|
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 22 2017 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Is there any good summary of the debate (or, alternatively, someone willing to write one)?
i can't do it myself since it's pretty long and my english skills are near 0, but i fear that you will only find really biased review of the debate
the biggest surprise during the debate though, is that all of the candidate are willing to spend way more money into the military (finally), and protect the critical french military porvoyeur (rafale, tank, submarine which are all french made and quite a pride here)
trump was a blessing in disguise
|
About Tusk's reelection:
I think they campaigned against Tusk because: A) they wanted something form Merkel in exchange for supporting him and (surprise!) she didn't give it to them and B) he "expressed his concerns" about the situation in Poland while he was supposed to remain neutral as an EU official. My take on point B is that Tusk said some words he shouldn't say but that's not enough to consider him unacceptable. It's just another example of hilariously shitty foregin policy of PiS government.
@Artisreal: They're not anti EU. For some reason the left (both here and in the rest of Europe) tries to put an eurosceptic label on eastern european "populists" but that's just blatantly wrong. Our (eastern) populists aren't like Le Pen, Farage or Wilders. Both Kaczyński and Orban support the four economic freedoms and the idea of european army. It's true that they want the EU to change but they want it reformed, not dismantled.
About the plane crash (spoilered because I think it's not particularly relevant):
+ Show Spoiler +This is our equivalent of 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff. Large part of PiS camp (the defence minister is the face of this group) believes that plane crash had an external cause. It's impossible to reason with them just like it's impossible to reason with 9/11 truthers. That being said some things should be taken into consideration:
- Tusk's government handled that situation extremely poorly which is why it's okay to attribute some (but not all) blame to him and his people. I think it's reasonable to blame Tusk's crew for some minor (in some cases maybe even significant) incompetence and trusting the Russian government to act like decent human beings. The problem with PiS leadership is that they take it too far and to try hold him directly responsible without any solid evidence. I just can't understand how they can be so stupid.
- It's perfectly fine to keep bringing that case up because it was never investigated properly. Recent exhumations proved that multiple bodies were swapped which means our officials lied about overseeing the autopsies performed in Russia. Russians pretty much told us to fuck off and did whatever they wanted after the crash. Tusk's crew never stood up to them and couldn't clean up the mess on their own. It's 2017 and Russia still refuses to send us the wreckage of that plane purely because they just want to act like dicks.
- Some may accuse us of being russophobic and that's understandable but you should keep in mind that the Russian government acts similarly in the case of the Dutch plane shot down over Ukraine. My point is that we're not making shit up and trying to cooperate with Russia is really hard these days.
|
Alright, that's my bad not reading up properly then. Thanks for clarifying.
As a follow-up question, is it just my skewed view on Poland or are authoritarian tendencies at work at the moment?
I read about aligning state media to the party's view? though I cannot consume polish media ~~
|
Yes, the state media are dangerously close to RT level now. They still have some respectable journalists but all top positions are taken by people whose mindset reminds me of Breitbart news. To be honest I don't mind it too much at the moment because now I have easy access to conservative propaganda which makes it easier to understand their positions. Before PiS came to power our three most popular tv stations were more or less liberal leaning which kind of made it hard to hear different opinions. Nevertheless, I still think the current state of state media (xD) is unacceptable and those responsible for it should face consequences. Fortunately, there is a faction in PiS which shares this view which makes me hope their leadership will fix this problem eventually.
I don't think PiS has authoritarian intentions but its actions make it look like it does. There are leaders who make authoritarian laws because they want more power (e.g. Erdogan) and leaders who are so blind in their "quest for freedom" that they don't see that they're doing more harm than good. I think PiS really believes their reforms will strenghten our democracy.
|
I think an underappreciated reality is that all the populists are different. Not just PiS vs UKIP/FN, but each one of those is different from each other, and are different from Italy, Germany, Greece, etc. Different countries, different populists. They mostly just have a few sentiments in common: anti-immigration, less friendly toward Europe, and they tend to be regarded as liars and fools. But beyond that they have many differences.
|
Just imagine how the Polish populists would be if they didn't receive net 10 billion from the EU and if they attracted the same kind of migration that western EU countries do, though. Germany and Poland benefit from the EU far more than other countries.
|
Yes, Poland is certainly bribed into not being anti-EU.
|
Hey our part is easy, we sell our business to your superior companies and get subsides in return. You messed up by letting your companies keep their income for themselves.
|
A US matter, but directly involves a previous discussion on how the relatives of politicians strike it rich. Someone (Acrofales I think?) mentioned that I would be mad if Chelsea Clinton got a free $100k government salary, to which I replied that politicians here just make the same money by going into business. Well look what I found here. Chelsea Clinton gets $300k/yr for pretty much doing nothing.
So that's some perspective on why, from a US perspective, a free million over a decade seems almost trivial.
|
On March 22 2017 04:35 LegalLord wrote:A US matter, but directly involves a previous discussion on how the relatives of politicians strike it rich. Someone (Acrofales I think?) mentioned that I would be mad if Chelsea Clinton got a free $100k government salary, to which I replied that politicians here just make the same money by going into business. Well look what I found here. Chelsea Clinton gets $300k/yr for pretty much doing nothing. So that's some perspective on why, from a US perspective, a free million over a decade seems almost trivial.
Could have been me. And politicians in Europe also go into boards of directors, committees and other lucrative jobs, but it's private money. Hard to justify why we are paying Gerrit Zalm a handsome sum at Shell when we fill up on gasoline, but firstly that's up to the shareholders: whether they feel the person is worth the salary, basically for networking, and secondly if as a client you object, you can usually just go to a different company.
But it's different from directly pocketing taxpayers' money.
|
Often it's an indirect form of bribery to curry political favor. Which is a little more abstract but certainly costs more money than just straight stealing a million euros within a decade.
Probably the same throughout much of Europe, but yeah, that's what the more proper crooks do. Penelope should have honestly just stuck to being a do-nothing director at Goldman Sachs or something.
|
On March 22 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
I think an underappreciated reality is that all the populists are different. Not just PiS vs UKIP/FN, but each one of those is different from each other, and are different from Italy, Germany, Greece, etc. Different countries, different populists. They mostly just have a few sentiments in common: anti-immigration, less friendly toward Europe, and they tend to be regarded as liars and fools. But beyond that they have many differences.
Think of it this way: When the left-right view was first introduced, it described how seats were taken in the French parliament after the revolution. The first right-wingers were monarchists. Later on the coherent theme of the right was about opposing socialism, which viewed itself as "the new progressive ideology" (and which they quite overdid from a conservative view, often making them progressives of a different kind: liberals, although they often would claim that we have had very liberal economic systems in the past, so it would be a conservative act to introduce more liberal systems).
In our modern days in which many things that used to be created by progressive powers, the true right-wingers will obviously also protect such concepts or even try to reintroduce them. Because that is what a true winger does, religiously trying to bring back a version of the past.
That this has to differ between states and their self-inflicted propaganda machines is only natural. They all want to load different safegames of their own country.
|
What could you do except forbid politicians from ever working in and with the private sector again? Well, just kill or jail them once they leave office  ?
Not that i like the practise but well, hard to do anything against it.
|
On March 22 2017 07:25 Velr wrote:What could you do except forbid politicians from ever working in and with the private sector again? Well, just kill or jail them once they leave office ? Not that i like the practise but well, hard to do anything against it.
France has a system for that. The ENA is a school that forms hauts fonctionnaires (high level civil servants) and a lot of politicians. If you are from the ENA and don't get reelected, you simply get hired again as a diplomat, a finance inspector or something.
It has many flaws, but is a great way to make sure that the collusion between corporate interests and politics are kept as separated as possible.
|
On March 22 2017 07:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
I think an underappreciated reality is that all the populists are different. Not just PiS vs UKIP/FN, but each one of those is different from each other, and are different from Italy, Germany, Greece, etc. Different countries, different populists. They mostly just have a few sentiments in common: anti-immigration, less friendly toward Europe, and they tend to be regarded as liars and fools. But beyond that they have many differences. Think of it this way: When the left-right view was first introduced, it described how seats were taken in the French parliament after the revolution. The first right-wingers were monarchists. Later on the coherent theme of the right was about opposing socialism, which viewed itself as "the new progressive ideology" (and which they quite overdid from a conservative view, often making them progressives of a different kind: liberals, although they often would claim that we have had very liberal economic systems in the past, so it would be a conservative act to introduce more liberal systems). In our modern days in which many things that used to be created by progressive powers, the true right-wingers will obviously also protect such concepts or even try to reintroduce them. Because that is what a true winger does, religiously trying to bring back a version of the past. That this has to differ between states and their self-inflicted propaganda machines is only natural. They all want to load different safegames of their own country.
This is a teleological interpretation, and that's not a good thing. It is not about progression or the past. It is a distinction between people who believe in natural orders (the right) and people who believe in social systems limiting natural orders (the left). Liberalism (economic) is inherently right wing because if you leave people to their own devices they create hierarchies organically. Conservatism is coincidentally right wing because the systems of the past were hierarchical.
|
On March 22 2017 07:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 07:25 Velr wrote:What could you do except forbid politicians from ever working in and with the private sector again? Well, just kill or jail them once they leave office ? Not that i like the practise but well, hard to do anything against it. France has a system for that. The ENA is a school that forms hauts fonctionnaires (high level civil servants) and a lot of politicians. If you are from the ENA and don't get reelected, you simply get hired again as a diplomat, a finance inspector or something. It has many flaws, but is a great way to make sure that the collusion between corporate interests and politics are kept as separated as possible.
Honestly, that seems even worse. A school that "forms" high level civil servants and politicians?
So instead of joining "the swamp" you already go to school in it if you want to become a politician/high level civic servant (what does that even mean). This stuff works in Switzerland pretty much like "normal" Jobs - aside from diplomats/ambassadors?
Don't you create something like a "political caste" with a system like that?
|
On March 22 2017 08:42 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 07:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
I think an underappreciated reality is that all the populists are different. Not just PiS vs UKIP/FN, but each one of those is different from each other, and are different from Italy, Germany, Greece, etc. Different countries, different populists. They mostly just have a few sentiments in common: anti-immigration, less friendly toward Europe, and they tend to be regarded as liars and fools. But beyond that they have many differences. Think of it this way: When the left-right view was first introduced, it described how seats were taken in the French parliament after the revolution. The first right-wingers were monarchists. Later on the coherent theme of the right was about opposing socialism, which viewed itself as "the new progressive ideology" (and which they quite overdid from a conservative view, often making them progressives of a different kind: liberals, although they often would claim that we have had very liberal economic systems in the past, so it would be a conservative act to introduce more liberal systems). In our modern days in which many things that used to be created by progressive powers, the true right-wingers will obviously also protect such concepts or even try to reintroduce them. Because that is what a true winger does, religiously trying to bring back a version of the past. That this has to differ between states and their self-inflicted propaganda machines is only natural. They all want to load different safegames of their own country. This is a teleological interpretation, and that's not a good thing. It is not about progression or the past. It is a distinction between people who believe in natural orders (the right) and people who believe in social systems limiting natural orders (the left). Liberalism (economic) is inherently right wing because if you leave people to their own devices they create hierarchies organically. Conservatism is coincidentally right wing because the systems of the past were hierarchical.
I can't really come up with a response, because I cannot see how one would go about splitting the artifical laws of people into "natural" and "unnatural" ones.
|
On March 22 2017 08:58 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 07:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 07:25 Velr wrote:What could you do except forbid politicians from ever working in and with the private sector again? Well, just kill or jail them once they leave office ? Not that i like the practise but well, hard to do anything against it. France has a system for that. The ENA is a school that forms hauts fonctionnaires (high level civil servants) and a lot of politicians. If you are from the ENA and don't get reelected, you simply get hired again as a diplomat, a finance inspector or something. It has many flaws, but is a great way to make sure that the collusion between corporate interests and politics are kept as separated as possible. Honestly, that seems even worse. A school that "forms" high level civil servants and politicians? So instead of joining "the swamp" you already go to school in it if you want to become a politician/high level civic servant (what does that even mean). This stuff works in Switzerland pretty much like "normal" Jobs - aside from diplomats/ambassadors? Don't you create something like a "political caste" with a system like that?
That's not seen as negative in France, the whole Grandes écoles system and public institutions exist to train elite public servants. Can't really compare it to Switzerland which is much more bottom-up. Switzerland might actually be at the exact opposite end of the spectrum.
Bureaucracy is serious business in France, there's a reason they're very represented in many international institutions. De Gaulle described France as the a "coach man on a German workhorse" in regards to Europe. The role of the state is much more important than in most other countries.
|
On March 22 2017 08:58 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 07:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 07:25 Velr wrote:What could you do except forbid politicians from ever working in and with the private sector again? Well, just kill or jail them once they leave office ? Not that i like the practise but well, hard to do anything against it. France has a system for that. The ENA is a school that forms hauts fonctionnaires (high level civil servants) and a lot of politicians. If you are from the ENA and don't get reelected, you simply get hired again as a diplomat, a finance inspector or something. It has many flaws, but is a great way to make sure that the collusion between corporate interests and politics are kept as separated as possible. Honestly, that seems even worse. A school that "forms" high level civil servants and politicians? So instead of joining "the swamp" you already go to school in it if you want to become a politician/high level civic servant (what does that even mean). This stuff works in Switzerland pretty much like "normal" Jobs - aside from diplomats/ambassadors? Don't you create something like a "political caste" with a system like that?
that's the point, but it's also supposed to ensure a standard level of quality from the future high civil servant
the chinese did it for centuries, i don't know if it's still in place though
|
On March 22 2017 09:37 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 08:42 bardtown wrote:On March 22 2017 07:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
I think an underappreciated reality is that all the populists are different. Not just PiS vs UKIP/FN, but each one of those is different from each other, and are different from Italy, Germany, Greece, etc. Different countries, different populists. They mostly just have a few sentiments in common: anti-immigration, less friendly toward Europe, and they tend to be regarded as liars and fools. But beyond that they have many differences. Think of it this way: When the left-right view was first introduced, it described how seats were taken in the French parliament after the revolution. The first right-wingers were monarchists. Later on the coherent theme of the right was about opposing socialism, which viewed itself as "the new progressive ideology" (and which they quite overdid from a conservative view, often making them progressives of a different kind: liberals, although they often would claim that we have had very liberal economic systems in the past, so it would be a conservative act to introduce more liberal systems). In our modern days in which many things that used to be created by progressive powers, the true right-wingers will obviously also protect such concepts or even try to reintroduce them. Because that is what a true winger does, religiously trying to bring back a version of the past. That this has to differ between states and their self-inflicted propaganda machines is only natural. They all want to load different safegames of their own country. This is a teleological interpretation, and that's not a good thing. It is not about progression or the past. It is a distinction between people who believe in natural orders (the right) and people who believe in social systems limiting natural orders (the left). Liberalism (economic) is inherently right wing because if you leave people to their own devices they create hierarchies organically. Conservatism is coincidentally right wing because the systems of the past were hierarchical. I can't really come up with a response, because I cannot see how one would go about splitting the artifical laws of people into "natural" and "unnatural" ones. that human nature argument ties in really well with his British Empire one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
