|
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 21 2016 06:19 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 06:02 stilt wrote:On November 21 2016 05:54 WhiteDog wrote:
More seriously, Fillon has huge support from "La manif pour tous" because he is a hard christian and whatnot. Well, he has change his mind on the mariage pour tous, I could underestimate the christian vote tho. Anyway, I don't see Fillon winning vs Lepen, he is too close of her rhetoric and this seems to be her domain. Le Pen can't win vs Fillon or Juppé, she has no voters left to gather past the first round...
You should not be so sure of that.
There will be no republican front like the one in 2002, the fn is way stronger than before and Trump's election clearly showes that surprises can happen.
Lepen has in comparaison of her father has some great political skills (her better decision was probably the choice of Philippot as some kind of grey eminence). And the analysis of the latter in Trump's election was right : "we have a basis of 15%, the rest is constitued of ppl who are not happy" and the "not happy" ppl are quiet expanding. In my town, she will probably make more than 50% (maybe 60 in the first turn), 10 years ago, the fn was not even at 20 or 15!
The economical part of his program will be demolished by the FN and Melenchon and for the societal, as says Lepen, "I am the original". He has no real way to distinguish from her outside a cure of austerity contrary to Juppé.
Oh and personnally, I won't vote in such situation but I would have in 2002, time changes I guess.
|
On November 21 2016 03:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 03:10 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 21 2016 00:15 Big J wrote:On November 20 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 22:08 Big J wrote:On November 20 2016 22:03 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 21:49 Toadesstern wrote:On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke.
You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Where is UK? Norway isn't part of EU. Countries next to Romania count as minorities or entirely dissolved. Poland split as if invaded as in WW2. Some groups aren't even geographically contingent. What is this fantasy and why are you dividing up countries anyways? What is this bullshit and obsession with lineage? countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self). a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications. you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to. in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about.You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason. So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>. If you are so sure about the bullshit your wrote, why would you have to push for that, if it happens anyways? It's the old lie of the extreme right that they are merely doing what happens anyways that you are rehasing, when in fact things happen because people - in this case extremist right-wingers - make them happen. That is what liberalism and the European Union stand to fight against at their core. i don't know what your point is(what would "happen anyway"? + Show Spoiler +i'll argue that if confined, the sides will alternate but not unify until a very long time passes, time in which they'll all be miserable(history based assumption) ) so if you want to make one with an immediate practicability, i'm all ears. from where i'm sitting your point looks like this: if one speaks english then he must be american or british. EX: you take a polish dude + Show Spoiler +sorry, but it happened to be about poles , send him to US, teach him the language, the culture(what ever you think that is) and by your logic he is an american. by my logic, i don't care how he calls himself, he will carry the genetic predispositions of his ancestry not those of americans. i give no value to nurture, subscribe to the principle of least resistance/of least effort and believe that mathematical and theoretical biology will give an answer to ... well, let's call them peoples deterministic inclinations. That's the problem with the side you are taking. You are not grabbing the concept of the side I am taking, which is that I am not perceiving the creation or continuation of a human beings identity, be it a national identity, a political identity, a religious identity or any other identity, as the business of an entity of power like a state. Which is why liberty throughout the ages has always found an end, since it allows its opponent's the room to live out their identitary fantasies. Yet, in the ages that it started, spread and dominated it created more wealth and technological advances than any other form of social ruling. I would prefer, if I could live in such times, not the ones, that political unions of identitarian mindsets have created, which were times of international blockades, war, supression and revolutions only to have a bit of extra pathos. The bolded part could also have a lot to do with the fact that nuclear weapons (and conventional weapons past WWII for that matter) made war unviable, which allowed the most developed nations in the world (US, UK, Germany, France) to focus harder on economy. Less developed nations of any political alignment fared significantly worse than more developed nations of the same. You can look to Greece to see how well the "more wealth and technological advancement than ever before" narrative really works. The reality is just that those who are successful mistake their success for providence rather than fortune. Greece failed because its corrupt politicians used "more wealth and technological advancement then ever before" to keep their cushy jobs and give the people their unreasonable demands for re-elections rather then spend it on improving their country and preparing for the future. Its not 'good fortune' that has made Germany successful but pragmatism and the acceptance that you cant have everything you ever dreamed of right now. (for the context of this response, Russia is considered to be separate from "Europe" to avoid any potential ambiguity, in case it may come up) Greek leadership certainly deserves its fair share of scrutiny for the way it has conducted itself over the past decades, that much is true. Yet perhaps it is quite telling that the nations in Europe that were most dominant before the coming of the post-WWII era remained so afterward. Since its unification up to the present day, Germany was basically always the most powerful nation in Europe, both in terms of military and economy, except when it chose to cripple its military after WWII for its own reasons. That was through quite a few different iterations of its political alignment over the past century and a half (this includes East Germany being one of the most advanced and successful powers within the Soviet Union despite being horribly battered by the brutal Eastern Front wars). And after that come France and Britain, who were for the past two centuries before WWII the predominant imperial powers. It seems that prosperity is basically dispersed along the economic lines that you could have expected them to be based on the fundamental strengths of each of the nations before the "more wealth and technological advancement then ever before" even came up. The fundamentals played quite a larger role than some would wish to acknowledge. Incidentally, most of the less fundamentally obvious "success stories" come in nations more towards the East - which are reasonably far removed from Western-style democracy and often the result of a far more authoritarian development. There's little to suggest that the democratic style is a result, rather than a cause, of "unprecedented growth" to the extent that that story is actually even true.
Certainly, even if they tried their hardest Greece would not have passed Germany economically. Nor is Democracy required for growth, tho I do believe it is a more stable system for improving a country since there is more incentive to raise the standard of living for the common people rather then just the elite. But its far from foolproof (see again, Greece).
My reply was mostly meant against the notion that Greece got unlucky and not for the notion then liberalism is the basis for economic prosperity, because I agree it probably isn't.
|
On November 21 2016 06:36 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 06:19 TheDwf wrote:On November 21 2016 06:02 stilt wrote:On November 21 2016 05:54 WhiteDog wrote:
More seriously, Fillon has huge support from "La manif pour tous" because he is a hard christian and whatnot. Well, he has change his mind on the mariage pour tous, I could underestimate the christian vote tho. Anyway, I don't see Fillon winning vs Lepen, he is too close of her rhetoric and this seems to be her domain. Le Pen can't win vs Fillon or Juppé, she has no voters left to gather past the first round... You should not be so sure of that. There will be no republican front like the one in 2002, the fn is way stronger than before and Trump's election clearly showes that surprises can happen. Lepen has in comparaison of her father has some great political skills (her better decision was probably the choice of Philippot as some kind of grey eminence). And the analysis of the latter in Trump's election was right : "we have a basis of 15%, the rest is constitued of ppl who are not happy" and the "not happy" ppl are quiet expanding. In my town, she will probably make more than 50% (maybe 60 in the first turn), 10 years ago, the fn was not even at 20 or 15! The economical part of his program will be demolished by the FN and Melenchon and for the societal, as says Lepen, "I am the original". He has no real way to distinguish from her outside a cure of austerity contrary to Juppé. Oh and personnally, I won't vote in such situation but I would have in 2002, time changes I guess.
Even if left-wingers boycott the right vs far right second round, which they should definitely do, hordes of “centrists” will vote against the FN. Plus part of the left-wing electorate, with a heavy heart, will still come to eliminate Le Pen.
(And Juppé planned austerity too...)
|
Why can't a country like Greece surpass a country like Germany economically? There are plenty of examples of countries developing from the 3rd to the 1st world.
|
What about the people who usually don't vote? Are they a big group? Can Le Pen win their support?
|
When's the second round of voting for the Conservatives? And is this basically done now given that Sarkozy endorsed Fillon?
|
On November 21 2016 06:55 Sent. wrote:
What about the people who usually don't vote? Are they a big group? Can Le Pen win their support?
Structural abstention is usually between 15 and 20% for the presidential. Don't think so, when abstentionnists come it's rather to kick the FN out.
On November 21 2016 06:56 Nyxisto wrote:
When's the second round of voting for the Conservatives? And is this basically done now given that Sarkozy endorsed Fillon?
Next Sunday, the 27th. Fillon is too high anyway with 44%, so unless his electorate doesn't come next week, he should win.
|
On November 21 2016 06:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On November 21 2016 03:10 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 21 2016 00:15 Big J wrote:On November 20 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 22:08 Big J wrote:On November 20 2016 22:03 xM(Z wrote:On November 20 2016 21:49 Toadesstern wrote:On November 20 2016 21:24 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]countries are concepts, taught languages are concepts(spoken languages/dialects are real), people(their lineage) is real(real = it has implications above and beyond self).
a divide based on people(their history/genetics) would have deep political/social/cultural implications.
you'd have germans living under democracy/federalism, romance people would use republics/socialism and slavs dictatorships because(i would argue) that is what people are historically used to.
in this context, i don't believe in the one size fits all motto that EU is pushing at the moment; sure it may last for a while but eventually it's bound to fall. its been rising and falling since BC times. and in the same way you're trying to make neat little groups like that you're fundamentally against what you yourself are talking about.You say that one size doesn't just fit all so you go ahead an split up poland because you realize that there might be countries that don't fully belong into one group or the other based on what you consider important. They might have sizeable portions of population that would rather align with one while others would want to align with something else for whatever the reason. So in that sense I fundamentally disagree with you. Yes one size doesn't just fit all but we've managed to not dissolve modern nations just because West Germany has a somewhat different take on things as East Germany might have. And I can tell you that despite that being the case (close to) noone here would want Germany to split apart again. I don't really see what makes a normal state any different and immune to this if you truly believe what you just said. Especially if we're considering that this isn't some kind of set-theory and differences of opinion are going to happen in some kind of gradient i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>. If you are so sure about the bullshit your wrote, why would you have to push for that, if it happens anyways? It's the old lie of the extreme right that they are merely doing what happens anyways that you are rehasing, when in fact things happen because people - in this case extremist right-wingers - make them happen. That is what liberalism and the European Union stand to fight against at their core. i don't know what your point is(what would "happen anyway"? + Show Spoiler +i'll argue that if confined, the sides will alternate but not unify until a very long time passes, time in which they'll all be miserable(history based assumption) ) so if you want to make one with an immediate practicability, i'm all ears. from where i'm sitting your point looks like this: if one speaks english then he must be american or british. EX: you take a polish dude + Show Spoiler +sorry, but it happened to be about poles , send him to US, teach him the language, the culture(what ever you think that is) and by your logic he is an american. by my logic, i don't care how he calls himself, he will carry the genetic predispositions of his ancestry not those of americans. i give no value to nurture, subscribe to the principle of least resistance/of least effort and believe that mathematical and theoretical biology will give an answer to ... well, let's call them peoples deterministic inclinations. That's the problem with the side you are taking. You are not grabbing the concept of the side I am taking, which is that I am not perceiving the creation or continuation of a human beings identity, be it a national identity, a political identity, a religious identity or any other identity, as the business of an entity of power like a state. Which is why liberty throughout the ages has always found an end, since it allows its opponent's the room to live out their identitary fantasies. Yet, in the ages that it started, spread and dominated it created more wealth and technological advances than any other form of social ruling. I would prefer, if I could live in such times, not the ones, that political unions of identitarian mindsets have created, which were times of international blockades, war, supression and revolutions only to have a bit of extra pathos. The bolded part could also have a lot to do with the fact that nuclear weapons (and conventional weapons past WWII for that matter) made war unviable, which allowed the most developed nations in the world (US, UK, Germany, France) to focus harder on economy. Less developed nations of any political alignment fared significantly worse than more developed nations of the same. You can look to Greece to see how well the "more wealth and technological advancement than ever before" narrative really works. The reality is just that those who are successful mistake their success for providence rather than fortune. Greece failed because its corrupt politicians used "more wealth and technological advancement then ever before" to keep their cushy jobs and give the people their unreasonable demands for re-elections rather then spend it on improving their country and preparing for the future. Its not 'good fortune' that has made Germany successful but pragmatism and the acceptance that you cant have everything you ever dreamed of right now. (for the context of this response, Russia is considered to be separate from "Europe" to avoid any potential ambiguity, in case it may come up) Greek leadership certainly deserves its fair share of scrutiny for the way it has conducted itself over the past decades, that much is true. Yet perhaps it is quite telling that the nations in Europe that were most dominant before the coming of the post-WWII era remained so afterward. Since its unification up to the present day, Germany was basically always the most powerful nation in Europe, both in terms of military and economy, except when it chose to cripple its military after WWII for its own reasons. That was through quite a few different iterations of its political alignment over the past century and a half (this includes East Germany being one of the most advanced and successful powers within the Soviet Union despite being horribly battered by the brutal Eastern Front wars). And after that come France and Britain, who were for the past two centuries before WWII the predominant imperial powers. It seems that prosperity is basically dispersed along the economic lines that you could have expected them to be based on the fundamental strengths of each of the nations before the "more wealth and technological advancement then ever before" even came up. The fundamentals played quite a larger role than some would wish to acknowledge. Incidentally, most of the less fundamentally obvious "success stories" come in nations more towards the East - which are reasonably far removed from Western-style democracy and often the result of a far more authoritarian development. There's little to suggest that the democratic style is a result, rather than a cause, of "unprecedented growth" to the extent that that story is actually even true. Certainly, even if they tried their hardest Greece would not have passed Germany economically. Nor is Democracy required for growth, tho I do believe it is a more stable system for improving a country since there is more incentive to raise the standard of living for the common people rather then just the elite. But its far from foolproof (see again, Greece). My reply was mostly meant against the notion that Greece got unlucky and not for the notion then liberalism is the basis for economic prosperity, because I agree it probably isn't.
I suppose my original statement was a wee bit open to interpretation in that regard. I suppose I should have said "don't mistake circumstance for causality." That was really my point.
Democracy or a democratic-like system of government has its strengths and its weaknesses. It's definitely not a one-size-fits-all model, and it very much fails in cases where there is internal instability or a foreign power which can for all intents and purposes decide those elections in its favor. Nevertheless it has a lot of well-acknowledged strengths and there is a good reason why it is pretty popular these days. But it certainly isn't the cause of the success of nations because there are plenty of counterexamples of both kinds (unsuccessful democratic nations, successful undemocratic nations) that really make that statement contrary-to-fact.
On November 21 2016 06:55 RvB wrote:
Why can't a country like Greece surpass a country like Germany economically? There are plenty of examples of countries developing from the 3rd to the 1st world.
Would developing to the first world be enough to surpass Germany? On absolute terms, not per capita.
|
Sarkozy fanatics are finally going to shut up, it's so satisfying. Bonus points to Copé for the effort too, lol.
|
It does sort of amaze me that someone like Sarkozy was even in the running for any of this, after his actual presidency, lol.
|
On November 21 2016 07:22 OtherWorld wrote:
Sarkozy fanatics are finally going to shut up, it's so satisfying. Bonus points to Copé for the effort too, lol.
Didn't even talk haha, probably busy swallowing that humiliating 0.3%. The guy probably ended up behind null votes, haha
|
On November 21 2016 06:54 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 06:36 stilt wrote:On November 21 2016 06:19 TheDwf wrote:On November 21 2016 06:02 stilt wrote:On November 21 2016 05:54 WhiteDog wrote:
More seriously, Fillon has huge support from "La manif pour tous" because he is a hard christian and whatnot. Well, he has change his mind on the mariage pour tous, I could underestimate the christian vote tho. Anyway, I don't see Fillon winning vs Lepen, he is too close of her rhetoric and this seems to be her domain. Le Pen can't win vs Fillon or Juppé, she has no voters left to gather past the first round... You should not be so sure of that. There will be no republican front like the one in 2002, the fn is way stronger than before and Trump's election clearly showes that surprises can happen. Lepen has in comparaison of her father has some great political skills (her better decision was probably the choice of Philippot as some kind of grey eminence). And the analysis of the latter in Trump's election was right : "we have a basis of 15%, the rest is constitued of ppl who are not happy" and the "not happy" ppl are quiet expanding. In my town, she will probably make more than 50% (maybe 60 in the first turn), 10 years ago, the fn was not even at 20 or 15! The economical part of his program will be demolished by the FN and Melenchon and for the societal, as says Lepen, "I am the original". He has no real way to distinguish from her outside a cure of austerity contrary to Juppé. Oh and personnally, I won't vote in such situation but I would have in 2002, time changes I guess. Even if left-wingers boycott the right vs far right second round, which they should definitely do, hordes of “centrists” will vote against the FN. Plus part of the left-wing electorate, with a heavy heart, will still come to eliminate Le Pen. (And Juppé planned austerity too...)
Ofc Juppé planned austerity but not as strong as Fillon, moreover, I think those plans will be tricky to justify for an anti elite candidat against the FN version Phillipot (way more social than the old Lepen) + Juppé has the inconditionnal support of the center which is not the case of Fillon. The problem with him is that this support could be divided with the candidat of the left primary and Macron, this could give us surprise.
Finally, I think you overestimate the center, the current fail of Juppé clearly shows that there are not as strong as before. (I am a bit surprised too)
|
I'm going to laugh a lot if Le Pen is elected really. All the people so sure that the right will win don't understand that the campaign is just starting. Marine is a woman (a definite advantage if your party is presented as a facist party), she changed her discourse quite a lot from her dad and she has quite a lot of arguments against both Fillon and Juppé (especially Fillon, who is basically a liberal version of Marine).
Many people that voted here for Fillon might really well vote for Marine in the actual election.
|
But isn't it really dependent on the socialists? The FN will vote for Marine of course, and the Conservatives will vote for Fillon. Why would any Conservative switch over to the FN and why would any Socialist chose the FN over Fillon? If you already have to break with your party in the second round I can't really imagine that you'd rather chose Le Pen than Fillon.
I think this is different from the US election because it's not just two parties where party loyalty could be more important than the candidate. If the left doesn't get their candidate I can't seem them voting for someone as far right as Le Pen.
|
On November 21 2016 08:23 Nyxisto wrote:
But isn't it really dependent on the socialists? The FN will vote for Marine of course, and the Conservatives will vote for Fillon. Why would any Conservative switch over to the FN and why would any Socialist chose the FN over Fillon? If you already have to break with your party in the second round I can't really imagine that you'd rather chose Le Pen than Fillon.
I think this is different from the US election because it's not just two parties where party loyalty could be more important than the candidate. If the left doesn't get their candidate I can't seem them voting for someone as far right as Le Pen.
The socialist represent like 10 % of the electorate, less than Mélenchon according to some polls, and I see a lot of Mélenchon people not voting if Le Pen is against someone else than Mélenchon or a leftist candidate. I could even see some of them actually voting Le Pen.
|
Stop calling her “Marine” please, it reminds me of how her zombified supporters talk...
|
On November 21 2016 08:28 TheDwf wrote:
Stop calling her “Marine” please, it reminds me of how her zombified supporters talk...
How would you call her ? She is Le Pen, but not the father.
|
How do the Socialists have only 10% of the electorate? How did Hollande win the election?
|
On November 21 2016 08:31 Nyxisto wrote:
How do the Socialists have only 10% of the electorate? How did Hollande win the election?
He lost all support during the last 5 years.
It heavily depends on the person the socialists nominate tho.
Here is a poll for exemple for the 1 turn of the presidential election (from here : http://www.tns-sofres.com/publications/presidentielle-2017-intentions-de-vote-17-avril-2016)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R8U9CmZ.png)
As you see, by itself Le Pen + Dupont Aignan have 40 % of the votes intentions. And we know polls usually understate the weight of the far right.
|
On November 21 2016 08:23 Nyxisto wrote:
But isn't it really dependent on the socialists? The FN will vote for Marine of course, and the Conservatives will vote for Fillon. Why would any Conservative switch over to the FN and why would any Socialist chose the FN over Fillon? If you already have to break with your party in the second round I can't really imagine that you'd rather chose Le Pen than Fillon.
I think this is different from the US election because it's not just two parties where party loyalty could be more important than the candidate. If the left doesn't get their candidate I can't seem them voting for someone as far right as Le Pen.
Vote transfers would be like this:
Far left → abstention or right
Radical left → abstention or right
Left and center-left → right
Center right → right
Hard right → right or Le Pen
Far right → Le Pen
(Marginally you could get some Le Pen votes from left-wingers using it as a “f*ck the system” card, but it shouldn't matter much in the bigger picture.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
