|
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 December 05 2016 04:58 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 04:13 Noizhende wrote:
our greens are very grounded i think, they have been in some regional governments and are having a positive effect on ecology, city development, and they put a lot of emphasis on highlighting corruption, sadly their votes have been stagnating, because people associate them with evil communists who wanna ban smoking and car driving or whatever, especially on the countryside, but maybe that's changing more and more, hard to say. Greens were rising with VdB in charge, mainly because he was killing the liberals. Afterwards, the NEOS (a new liberal party) have taken a junk out of them and Greens couldn't emphasize on the socialists failing with SJW-Glawischnig in power. My guess is that the party will go through a rough next election, with new chancellor Christian Kern being a dream candidate for the liberal to socialist left and NEOS probably growing a little. If Irmgard Griss - very popular independent candidate for presidency and only losing out by 2 percent in the first vote to VdB - joins NEOS for the election they will probably lose a big junk of female and social-conservative voters. And hopefully some conservatives and maybe even some of FPÖ's protest voters. Which would be the dream scenario for the first majority in parliament against the right-winged blockade politics with Socialist-Green-Neos in charge. One can only hope that SPÖ manages to provoke ÖVP to kill the current coalition, so that they come out as the good ones. And all of that far enough from that election so that FPÖ can't carry anything from this campaign over but early enough that FPÖ is still broke due to the excessive length of it.
i can't really share your enthusiasm for new elections, i guess it could go in a good direction, but there's gonna happen so much in between, hard to predict how it would go
|
On December 05 2016 05:38 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 03:56 nojok wrote:On December 05 2016 03:31 Noizhende wrote:polls were 50-50 all the time since the last election, which was very close here's a summary of the polls: https://neuwal.com/wahlumfragen/btw we have the first green party president in the world now i think. woohoo! :D also this election for president was probably not as important as the upcoming one for parliament will be, and there the fpö is far ahead in the polls Good news for you but it's still surprising to me that Austria don't share the German approach towards far right given their relatively close experience from WW2. Austria is a strange case of a nation. We used to rule over Germany as a germanic state until Napoleon and Bismarck divided Germany and until the Austrian Empire failed in WW1. So the country was left with no real identity and wanted to join Germany which it did when the Nazis rose to power. After WW2 Austria had to rebuild its own identity which led to neutrality, the lie that we were the first victim of Hitler and therefore also a vastly different cultural approach to dealing with the Nazi past, although real Nazism with its symbols is forbidden just like in Germany. After a few tries to form a Naziesque party ultimately FPÖ suceeded in just being not openly Nazi enough to be forbidden, which at that time was an economic-liberal, germannational miniparty. End of the story is that a clever politician named Jörg Haider took over the right-winged, liberal FPÖ and transformed it into a people's party through right-winged populism. When he couldn't get rid of the Nazi parts of the party he formed a new right-winged party, but died soon after and his new party with him, leaving the field, the established brand FPÖ as "the thrid power" and his techniques of right-winged provocation to exactly those ultraright people he wanted to get rid of. So it is basically a story of making people get used to far-right ideas over a long time. Germany is probably going to take the same road over the longrun, although they have the advantage that AfD didn't take over an established label like FDP (germanys iberals), they have an existing left-wing protest voice (which Austria doesn't, which is why FPÖ is reaching far into the working classes whenever there is no good socialist alternative) and Bavarian conservatives CSU with a much more hardline profile to take on AfD's core topics, assuming there comes a time when this becomes necessary.
Well if you're telling the story, you can't leave some parts out.
b/c after WWI austria did indeed want to join Germany, but the allies prohibited it. Some years later a guy named Engelbert Dollfuss came to power and transformed Austria into a fascist country. (after a civil war but without genocide.)
"Austria" was at that time allied with with Italy b/c they didn't want to join Germany. After a failed coup d'etat by the german nazi party Dollfuss died and Schuschnigg came to power. Hitler turned Italy to an ally of Germany and Austria was left alone. Hitler blackmailed Schuschnigg, but he in turn wanted to hold a referendum if Austria should join Germany or not.
Germany invaded Austria two days before the referendum and forged the referendum for Austria to join.
Now the water becomes muddy. B/c of the close historical ties with Germany, Schuschnigg ordered the Austrian military to not resist Germany. This resulted in "no bullet" fired while the German invasion. There are pictures published by the Nazi Party which show the Vienna "Heldenplatz" full of people cheering for Hitler while others exist that show that the Heldenplatz was partly empty.
And during the war Austrians joined the SS and committed war crimes.
During the war however and to ease the transistion there was a document by the allies (moscow declaration) which called "Austria the first victim of Hitler". Most austrian politicians used this as official stance of the country after the war to not look too closely on the war crimes committed by Austrians.
it's a very grey subject.
|
On December 05 2016 06:03 LegalLord wrote:
East/Central Europe never truly came to terms with the fascist chapters of their history in a way that provides closure and allows them to close those pages and move on. Though the way in which they deal with that history is different for every country. Some of them try to control the narrative of the past, spinning their collaboration into victimhood (on the part of the USSR or Nazi Germany). Others seek to bury it and take a virulent "anti-fascist" approach that often buries some of the genuine issues that people care about, that perhaps gave rise to the support that populists currently enjoy. Few have managed to truly come to terms with it in a way that acknowledges that they may not have acted heroically, but that they should not compromise who the people of their nation are because of it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to compare Eastern and Germanic ways of dealing with fascism?
|
On December 05 2016 06:15 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 05:21 Yoav wrote:On December 05 2016 03:56 Incognoto wrote:On December 05 2016 03:52 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:31 Noizhende wrote:
btw we have the first green party president in the world now i think.
Not sure that's a good thing. Given their general semi-fringe status they aren't very standardized but in general, the Greens in every country always strike me as the epitome of the things that people dislike about leftists. In a way they are "the bad kind of liberals." What kind of liberals are you talking about? The European kind which is right wing, or the American kind which is left wing? Serious question. Honestly, I see "liberal" as becoming more and more of a defined concept shared across the Atlantic. In the US, you increasingly have a threefold division: reactionaries (Tea Party, alt-Right, whatever you want to call that), liberals (everything from Mitt Romney to Cory Booker), and "Progressives" (Warren, Sanders, etc.) Europe has basically the same categories, though their term "Socialist" is equivalent to the American "Progressive" (which actually makes good historical sense) and calling the reactionaries "Far Right" or something like that. Not that this clarity is a good thing exactly... last time the West was divided up in this way, we fought a series of bloody wars--and one Cold One--to resolve the matter. Though not well enough, I'm afraid. Not at all. While liberals on both sides of the Atlantic share some things in common there are too many things where they're on opposite sides of the spectrum. The difference is especially large in what is considered the appropriate role of government (government is a force for good vs a necessary evil). Someone like Hillary Clinton would never be considerd a liberal (although no socialist either).
It's quite accurate. Liberal is becoming a broader term in the sense of "post war liberal international order" which is pretty much under attack from both fringes of the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton could easily pass as a liberal in any country that has also embraced third way social democracy.
|
On December 05 2016 06:23 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 05:38 Big J wrote:On December 05 2016 03:56 nojok wrote:On December 05 2016 03:31 Noizhende wrote:polls were 50-50 all the time since the last election, which was very close here's a summary of the polls: https://neuwal.com/wahlumfragen/btw we have the first green party president in the world now i think. woohoo! :D also this election for president was probably not as important as the upcoming one for parliament will be, and there the fpö is far ahead in the polls Good news for you but it's still surprising to me that Austria don't share the German approach towards far right given their relatively close experience from WW2. Austria is a strange case of a nation. We used to rule over Germany as a germanic state until Napoleon and Bismarck divided Germany and until the Austrian Empire failed in WW1. So the country was left with no real identity and wanted to join Germany which it did when the Nazis rose to power. After WW2 Austria had to rebuild its own identity which led to neutrality, the lie that we were the first victim of Hitler and therefore also a vastly different cultural approach to dealing with the Nazi past, although real Nazism with its symbols is forbidden just like in Germany. After a few tries to form a Naziesque party ultimately FPÖ suceeded in just being not openly Nazi enough to be forbidden, which at that time was an economic-liberal, germannational miniparty. End of the story is that a clever politician named Jörg Haider took over the right-winged, liberal FPÖ and transformed it into a people's party through right-winged populism. When he couldn't get rid of the Nazi parts of the party he formed a new right-winged party, but died soon after and his new party with him, leaving the field, the established brand FPÖ as "the thrid power" and his techniques of right-winged provocation to exactly those ultraright people he wanted to get rid of. So it is basically a story of making people get used to far-right ideas over a long time. Germany is probably going to take the same road over the longrun, although they have the advantage that AfD didn't take over an established label like FDP (germanys iberals), they have an existing left-wing protest voice (which Austria doesn't, which is why FPÖ is reaching far into the working classes whenever there is no good socialist alternative) and Bavarian conservatives CSU with a much more hardline profile to take on AfD's core topics, assuming there comes a time when this becomes necessary. Well if you're telling the story, you can't leave some parts out. b/c after WWI austria did indeed want to join Germany, but the allies prohibited it. Some years later a guy named Engelbert Dollfuss came to power and transformed Austria into a fascist country. (after a civil war but without genocide.) "Austria" was at that time allied with with Italy b/c they didn't want to join Germany. After a failed coup d'etat by the german nazi party Dollfuss died and Schuschnigg came to power. Hitler turned Italy to an ally of Germany and Austria was left alone. Hitler blackmailed Schuschnigg, but he in turn wanted to hold a referendum if Austria should join Germany or not. Germany invaded Austria two days before the referendum and forged the referendum for Austria to join. Now the water becomes muddy. B/c of the close historical ties with Germany, Schuschnigg ordered the Austrian military to not resist Germany. This resulted in "no bullet" fired while the German invasion. There are pictures published by the Nazi Party which show the Vienna "Heldenplatz" full of people cheering for Hitler while others exist that show that the Heldenplatz was partly empty. And during the war Austrians joined the SS and committed war crimes. During the war however and to ease the transistion there was a document by the allies (moscow declaration) which called "Austria the first victim of Hitler". Most austrian politicians used this as official stance of the country after the war to not look too closely on the war crimes committed by Austrians. it's a very grey subject.
Only if you recognize Austro-fascism and their fight for an independent Austria as the legimate government of the people. Which I do not, they were murderers, fascists and surpressors and part of the reason why many Austrians welcomed Anschluss even harder. It's not a grey area, people used to fight with the Nazis in Germany as well. Hitler was put into jail, socialists and communists fought with them on the street and died for a democratic germany. If that was not enough to create a story of germany being a Nazivictim, ÖVP breaking the democratic powers of Austria before Hitler cannot be either.
|
On December 05 2016 06:23 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 05:38 Big J wrote:On December 05 2016 03:56 nojok wrote:On December 05 2016 03:31 Noizhende wrote:polls were 50-50 all the time since the last election, which was very close here's a summary of the polls: https://neuwal.com/wahlumfragen/btw we have the first green party president in the world now i think. woohoo! :D also this election for president was probably not as important as the upcoming one for parliament will be, and there the fpö is far ahead in the polls Good news for you but it's still surprising to me that Austria don't share the German approach towards far right given their relatively close experience from WW2. Austria is a strange case of a nation. We used to rule over Germany as a germanic state until Napoleon and Bismarck divided Germany and until the Austrian Empire failed in WW1. So the country was left with no real identity and wanted to join Germany which it did when the Nazis rose to power. After WW2 Austria had to rebuild its own identity which led to neutrality, the lie that we were the first victim of Hitler and therefore also a vastly different cultural approach to dealing with the Nazi past, although real Nazism with its symbols is forbidden just like in Germany. After a few tries to form a Naziesque party ultimately FPÖ suceeded in just being not openly Nazi enough to be forbidden, which at that time was an economic-liberal, germannational miniparty. End of the story is that a clever politician named Jörg Haider took over the right-winged, liberal FPÖ and transformed it into a people's party through right-winged populism. When he couldn't get rid of the Nazi parts of the party he formed a new right-winged party, but died soon after and his new party with him, leaving the field, the established brand FPÖ as "the thrid power" and his techniques of right-winged provocation to exactly those ultraright people he wanted to get rid of. So it is basically a story of making people get used to far-right ideas over a long time. Germany is probably going to take the same road over the longrun, although they have the advantage that AfD didn't take over an established label like FDP (germanys iberals), they have an existing left-wing protest voice (which Austria doesn't, which is why FPÖ is reaching far into the working classes whenever there is no good socialist alternative) and Bavarian conservatives CSU with a much more hardline profile to take on AfD's core topics, assuming there comes a time when this becomes necessary. Well if you're telling the story, you can't leave some parts out. b/c after WWI austria did indeed want to join Germany, but the allies prohibited it. Some years later a guy named Engelbert Dollfuss came to power and transformed Austria into a fascist country. (after a civil war but without genocide.) "Austria" was at that time allied with with Italy b/c they didn't want to join Germany. After a failed coup d'etat by the german nazi party Dollfuss died and Schuschnigg came to power. Hitler turned Italy to an ally of Germany and Austria was left alone. Hitler blackmailed Schuschnigg, but he in turn wanted to hold a referendum if Austria should join Germany or not. Germany invaded Austria two days before the referendum and forged the referendum for Austria to join. Now the water becomes muddy. B/c of the close historical ties with Germany, Schuschnigg ordered the Austrian military to not resist Germany. This resulted in "no bullet" fired while the German invasion. There are pictures published by the Nazi Party which show the Vienna "Heldenplatz" full of people cheering for Hitler while others exist that show that the Heldenplatz was partly empty. And during the war Austrians joined the SS and committed war crimes. During the war however and to ease the transistion there was a document by the allies (moscow declaration) which called "Austria the first victim of Hitler". Most austrian politicians used this as official stance of the country after the war to not look too closely on the war crimes committed by Austrians. it's a very grey subject.
Thank you guys, a bit more helpful than the few short "first google page" articles I read.
|
On December 05 2016 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 06:15 RvB wrote:On December 05 2016 05:21 Yoav wrote:On December 05 2016 03:56 Incognoto wrote:On December 05 2016 03:52 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:31 Noizhende wrote:
btw we have the first green party president in the world now i think.
Not sure that's a good thing. Given their general semi-fringe status they aren't very standardized but in general, the Greens in every country always strike me as the epitome of the things that people dislike about leftists. In a way they are "the bad kind of liberals." What kind of liberals are you talking about? The European kind which is right wing, or the American kind which is left wing? Serious question. Honestly, I see "liberal" as becoming more and more of a defined concept shared across the Atlantic. In the US, you increasingly have a threefold division: reactionaries (Tea Party, alt-Right, whatever you want to call that), liberals (everything from Mitt Romney to Cory Booker), and "Progressives" (Warren, Sanders, etc.) Europe has basically the same categories, though their term "Socialist" is equivalent to the American "Progressive" (which actually makes good historical sense) and calling the reactionaries "Far Right" or something like that. Not that this clarity is a good thing exactly... last time the West was divided up in this way, we fought a series of bloody wars--and one Cold One--to resolve the matter. Though not well enough, I'm afraid. Not at all. While liberals on both sides of the Atlantic share some things in common there are too many things where they're on opposite sides of the spectrum. The difference is especially large in what is considered the appropriate role of government (government is a force for good vs a necessary evil). Someone like Hillary Clinton would never be considerd a liberal (although no socialist either). It's quite accurate. Liberal is becoming a broader term in the sense of "post war liberal international order" which is pretty much under attack from both fringes of the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton could easily pass as a liberal in any country that has also embraced third way social democracy.
That's not Liberalism. Liberalism is a particular political ideology focused on liberty. If you want a word that describes the post war liberal world order that's fine but it's not liberalism. Hillary Clinton is not a liberal with her statist and anti trade views.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 05 2016 07:09 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:On December 05 2016 06:15 RvB wrote:On December 05 2016 05:21 Yoav wrote:On December 05 2016 03:56 Incognoto wrote:On December 05 2016 03:52 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:31 Noizhende wrote:
btw we have the first green party president in the world now i think.
Not sure that's a good thing. Given their general semi-fringe status they aren't very standardized but in general, the Greens in every country always strike me as the epitome of the things that people dislike about leftists. In a way they are "the bad kind of liberals." What kind of liberals are you talking about? The European kind which is right wing, or the American kind which is left wing? Serious question. Honestly, I see "liberal" as becoming more and more of a defined concept shared across the Atlantic. In the US, you increasingly have a threefold division: reactionaries (Tea Party, alt-Right, whatever you want to call that), liberals (everything from Mitt Romney to Cory Booker), and "Progressives" (Warren, Sanders, etc.) Europe has basically the same categories, though their term "Socialist" is equivalent to the American "Progressive" (which actually makes good historical sense) and calling the reactionaries "Far Right" or something like that. Not that this clarity is a good thing exactly... last time the West was divided up in this way, we fought a series of bloody wars--and one Cold One--to resolve the matter. Though not well enough, I'm afraid. Not at all. While liberals on both sides of the Atlantic share some things in common there are too many things where they're on opposite sides of the spectrum. The difference is especially large in what is considered the appropriate role of government (government is a force for good vs a necessary evil). Someone like Hillary Clinton would never be considerd a liberal (although no socialist either). It's quite accurate. Liberal is becoming a broader term in the sense of "post war liberal international order" which is pretty much under attack from both fringes of the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton could easily pass as a liberal in any country that has also embraced third way social democracy. That's not Liberalism. Liberalism is a particular political ideology focused on liberty. If you want a word that describes the post war liberal world order that's fine but it's not liberalism. Hillary Clinton is not a liberal with her statist and anti trade views.
What anti-trade views? She was quite pro-trade until the country took a decidedly anti-trade position on the issue and she flipped her position.
|
So I just read that according to exit polls, the no is quite ahead in Italy?
|
Far ahead. I think it will be hard for Renzi not to resign if exit polls prove accurate.
|
|
|
Sorry guys, I promised I would give you insight but ended up watching it live with my parents. Anyways, Italian PM just announced his resignation. Current coverage is:
YES 40,5
NO 59,5
And just to look cool:
On December 05 2016 01:30 SoSexy wrote:
Hey there, I can provide impressions for the referendum if you want.
The voting will close at 23 CEST. I think we will start to have some results around midnight/one o clock.
I'm posting my predictions just to quote me later and look cool if I got it right: The No will win ranging from 52% to 58%.
|
On December 05 2016 08:35 SoSexy wrote:Sorry guys, I promised I would give you insight but ended up watching it live with my parents. Anyways, Italian PM just announced his resignation. Current coverage is: YES 40,5 NO 59,5 And just to look cool: Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 01:30 SoSexy wrote:
Hey there, I can provide impressions for the referendum if you want.
The voting will close at 23 CEST. I think we will start to have some results around midnight/one o clock.
I'm posting my predictions just to quote me later and look cool if I got it right: The No will win ranging from 52% to 58%.
Ok, another chance to look cool, although it might take months/years to get the answers. Yes/no:
Will the next Italian govt. be eurosceptic?
Will Italy leave the euro?
Will Italy leave the EU?
|
lol bardtown.. the ever hopeful anti eu troll in every politics thread. Keep trying to find ways to justify your insane philosophy.
|
On December 05 2016 08:49 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 08:35 SoSexy wrote:Sorry guys, I promised I would give you insight but ended up watching it live with my parents. Anyways, Italian PM just announced his resignation. Current coverage is: YES 40,5 NO 59,5 And just to look cool: On December 05 2016 01:30 SoSexy wrote:
Hey there, I can provide impressions for the referendum if you want.
The voting will close at 23 CEST. I think we will start to have some results around midnight/one o clock.
I'm posting my predictions just to quote me later and look cool if I got it right: The No will win ranging from 52% to 58%. Ok, another chance to look cool, although it might take months/years to get the answers. Yes/no: Will the next Italian govt. be eurosceptic? Will Italy leave the euro? Will Italy leave the EU?
1) With the current pools, Movimento 5 stelle (from now on: 5s) is leading both in a 5s vs center-right and 5s vs center-left scenario. They are euroskeptic, so: yes.
2) Difficult to say. 5s repeatedly say they are against the euro but an actual exit might not be that easy. I suspect it will be more of a aggressive tone leaning towards some renegotiations with the EU rather than a exit.
3) See point 2. Between the two, I would say that leaving the euro would be more feasible than leaving the EU.
|
|
|
Good. The last elected government was in 2013. Even though our Constituion allows for the president of the Republic to decide a new government in case of crisis, many italians don't like the fact that the last three governments (Monti, Letta, Renzi) were not elected.
|
Then why is everyone panicked about the EU then?
|
Read my post in this page. Also, Renzi's government was pro-Eu. This shuffles all the cards in the deck.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I lose track of who is the PM of Italy because they just keep changing so often. They're cycling through them as fas as late Roman emperors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
