|
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. |
Germany3128 Posts
On April 20 2017 06:22 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 22:32 TheNewEra wrote:Frauke Petry won't be the top candidate for the AFD next Bundestags election or work in a team. Source sadly in German. This will probably hurt the AFD a lot. While not popular within Germany she certainly is with AFD sympathizers. The alternative is probably someone way to the right of her correct me if I'm wrong... but isn't Petry already the rightwing alternative that seized power? iirc the party was initially more on Bernd Lucke only that he got ousted in 2015 because he was more about the economical aspects of all that anti-EU while Petry was more about everything else. So we're going even further to the populist right now? That being said and while I absolutely detest them it's probably the right thing to do from their point of view. The AfD is really struggling right now compared to what they used to be a couple months ago. So some change-up might end up in them getting some voters back? Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 22:40 Big J wrote:On April 19 2017 22:32 TheNewEra wrote:Frauke Petry won't be the top candidate for the AFD next Bundestags election or work in a team. Source sadly in German. This will probably hurt the AFD a lot. While not popular within Germany she certainly is with AFD sympathizers. The alternative is probably someone way to the right of her AfD is like watching the FPÖ history repeat in germany. It's a permanent struggle of politicians that want to create a republican party in Europe, that always seems to end with the liberal, economcially oriented wings giving up and the party swinging more and more to a fascist-type of culture warriors. yeah pretty much
You are completely right that Frauke Petry was already the rightwing alternative to Bernd Lucke but now they will probably go even further to the right. If you name the top dogs of the AFD Petry is one of the more 'moderate' of all of them. Especially the last months Petry hasn't really said much what we could consider rechtsradikal (instead others have fucked up more). Unless they find a so far unknown politician a shift to the right is very likely.
Yeah a change-up is needed for the AFD... but not like this. See the AFD is for most voters a single issue party: Immigrants and Terror. You will see that everytime there is big news about immigrants or a terrorist attack the AFD rises in the polls and if not they fall. And they are currently falling because the German bureaucracy has started to grip and is dealing with immigrants way better now. The result is simple: No news about immigrants --> AFD falls in the polls. The answer to this can't be to shift even more to the right because as of now a lot of people across the spectrum(from left to right) are intending to vote for them only because of immigrants. And Petry gives these people a face. A politician who is more moderate than some of her colleagues, more likeable, with the 'right' stance on immigration. Losing Petry + an openly shift to the right will make many of the more moderate voters rethink if the AFD is still the necessary but lesser evil compared to immigration.
Even though what has happened to Petry is more about how to oppose the big parties instead of a clash between ideologies inside the party this just shows how splintered the party is. The Parteitag this weekend will be reaaally interesting to follow. I honestly expect the AFD to either continue their full on self-destruction mode or to continue their full on self-destruction mode and go straight up rechtsradikal.
TL:DR: To say it with LegalLords favorite word: Without Petry the AFD will probably not be electable anymore for moderate conservatives or will reach that point as a result of the shifting politics in the party.
|
On April 20 2017 04:16 Velr wrote:
Uhm..No? For a country the size of france there would be like 20-60 of them and, uhm, its not like there are regional presidents, wtf?
France has been very decentralized by successive governments in the 90's and 2000's. It's nowhere near countries like Germany or Switzerland but the Regions and Departements wield a lot of responsibilities and power. To have worked a lot with both my region and my department's officials and administration, I have to say they are extremely competent and highly efficient people and structures.
The time where everything happened in Paris has been over for 20 years.
Also, I believe French politics is problematic at the highest level. It's the top thier politicians that are both the most corrupt and the most inefficient.
|
Still terrified Le Pen is gonna win
|
You're not alone on this one!
|
On April 20 2017 23:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Still terrified Le Pen is gonna win
Why do you care that much? Do you live in France?
|
On April 20 2017 23:29 TheDwf wrote:Why do you care that much? Do you live in France?
I live in the EU. I don't want Le Pen anywhere near the Council.
|
On April 20 2017 16:31 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 05:58 Nyxisto wrote:On April 20 2017 04:16 Velr wrote:
Uhm..No? For a country the size of france there would be like 20-60 of them and, uhm, its not like there are regional presidents, wtf? There's a good point to be made that decentralization is creating much more corruption and problems than centralisation. A good case study is China were the Communist party tactically moved responsibility to the local cities and municipalities to avoid the scrutiny that comes with doing things at the highest level. It's actually really difficult to be a corrupt federal politician. The news cycle and spotlight is so intense that you can't get away with anything. But go to a rural community and check out what's going on in the administration. The idea that local politicians are super loyal and honest because they face a lot of scrutiny is kind of a myth. There's a reason why big Conservative think tanks are no fans of centralized government. Do you have any sources to back up the claims that decentralisation increases corruption and that the communist party in China decentralised because it makes corruption easier?
I read the idea first in David Harvey's Seventeen Contradictions I think, but because you probably don't want to read a whole book, here's one of the parts
+ Show Spoiler +
Monopoly power is strongly associated with the centralisation of capital. On the other hand competition generally entails decentralisation. It is useful here to consider this cognate relation between the centralisation and decentralisation of political-economic activities as a subset of the contradictory unity between monopoly and competition. In this instance it is also vital to see the relation between centralisation and decentralisation in terms of a contradictory unity.
It has often proved the case, for example, that decentralisation is one of the best means to preserve highly centralised power, because it masks the nature of this centralised power behind a veneer of individual liberty and freedom.
In a way this was what Adam Smith was advocating: a centralised state could amass far greater wealth and economic power by liberating decentralised individualised market freedoms. This is something that the Chinese state has recognised
over the last few decades. In this case the decentralisation has been political (the decentralisation of powers to regions, cities down to townships and villages) as well as economic (the liberation of state and village enterprises and the banking system in both wealth creation and rent seeking). Giovanni Arrighi’s book Adam Smith in Beijing dwells on this point at length. But in this instance the crude assumption that decentralisation is inherently more democratic has to be seriously questioned, since there is no sign of the centralised Communist Party relinquishing any of its powers.
Here's also a good article on the Chinese situation.
Also concerning the French landscape, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung has an interesting 'strategic overview'
https://www.fes.de/de/strategy-debates-global/strategy-debates-france/
|
Thanks. Might read the book as well. Looks interesting.
|
I have the vague feeling that Le Pen will throw 2 or 3 really provocative statements tonight, she feels she has to in order to remobilize her voters. Will be interesting to see how that translates in the polls and then results, so far she's been losing vote intentions basically since the beginning of the campaign.
(How beautiful would it be to have come fourth on Sunday, just behind Fillon ? What a humiliation it would be)
|
On April 20 2017 23:29 TheDwf wrote:Why do you care that much? Do you live in France?
I think it's really everybody's business at that point. Her election would be a disaster for pretty much everyone.
|
On April 20 2017 23:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Still terrified Le Pen is gonna win
even she's elected she won't be able to rule since the whole state "machinery" is in the hand of the right and the left
also apply to a lesser extend for melenchon
really, there is a lot of hyperbole, fear-mongering (john olivier doesn't help :>) whereas after the euphory of the election, it's gonna be once again 5 plain year of nothing like hollande
|
On April 21 2017 02:01 Makro wrote:even she's elected she won't be able to rule since the whole state "machinery" is in the hand of the right and the left also apply to a lesser extend for melenchon really, there is a lot of hyperbole, fear-mongering (john olivier doesn't help :>) whereas after the euphory of the election, it's gonna be once again 5 plain year of nothing like hollande
Melenchon wants to call an assemblée constituante to found a VIth republic without asking the actual parliament.
He wants it to be proportional. If he managed, he could govern with a FDG group of new MPs.
As for Le Pen, the president has a shitload of powers. And her victory would split the LR. I wouldn't be so optimistic, she's extremely dangerous.
|
On April 20 2017 23:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 23:29 TheDwf wrote:On April 20 2017 23:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Still terrified Le Pen is gonna win Why do you care that much? Do you live in France? I live in the EU. I don't want Le Pen anywhere near the Council.
I am from the US and I would prefer the entire world not regress into isolationist nations all at the same time.
|
On April 21 2017 02:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:01 Makro wrote:On April 20 2017 23:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Still terrified Le Pen is gonna win even she's elected she won't be able to rule since the whole state "machinery" is in the hand of the right and the left also apply to a lesser extend for melenchon really, there is a lot of hyperbole, fear-mongering (john olivier doesn't help :>) whereas after the euphory of the election, it's gonna be once again 5 plain year of nothing like hollande Melenchon wants to call an assemblée constituante to found a VIth republic without asking the actual parliament. He wants it to be proportional. If he managed, he could govern with a FDG group of new MPs. As for Le Pen, the president has a shitload of powers. And her victory would split the LR. I wouldn't be so optimistic, she's extremely dangerous.
He would still need a majority to govern under the Vth Republic while the Constituent is doing its job.
By the way, did you see the petition that Chomsky signed?
|
I'm pretty much ok with any of the four; most of my least favorite candidates already lost. My strict preference of course is whatever the Europhiles like least but all four of Macron, Le Pen, Fillon, and Melenchon are acceptable.
|
May or may not be something you Euro folk care about...
Russia has banned Jehovah's Witnesses after the Supreme Court ruled the Christian sect to be an "extremist" group.
“The Supreme Court has ruled to sustain the claim of Russia's ministry of justice and deem the 'Administrative Centre of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia' organisation extremist, eliminate it and ban its activity in Russia,” said judge Yuri Ivanenko.
“The property of the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation is to be confiscated to the state revenue.”
Source
I can't say I strongly approve or disapprove of this because I haven't followed the story enough to judge the context. But keep in mind that it's quite standard in Russia for religion to be kept on a leash much more strongly than in most Western countries.
|
Yeah, I really don't care about right-wing idiots killing each other over religious supremacy. It's just very frightening that one side can get their idiotic backwards views institutionalized so easily if they appeal to the masses. It really frightens me to have religious wannabe fascists in both of the main nuclear powers, which used to compete in materialistic conflicts about liberalism or socialism.
|
Thing is the Jehovah's Witnesses really are a troubling group that I don't think has a place in the civilized world. Whether or not that should be enforced by court order is what's really at question here. I would for example wonder what people would think about if the US decided to outlaw Scientology and seize its assets on the grounds of being a dangerous religious sect.
Some reading.
|
They're basically a cult, withholding education of their children or medical treatment should not be legal and it happens frequently with them. Scientology is just a pyramid scheme. I actually think it's okay to ban these organizations, they aren't genuine religious organisations.
|
I think we can pretty easily agree that both JWs and Scientology are terrible organizations without which the world would be generally better off. But targeted removal is a dangerous territory. Surely, if there is illegal activity, punish it as you'd with every other, but is really a blank ban of such an extended organization warranted? In Russia, it really seems that the main reason is this "causing religion discord" thing, which is really shaky and sounds rather fundamentalist on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
