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 March 06 2017 16:47 Acrofales wrote: Just like Germany, the Dutch government has also denied the Turkish government the right to campaign in the Netherlands. I'm not quite sure where I stand on the issue. On the one hand, I think it's undesirable to have another country's political campaign being held in your country, especially if you can't guarantee impartiality. On the other hand, the doesn't seem to be any legal way to discriminate against political campaigning as opposed to giving a talk. Based on what is his entry being denied? How far can the Dutch/German government go to deny them from of speech?
I guess a big part of it is the large Turkish communities in Germany and the Netherlands and the unrest that Erdogan is trying to create in those communities between Erdogan/Gulen supporters and between Trukey and the EU in general.
On March 06 2017 19:23 Zaros wrote: Sarkozy's plan has worked then, leak the details about Fillon's wife and then replace him when his candidacy crashes and burns.
Sarkozy has so many scandals surrounding him, most of them much more serious than the Oenelope Fillon affaire, that it's extremely unlikely LR chose him if they manage to convince him to give up.
On March 07 2017 04:48 RvB wrote: They don't really have an alternative do they? Still pretty pathetic.
They could have tried to convince Fillon to pass the torch to someone else's, as long as it was done with Fillon's agreement it would have been OK; and there were times where he clearly hesitated, but those fools were too stupid and too divided to seize the opportunity. But they had more than one month to prepare something anyway, and they never bothered to seriously try to build a plan B.
I can't wait for their debacle in the evening of April 23th. Sadly their base is full of radicalized 60+ years imbeciles who think that this whole case is a machiavellian plot to bring down their great savior, so they have no chance of going under a certain percentage... Hopefully they end up fourth for the supreme humiliation, but this country makes so little sense that Fillon might still randomly win. In 10-15 years this generation which condones corrupt crooks will be gone, so by that time maybe we'll actually get a decent atmosphere in our political life.
On March 07 2017 04:53 LightSpectra wrote: Sounds like Sarkozy is gearing up to take Fillon's place.
On March 07 2017 04:53 LightSpectra wrote: Sounds like Sarkozy is gearing up to take Fillon's place.
Not sure if better... Also Fillon probably gives zero fucks.
Sarkozy's scandals dwarf Fillon's pretty bad. They involve bribery, corruption, campaign shadowy financing etc.. It would really be replacing a chicken thief by a mafia boss to put Sarkozy instead of him.
Juppé said he would not be candidate anyway. So LR is pretty much screwed. Those people are good, they could have nominated a goat and won pretty easily. Three left wing candidates, a government at 15% positive opinions, and they screw it up. Respect.
Is it the apparent hypocrisy that makes Fillon's scandal so bad? Because honestly taking a few extra people on payroll for doing nothing is almost trivial from a corruption perspective.
On March 07 2017 07:23 LegalLord wrote: Is it the apparent hypocrisy that makes Fillon's scandal so bad? Because honestly taking a few extra people on payroll for doing nothing is almost trivial from a corruption perspective.
Well, he built all his image on probity and honesty, going on TV saying that there should be more coverage about politicians being dishonest, and so on and so on. Sarkozy is a gangster, but people forgive him a bit more because he rfeally has never really denied it.
Also people get more pissed by someone being caught like that, just stealing "pocket money", than by complex political scandals that are hard to prove and hard to explain.
Ok, Sarkozy was involved in the financing of a political campaign of Balladur with retro comissions on a submarine sell from corrupt Pakistanese officials who blew up a bus full of frenchies when they didn't get the money they had been promised because the election was lost. That's complicated, and gets more complicated when you start looking into it. It's also fucking terrible, involve rigging the election process and loss of french lives. But still, it's very, very complex.
Fillon was employing his whole family for not doing anything with YOUR money and stole the equivalent of a lifetime on minimal wage. Well, when you are on minimal wage and the guy has been bullshitting you for ten years saying he was the embodiement of honesty, that pisses you off more than obscure stories of pakistanese submarines.
TL;DR: small easy to understand, perfectly proven scandal makes more damage than complex, shadowy high level corruption.
EDIT: also, I would have loved to see the shitstorm if Clinton had employed her daughter for 1M$ on a bullshit job. You would be talking about it with GH and xDaunt for the next ten years. Admit.
I didn't talk about CF, so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't talk about that either. Besides, there's much more money in the US to be made from leveraging political contacts in the private sector than on a government payroll, which Chelsea did do.
Sounds like we are more or less in agreement on why the Fillon matter hurts as it does. Honestly I've seen much worse so I doubt I'd care if I thought his policy proposals were solid.
This is typical left-wing magistrates who are corrupt, looking for dirt on a candidate they don't like. Anyone who thinks that Fillon is somehow worse than the shit-tards to the left or to the right of him are delusional. They're all corrupt shits but you may as well put one in power who will kick things into action.
I don't know about Macro though, he might be legitimate as well, depends on what his policies are. I'm having a hard time following this debate.
On February 22 2017 23:06 MyTHicaL wrote:
Mélenchon is a boss ;o.
Lmao, what a shit-fest
Le Pen's a pig but mélen-con is in a class of his own as well
edit: "cette femme va parler comme un moulin pendant combien de temps" lol melechon you little piece of shit. i hate le pen myself but you don't attack her for being a woman lol
On March 07 2017 07:36 LegalLord wrote: Yeah, a million stolen over a career as a politician isn't really that bad.
Our Democratic candidate for president here in the US earned that in a single speech to our finance industry.
It is bad. The fact that you think of it as not really that bad just shows that the battle against corruption is far from over even in the western world.
Yeah, a million stolen over a career as a politician isn't really that bad.
i think that is a very common view in (ex-)socialist countries. as far as i can tell, it comes from the idea that one is <entitled to things> for doing a <good job>.
Yeah, a million stolen over a career as a politician isn't really that bad.
i think that is a very common view in (ex-)socialist countries. as far as i can tell, it comes from the idea that one is <entitled to things> for doing a <good job>.
It is a general thing in most human societies. If you make a billion dollar deal for your company you might expect to get promoted or at the minimum get a big bonus. That isn't a socialist thing, that happens in a capitalistic society as well.
The reward you expect might not always be monetary, it could be standing and compliments or other things you value. You do expect something when you do a good job. Which is why feedback is so important, especially positive ones which are hard to do without training for most people.
The reward (and punishment) system should be in place so you don't want to steal stuff. It doesn't have to be monetary rewards if you can find something else that people value. Perhaps good presidents get their statue added in a famous place based on a parliament order after their term. I don't really have good suggestions.
On March 07 2017 07:23 LegalLord wrote: Is it the apparent hypocrisy that makes Fillon's scandal so bad? Because honestly taking a few extra people on payroll for doing nothing is almost trivial from a corruption perspective.
The hypocrisy, his own words/promises, and his program. He's basically asking for huge sacrifices from the population, yet it happens that the same guy (very likely) stole a million of euros from public funds to put them into his pocket... unacceptable. You can't be a thief and simultaneously demand that people work more without being paid more (that's his program). On top of that, he repeated like half a dozen times that he would not be candidate if he was indicted. Plus he has documented connections to the business of private insurance and initially wanted to privatize the Social security, so there are suspicions of traffic of influence as well.
His story is a bit like the second Batman: the guy basically played the white knight, then it turns out that he's actually Two-Face. Add the populist zeitgeist and the fact that French people are globally fed up with their incompetent politicians, plus the fact that this kind of behaviour is less and less tolerated, and you get the scandal. It was initially thought that the winner of the UMP/LR primary would (nearly) automatically be the next president... then this happened.
(There's also the fact that medias love this kind of drama with twists, cliff hangers and whatnot...)
On March 07 2017 07:36 LegalLord wrote: Yeah, a million stolen over a career as a politician isn't really that bad.
Our Democratic candidate for president here in the US earned that in a single speech to our finance industry.
Yeah, but the US political life is a system of institutionnalized corruption. In France if you're perceived as too close to big business, you're immediately frowned upon. Sarkozy's image was demolished because of his proximity to big business and his obvious love for money. Both Fillon and Macron have been and will be attacked on their connections to the oligarchy.
The standards for what's acceptable/game-ending or not differ from country to country anyway. In most European countries, I bet that Fillon would be gone in a matter of days after the initial revelations. But the French right is a pile of filth.
Yeah, a million stolen over a career as a politician isn't really that bad.
i think that is a very common view in (ex-)socialist countries. as far as i can tell, it comes from the idea that one is <entitled to things> for doing a <good job>.
It is a general thing in most human societies. If you make a billion dollar deal for your company you might expect to get promoted or at the minimum get a big bonus. That isn't a socialist thing, that happens in a capitalistic society as well.
The reward you expect might not always be monetary, it could be standing and compliments or other things you value. You do expect something when you do a good job. Which is why feedback is so important, especially positive ones which are hard to do without training for most people.
The reward (and punishment) system should be in place so you don't want to steal stuff. It doesn't have to be monetary rewards if you can find something else that people value. Perhaps good presidents get their statue added in a famous place based on a parliament order after their term. I don't really have good suggestions.
what you said is based on a legal+moral(worth) framework and it's not the same thing; in a company there are clear owners and clear beneficiaries.
my example was touching on - rewarding politicians with state money without a legal framework, often without a prof of worth and without a limit or an obfuscated(under don't ask don't tell policy) one. it's like a bartering blindfolded with someone else's money.
EPT
