|
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 February 05 2017 13:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 10:37 Sbrubbles wrote:On February 05 2017 10:00 LegalLord wrote:On February 05 2017 09:41 Sbrubbles wrote:On February 05 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On February 05 2017 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
That's exactly the kind of strongarm politics that nobody outside or inside of Germany wants. Assertiveness in foreign policy is okay if the situation dictates it and there is good reason to take the leading role, but in no way should we act like it just because we want to. This is the childish shit that dictatorships do.
And I'm pretty sure the public support for nuclear weapons is in the negatives. We don't need them anyway with the UK and France being nuclear powers. It is not lost on me that Germany has an odd stunted attitude towards any form of assertiveness as an independent party, probably for historical reasons more than anything else (as Germany 100+ years ago wasn't like this). I don't expect that to change for at least another generation. But if it does, my thoughts would be "good on you, Germany" whether or not I would actually support the action as a non-German. I agree that it's probably just empty words, but if it's a first step towards a more active involvement then that would be a good thing. Sounds expensive, with very dubious gains to general welfare, if any. A percentage of GDP, nothing more. After all, your comment could apply just as well to taking refugees and they did that. A percentage of GDP is quite a bit, and the argument for humanitarian efforts is a much clearer one as a gain in terms of both global welfare (refugees who are suffering gain some respite) and in terms of local welfare (Germans who feel a duty to help peacefully feel like they did so). I don't see an active Germany with a nuclear arsenal, spending an extra percentage point or two of GDP on more guns, as necessary for either guaranteeing its own sovereignty or for international insertion of its goods and capital, therefore it's a waste of good taxpayer money and a pressure to its neighbors to do the same. The argument for the refugee crisis is... a troubled one at best, as you can see by the fallout. And yes, 1 percent of GDP is a lot of money, but that argument was made there as well. Helping with refugee camps is much, much cheaper. Hell, Germany is even paying people to go back as of now. And a strong emphasis on military does help some rather good well-paying industries, which is definitely a plus. A strong military, with nuclear weapons, allows you to apply force to defend your national interests. A nation which can't defend itself is by necessity subservient to some other nation that would defend said nation on its behalf. Germany doesn't have to be one of those, and as soon as it realizes that then it can take up a more realistic approach to military strength.
German national interests that are only defendable (or substantially more defendable, sure) with a strong military armed with nuclear weapons ... you're gonna have to help me out here, because it's not clear to me what those are, much less if they are worth 1% of GDP.
|
On February 05 2017 13:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 10:37 Sbrubbles wrote:On February 05 2017 10:00 LegalLord wrote:On February 05 2017 09:41 Sbrubbles wrote:On February 05 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On February 05 2017 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
That's exactly the kind of strongarm politics that nobody outside or inside of Germany wants. Assertiveness in foreign policy is okay if the situation dictates it and there is good reason to take the leading role, but in no way should we act like it just because we want to. This is the childish shit that dictatorships do.
And I'm pretty sure the public support for nuclear weapons is in the negatives. We don't need them anyway with the UK and France being nuclear powers. It is not lost on me that Germany has an odd stunted attitude towards any form of assertiveness as an independent party, probably for historical reasons more than anything else (as Germany 100+ years ago wasn't like this). I don't expect that to change for at least another generation. But if it does, my thoughts would be "good on you, Germany" whether or not I would actually support the action as a non-German. I agree that it's probably just empty words, but if it's a first step towards a more active involvement then that would be a good thing. Sounds expensive, with very dubious gains to general welfare, if any. A percentage of GDP, nothing more. After all, your comment could apply just as well to taking refugees and they did that. A percentage of GDP is quite a bit, and the argument for humanitarian efforts is a much clearer one as a gain in terms of both global welfare (refugees who are suffering gain some respite) and in terms of local welfare (Germans who feel a duty to help peacefully feel like they did so). I don't see an active Germany with a nuclear arsenal, spending an extra percentage point or two of GDP on more guns, as necessary for either guaranteeing its own sovereignty or for international insertion of its goods and capital, therefore it's a waste of good taxpayer money and a pressure to its neighbors to do the same. The argument for the refugee crisis is... a troubled one at best, as you can see by the fallout. And yes, 1 percent of GDP is a lot of money, but that argument was made there as well. Helping with refugee camps is much, much cheaper. Hell, Germany is even paying people to go back as of now. And a strong emphasis on military does help some rather good well-paying industries, which is definitely a plus. A strong military, with nuclear weapons, allows you to apply force to defend your national interests. A nation which can't defend itself is by necessity subservient to some other nation that would defend said nation on its behalf. Germany doesn't have to be one of those, and as soon as it realizes that then it can take up a more realistic approach to military strength.
I really don't see how is *any* nation in the world strengthening its military and its nuclear arsenal a good thing for *anyone*.. opinions like these frankly leave me speechless. A part from a nice example of "forum talk", this kind of reasoning doesn't lead anywhere, and it's honestly somewhat worrying..
|
I see three possible paths:
1) Germans decide to remain "an economic giant but a political dwarf" and stay away from global politics. Once in a while they will have to face a political crisis because they will be powerless to stop the reptilian illuminati from destabilizing Middle East or Africa and flooding Europe with refugees. Everything should be fine as long as there will be enough money to spend on integrating those people.
2) Germans decide it's time to be great again. They invest in their military and become more active in global politcs. They can't do that now because their power projection is really small, for example they don't have any aircraft carriers or naval bases in important places. They're rich so eventually they should be able to catch up or maybe even slightly surpass France and the UK.
It sounds great but in my opinion it's also pointless. France and the UK need their armies to protect their strategic interests in Africa and Asia. Germany doesn't have such interests so their army would be just an extremely costly and useless toy. Obviously it could try to start having such interests but then it would have to face the same problem it faced in the 19th century - it's impossible to win an imperialist race when you join it 300 years after your opponents. "You wanna play in Ukraine ? Sorry, it's in the Russian sphere." "You wanna play in South America? Sorry, it's in the American sphere."
3) Germans want to play the game but understand they can't win it on their own so they decide it's time to make Europe great again. They push for federalization and European army. Anglos throw a tantrum and try to sabotage the project because they feel threatened.
3a) Germans succeed and Europe becomes a superpower capable of competing with the US.
3b) Germans fail, the EU dissolves and things get worse for everyone in Europe.
|
On February 05 2017 20:48 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 20:32 TheDwf wrote:On February 05 2017 11:17 mustaju wrote:PARIS — Not long ago, Philippe Vardon was an anti-immigrant activist best known for carrying out shock propaganda operations, like occupying mosques or serving pork-laced soup to the homeless in Nice, the southern French city that has a large Muslim population.
Today, he is a top general in the sophisticated social media campaign working to get Marine Le Pen — the leader of the far-right National Front party — elected as president of France.
The National Front has long been at the cutting edge of digital communication — it was the first party in the country to put up a website in the mid-1990s — and has invested aggressively in its social media operation. The investment is paying off as Le Pen boasts the highest social media “engagement rate” (measured by likes and follows) of any presidential candidate, while commanding legions of online volunteers in France, Europe and beyond who work each day to amplify her message.
Le Pen’s web-centric insurgent approach mimics methods used by other outsider campaigns. The Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom and the electioneering efforts of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the U.S. all made creative use of social media to short-circuit traditional media.
Yet in France, the National Front’s online campaign remains unique. Bigger and more professional than social media operations of rivals including former Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, her web machine stands alone notably due to the ruthlessness of its negative campaigns, and the fact that so many “global populists” are willing to amplify them online.
If the polls are to be believed, Le Pen is likely to win the first round of the presidential elections in April, but lose in the runoff two weeks later.
Its epicenter, known as l’Escale (“The Stopover”) to insiders, lies in a tony apartment building in western Paris, a short walk away from the Place de l’Etoile (POLITICO was offered a tour before being told one would not be possible). There, amid batteries of Apple computers, some 15 permanent web staffers work in a studious atmosphere to craft, package and broadcast Le Pen’s “official” campaign content, branded “MLP2017.” This group is tied to a wider circle of volunteers who relay the message and broadcast their own unofficial content.
But at the heart of the operation are the message-makers, people like Vardon. Described by his colleagues as the party’s “king of agitprop,” Vardon is a key member of the “Ideas and Images” unit in Le Pen’s presidential campaign. Operating in tandem with the web staff, this small group of senior National Front officials provides the fuel for the party’s social media engine, carrying out research, crafting memes and coordinating the party’s effort to discredit opponents.
If the polls are to be believed, Le Pen is likely to win the first round of the presidential elections in April, but lose in the runoff two weeks later. What Vardon and his colleagues are hoping to do is translate their online advantage into enough of a boost at the ballot box to upset that prediction.
Experts, burned by shock results in the U.S. and the U.K., concede that Vardon just might have a chance. “What we observed during the Brexit campaign, and then in the U.S. presidential election, is that the winning parties also had very strong social media campaigns,” said Albéric Guigou, head of Reputation Squad, a social media consulting agency. “In France, the National Front clearly has a major advance in this area on its rivals, both in terms of popularity and their methods.”
A campaign is born
In interviews with POLITICO, members of the ideas and images unit described their offices as a “creative space” that functioned like a startup. Its members credit Vardon with dreaming up one of party’s biggest online campaigns: #LeVraiFillon (or “#TheRealFillon”) — a multi-platform effort dedicated to “unmasking” former French Prime Minister François Fillon after he won the conservative party’s primary in November. SourceCan the French verify this? Verify what? Terribly sorry, I was not very cohesive that evening. I was hoping you could confirm the general gist of the article about the French media landscape being fairly far-right in France. The election is still quite a bit off and with Fillon apparently in dire straits, I am worried about the level of success Front Nationale's tactics might have. The article also linked to a buzzfeed original which talked about Trump-linked memers trying to influence French discussion. Has the French media given that any attention?
The gist of the article is a strong presence on the internet rather than on traditionnal medias, and it makes sense even though I rarely have contact with far right com' because it's not my echo chamber. For instance Florian Philipot has a youtube channel which is what it is (hilarious it seems), but else that's only the case for Mélenchon afaik.
Traditionnal medias dont have anything particular, in the hands of a few group of individuals, with different colors of liberalism, and a few more fringe newspapers of very diverse quality. That being said, they give the FN a lot of space, they seem to think it sells.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On February 06 2017 01:13 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 20:48 mustaju wrote:On February 05 2017 20:32 TheDwf wrote:On February 05 2017 11:17 mustaju wrote:PARIS — Not long ago, Philippe Vardon was an anti-immigrant activist best known for carrying out shock propaganda operations, like occupying mosques or serving pork-laced soup to the homeless in Nice, the southern French city that has a large Muslim population.
Today, he is a top general in the sophisticated social media campaign working to get Marine Le Pen — the leader of the far-right National Front party — elected as president of France.
The National Front has long been at the cutting edge of digital communication — it was the first party in the country to put up a website in the mid-1990s — and has invested aggressively in its social media operation. The investment is paying off as Le Pen boasts the highest social media “engagement rate” (measured by likes and follows) of any presidential candidate, while commanding legions of online volunteers in France, Europe and beyond who work each day to amplify her message.
Le Pen’s web-centric insurgent approach mimics methods used by other outsider campaigns. The Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom and the electioneering efforts of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the U.S. all made creative use of social media to short-circuit traditional media.
Yet in France, the National Front’s online campaign remains unique. Bigger and more professional than social media operations of rivals including former Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, her web machine stands alone notably due to the ruthlessness of its negative campaigns, and the fact that so many “global populists” are willing to amplify them online.
If the polls are to be believed, Le Pen is likely to win the first round of the presidential elections in April, but lose in the runoff two weeks later.
Its epicenter, known as l’Escale (“The Stopover”) to insiders, lies in a tony apartment building in western Paris, a short walk away from the Place de l’Etoile (POLITICO was offered a tour before being told one would not be possible). There, amid batteries of Apple computers, some 15 permanent web staffers work in a studious atmosphere to craft, package and broadcast Le Pen’s “official” campaign content, branded “MLP2017.” This group is tied to a wider circle of volunteers who relay the message and broadcast their own unofficial content.
But at the heart of the operation are the message-makers, people like Vardon. Described by his colleagues as the party’s “king of agitprop,” Vardon is a key member of the “Ideas and Images” unit in Le Pen’s presidential campaign. Operating in tandem with the web staff, this small group of senior National Front officials provides the fuel for the party’s social media engine, carrying out research, crafting memes and coordinating the party’s effort to discredit opponents.
If the polls are to be believed, Le Pen is likely to win the first round of the presidential elections in April, but lose in the runoff two weeks later. What Vardon and his colleagues are hoping to do is translate their online advantage into enough of a boost at the ballot box to upset that prediction.
Experts, burned by shock results in the U.S. and the U.K., concede that Vardon just might have a chance. “What we observed during the Brexit campaign, and then in the U.S. presidential election, is that the winning parties also had very strong social media campaigns,” said Albéric Guigou, head of Reputation Squad, a social media consulting agency. “In France, the National Front clearly has a major advance in this area on its rivals, both in terms of popularity and their methods.”
A campaign is born
In interviews with POLITICO, members of the ideas and images unit described their offices as a “creative space” that functioned like a startup. Its members credit Vardon with dreaming up one of party’s biggest online campaigns: #LeVraiFillon (or “#TheRealFillon”) — a multi-platform effort dedicated to “unmasking” former French Prime Minister François Fillon after he won the conservative party’s primary in November. SourceCan the French verify this? Verify what? Terribly sorry, I was not very cohesive that evening. I was hoping you could confirm the general gist of the article about the French media landscape being fairly far-right in France. The election is still quite a bit off and with Fillon apparently in dire straits, I am worried about the level of success Front Nationale's tactics might have. The article also linked to a buzzfeed original which talked about Trump-linked memers trying to influence French discussion. Has the French media given that any attention? The gist of the article is a strong presence on the internet rather than on traditionnal medias, and it makes sense even though I rarely have contact with far right com' because it's not my echo chamber. For instance Florian Philipot has a youtube channel which is what it is (hilarious it seems), but else that's only the case for Mélenchon afaik. Traditionnal medias dont have anything particular, in the hands of a few group of individuals, with different colors of liberalism, and a few more fringe newspapers of very diverse quality. That being said, they give the FN a lot of space, they seem to think it sells.
How prominent is the conversation about Global Alt-Right or FN-presence on the internet?
|
On February 05 2017 20:48 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 20:32 TheDwf wrote:On February 05 2017 11:17 mustaju wrote:PARIS — Not long ago, Philippe Vardon was an anti-immigrant activist best known for carrying out shock propaganda operations, like occupying mosques or serving pork-laced soup to the homeless in Nice, the southern French city that has a large Muslim population.
Today, he is a top general in the sophisticated social media campaign working to get Marine Le Pen — the leader of the far-right National Front party — elected as president of France.
The National Front has long been at the cutting edge of digital communication — it was the first party in the country to put up a website in the mid-1990s — and has invested aggressively in its social media operation. The investment is paying off as Le Pen boasts the highest social media “engagement rate” (measured by likes and follows) of any presidential candidate, while commanding legions of online volunteers in France, Europe and beyond who work each day to amplify her message.
Le Pen’s web-centric insurgent approach mimics methods used by other outsider campaigns. The Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom and the electioneering efforts of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the U.S. all made creative use of social media to short-circuit traditional media.
Yet in France, the National Front’s online campaign remains unique. Bigger and more professional than social media operations of rivals including former Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, her web machine stands alone notably due to the ruthlessness of its negative campaigns, and the fact that so many “global populists” are willing to amplify them online.
If the polls are to be believed, Le Pen is likely to win the first round of the presidential elections in April, but lose in the runoff two weeks later.
Its epicenter, known as l’Escale (“The Stopover”) to insiders, lies in a tony apartment building in western Paris, a short walk away from the Place de l’Etoile (POLITICO was offered a tour before being told one would not be possible). There, amid batteries of Apple computers, some 15 permanent web staffers work in a studious atmosphere to craft, package and broadcast Le Pen’s “official” campaign content, branded “MLP2017.” This group is tied to a wider circle of volunteers who relay the message and broadcast their own unofficial content.
But at the heart of the operation are the message-makers, people like Vardon. Described by his colleagues as the party’s “king of agitprop,” Vardon is a key member of the “Ideas and Images” unit in Le Pen’s presidential campaign. Operating in tandem with the web staff, this small group of senior National Front officials provides the fuel for the party’s social media engine, carrying out research, crafting memes and coordinating the party’s effort to discredit opponents.
If the polls are to be believed, Le Pen is likely to win the first round of the presidential elections in April, but lose in the runoff two weeks later. What Vardon and his colleagues are hoping to do is translate their online advantage into enough of a boost at the ballot box to upset that prediction.
Experts, burned by shock results in the U.S. and the U.K., concede that Vardon just might have a chance. “What we observed during the Brexit campaign, and then in the U.S. presidential election, is that the winning parties also had very strong social media campaigns,” said Albéric Guigou, head of Reputation Squad, a social media consulting agency. “In France, the National Front clearly has a major advance in this area on its rivals, both in terms of popularity and their methods.”
A campaign is born
In interviews with POLITICO, members of the ideas and images unit described their offices as a “creative space” that functioned like a startup. Its members credit Vardon with dreaming up one of party’s biggest online campaigns: #LeVraiFillon (or “#TheRealFillon”) — a multi-platform effort dedicated to “unmasking” former French Prime Minister François Fillon after he won the conservative party’s primary in November. SourceCan the French verify this? Verify what? Terribly sorry, I was not very cohesive that evening. I was hoping you could confirm the general gist of the article about the French media landscape being fairly far-right in France. The election is still quite a bit off and with Fillon apparently in dire straits, I am worried about the level of success Front Nationale's tactics might have. The article also linked to a buzzfeed original which talked about Trump-linked memers trying to influence French discussion. Has the French media given that any attention?
The far right is well established on the Internet (we call it the fachosphère), but those are mostly echo chambers for people who are already convinced. They spread sh*tty racist rumors or hoaxes, give Arab first names to politicians who are not enough islamophobic/racist for them (i. e. pretty much anyone left of Marine Le Pen), etc. but their activity seldom makes it to mainstream medias. Far-right trolls are not going to magically make Marine Le Pen win this election.
Personally I am much more worried by mainstream medias and their disgusting double standards when it comes to terrorism; the far-right guy who killed 6 people in Québec was presented in a famous newspaper as a “young radical troll” (sic!), there were quotation marks around the term “attack” in first reports, and overall there was very few media coverage. Had it been a Muslim fanatic who would have killed 6 people in a similar manner, there would have been much more noise. Mainstream medias are sadly more helpful in spreading ideas like the “clash of civilizations” or islamophobic/racist theses. Then they cry wolf at the far-right despite having a heavy responsibility in their rise.
(Edit: just today, 5 TV stations were broadcasting live Marine Le Pen's speech... While there was another big meeting running at the same time, so they had the choice.)
|
Documentary tonight on dutch tv. About democracy and if that way to govern a state is still apropiate in modern times. Now that social media has so much influence and populism is rising.
Due to social media the mainstream media finally don't have the monopoly anymore,they cant control anymore what the population thinks. And now that the media cant control anymore what the population thinks,at least not as well as before,democracy is falling. Now we are slowly being prepared for a new form of state,at least the discussion has started. Such a joke,its a disgrace.
Just keep the people happy and there is no problem,people who are happy they don't want to change the status quo,they wont vote extreme and populist parties.
|
Can't always keep the people happy because inevitably things will happen that will startle them, democracy also has to function when times are a little rough or else you're running into big problems.
|
Norway28877 Posts
The problem is that there's direct incentive for opposition parties to claim the situation is horrible even if it isn't. Responsible media with editors and journalists with journalistic integrity could balance this out. But then media also had incentive to sensationalize - and this is part of why mainstream media has become abandoned (to a certain degree), and media also has their own political allegiances. Then you have state-owned media which in some instances actually does a fantastic job. I'm only really familiar with norwegian (NRK), swedish (SVT) and the BBC, but all those three are consistently great sources of reliable information. But from a philosophical point of view it's not something I can convincingly argue for - the North Korean broadcasting channel is somewhat less reliable, and if Trump announced TrumpTV, state-run broadcasting channel because he was disappointed with mainstream media's portrayal of him, I'd be less than happy.
Then NPR is pretty awesome, but I don't think they have that great outreach. PBS I've hardly ever seen anything from.
I mean it's pretty great that the internet is a possible outlet for people who have information that mainstream media somehow refuses to cover, but it's also not that great if people are not held responsible for the claims they make. Having strong, politically independent institutions that penalize news outlets for actions that conflict with what should constitute journalistic integrity is a viable solution - but it can only arise from a benevolent ruling party.
And finally improve civics education. 'Media navigation' or a variant thereof should be a mandatory class in high school. But then educational reform always takes a long time, and this can also only arise from a benevolent ruling party. It's tough.
The idea that we should abandon democracy because people made stupid choices in 2016 though, that's fucked, and I think people need to realize that the world actually has been more volatile and crappier than this before. I really don't think this whole globalist vs nationalist struggle is any more polarizing than the whole cold war period was, but that ended in a pretty peaceful manner. 
|
I think there is good reason for some skepticism actually because even during the worst of the cold war what's often called the 'liberal post war democratic order' inside Western nations was not under attack like this, not from the inside. Sure you had the communist boogeyman and your radical groups but they were a fringe element. With this changed media landscape extremists can mobilize far into the conservative middle-class.
And this is problematic because the conservative midde class has traditionally been the group of people responsible for keeping anti-democratic forces at bay more than anybody else. The time frame has changed completely as well. We've gone from the founding of the Afd to 15% in what, two years? And we're considered the champion of the free world now, in France Le Pen is leading the polls.
Public TV and education is fine and all but I don't think it's going to be enough honestly.
|
Norway28877 Posts
How do you have not-democracy and not-authoritarianism?
I mean, my Norwegian perspective is a bit different I guess. Our populists mostly became responsible when they entered government, and they're only polling around 15%. But I still believe that this can turn around in a good, peaceful manner, and I don't really see any viable alternative.. Like, it might just be that populists need a round of government, either to become responsible, or for the people to realize that they can't govern. It's bad for the recent democracies (poland, hungary) where institutions aren't strong enough, but then again, those countries had even worse governments 35 years ago, which really is not a long period of time.
|
I think authoritarianism and democracy are much more orthogonal than opposites. You can have a bottom-up autocratic society if parts of the population abuse democracy to rule over another. Many ideas of democracy including the state of law, constitutional rights and so on are very individualist and protect people from democracy, they're not political at all.
The more you politicize the population and the more you actually turn them democratic in a literal sense the more conflict you produce. I think there ought to be a significant distance between the people who govern and the average citizen, people aren't supposed to be political all the time.
I guess I put a lot more emphasis on the 'liberal' than on the 'democratic' part in liberal democracy. Votes and participation are fine but they're checks and balances. Given how passionate people tend to be nowadays putting them in the driver seat seems like a really bad idea.
|
An autocratic democracy is just a democracy in name only. How can you have a bottom-up autocratic society anyhow? By definition, in any autocratic society, power is concentrated at the top. One of the crucial ideaas of democracy is that everyone has equal rights. No class, no caste should have power in itself to rule over another. If it does, then it is no longer a democracy. There has only been a few examples of autocratic but liberal governments, but I am hard pressed to think of any democratic but authoritarian governments, simply by the expedient that an authoritarian government cannot be democratic in the first place.
|
On February 06 2017 22:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
An autocratic democracy is just a democracy in name only. How can you have a bottom-up autocratic society anyhow? By definition, in any autocratic society, power is concentrated at the top. One of the crucial ideaas of democracy is that everyone has equal rights. No class, no caste should have power in itself to rule over another. If it does, then it is no longer a democracy. There has only been a few examples of autocratic but liberal governments, but I am hard pressed to think of any democratic but authoritarian governments, simply by the expedient that an authoritarian government cannot be democratic in the first place.
Plenty of Latin American autocracies were democracies that just went on for longer than intended. Look at Bolivia right now: Evo Morales is nearing the end of his 3rd term (constitution allows 2 terms, but he found a loophole that allowed him to be electable for a third term). There was a referendum about a change of constitution allowing him to run for a 3rd (4th) term, which voted against the change. Yet he is still making noises about wanting to run in 2019 (and I fully expect that he'll find a way to do it).
Chavez in Venezuela was similar. No voter fraud was necessary, and the opposition wasn't forbidden (and isn't in Bolivia). It's just impotent in the face of a charismatic leader. Venezuela right now is, of course, a democracy in name only, but such is the slope from democracy to dictatorship (and even now, Maduro does not have absolute power, and has to deal with a democratically chosen parliament that opposes him).
|
Assange apparently said in a russian newspaper he had dirt about Macron:
http://izvestia.ru/news/661960
That's great, he can keep helping Putin with his strategy of installing fascist leaders he holds by the balls everywhere. That's gonna be great news for Le Pen; maybe they can pull another Trump together.
I don't understand why the Equatorian government keeps protecting him at that point. He used to be a rebelious figure, and that made sense with their anti american rhetoric but now?
|
Will it make a difference though? From what I understand she has a core of followers but not much more than that so she'll lose in the 2nd round either way. She has dirt on her as well. It might affect who goes into the run off with her.
|
On February 06 2017 07:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How do you have not-democracy and not-authoritarianism?
I mean, my Norwegian perspective is a bit different I guess. Our populists mostly became responsible when they entered government, and they're only polling around 15%. But I still believe that this can turn around in a good, peaceful manner, and I don't really see any viable alternative.. Like, it might just be that populists need a round of government, either to become responsible, or for the people to realize that they can't govern. It's bad for the recent democracies (poland, hungary) where institutions aren't strong enough, but then again, those countries had even worse governments 35 years ago, which really is not a long period of time.
We also had a worse government just over a year ago. :-)
|
On February 06 2017 23:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Assange apparently said in a russian newspaper he had dirt about Macron: http://izvestia.ru/news/661960That's great, he can keep helping Putin with his strategy of installing fascist leaders he holds by the balls everywhere. That's gonna be great news for Le Pen; maybe they can pull another Trump together.
Stop with this conspirationnist nonsense please, there's nothing Assange can do to get Le Pen elected...
|
On February 07 2017 00:04 RvB wrote:
Will it make a difference though? From what I understand she has a core of followers but not much more than that so she'll lose in the 2nd round either way. She has dirt on her as well. It might affect who goes into the run off with her.
I don't think she has less chances to win the whole thing than Trump had to become Potus a year ago. That little help from Assange came really handy; I am just amazed by that guy having the balls to tell a Russian newspaper he intends to repeat his stuff with France.
Just for the context: the FN is sponsored by a small russian bank with ties from the Kremlin. They got a huge loan three days after being the first big party in Europe to recognize the invasion of Ukraine. And it is well documented that the FN leadership visit Russia very regularly. I mean, talk about playing with your cards open.
|
On February 07 2017 00:13 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 23:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Assange apparently said in a russian newspaper he had dirt about Macron: http://izvestia.ru/news/661960That's great, he can keep helping Putin with his strategy of installing fascist leaders he holds by the balls everywhere. That's gonna be great news for Le Pen; maybe they can pull another Trump together. Stop with this conspirationnist nonsense please, there's nothing Assange can do to get Le Pen elected...
Well, he seems to be saying quite openly that at least he'll try.
It's no conspiracy of mine, it's what he says in the article I linked. Google translate is your friend.
I also don't think he can succeed. But then again, if you had told me a year ago he would leak Clinton into Oblivion and get Trump elected I would have had a good laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
