down the line? To society as a whole?
No, see, the welfare stare doesn't decrease societies' progress and prosperity anywhere else than in the parallel reality Austrian school economists live in.
On April 24 2012 08:03 Zooper31 wrote: Stupid question and maybe a little OT, are most countries states/counties/etc drawn like France's?
Each state in US usually has several straight lines, sometimes it's a complete square or rectangle. But with the diagram, each state is so uniformly jagged, almost seeming identical to every other state, imagine it would be difficult to memorize them without lots of practice, as you can't go by shape.
Sorry for any ignorance, just not something I've really thought of before. Seen Mexico and Cananda's before and they weren't anywhere near as randomly uniform as France's.
I think most country are, because it's related to some historical stuff...
btw if you missed the best clip from this election was .
Something to note about those elections is that nearly 30% of the voters voted for a radical political shift (LePen/Melenchon). Which is quite high compared to previous elections and this increase might be because of the fear of an eventual economic collapse in the euro zone. Most of those voters will probably vote blanc or maybe Hollande as he represents more of a change than conserving former president Sarkozy.
The secound round will be extremely close but I think Hollande will win by an inch. I maybe wrong because I can't see the whole picture, but these seems the most realistic outcome from what I get.
On April 24 2012 07:51 Otolia wrote: Short analysis of the results in my departement (Ardennes - 08)
Hollande is ahead in 3 sous-préfecture cities (Charleville, Vouziers, Sedan) by +50% from Le Pen or Sarkosy. But he is behind in Rethel (near Marne).
The former industrial valley (north towards Belgium) is massively voting for the left.
Except minor exceptions, every other small village is voting for either Le Pen or Sarkosy with sometimes +50% from Hollande. Le Pen is ahead in about 40% of them.
All of this makes me think, the xenophobic attitude of Le Pen isn't the reason people from the rural world are voting for her. These people (some of them are not very educated) are not exposed to an high criminality nor to foreign immigrants (contrary to Charleville) so I think it's a vote of rejection from all form of politics (or actual politics) similar to the vote blanc.
I'll post more once I have crunched more numbers.
In my constituency (Shanghai), Sarkozy got 50% of the votes... It can be explained easily because most of us are rich expatriates who don't want to pay tax. Almost nobody voted for Le Pen (2.8%), because her program is 99% a fight against immigration, and it's not relevant here. Hollande got an honorable 21% and Bayrou a 14.5% Other left wing candidates got almost nothing.
Welp, with Le Pen not calling for a Sarkozy vote and most leftists rallying around Hollande, seems like Hollande will win the election, unless some kind of miracle happens. Wonder which right wing candidate will be elected in 2016 after Hollande's catastrophic mandate.
On April 24 2012 18:32 Microchaton wrote: Welp, with Le Pen not calling for a Sarkozy vote and most leftists rallying around Hollande, seems like Hollande will win the election, unless some kind of miracle happens. Wonder which right wing candidate will be elected in 2016 after Hollande's catastrophic mandate.
No, he'll do the exact same things as Sarkozy : If it's catastrophic, he'll say it's crisis fault, he just avoided a bigger catastrophe.
Don't be afraid my friend, PS and UMP just differ in the way they buy votes, not in the way they rule the country.
On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote: You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.
This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.
So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.
And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.
Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet. It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.
Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.
Nothing wrong with immigration, the problem is the Welfare State which subdizies and encourages the poor of the world rushing into the country, which results in a heavy drain of the countries prosperity and wealth. So, then, what's the answer? Get rid of the Welfare System. The last thing you want is a Welfare State and a Police State. As long as that incentive is there to come into your country no matter what (surely better to be in a French prison with food and shelter than languishing in a third world hell hole or more than likely on the dole without need of work and toil), then if you want to stop the flood of people it requires massive violence and Police State. Not desirable. Immigration in sustainable numbers (e.g. without a Welfare State) is highly desirable and wanted.
Open borders + Welfare State = a disaster. Welfare State + Police State = disaster. Open borders + No Welfare State = healthy & desirable.
Brilliant line of reasoning: let's worsen the living conditions (at least for the poor) in our country so that immigrants won't want to come anymore. Genius.
The Welfare State decreases societies progress and prosperity. Poor is relative. There will always be poor folks. The poor in the USSR were the saps unlucky to be born outside of the Party and its apparitchiks, and those not attached to the State (e.g. pretty much 90% of the country). They had much worse lives than the poor in the US, and other relatively more free societies. I'd much rather be a poor man in wealthy country than a poor man in a poor country. You may think you are doing the poor a service, but you aren't. You are making their standard of living much worse especially so by advocating for Open Borders and a Welfare State, and it is as worse if the advocates are for closed borders / immigration + Police State to enforce it. The humane and beneficial position for the poor is Open Borders + No Welfare State.
Another one of those people who can't see further than the nose on their face. Do you ever think through your position further than a cursory glance? See what the consequences are down the line? To society as a whole?
Welfare is aimed at giving anyone a chance to "make it'. A prosperous society is one with ways of passage from the lower class to the upper class, mostly through a strong middle class. How do you achieve this? By helping the poorest people and giving them opportunities. In France, we call this "meritocracy" : the idea that if you show ambition and competence, you will rise in society and get what you deserve not according to where you where born, but to what you do.
If the state doesn't do this, how are the middle and low classes supposed to rise? They simply can't, because you can rarely build something with nothing.
A little analysis on my city :
Hollande 32,21% Sarkozy 32% Le Pen 7,18% Mélenchon 9,36
Pretty happy about those, especially the FN's low score. I live in a wealthy area with a strong cultural mix. The citizens here usually have a vary good education and don't easily fall for the xenophobic arguments of the far right.
It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
Hollande's role model :3
Demagogy has done serious damage to your brain. It's easy to about castles in spain when you never had the power once.
The isolationism idea alone is retarded : Do you really want another war in Europe ? You think that the far right parties all over EU are going to be as friendly with each other if they seize power ?
On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote: You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.
This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.
So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.
And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.
Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet. It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.
Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.
Nothing wrong with immigration, the problem is the Welfare State which subdizies and encourages the poor of the world rushing into the country, which results in a heavy drain of the countries prosperity and wealth. So, then, what's the answer? Get rid of the Welfare System. The last thing you want is a Welfare State and a Police State. As long as that incentive is there to come into your country no matter what (surely better to be in a French prison with food and shelter than languishing in a third world hell hole or more than likely on the dole without need of work and toil), then if you want to stop the flood of people it requires massive violence and Police State. Not desirable. Immigration in sustainable numbers (e.g. without a Welfare State) is highly desirable and wanted.
Open borders + Welfare State = a disaster. Welfare State + Police State = disaster. Open borders + No Welfare State = healthy & desirable.
Brilliant line of reasoning: let's worsen the living conditions (at least for the poor) in our country so that immigrants won't want to come anymore. Genius.
The Welfare State decreases societies progress and prosperity. Poor is relative. There will always be poor folks. The poor in the USSR were the saps unlucky to be born outside of the Party and its apparitchiks, and those not attached to the State (e.g. pretty much 90% of the country). They had much worse lives than the poor in the US, and other relatively more free societies. I'd much rather be a poor man in wealthy country than a poor man in a poor country. You may think you are doing the poor a service, but you aren't. You are making their standard of living much worse especially so by advocating for Open Borders and a Welfare State, and it is as worse if the advocates are for closed borders / immigration + Police State to enforce it. The humane and beneficial position for the poor is Open Borders + No Welfare State.
Another one of those people who can't see further than the nose on their face. Do you ever think through your position further than a cursory glance? See what the consequences are down the line? To society as a whole?
How socialist are the socialist candidates in France? I remember reading Sarkos speech on the financial crisis and being suprised on how people in Frnace viewed it as a defense of capitalism. In America, it would be viewed as a far-left attack on the free market. Do the French Socialists really favor state ownership of most private property? Or just a lot of regulation, taxes/spending and redistribution of wealth?
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
Hollande's role model :3
Demagogy has done serious damage to your brain. It's easy to about castles in spain when you never had the power once.
The isolationism idea alone is retarded : Do you really want another war in Europe ? You think that the far right parties all over EU are going to be as friendly with each other if they seize power ?
Hilarious when bobos talk about demagogy lol. Like if all the political programs were not full of "demagogy". Higher wages ! Less tax ! Higher pensions ! Free driving licence for young people ! We want to work less ! etc... But the most amazing thing is that you are seriously thinking about the possibility of a war in Europe involving directly France. It seems that you missed the last half century of nuclear deterence but w/e.
Anyway getting out of Afghanistan, and not getting involved in Libya would be some good ideas.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://dormirajamais.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/mitterrand-petain.jpg)
