|
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 May 07 2017 08:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 07:02 Nyxisto wrote:On May 07 2017 06:19 bardtown wrote:On May 07 2017 04:48 Nyxisto wrote:
It's hypocritical to decry globalisation, in most of these cases be on a EU payroll because they're European MP's and then go around and meddle with politics of other countries. They're essentially just trolls that move from one place to the next, because they don't even actually have a political program. Ukip is entirely obsolete now that the UK is out of the EU, so apparently these people need to move on to the next target. It's purely destructive.
Also foreign secretaries have political mandates and they're accountable. They're not private individuals roaming around the continent trying to mess things up. He's an MEP. Are you telling me MEPs aren't accountable? Shocking. MEP's have legal immunity which obviously can be abused, see Le Pen's use of it. Farage comes in second to last in voting participation in the European parliament, takes the check and runs around to bring the EU down. I can't take this seriously. I have never understood legal immunity for politicians. I understand it's a protection so they can do their job and it avoids political trials. But it seems like it is abused a hell of a lot more than it helps.
Would you rather have politicians accused of crimes on twitter? I happen to live in a country with a little more robust free speech laws, but I can see all sorts of situations in Europe where political opponents can use the courts to evade the people. I'm using that just as an example, because I can also see abuse on the other side when immunity is taken too far.
|
On May 07 2017 10:01 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 08:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 07 2017 07:02 Nyxisto wrote:On May 07 2017 06:19 bardtown wrote:On May 07 2017 04:48 Nyxisto wrote:
It's hypocritical to decry globalisation, in most of these cases be on a EU payroll because they're European MP's and then go around and meddle with politics of other countries. They're essentially just trolls that move from one place to the next, because they don't even actually have a political program. Ukip is entirely obsolete now that the UK is out of the EU, so apparently these people need to move on to the next target. It's purely destructive.
Also foreign secretaries have political mandates and they're accountable. They're not private individuals roaming around the continent trying to mess things up. He's an MEP. Are you telling me MEPs aren't accountable? Shocking. MEP's have legal immunity which obviously can be abused, see Le Pen's use of it. Farage comes in second to last in voting participation in the European parliament, takes the check and runs around to bring the EU down. I can't take this seriously. I have never understood legal immunity for politicians. I understand it's a protection so they can do their job and it avoids political trials. But it seems like it is abused a hell of a lot more than it helps. I guess it's supposed to protect the legislature against the executive. But I agree it seems to be abused a lot. The cure is as bad (or worse) as the disease in this case.
It prevents abuse of the criminal justice system against politicians. A low level criminal attorney can't charge an elected official with some crime or harass them with hundreds of small fines. Immunity is in place to prevent other abuses of power and allows the elected officials to oversee law enforcement. Just think what would happen if a PM was in charge of dealing with a corrupt police department. They can't do that unless the police have no power of the PM.
|
On May 07 2017 08:44 lastpuritan wrote:
Is there a specific reason why LePen is hitting Macron over his softness towards Germany. As for as I know there's no rivalry between the two, like France-Brits type. FR obviously has better army to satisfy right wingers, is it all about the economies? If she wants nationalist people to vote for her, Russia would be a better target. But for some unknown reasons to me central EU is almost fully ignoring the NATO vs RUSSIA thing while there's not a single day in the US people don't talk about it.
Le Pen wants to portray him as Merkel's secretary, a guy who will place German interest before French interest in the future, and especially with anything EU-related. The goal is not so much to appeal to nationalists, but much more to appeal to EU-skeptics (undoubtedly a much bigger category than real nationalists in France). Negative reference to Germany, and especially Merkel, was also a core part of Mélenchon's rethoric during the campaign (and before, like when he ridiculously compared Merkel to Bismarck wrote an entire and gross anti-German book presenting literally every French problem as a consequence of "German poison").
As Le Pen said during the debate, in what was perhaps her only decent punchline of the night : "France will be ruled by a woman anyway ; it'll be either me or Merkel".
|
On May 07 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 08:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 07 2017 07:02 Nyxisto wrote:On May 07 2017 06:19 bardtown wrote:On May 07 2017 04:48 Nyxisto wrote:
It's hypocritical to decry globalisation, in most of these cases be on a EU payroll because they're European MP's and then go around and meddle with politics of other countries. They're essentially just trolls that move from one place to the next, because they don't even actually have a political program. Ukip is entirely obsolete now that the UK is out of the EU, so apparently these people need to move on to the next target. It's purely destructive.
Also foreign secretaries have political mandates and they're accountable. They're not private individuals roaming around the continent trying to mess things up. He's an MEP. Are you telling me MEPs aren't accountable? Shocking. MEP's have legal immunity which obviously can be abused, see Le Pen's use of it. Farage comes in second to last in voting participation in the European parliament, takes the check and runs around to bring the EU down. I can't take this seriously. I have never understood legal immunity for politicians. I understand it's a protection so they can do their job and it avoids political trials. But it seems like it is abused a hell of a lot more than it helps. Would you rather have politicians accused of crimes on twitter? I happen to live in a country with a little more robust free speech laws, but I can see all sorts of situations in Europe where political opponents can use the courts to evade the people. I'm using that just as an example, because I can also see abuse on the other side when immunity is taken too far.
To be honest, europeans have a completely different understanding than americans of the concept of free speech which leads to huge misunderstandings. I somewhat admire the extent of american free speech, but it also leads to very harmful excesses.
|
Which differences?
Afaik I can say whatever I want, except for some anti-Nazi laws in some European countries, no?
Edit: Though when I think about it, there are some of these right-winger selfprotecting laws around that prevent negative speech about the state or religions.
|
On May 07 2017 16:21 Big J wrote:
Which differences?
Afaik I can say whatever I want, except for some anti-Nazi laws in some European countries, no?
Edit: Though when I think about it, there are some of these right-winger selfprotecting laws around that prevent negative speech about the state or religions.
Lots of differences. In most European countries, defamation laws for example are much much much more protective than in the US. We tend to consider that free speech is a right until you harm someone.
For example, you can't imagine Westboro baptist church screaming that God hates fags in a gay person funeral in Europe. Other case, Hillary Clinton would have sued the fuck out of Breitbart, pizzagate morons and Trump himself in any european country. And won. Etc etc etc etc.
|
On May 07 2017 16:21 Big J wrote:
Which differences?
Afaik I can say whatever I want, except for some anti-Nazi laws in some European countries, no?
Edit: Though when I think about it, there are some of these right-winger selfprotecting laws around that prevent negative speech about the state or religions.
The best example is probably that, in most European countries, actively denying the Holocaust is punishable by law. Jean-Marie Le Pen himself was charged more than once for his negationist words.
In the US, freedom of speech is stronger, in so that you can pretty much say whatever you want and you will likely never face legal charges. The only times you do is when you incite people to harm someone, or when your words lead to physical harm, I believe.
In France (and in most of Europe I think, but that might not be true), the overarcing principle of freedom of speech is that your freedom ends where that of your neighbor begins. Meaning that hateful speech is much more easily punished; sometimes too easily.
Being French, I'm biased, but I prefer our system by a margin. It does lead to some abuse, and some cases where people should not be charged (I happen to think that of the many questionable things Marine Le Pen has done and said, posting pictures of ISIS beheadings is not what should get her in the most trouble). However, I do firmly believe denying something as serious and as historical as the Holocaust should not be allowed. Different strokes.
|
French Potemkine election, allegory:
+ Show Spoiler +
Participation rate at 12:00 is 28.23%, down from 28.54% in the first round (30.66% in the second round in 2012).
|
It's almost impossible but good luck Marine.
|
Norway28894 Posts
As a detail, there are only 16 (out of 44) european countries where holocaust denial is illegal.
|
On May 07 2017 20:15 SoSexy wrote:
It's almost impossible but good luck Marine.
Aye, good luck to her but my guess is Macron 57-43.
|
On May 07 2017 20:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 20:15 SoSexy wrote:
It's almost impossible but good luck Marine. Aye, good luck to her but my guess is Macron 57-43.
I seriously hope she doesn't get more than 40%. 40% would be bad enough as it is.
|
I think Macron is gonna reach 60%
|
On May 07 2017 21:04 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 20:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 07 2017 20:15 SoSexy wrote:
It's almost impossible but good luck Marine. Aye, good luck to her but my guess is Macron 57-43. I seriously hope she doesn't get more than 40%. 40% would be bad enough as it is.
why?
|
On May 07 2017 21:30 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 21:04 Spaylz wrote:On May 07 2017 20:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 07 2017 20:15 SoSexy wrote:
It's almost impossible but good luck Marine. Aye, good luck to her but my guess is Macron 57-43. I seriously hope she doesn't get more than 40%. 40% would be bad enough as it is. why?
Because it's already painful enough to have a dumb far-right candidate unable to articulate two ideas offer an auto-win to someone who embodies big business and all the policies which failed since the mid 80's?
|
On May 07 2017 21:29 SoSexy wrote:
I think Macron is gonna reach 60%
Yeah that Obama endorsement should push him over the top right? Hahaha! Not that it matters all that much anyway.Macron will have sub 15 popularity within 18 months .Last i heard Hollande was at 4% approval a few months back and I can't see Macron changing Frances current course.Good luck anyway.
|
When things like this happen, I believe that intellectuals need to take a step back and ask questions. I.e., concerning Le Pen there are two possibilities:
1) 40% of french people became racist and unable to understand 'basic' concepts
2) 40% of french people are worried about legitimate issues that are not being tackled by other parties
In my experience, in every election I have witnessed where left parties lost, the rhetoric was that of number 1). Then, when they win, suddenly 'people have understood what's good for the country'. I found it ridicolous how in Italy left parties were calling Berlusconi voters 'sheeps, corrupted by his tv programs' then whey they won the election few years later they were celebrating how people were so good in their choices. Surely they must have changed a lot in those years  What I find WAY more probable is that people voted Berlusconi because he was tackling certain issues, not because they were sheeps. Then, when he was unable to resolve them, people voted an alternative. I don't like the rhetoric of the 'sheep masses' too much.
|
On May 07 2017 21:47 SoSexy wrote:When things like this happen, I believe that intellectuals need to take a step back and ask questions. I.e., concerning Le Pen there are two possibilities: 1) 40% of french people became racist and unable to understand 'basic' concepts 2) 40% of french people are worried about legitimate issues that are not being tackled by other parties In my experience, in every election I have witnessed where left parties lost, the rhetoric was that of number 1). Then, when they win, suddenly 'people have understood what's good for the country'. I found it ridicolous how in Italy left parties were calling Berlusconi voters 'sheeps, corrupted by his tv programs' then whey they won the election few years later they were celebrating how people were so good in their choices. Surely they must have changed a lot in those years
1) Le Pen's real score is 7.6 millions in the first round, the 30-40% of expressed votes she will get in the second round means little since the vast majority of her new voters will choose her by default or because they reject Macron even more. Real support for her program does not even reach 15% when you remove the protest vote in her first round score...
2) Racism is widespread within the French society, and is absolutely not restricted to FN voters. Convinced FN voters are simply the ones who make it their highest priority (they score the highest on the ethnocentrism scale).
3) Governmental parties actually run after the FN themes (both the right and the right-wing ““social-democrats””), hence why the FN keeps (slowly) rising: voters prefer the original to the copy. Surprise surprise, when you legitimize the world views of the far-right in the mainstream field, its influence keeps growing. The idea that immigration or islam are not discussed in France is grotesque, our public debate is often saturated with those themes. The FN did not even need bother to campaign during several months because most of the clowns in the medias were talking for her.
|
France13018 Posts
On May 07 2017 21:30 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 21:04 Spaylz wrote:On May 07 2017 20:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 07 2017 20:15 SoSexy wrote:
It's almost impossible but good luck Marine. Aye, good luck to her but my guess is Macron 57-43. I seriously hope she doesn't get more than 40%. 40% would be bad enough as it is. why?
Because that would mean a lot of our countrymen are really gullible
|
It seems like many EU countries are reaching a turning point in history. Unlike the US, there is a solid majority agreement on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, as well as in the role of the government in providing healthcare, education and social security. Meanwhile, government size increase isn't feasible, nor are decreases in taxes.
The only issues that could still divide the moderate left vs moderate right would be regulatory issues like labour law. However, what we've seen is many center-left governments succumb to economics and actually steer away from rhetoric - Macron is a neoliberal coming from left-field, Schröder's agenda 2010, even in Portugal the PS (Socialist Party) finance minister is an independent liberal economist.
It's an awkward time for center-left parties - the choice seems to be between steering left and losing out to legit radical leftists (Hamon) or alienating most of the moderate electorate (Corbyn?), OR trying to solidify the center which means they're now neoliberal - against decades of political rhetoric. Meanwhile, party establishments don't always control the direction, depending on the system they use to elect leaders. The more democratic/primary-like it is, the more likely they are to go the leftist route.
Is the new axis neoliberals vs populists/isolationists?
On May 07 2017 21:47 SoSexy wrote:
When things like this happen, I believe that intellectuals need to take a step back and ask questions. I.e., concerning Le Pen there are two possibilities:
1) 40% of french people became racist and unable to understand 'basic' concepts
2) 40% of french people are worried about legitimate issues that are not being tackled by other parties
3) Most people are actually woefully ignorant of politics and civic knowledge and the collective memory of the dangers of populism and authoritarianism are fading away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZFYttgZ.jpg)
