|
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 26 2017 21:24 Noizhende wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 20:41 RvB wrote:
That compass makes no sense. It has Hamon as a centrist and Macron more right wing than Fillon. It's almost as bad as the one from the US where Clinton is very right wing. The thing is that they redefine left and right as simply a political economy axis, in different countries the public view of left and right will be axes differing from it in angle on the compass plane. (eg in the usa the left/right axis in public discourse is more or less vertical, and the more a country stops discussing economic models the more left and right will align with the social liberal vs authoritarian axis) So, yes it's not a very good representation of how right or left wing someone is when you translate a common 1 dimensional political view into this 2d view, but i think it gives a very good feeling for how relatively ideologically different candidates are, measured by the distance of them on the map, independent of the orientation of the left/right axis. therefore it may give insight into the question of "how likely is someone who voted for x to vote for y next time?" by simply looking at the distances of the dots
Yes I know the right/left axis is pure economics. Even then The Political Compass makes no sense. If you look at the UK (2015) and Australia (2016) they put Labour as centre right. In the French election they put Macron more economically right than Fillon while Fillon is much more radical in reducing the size of the state, pension reform etc. They also have Clinton as a far right winger in the US. They place Macron and Clinton as far right as Milton Friedman which is complete nonsense. Friedman is much more radical than either of them.
While I certainly aree that a 2d view superior to the classic 1 dimensional right / left wing the execution from The Political Compass is subpar at best.
|
France13004 Posts
On April 26 2017 22:45 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 22:34 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 22:26 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2017 22:11 OtherWorld wrote:On April 26 2017 19:23 Noizhende wrote:If you look at where the political compass puts the candidates it's more obvious why it's not so obvious if Melenchon voters will prefer Macron over Le Pen. https://www.politicalcompass.org/france2017although the placement might be quite controversial...  Macron's program being as "authoritarian" as Mélenchon's and Hamon's ? That's BS unrelated sidenote : it's kinda funny to see Mélenchon's supporters blaming Hamon for not retiring, while the same people were absolutely refusing to retire Mélechon from the race when Hamon was at 15% and Mélenchon at 10% in the polls^^ Hamon didn't even need to withdraw, simply respecting his non-agression pact and making some small gestures/hints would have been enough. Instead of that he polarized on purpose in the last week on their differences so that he would retain enough voters to be above 5% and get refunded (getting millions of euros for the party which constantly betrayed him was more important for him than the left having a chance to reach the second round; he knew his priorities...). Those few hundreds of thousands of votes cost Mélenchon the second round. Had the situation been reversed (Hamon near 20%, Mélenchon at 6-7) the PS would have fired at him 24/7 and called him all kind of names for “stealing” their victory and whatnot. Meanwhile Mélenchon never asked anything of Hamon after their non-agression pact. The arrogance of those social-democrats is insane, there is never the slightest reciprocity with them, the radical left reluctantly accepted to vote for them for years; and when for once the time has come to return the favour, there's no one? I'm so happy they made only 6%, might finally teach them some goddamn humility It's now a fact that the strategy of going from Hamon to Melenchon didn't work, so could you please at least use common sense and realize that we now know that the other strategy might have been the solution? There's no one? A lot of people actually switched from Hamon to Melenchon, and that's how you thank them?  Being so loud instead of using your brain was funny at first, but it's getting annoying. It's not a fact since there were still vote reserves at the end. How many of them would made the switch if the vote was done again now? The other way around would not have worked because a part of the left did not want to hear about the PS anymore and wanted to make it pay for Hollande's mandate. Just the day after Hamon's triumph, when he was in full light and power, hailed as some savior of the left, Mélenchon was still at 9% when Hamon was at 18%. The end result was 20 vs 6, so Mélenchon's floor was higher than Hamon's one. Thus Mélenchon, not linked with the PS, was a better vehicle for the left. You would know it if you had been in the demonstrations against the labour reform where the anger towards the PS was immense Don't feel forced to react to my posts if they bother you, I'll do the same with you Edit: also I do thank people who made the switch/sacrifice, I'm talking about Hamon's attitude and his close supporters
Oh then sorry for misreading what you meant, but you can't blame Hamon either because he was expected to refund his campaign, and even if he had subtily said to people to vote for Melenchon, that doesn't guarantee that enough people would have made the switch since there were already A LOT of people that made it.
But if you still want to blame Hamon, you can blame Melenchon as well because he had the possibility to retire / unite with Hamon when it was Hamon that was ahead in the polls, a lot of people would have thus followed Hamon and there would have been a possibility of going to the second round.
Therefore, the issue is that it works both ways: one of Hamon and Mélenchon had to sacrifice himself, Hamon did it (you'll say that he didn't do it enough but it's not that obvious). We saw that it didn't work out, so now we wonder if the other way would have worked. I don't think so, because there'll always be people torn apart from the choice, so imo the proper way to sacrifice yourself is to do it "à la" Bayrou, by not being a candidate.
And what the fuck does this have to do with demonstrations? The people who demonstrate ain't a perfect representation of the left wing voters, so you can't just say: "look, in the demonstrations people were against the PS so it is obvious that Mélenchon was the only way for the left to win!".
Plus, I don't think demonstrations is the best way to fight, since it's too frontal and easily contained by the governing power. Instead, slowly destroying the whole thing by the inside is probably a better (albeit not as easy) way.
|
Just seen this report through some german news site:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8001715/3-26042017-AP-EN.pdf/05e315db-1fe3-49d1-94ff-06f7e995580e
Pretty interesting stats on the refugees in the EU!
Germany granted asylum for 443 210 refugees in 2016, which is 3 times more than 2015. 2nd place goes to Sweden with 69 350 (doubled) and 3rd Italy with 35 450 (+20%). Those follow France, Austria and the Netherlands.
Also there's stats on where the refugees were from and the percentage of how many refugees were granted positive asylum in different EU countries.
|
The "per Million Habitants" is the actually interesting stat... Sweden O_o.
|
On April 26 2017 23:43 Velr wrote:
The "per Million Habitants" is the actually interesting stat... Sweden O_o.
Yeah true, Sweden is leading there ahead of Germany. :p
|
On April 26 2017 23:13 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 21:24 Noizhende wrote:On April 26 2017 20:41 RvB wrote:
That compass makes no sense. It has Hamon as a centrist and Macron more right wing than Fillon. It's almost as bad as the one from the US where Clinton is very right wing. The thing is that they redefine left and right as simply a political economy axis, in different countries the public view of left and right will be axes differing from it in angle on the compass plane. (eg in the usa the left/right axis in public discourse is more or less vertical, and the more a country stops discussing economic models the more left and right will align with the social liberal vs authoritarian axis) So, yes it's not a very good representation of how right or left wing someone is when you translate a common 1 dimensional political view into this 2d view, but i think it gives a very good feeling for how relatively ideologically different candidates are, measured by the distance of them on the map, independent of the orientation of the left/right axis. therefore it may give insight into the question of "how likely is someone who voted for x to vote for y next time?" by simply looking at the distances of the dots Yes I know the right/left axis is pure economics. Even then The Political Compass makes no sense. If you look at the UK (2015) and Australia (2016) they put Labour as centre right. In the French election they put Macron more economically right than Fillon while Fillon is much more radical in reducing the size of the state, pension reform etc. They also have Clinton as a far right winger in the US. They place Macron and Clinton as far right as Milton Friedman which is complete nonsense. Friedman is much more radical than either of them. While I certainly aree that a 2d view superior to the classic 1 dimensional right / left wing the execution from The Political Compass is subpar at best.
alright, mb they should rework their questionaire a bit, i also found the position of macron a bit too far right
|
On April 26 2017 23:36 HolydaKing wrote:Just seen this report through some german news site: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8001715/3-26042017-AP-EN.pdf/05e315db-1fe3-49d1-94ff-06f7e995580ePretty interesting stats on the refugees in the EU! Germany granted asylum for 443 210 refugees in 2016, which is 3 times more than 2015. 2nd place goes to Sweden with 69 350 (doubled) and 3rd Italy with 35 450 (+20%). Those follow France, Austria and the Netherlands. Also there's stats on where the refugees were from and the percentage of how many refugees were granted positive asylum in different EU countries.
1420 refugees resettled in France, a country with 66 millions inhabitants; now I understand better why the Front National talks about migratory invasion, we are literally overwhelmed
Halp plx
|
Why do you even make such comments? There were 5x that number in Calais alone, as I'm sure you are aware.
|
On April 27 2017 00:26 bardtown wrote:
Why do you even make such comments? There were 5x that number in Calais alone, as I'm sure you are aware.
Because the idea that France is destabilized by massive immigration is grotesque. Yes, there were 7 to 10k in Calais (i. e. nothing for a 66 millions country which also happens to be the 5th/6th economic power in the world), and it's actually partially because of you guys. This Touquet deal with the UK should be denounced, we don't have to manage your border for you, especially as you don't even want to take the underage migrants who already have family in UK. As for the migrants in Calais, had the government simply reacted swiftly instead of letting the situation rot, at the expense of everyone, there would have been no problem. Just dispatch those who want to stay in voluntary towns, as they finally did, and tadda, problem solved.
|
Your entire post is disingenuous. It was a mutual agreement between the two countries because here's what happens if the border is in the UK: the entire onus for stopping migrants lies with the ferry/haulage companies. It's extremely damaging for business, and if they were less effective than the border checks, you would have more migrants in Calais, not less, because word would get out that it was possible to get into the UK. Then when they get to the UK border they'd be coming straight back to you anyway.
Yes, you shut down the camp and provided housing for some of the migrants. And now more are coming/many of those moved are returning. You haven't solved anything.
|
On April 27 2017 00:26 bardtown wrote:
Why do you even make such comments? There were 5x that number in Calais alone, as I'm sure you are aware.
Partisan selection of facts that help one case is not limited to the far-right. If a neutral telling of the story would hurt Le Pen just as well, why not do that instead? It would help stall rhetoric that parties a, b, and c refuse to admit there's a problem/severity of the problem. I don't see a broad selection of FN in this thread (hell, did anyone even cast a ballot for her that posts here?) , but I'd want to ask if their vote includes protest of this attitude.
|
On April 27 2017 00:51 bardtown wrote:
Your entire post is disingenuous. It was a mutual agreement between the two countries because here's what happens if the border is in the UK: the entire onus for stopping migrants lies with the ferry/haulage companies. It's extremely damaging for business, and if they were less effective than the border checks, you would have more migrants in Calais, not less, because word would get out that it was possible to get into the UK. Then when they get to the UK border they'd be coming straight back to you anyway.
Ah, if it's bad for money then...
Yes, you shut down the camp and provided housing for some of the migrants. And now more are coming/many of those moved are returning. You haven't solved anything.
Yes, because those ones still want to go to the UK
Those people drown, get shot, beaten, jailed, and you still don't understand that they will try to come whatever you do. The “treat them decently → more will come” theory was never proven, and the “be obnoxious → the flow will cease” is being refuted live as the Mediterranean swallows thousands of persons
|
It's not only bad for 'money', as I explained. But also, it must be wonderful to live in your fantasy world where money and trade are in no way related to people's livelihoods. Then to suggest that we are being obnoxious by fielding dozens of ships to pick up those migrants, with the Italians now claiming that charities are colluding with people smugglers to pick up even more...
|
Why do you want even more muslim refugees? Do you think they would have treated you decently if you were a refugee in the Middle East? Or, are you going to respond with "we're better than that!"? Yeah, at the expense of a nation.
|
Given that countries like Jordan or Lebanon have taken in so many refugees that they constitute about a quarter of the population I'd say, yeah in some places they try to treat you fairly decently. I don't know what this useless hypothetical adds to the discussion. We grant asylum based on humanitarian obligations towards individuals. It does not matter if their nation is mean or nice or whatever.
|
On April 27 2017 03:20 Nyxisto wrote:
Given that countries like Jordan or Lebanon have taken in so many refugees that they constitute about a quarter of the population I'd say, yeah in some places they try to treat you fairly decently. I don't know what this useless hypothetical adds to the discussion. We grant asylum based on humanitarian obligations towards individuals. It does not matter if their nation is mean or nice or whatever.
Jordan and Lebanon are mostly muslim. It makes sense for them to take the current wave of refugees because they're also muslim. In other words, they're culturally more similar than Europe is for refugees.
|
Stop being obsessed with the fact that they're Muslims. Muslims need to work and eat too. The material and economic impact in Jordan is as big as in any other nation, Muslims don't have special superpowers that gives them bonus points in other Muslim nations.
when will this absurd culture shit stop. Just adopt ten Christian refugees then, apparently that's not a big deal given that you all love Jesus
|
On April 27 2017 03:10 Shield wrote:
Why do you want even more muslim refugees? Do you think they would have treated you decently if you were a refugee in the Middle East? Or, are you going to respond with "we're better than that!"? Yeah, at the expense of a nation.
Man you're really just hating. Not even trolling, you're genuinely hating.
Do you know which country takes in most refugees? Show some effort and look it up yourself, I'll even provide a link
on a curious sidenote: would you be fine with christians coming?
And yes, German refugees have been treated rather well over the last century, though they mostly went to Western Germany, UK, US, France and in case they lost the war to South America. They generally fared better than those expelled from former territories who went back to west/east Germany post '44/45.
As I'm not aware of any large movement to the east I can't answer your question on a historical basis. But as Germans arn't as hated as they used to so if it's a genuine cause as WAR, DANGER OF PERSECUTION AND DEATH, we'd surely get help.
On April 27 2017 03:25 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 03:20 Nyxisto wrote:
Given that countries like Jordan or Lebanon have taken in so many refugees that they constitute about a quarter of the population I'd say, yeah in some places they try to treat you fairly decently. I don't know what this useless hypothetical adds to the discussion. We grant asylum based on humanitarian obligations towards individuals. It does not matter if their nation is mean or nice or whatever. Jordan and Lebanon are mostly muslim. It makes sense for them to take the current wave of refugees because they're also muslim. In other words, they're culturally more similar than Europe is for refugees.
Yes. it surely is culturally more appropriate for muslims to have tents instead of houses and dirt instead of roads in their cramped, dirty and diseased camps. Is that what you mean?
|
Jordan also accepts Iraqi Christians in important numbers, without prejudice. But it really doesn't "make sense" for them, the country is ripping apart from the inside by the overflow of people. They don't even have enough water for everyone in the long term. But they still do it, because they have the decency, even though they are terrible uncultured goatfuckers as viewed by many Europeans. People who refuse refugees shouldn't really use the word "Jordan" at all.
|
On April 27 2017 03:29 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 03:10 Shield wrote:
Why do you want even more muslim refugees? Do you think they would have treated you decently if you were a refugee in the Middle East? Or, are you going to respond with "we're better than that!"? Yeah, at the expense of a nation. Man you're really just hating. Not even trolling, you're genuinely hating. Do you know which country takes in most refugees? Show some effort and look it up yourself, I'll even provide a linkon a curious sidenote: would you be fine with christians coming? And yes, German refugees have been treated rather well over the last century, though they mostly went to Western Germany, UK, US, France and in case they lost the war to South America. They generally fared better than those expelled from former territories who went back to west/east Germany post '44/45. As I'm not aware of any large movement to the east I can't answer your question on a historical basis. But as Germans arn't as hated as they used to so if it's a genuine cause as WAR, DANGER OF PERSECUTION AND DEATH, we'd surely get help. Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 03:25 Shield wrote:On April 27 2017 03:20 Nyxisto wrote:
Given that countries like Jordan or Lebanon have taken in so many refugees that they constitute about a quarter of the population I'd say, yeah in some places they try to treat you fairly decently. I don't know what this useless hypothetical adds to the discussion. We grant asylum based on humanitarian obligations towards individuals. It does not matter if their nation is mean or nice or whatever. Jordan and Lebanon are mostly muslim. It makes sense for them to take the current wave of refugees because they're also muslim. In other words, they're culturally more similar than Europe is for refugees. Yes. it surely is culturally more appropriate for muslims to have tents instead of houses and dirt instead of roads in their cramped, dirty and diseased camps. Is that what you mean?
Hating on what? That they wear burqa, refuse to integrate and open kebab shops? Yeah, I'll really miss that... not.
They don't really want to live like Europeans. They want to live like in the Middle East.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
