|
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 April 21 2017 02:15 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: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 have missed that. Thing is, I have real problems with Mélenchon's views on FP and international affairs, to a degree that kinds of prohibits me voting for him. I also don't think his program would work at all in the current european climate.
I'm a bit stuck to be honest.
|
that petition seems like an overreaction and an ignorance of the french political reality/voting system in my opinion. I don't see how in a multiparty system in a run off melenchon would outperform macron.
|
On April 21 2017 03:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
that petition seems like an overreaction and an ignorance of the french political reality/voting system in my opinion. I don't see how in a multiparty system in a run off melenchon would outperform macron.
The question is not who outperforms who, it's a matter of political line. This petition deems that more economic liberalism is not the solution to the current problems, hence why they reject Macron.
|
On April 21 2017 03:37 opisska wrote:
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.
The problem is that most frameworks for genuine religions grant certain rights and privileges, so it is difficult to tackle criminal organizations or sects that use religious protections. See scientology in the US. It's better to act strongly against them than to strip all religious people of their protection or something.
I don't think we need to argue slippery slopes here, the difference between scientology, some evangelical cult or whatever and the standard denominations is really huge. There's not much overlap in Europe. The genuine religions are well organised within society, they're probably not opposed to this.
Funnily enough some German family a few years ago, who did not want to send their kids to school which is mandatory here fled to Texas to claim religious asylum. I don't actually know if that was ever approved
|
On April 21 2017 04:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 03:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
that petition seems like an overreaction and an ignorance of the french political reality/voting system in my opinion. I don't see how in a multiparty system in a run off melenchon would outperform macron. The question is not who outperforms who, it's a matter of political line. This petition deems that more economic liberalism is not the solution to the current problems, hence why they reject Macron.
from reading it it seems more like they just don't want Le Pen winning.
If the first round of the French presidential election were held at this writing, there are strong chances that, in the second round, French voters would face a choice between status quo corporate establishment liberalism and xenophobic right populism. This was the scenario that elected President Trump in the United States. We don't want to see this tragedy repeated in France, with terrible global consequences. It wouldn't be farce. It would just be tragedy.
I mean chomsky probably likes Macron better but their saying don't repeat what the US did and a lack of progressive support in US is seen as leading to the outcome that happened. Obviously they support Melenchon but they really seem to be saying that he's the way to stop Le Pen. It's a bit of both but it's certainly formed more as stop Le Pen then it is melenchon has better policies than Macron. at least that's how I'm reading it.
update. upon rereading it your kinda right. I don't really like how it's worded so that was confusing me a bit. I still wish they'd go more into why melenchon is a good candidate rather than just saying he's not exsablishment and I have some quibbles with the US comparison.
|
On April 21 2017 04:11 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 04:08 TheDwf wrote:On April 21 2017 03:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
that petition seems like an overreaction and an ignorance of the french political reality/voting system in my opinion. I don't see how in a multiparty system in a run off melenchon would outperform macron. The question is not who outperforms who, it's a matter of political line. This petition deems that more economic liberalism is not the solution to the current problems, hence why they reject Macron. from reading it it seems more like they just don't want Le Pen winning. Show nested quote +If the first round of the French presidential election were held at this writing, there are strong chances that, in the second round, French voters would face a choice between status quo corporate establishment liberalism and xenophobic right populism. This was the scenario that elected President Trump in the United States. We don't want to see this tragedy repeated in France, with terrible global consequences. It wouldn't be farce. It would just be tragedy.
I mean chomsky probably likes Macron better but their saying don't repeat what the US did and a lack of progressive support in US is seen as leading to the outcome that happened. Obviously they support Melenchon but they really seem to be saying that he's the way to stop Le Pen. It's a bit of both but it's certainly formed more as stop Le Pen then it is melenchon has better policies than Macron. at least that's how I'm reading it.
Chomsky fights neoliberalism, he cannot like Macron better. He supported Sanders over Clinton in the primary, right?
|
Policeman killed in Paris by a gunman, another injured.
|
On April 21 2017 04:24 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 04:11 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 21 2017 04:08 TheDwf wrote:On April 21 2017 03:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
that petition seems like an overreaction and an ignorance of the french political reality/voting system in my opinion. I don't see how in a multiparty system in a run off melenchon would outperform macron. The question is not who outperforms who, it's a matter of political line. This petition deems that more economic liberalism is not the solution to the current problems, hence why they reject Macron. from reading it it seems more like they just don't want Le Pen winning. If the first round of the French presidential election were held at this writing, there are strong chances that, in the second round, French voters would face a choice between status quo corporate establishment liberalism and xenophobic right populism. This was the scenario that elected President Trump in the United States. We don't want to see this tragedy repeated in France, with terrible global consequences. It wouldn't be farce. It would just be tragedy.
I mean chomsky probably likes Macron better but their saying don't repeat what the US did and a lack of progressive support in US is seen as leading to the outcome that happened. Obviously they support Melenchon but they really seem to be saying that he's the way to stop Le Pen. It's a bit of both but it's certainly formed more as stop Le Pen then it is melenchon has better policies than Macron. at least that's how I'm reading it. Chomsky fights neoliberalism, he cannot like Macron better. He supported Sanders over Clinton in the primary, right?
yeah I mistyped there without thinking lol (they both start with m). Meant melenchon. I updated my post a bit and I have more quibbles with the way it's written than what they want to say. I still feel it's still projecting the US results onto France without understanding the differences in systems and candidates. Ruffalo and stone seem a bit of conspiracy nuts and Chomsky hates anything that seems like pro capitalism.
I don't follow French politics a ton but Macron seems to be pretty solid and not with massive unfavorability ratings.
|
On April 21 2017 04:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 03:37 opisska wrote:
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. Funnily enough some German family a few years ago, who did not want to send their kids to school which is mandatory here fled to Texas to claim religious asylum. I don't actually know if that was ever approved
Is this the one?
Edit: Further development on that story.
And this.
|
On April 21 2017 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:15 TheDwf wrote:On April 21 2017 02:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: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 have missed that. Thing is, I have real problems with Mélenchon's views on FP and international affairs, to a degree that kinds of prohibits me voting for him. I also don't think his program would work at all in the current european climate. I'm a bit stuck to be honest.
I'm hoping that Mélenchon wins, and then the French vote overwhelming for staying in the EU in the referendum that follows. That'd be the best of both worlds for me, basically.
|
On April 21 2017 04:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 03:37 opisska wrote:
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. The problem is that most frameworks for genuine religions grant certain rights and privileges, so it is difficult to tackle criminal organizations or sects that use religious protections. See scientology in the US. It's better to act strongly against them than to strip all religious people of their protection or something. I don't think we need to argue slippery slopes here, the difference between scientology, some evangelical cult or whatever and the standard denominations is really huge. There's not much overlap in Europe. The genuine religions are well organised within society, they're probably not opposed to this. Funnily enough some German family a few years ago, who did not want to send their kids to school which is mandatory here fled to Texas to claim religious asylum. I don't actually know if that was ever approved
I think it is much better to revoke religious protectionism and level the field between religious and non-religious people, than have religious extremists protected by privileges that only religious opinions and organizations have and to deal with them legitimate arbitrary actions when some ruler deems a religion/religious organization to be more extremist than another.
|
Leveling the field essentially means pushing religious life back into the private, where extremists have an easier time influencing people and you prevent exchange between secular and religious institutions. In Germany I think we have a good mix. We fund religious education at public universities, we grant religions some rights they want but we also demand that they stay integrated in secular society. So in effect you secularize religion and you get some religious feedback too.
It's much preferable I think than saying "no special rights for you" and then sending them off into the woods where their parents teach them nonsense and pull them out of school. One problem with Islam is exactly that. They're not represented in institutions. Interestingly enough also connected to the decentralization discussion earlier. Same problem, society cannot get a grip on all this back-room preaching and isolated communities.
On April 21 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 04:09 Nyxisto wrote:On April 21 2017 03:37 opisska wrote:
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. Funnily enough some German family a few years ago, who did not want to send their kids to school which is mandatory here fled to Texas to claim religious asylum. I don't actually know if that was ever approved Is this the one? Edit: Further development on that story.And this.
Yep that's the one. They actually got approved too lol.
|
Ultimately religious beliefs should be respected and supported, but they have no place establishing any form of practices which undermine the principles upon which the government is founded. The burqini ban seems pointless in that regard, but stopping people from accessing important medical procedures cuz religion or bilking them for all their money because Xenu wills it are all fair game for government crackdowns. But religion matters to people and denying people the right to practice in general is going to look a lot like oppression.
|
On April 21 2017 02:25 LegalLord wrote:
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.
I think Le Pen first round plurality, second round loss, would be best for further evolution of party positions on immigration and less powers devolved to the EU. The amount of four-way splitting going on this close to the election is absolutely stunning.
|
LePen going to win now pretty much.
|
not gonna change a thing about lepen, but watching twitter after that is quite a shit show
more concerned about the political aftermath than the real tragedy that occured
|
On April 21 2017 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:LePen going to win now pretty much. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/961Economist/status/855145247415963648
Yes, she's totally going to win 5 millions of extra votes now! We don't even know what happened, seriously what's the point of this kind of reaction?
|
On April 21 2017 05:15 TheDwf wrote:Yes, she's totally going to win 5 millions of extra votes now! We don't even know what happened, seriously what's the point of this kind of reaction?
Because these kinds of attacks tend to stir nationalistic feelings. Its pretty much a known fact by now.
|
On April 21 2017 05:15 TheDwf wrote:Yes, she's totally going to win 5 millions of extra votes now! We don't even know what happened, seriously what's the point of this kind of reaction?
Fear, mostly. The French elections have most of the world in a panic in light of the recent past.
|
On April 21 2017 05:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 05:15 TheDwf wrote:On April 21 2017 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:LePen going to win now pretty much. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/961Economist/status/855145247415963648 Yes, she's totally going to win 5 millions of extra votes now! We don't even know what happened, seriously what's the point of this kind of reaction? Because these kinds of attacks tend to stir nationalistic feelings. Its pretty much a known fact by now.
And how do you know it's a terrorist attack? There are jewelry shops around there, could be linked to some armed robbery for all we know. We don't know yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
