|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
|
|
On April 26 2022 06:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2022 19:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2022 10:33 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2022 09:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that Macron blew up Le Pen yet again, can we just skip the hype next time? It seems the only way Macron loses is if he is eliminated early. How long could Macron keep getting re-elected? Would his party keep dominance even after him? Based on how neoliberal elections work it's likely that Marion Maréchal wins next time around. But the left is still stronger than I expected so it's possible that things pan out differently. One possible outcome is left vs far right in the first round, far right wins second round and this is used to pressure normies into not voting left. Lol néoliberal elections. How much more can you keep abusing and emptying of all content and intelligence that poor word? The far right doesn’t win because a majority of voters absolutely despise them and their uber racist rethoric, and that a surprising number of french are not on board with the “anti system” extremist rethoric. The fact that populists are spred equally between the far left and far right also gives moderates a much bigger margin.
Please remember this if the system doesn't change and the far right ultimately wins, like it has in every similar system across the world. People will tell you that something else is to blame, probably the left specifically, and you'll be tempted to believe them because you love simple answers and you're projecting that onto populists. We won't be to blame, the system will. Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. The Far right has not ultimately won in the US. How could have they done that multiple times? That makes no sense. How did he change the system? I'm very confused on how whos in second place determines the political system. And how you have determined that Macron somehow changed it and wants Le Pen in second?
Well they voted for some far right dude and that dude got elected. In electoral politics this is usually referred to as winning, I don't know what you want from me.
He changed the system in that usually France had a leftist dude and a liberal dude squaring off in the playoffs. When Macron came in, people were dissatisfied with the previous left leader, Hollande, and as such it was time for the rightwing to have the presidency. But they picked Fillon as a candidate and Fillon fucked up by having his corruption exposed, which allowed for a center vs far right election instead of a left vs right election.
As a leader, Macron used a lot of the comm power available to him to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right and delegitimize the left, which made it more likely that this election would have a second round of him vs the far right. It is most likely that he'll pursue that strategy again in the next five years, and due to the standard balance of disappointed voters that makes the far right a favourite to win, if not next time, at least eventually (but like I said, most likely next time in my opinion)
|
|
|
On April 26 2022 07:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 07:08 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2022 19:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2022 10:33 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Based on how neoliberal elections work it's likely that Marion Maréchal wins next time around. But the left is still stronger than I expected so it's possible that things pan out differently. One possible outcome is left vs far right in the first round, far right wins second round and this is used to pressure normies into not voting left. Lol néoliberal elections. How much more can you keep abusing and emptying of all content and intelligence that poor word? The far right doesn’t win because a majority of voters absolutely despise them and their uber racist rethoric, and that a surprising number of french are not on board with the “anti system” extremist rethoric. The fact that populists are spred equally between the far left and far right also gives moderates a much bigger margin.
Please remember this if the system doesn't change and the far right ultimately wins, like it has in every similar system across the world. People will tell you that something else is to blame, probably the left specifically, and you'll be tempted to believe them because you love simple answers and you're projecting that onto populists. We won't be to blame, the system will. Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. The Far right has not ultimately won in the US. How could have they done that multiple times? That makes no sense. How did he change the system? I'm very confused on how whos in second place determines the political system. And how you have determined that Macron somehow changed it and wants Le Pen in second? Well they voted for some far right dude and that dude got elected. In electoral politics this is usually referred to as winning, I don't know what you want from me. He changed the system in that usually France had a leftist dude and a liberal dude squaring off in the playoffs. When Macron came in, people were dissatisfied with the previous left leader, Hollande, and as such it was time for the rightwing to have the presidency. But they picked Fillon as a candidate and Fillon fucked up by having his corruption exposed, which allowed for a center vs far right election instead of a left vs right election. As a leader, Macron used a lot of the comm power available to him to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right and delegitimize the left, which made it more likely that this election would have a second round of him vs the far right. It is most likely that he'll pursue that strategy again in the next five years, and due to the standard balance of disappointed voters that makes the far right a favourite to win, if not next time, at least eventually (but like I said, most likely next time in my opinion) Most people use ultimate winner as the winner at the end, interesting to know you do not, I apologize, I guess many groups are ultimately winning all the time. Cc cc It sounds like the right fucked up and that created your version of neo liberalism. Can you give me some examples of him using the comm power to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right? From what I have seen he been trying to fed off both sides and be a "moderate"has to appeal to as many in the middle as possible.
A lot of the prevalent french political discourse in the last few years originated in the far right, and prominent members of Macron's government relayed it as true with no pushback. Islamoleftism, the idea that the left and academia are allied with islamists to overthrow France, was quoted positively by several ministers including the minister of Education. The idea is that the left is no longer "republican" and should be discarded, dangers of wokism were a common topic, as was insecurity. Islamophobia is normalized, with several non far right voices saying that the term should be abandoned but I guess a lot of people on this forum find that good so whatever.
Edit: forgot about a personal favourite, that one time Darmanin (interior minister I believe) debated Marine Le Pen and told her she was too weak on immigration and she should take some vitamins.
|
|
|
On April 26 2022 10:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 08:18 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 07:08 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Please remember this if the system doesn't change and the far right ultimately wins, like it has in every similar system across the world. People will tell you that something else is to blame, probably the left specifically, and you'll be tempted to believe them because you love simple answers and you're projecting that onto populists. We won't be to blame, the system will. Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. The Far right has not ultimately won in the US. How could have they done that multiple times? That makes no sense. How did he change the system? I'm very confused on how whos in second place determines the political system. And how you have determined that Macron somehow changed it and wants Le Pen in second? Well they voted for some far right dude and that dude got elected. In electoral politics this is usually referred to as winning, I don't know what you want from me. He changed the system in that usually France had a leftist dude and a liberal dude squaring off in the playoffs. When Macron came in, people were dissatisfied with the previous left leader, Hollande, and as such it was time for the rightwing to have the presidency. But they picked Fillon as a candidate and Fillon fucked up by having his corruption exposed, which allowed for a center vs far right election instead of a left vs right election. As a leader, Macron used a lot of the comm power available to him to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right and delegitimize the left, which made it more likely that this election would have a second round of him vs the far right. It is most likely that he'll pursue that strategy again in the next five years, and due to the standard balance of disappointed voters that makes the far right a favourite to win, if not next time, at least eventually (but like I said, most likely next time in my opinion) Most people use ultimate winner as the winner at the end, interesting to know you do not, I apologize, I guess many groups are ultimately winning all the time. Cc cc It sounds like the right fucked up and that created your version of neo liberalism. Can you give me some examples of him using the comm power to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right? From what I have seen he been trying to fed off both sides and be a "moderate"has to appeal to as many in the middle as possible. A lot of the prevalent french political discourse in the last few years originated in the far right, and prominent members of Macron's government relayed it as true with no pushback. Islamoleftism, the idea that the left and academia are allied with islamists to overthrow France, was quoted positively by several ministers including the minister of Education. The idea is that the left is no longer "republican" and should be discarded, dangers of wokism were a common topic, as was insecurity. Islamophobia is normalized, with several non far right voices saying that the term should be abandoned but I guess a lot of people on this forum find that good so whatever. Edit: forgot about a personal favourite, that one time Darmanin (interior minister I believe) debated Marine Le Pen and told her she was too weak on immigration and she should take some vitamins. So if Marachel beats Le Pen does Macron become a neo conservative with the far left destined to ultimately win?
No because that doesn't make any sense Jimmic.
|
On April 26 2022 08:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 07:08 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2022 19:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Lol néoliberal elections. How much more can you keep abusing and emptying of all content and intelligence that poor word?
The far right doesn’t win because a majority of voters absolutely despise them and their uber racist rethoric, and that a surprising number of french are not on board with the “anti system” extremist rethoric. The fact that populists are spred equally between the far left and far right also gives moderates a much bigger margin.
Please remember this if the system doesn't change and the far right ultimately wins, like it has in every similar system across the world. People will tell you that something else is to blame, probably the left specifically, and you'll be tempted to believe them because you love simple answers and you're projecting that onto populists. We won't be to blame, the system will. Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. The Far right has not ultimately won in the US. How could have they done that multiple times? That makes no sense. How did he change the system? I'm very confused on how whos in second place determines the political system. And how you have determined that Macron somehow changed it and wants Le Pen in second? Well they voted for some far right dude and that dude got elected. In electoral politics this is usually referred to as winning, I don't know what you want from me. He changed the system in that usually France had a leftist dude and a liberal dude squaring off in the playoffs. When Macron came in, people were dissatisfied with the previous left leader, Hollande, and as such it was time for the rightwing to have the presidency. But they picked Fillon as a candidate and Fillon fucked up by having his corruption exposed, which allowed for a center vs far right election instead of a left vs right election. As a leader, Macron used a lot of the comm power available to him to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right and delegitimize the left, which made it more likely that this election would have a second round of him vs the far right. It is most likely that he'll pursue that strategy again in the next five years, and due to the standard balance of disappointed voters that makes the far right a favourite to win, if not next time, at least eventually (but like I said, most likely next time in my opinion) Most people use ultimate winner as the winner at the end, interesting to know you do not, I apologize, I guess many groups are ultimately winning all the time. Cc cc It sounds like the right fucked up and that created your version of neo liberalism. Can you give me some examples of him using the comm power to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right? From what I have seen he been trying to fed off both sides and be a "moderate"has to appeal to as many in the middle as possible. A lot of the prevalent french political discourse in the last few years originated in the far right, and prominent members of Macron's government relayed it as true with no pushback. Islamoleftism, the idea that the left and academia are allied with islamists to overthrow France, was quoted positively by several ministers including the minister of Education. The idea is that the left is no longer "republican" and should be discarded, dangers of wokism were a common topic, as was insecurity. Islamophobia is normalized, with several non far right voices saying that the term should be abandoned but I guess a lot of people on this forum find that good so whatever. Edit: forgot about a personal favourite, that one time Darmanin (interior minister I believe) debated Marine Le Pen and told her she was too weak on immigration and she should take some vitamins.
So it's an illegitimate "neo-liberal" democracy because a center right candidate criticizes left-wing narratives.
|
On April 26 2022 08:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 07:08 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2022 19:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Lol néoliberal elections. How much more can you keep abusing and emptying of all content and intelligence that poor word?
The far right doesn’t win because a majority of voters absolutely despise them and their uber racist rethoric, and that a surprising number of french are not on board with the “anti system” extremist rethoric. The fact that populists are spred equally between the far left and far right also gives moderates a much bigger margin.
Please remember this if the system doesn't change and the far right ultimately wins, like it has in every similar system across the world. People will tell you that something else is to blame, probably the left specifically, and you'll be tempted to believe them because you love simple answers and you're projecting that onto populists. We won't be to blame, the system will. Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. The Far right has not ultimately won in the US. How could have they done that multiple times? That makes no sense. How did he change the system? I'm very confused on how whos in second place determines the political system. And how you have determined that Macron somehow changed it and wants Le Pen in second? Well they voted for some far right dude and that dude got elected. In electoral politics this is usually referred to as winning, I don't know what you want from me. He changed the system in that usually France had a leftist dude and a liberal dude squaring off in the playoffs. When Macron came in, people were dissatisfied with the previous left leader, Hollande, and as such it was time for the rightwing to have the presidency. But they picked Fillon as a candidate and Fillon fucked up by having his corruption exposed, which allowed for a center vs far right election instead of a left vs right election. As a leader, Macron used a lot of the comm power available to him to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right and delegitimize the left, which made it more likely that this election would have a second round of him vs the far right. It is most likely that he'll pursue that strategy again in the next five years, and due to the standard balance of disappointed voters that makes the far right a favourite to win, if not next time, at least eventually (but like I said, most likely next time in my opinion) Most people use ultimate winner as the winner at the end, interesting to know you do not, I apologize, I guess many groups are ultimately winning all the time. Cc cc It sounds like the right fucked up and that created your version of neo liberalism. Can you give me some examples of him using the comm power to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right? From what I have seen he been trying to fed off both sides and be a "moderate"has to appeal to as many in the middle as possible. A lot of the prevalent french political discourse in the last few years originated in the far right, and prominent members of Macron's government relayed it as true with no pushback. Islamoleftism, the idea that the left and academia are allied with islamists to overthrow France, was quoted positively by several ministers including the minister of Education. The idea is that the left is no longer "republican" and should be discarded, dangers of wokism were a common topic, as was insecurity. Islamophobia is normalized, with several non far right voices saying that the term should be abandoned but I guess a lot of people on this forum find that good so whatever. Edit: forgot about a personal favourite, that one time Darmanin (interior minister I believe) debated Marine Le Pen and told her she was too weak on immigration and she should take some vitamins.
And this is all Macron's fault, because it was his fault Fillon (and Sarkozy) were evil corrupt shitheads and the left has been so weak that they haven't managed anything since before Chirac, and lost to Jean-Marie Le Pen in the first round of Chirac's second term elections. Macron masterminded all of this.
Also, Rutte did all of the same in Holland, which has had evil neo-liberalism for longer than probably anyone else in Europe, especially if you count Balkenende's terms as well (and you should).
|
On April 26 2022 15:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 08:18 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 07:08 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Please remember this if the system doesn't change and the far right ultimately wins, like it has in every similar system across the world. People will tell you that something else is to blame, probably the left specifically, and you'll be tempted to believe them because you love simple answers and you're projecting that onto populists. We won't be to blame, the system will. Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. The Far right has not ultimately won in the US. How could have they done that multiple times? That makes no sense. How did he change the system? I'm very confused on how whos in second place determines the political system. And how you have determined that Macron somehow changed it and wants Le Pen in second? Well they voted for some far right dude and that dude got elected. In electoral politics this is usually referred to as winning, I don't know what you want from me. He changed the system in that usually France had a leftist dude and a liberal dude squaring off in the playoffs. When Macron came in, people were dissatisfied with the previous left leader, Hollande, and as such it was time for the rightwing to have the presidency. But they picked Fillon as a candidate and Fillon fucked up by having his corruption exposed, which allowed for a center vs far right election instead of a left vs right election. As a leader, Macron used a lot of the comm power available to him to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right and delegitimize the left, which made it more likely that this election would have a second round of him vs the far right. It is most likely that he'll pursue that strategy again in the next five years, and due to the standard balance of disappointed voters that makes the far right a favourite to win, if not next time, at least eventually (but like I said, most likely next time in my opinion) Most people use ultimate winner as the winner at the end, interesting to know you do not, I apologize, I guess many groups are ultimately winning all the time. Cc cc It sounds like the right fucked up and that created your version of neo liberalism. Can you give me some examples of him using the comm power to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right? From what I have seen he been trying to fed off both sides and be a "moderate"has to appeal to as many in the middle as possible. A lot of the prevalent french political discourse in the last few years originated in the far right, and prominent members of Macron's government relayed it as true with no pushback. Islamoleftism, the idea that the left and academia are allied with islamists to overthrow France, was quoted positively by several ministers including the minister of Education. The idea is that the left is no longer "republican" and should be discarded, dangers of wokism were a common topic, as was insecurity. Islamophobia is normalized, with several non far right voices saying that the term should be abandoned but I guess a lot of people on this forum find that good so whatever. Edit: forgot about a personal favourite, that one time Darmanin (interior minister I believe) debated Marine Le Pen and told her she was too weak on immigration and she should take some vitamins. And this is all Macron's fault, because it was his fault Fillon (and Sarkozy) were evil corrupt shitheads and the left has been so weak that they haven't managed anything since before Chirac, and lost to Jean-Marie Le Pen in the first round of Chirac's second term elections. Macron masterminded all of this. Also, Rutte did all of the same in Holland, which has had evil neo-liberalism for longer than probably anyone else in Europe, especially if you count Balkenende's terms as well (and you should).
That sounds very conspirational, I'd rather keep my version where I described some uncontroversial facts about what happened in the last few years. I didn't even mention Bolloré (which I could have).
I agree that if you remove what I said and replace it with a conspiracy theory, I sound like a conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2022 19:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2022 10:33 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2022 09:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that Macron blew up Le Pen yet again, can we just skip the hype next time? It seems the only way Macron loses is if he is eliminated early. How long could Macron keep getting re-elected? Would his party keep dominance even after him? Based on how neoliberal elections work it's likely that Marion Maréchal wins next time around. But the left is still stronger than I expected so it's possible that things pan out differently. One possible outcome is left vs far right in the first round, far right wins second round and this is used to pressure normies into not voting left. Lol néoliberal elections. How much more can you keep abusing and emptying of all content and intelligence that poor word? The far right doesn’t win because a majority of voters absolutely despise them and their uber racist rethoric, and that a surprising number of french are not on board with the “anti system” extremist rethoric. The fact that populists are spred equally between the far left and far right also gives moderates a much bigger margin.
Please remember this if the system doesn't change and the far right ultimately wins, like it has in every similar system across the world. People will tell you that something else is to blame, probably the left specifically, and you'll be tempted to believe them because you love simple answers and you're projecting that onto populists. We won't be to blame, the system will. Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. Macron holding neoliberal ideas does not make France a neoliberal system. A country is not their democraticly elected president. UK again, does not have this notion of neoliberal against the far right, more of a case that neoliberalism has joined hands with the far right, whilst at the same time trying to allude to both and deny both in a certain party is the current dynamic.
Don't know why you keep repeating that UK is neoliberal vs far right, which suggest you know nothing about UK. Who in their right mind would call Boris Johnson as either neoliberal or far right and the Labour party as neoliberal or far right? A unique French happenstance does not make a broader "inherent system" you think is occuring.
On April 26 2022 08:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 07:08 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2022 19:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Lol néoliberal elections. How much more can you keep abusing and emptying of all content and intelligence that poor word?
The far right doesn’t win because a majority of voters absolutely despise them and their uber racist rethoric, and that a surprising number of french are not on board with the “anti system” extremist rethoric. The fact that populists are spred equally between the far left and far right also gives moderates a much bigger margin.
Please remember this if the system doesn't change and the far right ultimately wins, like it has in every similar system across the world. People will tell you that something else is to blame, probably the left specifically, and you'll be tempted to believe them because you love simple answers and you're projecting that onto populists. We won't be to blame, the system will. Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. The Far right has not ultimately won in the US. How could have they done that multiple times? That makes no sense. How did he change the system? I'm very confused on how whos in second place determines the political system. And how you have determined that Macron somehow changed it and wants Le Pen in second? Well they voted for some far right dude and that dude got elected. In electoral politics this is usually referred to as winning, I don't know what you want from me. He changed the system in that usually France had a leftist dude and a liberal dude squaring off in the playoffs. When Macron came in, people were dissatisfied with the previous left leader, Hollande, and as such it was time for the rightwing to have the presidency. But they picked Fillon as a candidate and Fillon fucked up by having his corruption exposed, which allowed for a center vs far right election instead of a left vs right election. As a leader, Macron used a lot of the comm power available to him to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right and delegitimize the left, which made it more likely that this election would have a second round of him vs the far right. It is most likely that he'll pursue that strategy again in the next five years, and due to the standard balance of disappointed voters that makes the far right a favourite to win, if not next time, at least eventually (but like I said, most likely next time in my opinion) Most people use ultimate winner as the winner at the end, interesting to know you do not, I apologize, I guess many groups are ultimately winning all the time. Cc cc It sounds like the right fucked up and that created your version of neo liberalism. Can you give me some examples of him using the comm power to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right? From what I have seen he been trying to fed off both sides and be a "moderate"has to appeal to as many in the middle as possible. A lot of the prevalent french political discourse in the last few years originated in the far right, and prominent members of Macron's government relayed it as true with no pushback. Islamoleftism, the idea that the left and academia are allied with islamists to overthrow France, was quoted positively by several ministers including the minister of Education. The idea is that the left is no longer "republican" and should be discarded, dangers of wokism were a common topic, as was insecurity. Islamophobia is normalized, with several non far right voices saying that the term should be abandoned but I guess a lot of people on this forum find that good so whatever. Edit: forgot about a personal favourite, that one time Darmanin (interior minister I believe) debated Marine Le Pen and told her she was too weak on immigration and she should take some vitamins. How exactly can it be Macron's fault that whilst at the same time being a neliberal pushing neoliberal policies that at the same time make France a neoliberal country, it is also Macron's fault that a completely different ideology that "A lot of the prevalent french political discourse in the last few years originated in the far right" is also being pushed. This is like holding two opposite thoughts in one's head.
On April 26 2022 11:41 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 10:19 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 08:18 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 07:08 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. The Far right has not ultimately won in the US. How could have they done that multiple times? That makes no sense. How did he change the system? I'm very confused on how whos in second place determines the political system. And how you have determined that Macron somehow changed it and wants Le Pen in second? Well they voted for some far right dude and that dude got elected. In electoral politics this is usually referred to as winning, I don't know what you want from me. He changed the system in that usually France had a leftist dude and a liberal dude squaring off in the playoffs. When Macron came in, people were dissatisfied with the previous left leader, Hollande, and as such it was time for the rightwing to have the presidency. But they picked Fillon as a candidate and Fillon fucked up by having his corruption exposed, which allowed for a center vs far right election instead of a left vs right election. As a leader, Macron used a lot of the comm power available to him to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right and delegitimize the left, which made it more likely that this election would have a second round of him vs the far right. It is most likely that he'll pursue that strategy again in the next five years, and due to the standard balance of disappointed voters that makes the far right a favourite to win, if not next time, at least eventually (but like I said, most likely next time in my opinion) Most people use ultimate winner as the winner at the end, interesting to know you do not, I apologize, I guess many groups are ultimately winning all the time. Cc cc It sounds like the right fucked up and that created your version of neo liberalism. Can you give me some examples of him using the comm power to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right? From what I have seen he been trying to fed off both sides and be a "moderate"has to appeal to as many in the middle as possible. A lot of the prevalent french political discourse in the last few years originated in the far right, and prominent members of Macron's government relayed it as true with no pushback. Islamoleftism, the idea that the left and academia are allied with islamists to overthrow France, was quoted positively by several ministers including the minister of Education. The idea is that the left is no longer "republican" and should be discarded, dangers of wokism were a common topic, as was insecurity. Islamophobia is normalized, with several non far right voices saying that the term should be abandoned but I guess a lot of people on this forum find that good so whatever. Edit: forgot about a personal favourite, that one time Darmanin (interior minister I believe) debated Marine Le Pen and told her she was too weak on immigration and she should take some vitamins. So if Marachel beats Le Pen does Macron become a neo conservative with the far left destined to ultimately win? No because that doesn't make any sense Jimmic. Self oblivious irony when the same logic is employed is at hand here. Couldn't make it up.
On April 26 2022 00:34 WombaT wrote:
TIL LL yearns for the destruction of the EU. Genuinely curious why, and not in a loaded question sense Willful ignorance or simply not paid attention to the Kremlin shill who amongst many things was still saying Russia didn't invade Ukraine days after Putin told the Duma he ordered the invasion of Ukraine? With that you can guess why he wishes the destruction of a cooperative polity in Europe.
|
On April 26 2022 21:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 11:41 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 10:19 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 08:18 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 07:08 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 06:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On April 26 2022 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. The Far right has not ultimately won in the US. How could have they done that multiple times? That makes no sense. How did he change the system? I'm very confused on how whos in second place determines the political system. And how you have determined that Macron somehow changed it and wants Le Pen in second? Well they voted for some far right dude and that dude got elected. In electoral politics this is usually referred to as winning, I don't know what you want from me. He changed the system in that usually France had a leftist dude and a liberal dude squaring off in the playoffs. When Macron came in, people were dissatisfied with the previous left leader, Hollande, and as such it was time for the rightwing to have the presidency. But they picked Fillon as a candidate and Fillon fucked up by having his corruption exposed, which allowed for a center vs far right election instead of a left vs right election. As a leader, Macron used a lot of the comm power available to him to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right and delegitimize the left, which made it more likely that this election would have a second round of him vs the far right. It is most likely that he'll pursue that strategy again in the next five years, and due to the standard balance of disappointed voters that makes the far right a favourite to win, if not next time, at least eventually (but like I said, most likely next time in my opinion) Most people use ultimate winner as the winner at the end, interesting to know you do not, I apologize, I guess many groups are ultimately winning all the time. Cc cc It sounds like the right fucked up and that created your version of neo liberalism. Can you give me some examples of him using the comm power to legitimize the themes and ideas of the far right? From what I have seen he been trying to fed off both sides and be a "moderate"has to appeal to as many in the middle as possible. A lot of the prevalent french political discourse in the last few years originated in the far right, and prominent members of Macron's government relayed it as true with no pushback. Islamoleftism, the idea that the left and academia are allied with islamists to overthrow France, was quoted positively by several ministers including the minister of Education. The idea is that the left is no longer "republican" and should be discarded, dangers of wokism were a common topic, as was insecurity. Islamophobia is normalized, with several non far right voices saying that the term should be abandoned but I guess a lot of people on this forum find that good so whatever. Edit: forgot about a personal favourite, that one time Darmanin (interior minister I believe) debated Marine Le Pen and told her she was too weak on immigration and she should take some vitamins. So if Marachel beats Le Pen does Macron become a neo conservative with the far left destined to ultimately win? No because that doesn't make any sense Jimmic. To me it is the other side of the coin of what you are describing since what makes him a neolib is who he is up against the flipside should happen as well. I guess I kind of see it in the sense that the middle is always shifting in response to their competition. But the edges are two. Those examples were good for me, I suspect his party has some people who cross over with the central edges of both parties. But maybe this is not the case. Fundementally where we disagree is I think consitently attacking the middle is a bad strategy. If some one is left they should attack the right and promote the left, even within the center. With the goal being to move the whole spectrum left. To me the right is doing better because them and the left are all attacking the middle left with the right opening their arms to anyone and the left telling people they are not actually left enough for them.
I'm fine with that. Glad we found agreement in this conversation.
|
United States42004 Posts
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now.
|
On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now.
The last election was Corbyn vs Johnson. Neither of which are neoliberal (whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays). And that election gave the Tories a large majority while they were already the ruling party for a decade. The left just isn't popular at all whether they want to accept it or not.
|
On April 27 2022 07:56 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now. The last election was Corbyn vs Johnson. Neither of which are neoliberal (whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays). And that election gave the Tories a large majority while they were already the ruling party for a decade. The left just isn't popular at all whether they want to accept it or not.
Hmm-hmm. The way a lot of the liberals in Labour fought to lose that election showcases how hard it is to escape that political system once it's in place.
|
|
|
On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now. New Labour hasn't existed for 12 years.
It also as a poltical group can hardly be described as neoliberal. Gordon Brown in the later years of what can even be called New Labour is esentially a socialist who funded massive new social care programs (which have now been rolled back now by the conservatives but whatever).
Even if new labour could be described as neoliberal (it isn't) the only other major party at the time were the conservatives, which can hardly be described as far right.
Which major political party can be described as neoliberal or far right in UK today?
|
On April 27 2022 07:56 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now. The last election was Corbyn vs Johnson. Neither of which are neoliberal ( whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays). And that election gave the Tories a large majority while they were already the ruling party for a decade. The left just isn't popular at all whether they want to accept it or not.
Absolutely nothing really. It’s a synonym to establishment or something. I guess? I mean they call the guy who introduced universal healthcare in the US a neoliberal, so it means about as much as when the angry folks on the right call free market liberals communists or marxists.
|
United States42004 Posts
On April 28 2022 03:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2022 07:56 RvB wrote:On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now. The last election was Corbyn vs Johnson. Neither of which are neoliberal ( whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays). And that election gave the Tories a large majority while they were already the ruling party for a decade. The left just isn't popular at all whether they want to accept it or not. Absolutely nothing really. It’s a synonym to establishment or something. I guess? I mean they call the guy who introduced universal healthcare in the US a neoliberal, so it means about as much as when the angry folks on the right call free market liberals communists or marxists.
The US doesn’t have universal healthcare.
|
On April 28 2022 19:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2022 03:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2022 07:56 RvB wrote:On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now. The last election was Corbyn vs Johnson. Neither of which are neoliberal ( whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays). And that election gave the Tories a large majority while they were already the ruling party for a decade. The left just isn't popular at all whether they want to accept it or not. Absolutely nothing really. It’s a synonym to establishment or something. I guess? I mean they call the guy who introduced universal healthcare in the US a neoliberal, so it means about as much as when the angry folks on the right call free market liberals communists or marxists. The US doesn’t have universal healthcare.
All right. Point stands that calling the guy who fought tooth and nail to ennact the ACA a neoliberal is every single bit as stupid as to call people who advocate privatizations communists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
