|
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 November 16 2016 08:24 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:
He's the anti-system candidate according to him and centrists start-up creators who can't read a resume. Well, everybody is the anti-system candidate I guess, including Sarkozy (lol) and excepting Juppé.
I'm no Nostradamus, and wont hazard a prediction, but one thing is sure, we'll have plenty to laugh at in the coming months. Let's meet up in the street to see the shitstorm if Marine get elected or what ? 
For sure, we also can do that for the first demonstrations against a law if it's her opponent.
For the far left, I have very little faith in Mélenchon. Maybe it's because I dont like his always-angry demeanor, but I also think the extreme division of the far left will end up hurting him more as we come closer to the elections. How many trotskysts candidates this year ? Plus Le Pen being strong is not helping him.
|
On November 16 2016 09:11 Sent. wrote:
What if she gets to the second round and her opponent will be some super leftist? I mean something similar to American or Austrian elections where you had a far/alt right candidate against a left wing "hero". Is it possible that people will elect Le Pen because they hate socialists or communists?
To shed some light on the Austrian situation:
Van der Bellen, the "left wing "hero"" as you call him, was up in polls with up to 35-40% for the first round a year before the election, because he was seen as a very moderate candidate. It's the right-wing propaganda that is picturing him - and everyone else, including the right-winged conservatives, the right-winged liberal media, the liberals, the socialists, the Greens, the courts and everyone else who doesn't follow their narrative, that we are under attack and there will be civil war if they do not come to power - as far-leftist. This has only happened during the campaigns, Van der Bellen used to be a great middle ground even for conservatives, but nowadays they are split and the socialists are unable to mobilize the working class for them or against the FPÖ and Hofer.
Personally I believe the problem is, that at the moment you'd have to win back the working class from the populists. But for that you'd have to give up the political middle which has drifted quite to the right and which would in general rather elect a nationalist than a communist.
My hope for Europe lies in Germany forming a red-red-green coalition that stops draining the rest of Europe through it's own negative wage spiral and starts strengthening the European loans and the European internal market.
|
On November 16 2016 18:29 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 09:11 Sent. wrote:
What if she gets to the second round and her opponent will be some super leftist? I mean something similar to American or Austrian elections where you had a far/alt right candidate against a left wing "hero". Is it possible that people will elect Le Pen because they hate socialists or communists?
To shed some light on the Austrian situation: Van der Bellen, the "left wing "hero"" as you call him, was up in polls with up to 35-40% for the first round a year before the election, because he was seen as a very moderate candidate. It's the right-wing propaganda that is picturing him - and everyone else, including the right-winged conservatives, the right-winged liberal media, the liberals, the socialists, the Greens, the courts and everyone else who doesn't follow their narrative, that we are under attack and there will be civil war if they do not come to power - as far-leftist. This has only happened during the campaigns, Van der Bellen used to be a great middle ground even for conservatives, but nowadays they are split and the socialists are unable to mobilize the working class for them or against the FPÖ and Hofer. Personally I believe the problem is, that at the moment you'd have to win back the working class from the populists. But for that you'd have to give up the political middle which has drifted quite to the right and which would in general rather elect a nationalist than a communist. My hope for Europe lies in Germany forming a red-red-green coalition that stops draining the rest of Europe through it's own negative wage spiral and starts strengthening the European loans and the European internal market.
Hey, at least we might eventually learn that having clickbait media whose main interest is not in covering the news, but in hyping up whatever sells the most clicks, is a terrible idea.
The minute we stopped paying for ethical journalism was the minute journalistic ethics went out the window. Who would've thought?
|
On November 16 2016 16:44 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 08:24 WhiteDog wrote:On November 16 2016 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:
He's the anti-system candidate according to him and centrists start-up creators who can't read a resume. Well, everybody is the anti-system candidate I guess, including Sarkozy (lol) and excepting Juppé.
I'm no Nostradamus, and wont hazard a prediction, but one thing is sure, we'll have plenty to laugh at in the coming months. Let's meet up in the street to see the shitstorm if Marine get elected or what ? For sure, we also can do that for the first demonstrations against a law if it's her opponent. For the far left, I have very little faith in Mélenchon. Maybe it's because I dont like his always-angry demeanor, but I also think the extreme division of the far left will end up hurting him more as we come closer to the elections. How many trotskysts candidates this year ? Plus Le Pen being strong is not helping him.
Mélenchon isn't far left. Maybe there will be only one trotskist candidate this year, it's possible that one of them doesn't get the 500 signatures. Le Pen being high doesn't really prevent his potential for progress since they don't share the same electorate.
In other news, after months of overhype and propaganda, our pathetic, servile, sheep-like mass media did manage to create yet another electoral bubble.
+ Show Spoiler +
Anti-system, eh?
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-obama-protests-idUSKBN13A2DT Riot police fired teargas on Tuesday at protesters demonstrating just a few kilometers (miles) from the presidential mansion where Greek leaders were hosting a state banquet for visiting U.S. President Barack Obama.
About 7,000 people, among them many hooded protesters and members of the Communist-affiliated group PAME, marched through the streets of central Athens holding banners reading "Unwanted!"
The police clashed with the protesters after they tried to break through cordon lines to reach the parliament building and the U.S. embassy. Some demonstrators threw two petrol bombs at police before dispersing into nearby streets close to Athens's main Syntagma Square.
In a separate protest in the northern city of Thessaloniki, protesters burned a U.S. flag.
The visit comes only two days before the anniversary of a bloody 1973 student revolt that helped topple the 1967-1974 military junta which was backed by the U.S. government.
Obama, who will be succeeded in January by Donald Trump, arrived in Greece on Tuesday on his last foreign tour as president of the United States.
|
Well that's certainly an interesting reaction.
One of the things that I would say that Obama does that I would say is incontrovertibly wrong is that he comes to foreign countries and offers his opinion on how people should vote. No one likes a foreign leader giving them implicit threats about how they "should" have voted, or else face the consequences. He should do fewer "back of the queue" commentaries there; he's done enough already.
|
On November 16 2016 22:47 LegalLord wrote:
Well that's certainly an interesting reaction.
One of the things that I would say that Obama does that I would say is incontrovertibly wrong is that he comes to foreign countries and offers his opinion on how people should vote. No one likes a foreign leader giving them implicit threats about how they "should" have voted, or else face the consequences. He should do fewer "back of the queue" commentaries there; he's done enough already.
I dont mind that. Why do you? Its his opinion. The man has a right to have an opinion on things. Acting as if he didnt would just be living a lie.
|
On November 16 2016 22:51 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 22:47 LegalLord wrote:
Well that's certainly an interesting reaction.
One of the things that I would say that Obama does that I would say is incontrovertibly wrong is that he comes to foreign countries and offers his opinion on how people should vote. No one likes a foreign leader giving them implicit threats about how they "should" have voted, or else face the consequences. He should do fewer "back of the queue" commentaries there; he's done enough already. I dont mind that. Why do you? Its his opinion. The man has a right to have an opinion on things. Acting as if he didnt would just be living a lie.
Because as a head of state he should know better. His opinion isn't just his opinion, it's the implicit opinion of the US government with the threat of force that comes with it. People in positions of power don't get to publicly state their opinion without considering the consequences of the words that come out of their mouths. If that isn't already instantaneously clear, look at the chaos wrought by what Trump has said even though he has never done anything in office yet. Words are a powerful thing.
The official position should always be, "we respect the democratic will of the nation and don't believe that it is our place to decide how they should vote." Even if that isn't true it's what should be said. Otherwise you're influencing the elections in a foreign country.
|
On November 16 2016 22:51 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 22:47 LegalLord wrote:
Well that's certainly an interesting reaction.
One of the things that I would say that Obama does that I would say is incontrovertibly wrong is that he comes to foreign countries and offers his opinion on how people should vote. No one likes a foreign leader giving them implicit threats about how they "should" have voted, or else face the consequences. He should do fewer "back of the queue" commentaries there; he's done enough already. I dont mind that. Why do you? Its his opinion. The man has a right to have an opinion on things. Acting as if he didnt would just be living a lie.
Well, there's a big difference between a man having an opinion, and Obama, the president of the USA, having an opinion. Because when the latter has an opinion, it should be treated as the official opinion of the government of the USA. If Barack Obama, the man, has an opinion, he can talk to Michelle Obama about it, or Joe Biden, or any of numerous other confidential conversations where he can lament the British being stupid for voting for Brexit. But "back of the queue" commentaries are poor style. Just as the US public obviously wouldn't appreciate Angela Merkel speaking to the press about her (obvious) preference for Clinton (and Angela Merkel isn't even the head of state).
|
On November 16 2016 18:29 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 09:11 Sent. wrote:
What if she gets to the second round and her opponent will be some super leftist? I mean something similar to American or Austrian elections where you had a far/alt right candidate against a left wing "hero". Is it possible that people will elect Le Pen because they hate socialists or communists?
To shed some light on the Austrian situation: Van der Bellen, the "left wing "hero"" as you call him, was up in polls with up to 35-40% for the first round a year before the election, because he was seen as a very moderate candidate. It's the right-wing propaganda that is picturing him - and everyone else, including the right-winged conservatives, the right-winged liberal media, the liberals, the socialists, the Greens, the courts and everyone else who doesn't follow their narrative, that we are under attack and there will be civil war if they do not come to power - as far-leftist. This has only happened during the campaigns, Van der Bellen used to be a great middle ground even for conservatives, but nowadays they are split and the socialists are unable to mobilize the working class for them or against the FPÖ and Hofer. Personally I believe the problem is, that at the moment you'd have to win back the working class from the populists. But for that you'd have to give up the political middle which has drifted quite to the right and which would in general rather elect a nationalist than a communist. My hope for Europe lies in Germany forming a red-red-green coalition that stops draining the rest of Europe through it's own negative wage spiral and starts strengthening the European loans and the European internal market.
I was in Austria last month, 1 day in Vienna and 1 day in Graz. Some things I noticed:
In Graz I saw many large posters for Hofer. I'm talking 2 on 3 metres or even bigger. Every single one of them had a Hitler moustache and other "enhancements" drawn on it. I wasn't able to spot a single billboard or poster of his opponent. Is Graz already a lost cause to them or had their campaign just not started yet?
You have a lot of refugees. After my train from the airport to Vienna I had to wait 30 mins on my train to Graz. I stepped outside the station for 5 minutes and was immediately approached by 2 refugees. "Hi sir we are from Aleppo and we need money". I politely told them I wouldn't give them any money. The first one stayed friendly and left, the other guy got mad and yelled some stupid stuff. "You're rich and we are poor." "I'm not rich, I'm a student." "You are going to hell and we are going to heaven." After that he stormed off to his next target.
Pretty weird experience.
|
I don't mind you having this opinion about Obama voicing his opinion. I mind, that this opinion is used as a form of public pressure so that he and others stop voicing their opinion. That's where liberal democracy ends and government by organized mob starts.
|
On November 16 2016 23:22 Big J wrote:
I don't mind you having this opinion about Obama voicing his opinion. I mind, that this opinion is used as a form of public pressure so that he and others stop voicing their opinion. That's where liberal democracy ends and government by organized mob starts.
This is something that every figure of authority - public or private for that matter - of any sense understands. His opinions aren't his opinions but the official words of the organization he represents. If he is voicing his opinion in public it is no longer just his personal opinion but a statement of the position of the US government. And if the official position of a government is "we want Britain to vote Remain, or else we're putting you in the back of the queue" or "we want to work with this candidate, not that candidate, so you'd better elect them or else face our wrath" or "you know, Vladimir Putin is basically Hitler" then I'm sure you could start to see where that might be problematic. Because each of these things have actually been said by people of authority and these things really do have an influence all around the world.
|
And they are made to have influence around the world.
You don't have to like it, but its not inherently problematic.
|
'Threat of force' and 'face our wrath' is pretty much an exclusively Russian interpretation of these US endorsements. There is no such leverage put in them.
|
Problem is, giving thinly veiled threats to other nations about how they should vote doesn't really have the effect you would like.
Did Obama's thinly veiled threats prevent Brexit or a Netanyahu victory? No, it mostly just riled up anti-US sentiment in Britain and Israel. No country appreciates that kind of threat.
Did the same work out for countries giving their opinion about how they want Clinton not Trump? No, and they have some severe backtracking to do now.
The Putin = Hitler comment was said by a loudmouth of relatively minor political influence (Prince Charles) but let's just say it was not very good for foreign relations.
It's absolutely inherently problematic. I don't care if your bias is inherently obvious, the official position is and always should be, "we respect the right of the nation to make its own democratic choices." Without fail that should be the official position.
On November 16 2016 23:44 Dan HH wrote:
'Threat of force' and 'face our wrath' is pretty much an exclusively Russian interpretation of these US endorsements. There is no such leverage put in them.
Not really. This applies to events well outside of international politics. Including a CEO making a comment about this or that preference being taken as an official stance of his/her company.
"Threat of force" is relative, of course, but what does "back of the queue" sound like to you? A friendly nudge in the "right" direction or a "do it our way or you will face the consequences" statement?
|
On November 16 2016 23:47 LegalLord wrote:
"Threat of force" is relative, of course, but what does "back of the queue" sound like to you? A friendly nudge in the "right" direction or a "do it our way or you will face the consequences" statement?
I see at as an argument, one not unlike what British economists were saying, rather than the threat of a deliberate punishment. Though I would criticize that statement for being poorly worded enough for us to have to discuss that option.
|
On November 16 2016 23:19 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 18:29 Big J wrote:On November 16 2016 09:11 Sent. wrote:
What if she gets to the second round and her opponent will be some super leftist? I mean something similar to American or Austrian elections where you had a far/alt right candidate against a left wing "hero". Is it possible that people will elect Le Pen because they hate socialists or communists?
To shed some light on the Austrian situation: Van der Bellen, the "left wing "hero"" as you call him, was up in polls with up to 35-40% for the first round a year before the election, because he was seen as a very moderate candidate. It's the right-wing propaganda that is picturing him - and everyone else, including the right-winged conservatives, the right-winged liberal media, the liberals, the socialists, the Greens, the courts and everyone else who doesn't follow their narrative, that we are under attack and there will be civil war if they do not come to power - as far-leftist. This has only happened during the campaigns, Van der Bellen used to be a great middle ground even for conservatives, but nowadays they are split and the socialists are unable to mobilize the working class for them or against the FPÖ and Hofer. Personally I believe the problem is, that at the moment you'd have to win back the working class from the populists. But for that you'd have to give up the political middle which has drifted quite to the right and which would in general rather elect a nationalist than a communist. My hope for Europe lies in Germany forming a red-red-green coalition that stops draining the rest of Europe through it's own negative wage spiral and starts strengthening the European loans and the European internal market. I was in Austria last month, 1 day in Vienna and 1 day in Graz. Some things I noticed: In Graz I saw many large posters for Hofer. I'm talking 2 on 3 metres or even bigger. Every single one of them had a Hitler moustache and other "enhancements" drawn on it. I wasn't able to spot a single billboard or poster of his opponent. Is Graz already a lost cause to them or had their campaign just not started yet? You have a lot of refugees. After my train from the airport to Vienna I had to wait 30 mins on my train to Graz. I stepped outside the station for 5 minutes and was immediately approached by 2 refugees. "Hi sir we are from Aleppo and we need money". I politely told them I wouldn't give them any money. The first one stayed friendly and left, the other guy got mad and yelled some stupid stuff. "You're rich and we are poor." "I'm not rich, I'm a student." "You are going to hell and we are going to heaven." After that he stormed off to his next target. Pretty weird experience.
I haven't been to Graz in ages. There are some far-left groups which do this to any FPÖ posters, which is the most stupid thing in the world, because by declaring them Nazis they can hide behind the Prohibition Act (against Nationalsozialism) and can basically say: "Since we aren't forbidden we are not Nazis, therefore the Nazis are the ones who don't respect our opinion. Vote against them." (There is an infamous quote by the FPÖ-leader Strache who said: "We are the new jews.")
I guess Graz is a lost cause for them, although Styria as a whole is pretty good for them and Hofer. All the large towns have voted Van der Bellen. Austria looks pretty much like the Brexit map if you turn it by 90 degrees. The rich countries on the left voted progressiv in the election and Vienna stands as a lone beacon of hope like London on the other side. It's the same situation as everywhere around the world, the (best of the) young people are leaving the rural areas for the towns to study and get jobs. The people which are left behind are the boom generation, which are then left in a slowly overaging enviroment without their children and the traditional family strings and a bad local economy.
We have the most refugees per capita in Europe as far as I understand. We would have to kid ourselves not to acknowledge that. We are in a situation in which it is really hard to argue for what our government has been doing in the past years - which is almost nothing, since the conservatives have been in power for 30-years now and gotten everything what they wanted from the social democrats, who had no alternative as they do not want to form a coalition with FPÖ, but gotten a lot of chancellors out of the coalition with the conservatives.
The question is, what do you do when so many refugees are coming and the EU does not split the work? Well, you build concentration camps like Orban and try to pretend you are saving Western values, not destroying them. Or you accept the situation and try to make the best of it. FPÖ wants the first solution, the social democrats (and the greens and the liberals) want the second solution and the conservatives have no clue what they want and just block the government, which then drags them and the social democrats down. (while Merkel in Germany also tries to go the second way together with the social democrats)
|
On November 16 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:47 LegalLord wrote:
"Threat of force" is relative, of course, but what does "back of the queue" sound like to you? A friendly nudge in the "right" direction or a "do it our way or you will face the consequences" statement? I see at as an argument, one not unlike what British economists were saying, rather than the threat of a deliberate punishment. Though I would criticize that statement for being poorly worded enough for us to have to discuss that option.
It matters who says it. If a British or even American economist of some prominence says "a Leave vote will cause the UK to be put in the back of the queue for trade deals" then that's a statement of an argument. If Obama the president of the United States says it it's a statement of American policy and a thinly veiled threat.
|
On November 17 2016 00:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On November 16 2016 23:47 LegalLord wrote:
"Threat of force" is relative, of course, but what does "back of the queue" sound like to you? A friendly nudge in the "right" direction or a "do it our way or you will face the consequences" statement? I see at as an argument, one not unlike what British economists were saying, rather than the threat of a deliberate punishment. Though I would criticize that statement for being poorly worded enough for us to have to discuss that option. It matters who says it. If a British or even American economist of some prominence says "a Leave vote will cause the UK to be put in the back of the queue for trade deals" then that's a statement of an argument. If Obama the president of the United States says it it's a statement of American policy and a thinly veiled threat.
I agree that it is a statement of American policy, but I don't think it's wrong for governments to make such statements. The stance of your allies is a relevant factor in an election, and like any other factor it can be used both ways domestically.
|
Gaddafi ‘gave Nicolas Sarkozy €50m for 2007 presidential campaign’
Businessman Ziad Takieddine repeats claim of Libyan funding days before former French leader seeks nomination for 2017
A French-Lebanese businessman has publicly repeated claims that the former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi gave €50m (£43m) to fund Nicolas Sarkozy’s successful 2007 campaign for the French presidency.
In a film published on the investigative news website Mediapart, Ziad Takieddine, who introduced Sarkozy to Gaddafi, insists he handed over cases stuffed with cash to the former French leader and his chief of staff, Claude Guéant.
(...)
Read the rest here.
Oddly enough, French medias were not that interested in that new testimony. Better talk about burkinis or menus in schools!
(Always fascinating that the UK press labels the UMP/LR as “center-right,” lol.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw5JUlvWIAERLu_.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw1hpWXWIAA70Ck.jpg)
