|
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 27 2017 05:38 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 05:30 TheDwf wrote:On February 27 2017 05:24 SoSexy wrote:
World war? Genocide? Biffy, people spewing out non-sense like this are the reason the FN grew so much. Nope, random overreactions on the Internet—or even in real life—are certainly not the reason why the far-right is currently so high in France. You are right - maybe it has something to do with the disgrace the other parties are (and have been, the last years)
I honestly don't see any shortage of options in France. The Conservatives and Socialists have fairly few things in common compared to other countries, there's a completely new centrist movement with Macron and there's even old school leftists, ecologists, communists etc. It's not like you're forced to chose between two parties.
I don't think many countries have such a diverse political spectrum as France.
|
Everyone seems to be corrupt to some degree. Now who to vote for as law abiding citizen who is sick of all that crap,they sure don't make it easy. I guess many people will simply stay at home and not vote at all. le pen would probably suffer the least from this but would it be enough to win? probably not.
|
That's the funny thing; in pursuit of explaining away the stink of racist, nationalistic populism, the reactionary outlook ends up robbing conservative voters of their agency, and nowhere is that less credible than the splintered and diverse French political arena.
|
On February 27 2017 05:24 SoSexy wrote:
World war? Genocide? Biffy, people spewing out non-sense like this are the reason the FN grew so much. Reminds me of the guy in the US politics thread who predicted 'thermonuclear war 4 months after Trump's victory'. Guess I'll have to prepare my bunker before June
I'm talking about Legal Lord. He seems to be cheering for the worst and the most damaging, systematically, because that "hurts the establishment". So i ask, what do you want, where does that stop?
I was not suggesting Le Pen would start a world war, just confronting LL with his childish bullshit.
|
On February 27 2017 05:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 05:24 SoSexy wrote:
World war? Genocide? Biffy, people spewing out non-sense like this are the reason the FN grew so much. Reminds me of the guy in the US politics thread who predicted 'thermonuclear war 4 months after Trump's victory'. Guess I'll have to prepare my bunker before June I'm talking about Legal Lord. He seems to be cheering for the worst and the most damaging, systematically, because that "hurts the establishment". So i ask, what do you want, where does that stop? I was not suggesting Le Pen would start a world war, just confronting LL with his childish bullshit.
At this point I would like to suggest that people just ignore him and pretend his posts do not exist. He seems to have lost any interest in discussion and the sole purpose of his posting is to stir shit. He has not responded to anybody commenting on this posting style of his in a long time. By discussing his contentless remarks, you are doing exactly as he wants. Yes, I am doing it as well by this post, but at least I am self-aware in the process.
|
On February 27 2017 05:48 pmh wrote:
Everyone seems to be corrupt to some degree. Now who to vote for as law abiding citizen who is sick of all that crap,they sure don't make it easy. I guess many people will simply stay at home and not vote at all. le pen would probably suffer the least from this but would it be enough to win? probably not.
There is no evidence that Macron or Hamon are corrupt at all.
That Fillon, former PM of the most corrupted gvt of the Vth republic is not honest was kind of forseeable. As for Le Pen... it's Le Pen. She's a pond scum and that's really hard to miss too.
France is doing relatively well corruption wise. The sad thing is that the highest level of politics is always and will always be unacceptably corrupt. But look at the bright side, countries like Russia are open kleptocacy. When Fillon stole an assistant's salary, Putin has become one of the richest men in the world, so we could be doing much much worse.
|
On February 27 2017 05:44 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 05:38 SoSexy wrote:On February 27 2017 05:30 TheDwf wrote:On February 27 2017 05:24 SoSexy wrote:
World war? Genocide? Biffy, people spewing out non-sense like this are the reason the FN grew so much. Nope, random overreactions on the Internet—or even in real life—are certainly not the reason why the far-right is currently so high in France. You are right - maybe it has something to do with the disgrace the other parties are (and have been, the last years) I honestly don't see any shortage of options in France. The Conservatives and Socialists have fairly few things in common compared to other countries, there's a completely new centrist movement with Macron and there's even old school leftists, ecologists, communists etc. It's not like you're forced to chose between two parties. I don't think many countries have such a diverse political spectrum as France.
That diversity is mitigated by the way our Parliament is elected, though.
|
Sure the more you move up the institutional ladder the stronger political opinion is moderated, but after all you need to form majority government in some way which will always be based on some consensus, that's more of a feature than a bug. I think it is generally good to avoid volatile "ping pong" politics that just swaps extremists in and out that will just undo whatever the last government has done.
I think on the local level this is more tolerable and you can experiment around, but only because every voter gets back what he puts in. I don't think you want direct democracy that is far removed from the voter, it's a big moral hazard.
|
Hmm precisely not, our governments are not built upon compromise but upon one of the two traditional big block (conservative vs socialist) being bigger than the other. Even this year, while we'll most likely have the first five presidential candidates with a pretty even 25-20-20-15-15 spread in the first round, I very much doubt we'll end up with a Parliament spread that way.
|
Compared to many other countries in the world, US included, that looks more like compromise than anything else does lol.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 27 2017 05:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 08:33 LegalLord wrote:
Hopefully Le Pen can pull it off in the end. Lol. I don't even know if you are trolling, completely ignorant or, more worryingly, if you are actually sincere. The FN is a party of absolute scumbags. The only thing that unite their leaders and militants is that they are all horrible people. Ultra catholics, skinheads, nostalgic of the colonial Algeria, neo nazis, countryside racists, you tell me. On the local politics level, the FN is doing enormous damage, because they don't have an infrastructure and we end up with people sitting in cantons that are simply morons, to a point it's tragic. I work with local politicians in France, and one wouldn't beloeve the people that are being put in responsibility by the FN. They are super angry, completely dumb, very mean, and can't write a sentence in French without making ten mistakes. The FN was fonded by former pro-french algeria veterans (the sinister OAS), by nostalgic of Petain and the collaboration, and by members of groups such as Action Francaise and Occident. Those were hardcore fascists. Not like the alt right, real, authentic fascists. Le Pen was the kind of guy who was editing and selling SS songs recordings. What do you want LL? The end of civilization? A world war? A genocide? A dictatorship? I ask genuinely. You parrot badly digested uber populistic far right ideology all day long, but what do you stand for at the end?
I know who the FN is. I remember them from the history cubes on French African imperialism, and I know what the party represented then. I know exactly why it is that they are so scary to you, and it was amazing to me how far they managed to come over the years. I don't know to what extent I buy the Marine transformation of the party, but I know that keeping the name of the FN isn't really a great sign.
What I want is rather simple: the end of the EU. I didn't always feel this way, of course - but the refugee crisis and all the events that came afterward have shown me that there is likely to be no future for the organization. Regardless of all the bluster that the Eurocrats put forth there is no consensus; it's a fractured alliance of convenience coated in the illusion of ideological unity. The longer it survives, the worse it will be when it finally comes apart.
I don't evaluate Le Pen from a domestic perspective, the same way you don't really give a fuck what Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be like domestically. I don't live in France, so I don't have to deal with the consequences directly. I understand perfectly why it should be troubling; if I were a Frenchman I would probably vote Fillon who is more ideologically along the lines of what I would like without being fascist-spawn (to say nothing of what Marine represents herself, because that's quite a bit harder to gauge). I think your other exasperated remarks - end of civilization, world war, dictatorship, genocide - are far overblown. But she would probably be a president for the dredges of society and that would not make me happy if I had to live with it.
I will mention it once more that I tire of your exaggerated exasperation. Yes, I am perfectly aware of why Le Pen is terrible for you, same with Trump. But you sort of undermine your position by going too far.
And I'm sure the elephant in the room is the question of "what's good for Russia" and if that's why I support the end of the EU. Simple answer is that no, that's not the reason. Whether or not the EU is bad for Russia is a question of where the allegiances lie. If the EU chooses to be a coalition of determined opposition to Russia, then yes, it's bad for Russia and it's best for it to go away. If, as the case actually is, it's a set of nations who aren't exactly friendly but aren't exactly unfriendly, then it's not clear that it would be beneficial. If the question was about the US or NATO then that would be a different story; there really is no peace between the US (or its most loyal Russophobic vassals) and Russia and until we (the US) have a president who understands how to make peace, there isn't going to be (a clown who says he loves Russia isn't going to do that). Trump is going to fail miserably on improving relations with Russia, for one.
No, the problem with the EU is that it's a sad excuse for an organization that is at one side pushing to become a United States of Europe, and on the other side pulling itself apart. The kind of crises it's going through right now aren't of the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" form; they're more of the "you're not quite dead but you lost a few limbs and are permanently crippled" persuasion. It's time for a mercy killing.
|
Europe learned from history and tries to actually unite a region not by force but by common sense.
Which proves to be difficult. If not impossible.
But painting it as a positive that the United States of Europe won't happen, the Eurozone breaking apart instead of growing together, with states going back to nationalistic policies, how is that, in any way, helping people live their lifes peacfully and to their liking?
Who will profit from a failing EU? What are the alternatives? It's like you propagate a hard and fast exitus for the EU, similar to the Brexit without even planning ahead or knowing what is coming and has to be done.
As I said earlier, I've yet to seen you paint a picture beyond destruction. An end is a new beginning and you seem not to think very far ahead. Which is, in my perspective in regard to the future of the european states, quite frightening.
|
On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Europe learned from history and tries to actually unite a region not by force but by common sense.
Which proves to be difficult. If not impossible.
But painting it as a positive that the United States of Europe won't happen, the Eurozone breaking apart instead of growing together, with states going back to nationalistic policies, how is that, in any way, helping people live their lifes peacfully and to their liking?
Who will profit from a failing EU? What are the alternatives? It's like you propagate a hard and fast exitus for the EU, similar to the Brexit without even planning ahead or knowing what is coming and has to be done.
As I said earlier, I've yet to seen you paint a picture beyond destruction. An end is a new beginning and you seem not to think very far ahead. Which is, in my perspective in regard to the future of the european states, quite frightening.
The picture he wants is a divided US, a fractured EU and glorious mother Russia walking across all of them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 27 2017 08:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Europe learned from history and tries to actually unite a region not by force but by common sense.
Which proves to be difficult. If not impossible.
But painting it as a positive that the United States of Europe won't happen, the Eurozone breaking apart instead of growing together, with states going back to nationalistic policies, how is that, in any way, helping people live their lifes peacfully and to their liking?
Who will profit from a failing EU? What are the alternatives? It's like you propagate a hard and fast exitus for the EU, similar to the Brexit without even planning ahead or knowing what is coming and has to be done.
As I said earlier, I've yet to seen you paint a picture beyond destruction. An end is a new beginning and you seem not to think very far ahead. Which is, in my perspective in regard to the future of the european states, quite frightening. The picture he wants is a divided US, a fractured EU and glorious mother Russia walking across all of them.
You are a wee bit more of a non-contributing troll than usual.
On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Europe learned from history and tries to actually unite a region not by force but by common sense.
Which proves to be difficult. If not impossible.
But painting it as a positive that the United States of Europe won't happen, the Eurozone breaking apart instead of growing together, with states going back to nationalistic policies, how is that, in any way, helping people live their lifes peacfully and to their liking?
It's the reality of what is actually happening. The nation-state continues to be the highest level at which policies can be conducted effectively. Yes, it does kind of suck for nations as small as those of Europe. But nationalism is arguably the strongest force tearing it apart right now; and we won't be rid of it any time soon. Besides that it's just the regular arguments of pro- vs anti- free trade, as the EU is in large part a glorified free trade agreement.
On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
Who will profit from a failing EU?
Not many, in the short term. Not a reason to keep it alive on life support though.
On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
What are the alternatives? It's like you propagate a hard and fast exitus for the EU, similar to the Brexit without even planning ahead or knowing what is coming and has to be done.
The end result may either be a looser community of nations with something less than a free trade agreement, or worse, a group of splinter-EUs with smaller, but more dominant in their smaller union, countries. While the EU styles itself as an ideological project, it's little more than an alliance of convenience that will tear itself apart as soon as the convenience evaporates.
What should be done is not an easy question to answer. I think the "loose alliance" would be more effective, akin to what predated the EU. Splinter groups would look a lot like the precursor to WWI. But what will happen is that the EU will not be able to survive in its current form and it's remarkably resilient to acknowledging the need for change, so perhaps it needs to be broken.
On February 27 2017 08:16 Artisreal wrote:
As I said earlier, I've yet to seen you paint a picture beyond destruction. An end is a new beginning and you seem not to think very far ahead. Which is, in my perspective in regard to the future of the european states, quite frightening.
No illusion that we're in for a pleasant period. Trump and Brexit are just the beginning - I foresee another decade of this shit before we actually find a new stable period.
|
I am glad to see I am not the only one tired of near constant shitposting from legalord.
|
On February 27 2017 07:22 OtherWorld wrote:
Hmm precisely not, our governments are not built upon compromise but upon one of the two traditional big block (conservative vs socialist) being bigger than the other. Even this year, while we'll most likely have the first five presidential candidates with a pretty even 25-20-20-15-15 spread in the first round, I very much doubt we'll end up with a Parliament spread that way.
But it's not really desirable, is it? I think the Macron movement shows that people are getting tired of the constant bickering between two ideological factions with little institutional progress. France in many cases is less extreme but shows the same kind of gridlock that we've seen in the US. A culture of cooperation on the highest level of government is not bad.
It really should not be, after all the federal government has to govern everybody, the more local you get the more you can branch out into regional differences.
|
LegalLord do you live in the EU?
I ask because it's impossible for someone living in the EU and say this:
"it's little more than an alliance of convenience that will tear itself apart as soon as the convenience evaporates."
The single market, common regulatory frameworks, freedom of movement, single currency for most of its citizens, to name a few key important aspects of it, are of huge importance to the lives of everyone in it. I've lived in three EU countries, run a company that operates in four, and have family members living in another three countries. An end to the EU would be catastrophic to EU citizens given how intertwined our economies have become. With all its faults, I can't imagine what any EU citizen would have to gain by leaving the EU.
PS: Biff The Understudy is my new favorite poster around here.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Yes, the benefits are well known. But it's hard to deny that it's fracturing and it might not survive.
Certainly it's not an alliance of shared ideals.
|
Norway28689 Posts
Even though Norway isn't part of the EU, Schengen and the ease of travel associated with it has impacted my life more positively than any other piece of policy I can think of.
|
On February 27 2017 09:56 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, the benefits are well known. But it's hard to deny that it's fracturing and it might not survive.
Certainly it's not an alliance of shared ideals.
I'm not into making predictions about the future. I'm questioning why you're against it even though it is a huge net positive to its citizens.
All EU nations are basically social democracies w/ free markets. I don't think you can find another group of 27 countries more politically homogenous than the EU. The vast majority of citizens cherishes the single market and freedom of movement, the two key pillars. I really don't see your point on the lack of shared ideals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
