|
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 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote:So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration. Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this. Link for the curious.
That is a really artificial issue to be making. This was supposed to be his celebration, with his supporters, he is really free to make whatever kind of a show he wants.
|
On May 08 2017 13:43 m4ini wrote:Not to mention, this makes reddit so much more fun. Russian bots, trumpets etc went full retard, sodium levels through the roof. That by itself should tell you that the better person won. 
You have Trumpets, but also anti-Trumpets which are hardly better:
http://imgur.com/2BRhNzT
Edit:
@Opisska and others who have bounced back on my rants.
I won't, like, disagree with you. Obviously implementing economic policies is easier said than done and there is no right answer. I don't think that a completely liberalized system like the one in the USA works out perfectly either.
I am however going to share my first-hand experience in the matter. Unemployment in France is high, making it hard to find a job and when you do, the pay is shit. Unemployment in Colorado is low, making it easy to find a job and when you do, pay is great.
Why does CO have lower unemployment than France? That's a question that I'm not going to answer because it's too complex for a dumbass like me. Not going to lie. However I can note differences between USA and France and try to bring those up. Like it or not, our labor laws in France have been universally seen as way too stringent. The French mentality as well is pretty anti-money. I'm quite sure that this plays into the equation of unemployment; even the layman such as myself can see that.
As for the decline of need for labor: I don't know. In the industrial industry, why not. In the sector I'm in, where the name of the game is being polite to customers and pumping jet fuel, there is plenty of work to go around as long as people come in with business jets.
As far as I'm concerned, the labor market should be free and the richest should be held accountable by the government to pay their taxes and not interfere with politics. This is a problem in the USA (and in France, who are we kidding), where big fish buy out politicians to their benefits. Ideally we would crack down on tax evasion and also make our instutions truly democratic (click).
Ideally we should be striving towards lowest possible unemployment because having that means that the labor market becomes naturally healthy even for the poorest among us.
Again, my rant is targeted towards those French who are protesting for their social coverage not being extensive enough, when it is already amazing. Again, they have it better than most in the world, but it's still not enough? Greed and selfishness has to have its limits and if you're protesting about social equality in France, when so much is being done already, then you're just a lazy twat. I don't even care anymore. That is why Mélenchon can go stick the Code du Travail up his flacid asshole.
|
You are just refusing to look outside the picture you have learned as the way things are. Ironically, your job is a perfect example of that, it's almost funny how that works out. Your work essentially exists only because of income inequality, because the system is set in a way that creates absurdly rich people, who can then waste money on flying around in business jets. A part of their money then gets directed to you in the notorious "trickle down" way and you are happy. But this whole charade doesn't create any actual value. Yes, superficially, the rich employ a lot of people, give them work and money and those people are, in the current system, happier than if they were poor and unemployed, but the only actual benefactors of all of this huge amount of work are a couple of those rich people flying around in jets. If those people didn't exist, all of this work could be happily eliminated and the quality of life of any other people, but those few rich, wouldn't have to go down.
Now you would argue that it would, because all those who currently work in the supply chain for the rich jetfliers wouldn't have their jobs and money, but that is only true in the current system centered around the human labor. Now this is obviously a simplification, because human activities are intertwined in a more complex way, but for the sake of clarity, let's just assume that there is a group of people whose work only exists to allow the production, traffic and maintenance of business jets, or to provide inputs in the supply chain ultimately leading to it, and that business jet traffic is essentially useless for production of anything else of value to the general population. Now if those people did not do their work, the amount of anything other final products but business jet traffic produced in the world would be exactly the same as if they do work. But that means that no shortage of any other goods would be thus created, so it would hurt nobody else to just provide those people with said goods, in the same amount as they are able to buy those now using their money earned from they work towards business jet traffic. In our current system, they will get jack shit, because they won't have money - unless we tax the rich people enough so that they can't afford the business jets and give the money to the former business jet workers.
Now this obviously sounds like communism and will automatically put some people into hardcore defense mode, but it is a clear example of how out current society creates basically useless jobs out of the overabundance of human labor and the availability of irrationally large amounts of money to a few individuals and how top-heavy taxation might be actually useful in taming this trend.
I nevertheless, as I have already stated, think that solving these issues requires significant social changes and shouldn't be rushed out - and also won't because there is really no will to do that. So we do have to look at things within the current framework - however even there your claims are dubious at least. Maybe Colorado is a heaven on Earth indeed, but the US as a whole has huge economical issues, with significant poverty and unavailability of social services and healthcare. Just go over to the US thread and listen to people cry about some of that ... The point here is that you see the US with too much of pink glasses - it's probably better for you, so that's good for you, but there are plenty of others being screwed over by the free market there, as much as you see you being screwed over by the social state in France.
|
On May 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote:So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration. Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this. Link for the curious.
No, what made me really uneasy was the fact that there were only French flags in the crowd, while we were used to French and European flags in his meetings. All these French flags in front of the Louvre, it looked like as if JM Le Pen had won in some alternate timeline.
|
On May 09 2017 00:08 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote:So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration. Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this. Link for the curious. No, what made me really uneasy was the fact that there were only French flags in the crowd, while we were used to French and European flags in his meetings. All these French flags in front of the Louvre, it looked like as if JM Le Pen had won in some alternate timeline.
The national flag does not belong to the far-right.
|
I'm not denying that. I don't see USA through rose-tinted glasses, I'm pretty sure I have flamed the USA for their poor social benefits. It's stupid that anyone should pick up student debt because they want to be an engineer. Educating an engineer from high school to their degree should cost something like $100k (give or take). An engineer working over the years produces much more value than that. The Americans are kind of dumb to not see education as an investment in the future. Health care? Should be a given, honestly. It's not like Americans aren't covered though, it's just that a minority is left aside to die because they can't pay, which is arguably unethical. The USA has pretty bad problems with lobbying too, where the rich get to skew legislation in their favor because they can. I said as much in my post, why do you pretend I see USA through rose-tints? USA has many flaws however it also has its strengths.
I don't think that a completely liberalized system like the one in the USA works out perfectly either.
However there is nothing inherently wrong with business jets and executives and/or rich people using them for their golf trips.
let's just assume that there is a group of people whose work only exists to allow the production, traffic and maintenance of business jets, or to provide inputs in the supply chain ultimately leading to it, and that business jet traffic is essentially useless for production of anything else of value to the general population.
What is this even supposed to mean? You have a competitive market for business jets. There are 5 companies I could name off the top of my head for these jets.
If a CEO is being paid $20M a year for their work, then their time is valuable. Like it or not, there are people out there whose time is that valuable because they are basically managing hundreds of millions of $ when they manage Apple, Walmart, Lockheed-Martin, etc. Business jets do more than just transport one person and frankly the cost of operating one remains pretty affordable. The time executives spend in the jet is time where they can work or relax, as opposed to waiting for the TSA to grope them. The mobility means they can visit facilities anywhere, meet up with other executives anywhere, do it quickly and efficiently. The business jet is a legitimate means for making business work honestly.
Then there's an entire industry around support business jets. When rich executives use their jets to do whatever it is they do, they're buying jet fuel, which in turn pays for my rent, my food, my gas, my education. You can say that trickle-down economics aren't real but they sure are real to me. I'm not saying we should rely entirely on trickle-down (which would be full, unregulated capitalism), but trickle-down in itself is not bad. It's legitimately good. What about all the people who work to design, produce, test, sell and operate jets? Are you saying that an entire industry should be wiped off the map because you don't like that the end products are expensive? Do you think that Porshce and Ferrari should be closed down by the EU? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
It's asinine to say that a business jet does not create value. Your iPhone doesn't create value. TLnet does not create value. Netflix does not create value. I mean if you're going to say that, then what the hell does create value? I don't understand.
On May 09 2017 00:14 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:08 OtherWorld wrote:On May 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote:So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration. Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this. Link for the curious. No, what made me really uneasy was the fact that there were only French flags in the crowd, while we were used to French and European flags in his meetings. All these French flags in front of the Louvre, it looked like as if JM Le Pen had won in some alternate timeline. The national flag does not belong to the far-right.
TheDwf, for once, said something which made sense. God bless.
|
The US is a great place to be if you're well-educated and have at least rudimentary financial competence. Kind of a mediocre place under most other circumstances because all the good things about it are contingent on being able to shell out enough money to pay for it.
|
I don't think you have honestly tried to follow my argument, based on the counter-arguments you are trying to provide. Trickle-down economic is inherently inefficient - it's better than if the rich just kept the money in a pillow, I'll give you that, but other than that, it's a huge waste of resources for the benefit of a very small amount of people. I am not really in the mood for rehashing the whole argument with slightly different words, so please, if you wish to discuss it, would you kindly read my post again and then try to reflect why the fact that there is an entire industry around the jets makes it worse, not better? If you really want a short answer, I can say something along the lines "just thing about what would happen if they just gave you the money, for the very same effect on your side, without wasting metals, jet fuel and whatnot in the process", but I m not sure if such simplification wouldn't lead to an even more misunderstanding.
Sure, we can discuss whether there is benefit in jetting people around, but this benefit is a) rather marginal as to the cost of the whole thing and b) artificially inflated by the fact that there are such huge concentrated corporations that need to be managed and c) created by the razor-thin edge in business competition, which however essential is seen in the US society, is not really obviously proven to be crucial to the society. In simpler terms, if no executive was flying around in a jet, would be we that worse off as a whole? Maybe jetting around isn't the greatest example, but it has nicely come up here and it works reasonably well. Just think of it as a placeholder for all the human activities that do not significantly contribute to the creation of goods and services that the majority of people consume.
|
Well in other words you're arguing that rich people should be taxed to the point where they can't afford business jets anymore. Instead of the money going through an industry, the money would go through the government and be given to poor people like me (not that I'm poor).
To me this makes no sense whatsoever. Instead of me working to get my money, instead of factory workers manufacturing business jets to make money, it would be given directly.
In simpler terms, if no executive was flying around in a jet, would be we that worse off as a whole?
Well, yes, we would be worse off. Essentially because through trickle down, in that process, a $2M jet is produced. There is added value. We go from metal parts and blue-prints (worth, say $1M) to a functioning jet (worth $2M). We have created value, worth $1M, along the way. The factory workers and the engineers take a cut of that $1M. The jet is worth more than the pile of metal and raw parts it came from. So the USA's GDP goes up by $1M. Do you disagree?
If the rich gave me their money without me producing value for it, then our entire GDP would not be up by $1M.
Taxation is, to me, not contributing to the wealth of a nation. If I take the time to manufacture a jet, I am. If the feds take someone's money to just give it to someone else without them producing value (which is "work") then no additional value is created and our GDP doesn't grow.
Trickle-down, though inefficient, does create value. You could argue that I do not really produce value when I pump jet fuel (since I am basically just moving fuel from truck to jet). But I do get money from the rich to my pocket. So I mean, inefficient? Maybe? Nothing wrong with it though.
Did I understand your arguments this time around?
Just think of it as a placeholder for all the human activities that do not significantly contribute to the creation of goods and services that the majority of people consume.
So you would only support industries which offer products that anyone can consume? Why? For me personally I don't care if the jet I'm fueling is too expensive for me to fly in. If I get paid, it's honestly enough for me. I mean, I can easily afford an iPhone but I do not feel compelled to buy one. So why would you kill the industry which is supporting me (biz-jets) and only allow industries which are not (iPhones)? If you kill off industries then we are globally poorer. Because if governments tax rich people to the point where they can't afford private jets, then our nation no longer has those valuable jets in its economic blood-stream. those jets are making money too, they're legitimate tools for executives, which are no longer wasting time in transit. they can be productive in the jet itself, by working in it or relaxing in it. I am not able to rest easily when I am taking an airliner with my knees hitting someone else's seat. I could rest in a private jet. they're flying apartments
|
I am really not surprised by your refusal to look at the things at face value, because these concepts are so ingrained in how our economics works. So we have the jet, great, but to what benefit to anyone else but the few people who fly it? The GDP numbers are just that - numbers, they aren't supposed to be the end goal for the civilization. 99.9 % of the people are never gonna fly in a business jet, so their nonexistence wouldn't reduce the quality of their lives at all.
I am not even saying that I have a definite answer how to implement these concepts short of an "enlightened despotism" kind of state, because it is simply human nature to want the best for themselves (and the failure of any attempts to establish communism has shown that well enough). That however doesn't stop me from realizing how incredibly wasteful it is. Your executives could as well talk with other people on videophone, or create a more heiarchical network of local executives to run the business. They don't do it now, because it's slightly more efficient to run things jetting around, but that doesn't mean that if they couldn't do it, the economy would collapse. Everyone does it just because everyone else does it and in the super-competitive setup the slight edge is needed, that's all. The "well-restedness" of a handful of people is just not rationally worth such a huge chunk of the planet's resources and I think you would have to stretch your logic very thin to argue otherwise.
And this runs over and over through an incredible amount of things people do. All of this energy invested into competition with each other is completely wasted. Just look at how huge of a business is marketing - how much resources and man-hours are invested into convincing people to buy this and not that. The amount of people who are employed just to keep the market system going is absolutely staggering and the amount of money and resources concentrated into the hands of a very small amount of people (who then spend it at their own whim) is even more alarming. I honestly believe that if we found a way to organize ourselves for the common good, we could all just work ten hours per week and would have exactly the same material benefits as we do have today. But as I have said, I really don't know how to do it - but that doesn't stop me from seeing how inefficient the current system is.
|
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it.
|
Yeah I think I'm starting to understand your point of view.
So we have the jet, great, but to what benefit to anyone else but the few people who fly it?
Thing is I can say this for almost anything really. Even if I take examples which are good lots of people. I don't use high-end smartphones, watch series on Netflix, care for nice cars, watch movies, go out to eat, watch any sport whatsoever or go on vacation. I've gone to a single ski trip in my entire life and don't intend to do it ever again most likely. To me all those things are the same as biz-jets. Unnecessary. It doesn't benefit me and it probably doesn't really benefit anyone else, they're just amenities.
If you dislike biz-jets, then I dislike professional sports. Instead of paying atheletes stupid amounts of money, why don't we end world hunger? Why don't we give everyone proper health coverage?
There is nothing rational about amenities, just like there is nothing rational about catering towards a few rich people.
However I respect that other people want different things than I do. If there's an industry around supporting the needs of a few rich, that's that. If there's an industry around supporting professional sports (isn't that kind of "a few rich" too?), then that's that. I don't think the government has any business dictating which industries should or should not take place. No one has that business actually, since we live in free societies. It may be inefficient and unfair but hey, it's freedom. :/
On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it.
Yeah but the jet fuel that those guys are buying is directly going back into the economy as well, since I am using that money to live.
Tax private jets to the point where they are no longer affordable, all you do is kill an industry. I would lose my job and have to do something else. Maybe go work the ramp at Denver International? Ramp workers for airlines get paid shit for a crappier job compared to me, honestly. Private aviation should be made more affordable, not less.
But yeah just to throw it out there, I get what you're alluding to. It makes sense on paper but I just don't know how I feel about it for a few reasons. Freedom for people and feasibility are two prime reasons.
|
Germany has started to accept asylum seeking soldiers and high tier officials from Turkey now.
Their applications haven't been worked on for a couple of months but recently (after the referendum) the guidelines for the treatment of Turkish citizens have been updated.
Overall there have been about 400 applications by Turkish soldiers, judges and high level public servants due to fear of the recent purges.
There are about 7700 applications for asylum by Turkish citizens in Germany.
Last year about 8% of all applications have been accepted, it is expected that this rate will dramatically increase with the recent events.
Also several other EU countries had stopped to process Turkish applications and some expect those to follow the German example now. (and not because Germany is telling them, but because they prefer to hide behind Germany...)
|
Sounds... dangerous, to put it lightly. But in the context of the changes in Turkey right now I wouldn't call it altogether unreasonable.
Any sources for more in-depth info?
|
On May 09 2017 00:08 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote:So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration. Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this. Link for the curious. No, what made me really uneasy was the fact that there were only French flags in the crowd, while we were used to French and European flags in his meetings. All these French flags in front of the Louvre, it looked like as if JM Le Pen had won in some alternate timeline.
Stuff like this is way "normal" people look strange at leftists.
I consider myself "left" but this is just a prime example of why the left is seen as anti-"yourcountry" by people leaning even a tad to the right.
|
On May 09 2017 02:04 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:08 OtherWorld wrote:On May 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote:So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration. Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this. Link for the curious. No, what made me really uneasy was the fact that there were only French flags in the crowd, while we were used to French and European flags in his meetings. All these French flags in front of the Louvre, it looked like as if JM Le Pen had won in some alternate timeline. Stuff like this is way "normal" people look strange at leftists. I consider myself "left" but this is just a prime example of why the left is seen as anti-"yourcountry" by people leaning even a tad to the right.
Fairly sure he's not particularly a “leftist,” I would put him around the center-left. Leftist means more than just “on the left compared with the median point,” right? I read it as “very on the left,” but maybe I'm wrong?
Is leftist pejorative, by the way? We have an equivalent in France which is clearly used in a pejorative way (as in, excessive people).
|
On May 09 2017 01:30 Incognoto wrote:Yeah I think I'm starting to understand your point of view. Show nested quote +So we have the jet, great, but to what benefit to anyone else but the few people who fly it? Thing is I can say this for almost anything really. Even if I take examples which are good lots of people. I don't use high-end smartphones, watch series on Netflix, care for nice cars, watch movies, go out to eat, watch any sport whatsoever or go on vacation. I've gone to a single ski trip in my entire life and don't intend to do it ever again most likely. To me all those things are the same as biz-jets. Unnecessary. It doesn't benefit me and it probably doesn't really benefit anyone else, they're just amenities. If you dislike biz-jets, then I dislike professional sports. Instead of paying atheletes stupid amounts of money, why don't we end world hunger? Why don't we give everyone proper health coverage? There is nothing rational about amenities, just like there is nothing rational about catering towards a few rich people. However I respect that other people want different things than I do. If there's an industry around supporting the needs of a few rich, that's that. If there's an industry around supporting professional sports (isn't that kind of "a few rich" too?), then that's that. I don't think the government has any business dictating which industries should or should not take place. No one has that business actually, since we live in free societies. It may be inefficient and unfair but hey, it's freedom. :/ Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
In the US, the money being dumped into private jets could be taxed to build and upgrade our ever aging airport infrastructure. It could be used to build new airports and work with airlines to create new flights to reduce overcrowding. Money that is taxed doesn’t not magically disappear from our economy, it goes back into it. Yeah but the jet fuel that those guys are buying is directly going back into the economy as well, since I am using that money to live. Tax private jets to the point where they are no longer affordable, all you do is kill an industry. I would lose my job and have to do something else. Maybe go work the ramp at Denver International? Ramp workers for airlines get paid shit for a crappier job compared to me, honestly. Private aviation should be made more affordable, not less. But yeah just to throw it out there, I get what you're alluding to. It makes sense on paper but I just don't know how I feel about it for a few reasons. Freedom for people and feasibility are two prime reasons.
I wasn’t trying to say that private jets should be taxed to the point where no one owns them. It isn’t a binary state where we tax the rich and suddenly 35 service industries involving the rich go under. That is the case a lot of the wealthy like to make because it is compelling and motivates people like yourself to see it their way. They tie taxing their wealth with you losing your job. But they would also love to have cheaper jet fuel pumped by a robot that can’t vote.
|
On May 09 2017 01:46 LegalLord wrote:
Sounds... dangerous, to put it lightly. But in the context of the changes in Turkey right now I wouldn't call it altogether unreasonable.
Any sources for more in-depth info?
The original source is in German:
http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/tuerkische-soldaten-asyl-103.html
Several other German sites picked it up, linking back to this one. I haven't found an English article yet, but I'm sure they will show up later in the evening.
And besides it probably being the "right" thing to do, you also have to remember it is election year. While the opinions on allowing asylum are generally rather mixed, in this case it would look incredibly weak not to allow those. And I think even on the right wing most would have torched the government, if those were refused and Germany would have given in to Turkish threats.
And in the end it also has to be said, that nobody gives a damn about Turkeys plustering anymore. Erdogan can repeat 20 million times "Cancelling EU negotiations" "cancelling refugee deal" "nazi europe, bah bah bah".
Nobody takes it serious anymore. Like all he can do is repeat what he has done for the last 2 years now... People are tired of it. And so are the European governments. He simply overused it. So let him do it.
And while many cry about the German leadership in Europe, Germany is also often used as shield in those situations. Now Turkey can cry and bitch about Germany, and the rest of Europe can hide behind Germany. And it is a role Germany has been willing to take a few times now.
|
On May 09 2017 00:14 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:08 OtherWorld wrote:On May 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote:So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration. Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this. Link for the curious. No, what made me really uneasy was the fact that there were only French flags in the crowd, while we were used to French and European flags in his meetings. All these French flags in front of the Louvre, it looked like as if JM Le Pen had won in some alternate timeline. The national flag does not belong to the far-right.
Did I say that ?
|
In the case of allowing Turkish government/military officials into the country, it's a fair bit different from accepting garden variety refugees. In that case it's not a question of if they will cause trouble, it's how much trouble will they be. Military folk and government officials are the furthest from a quiet group that you could possibly imagine and inviting them is very much akin to inviting a revolutionary party into your own country. Of course it's not clear whether they would be pushing for a revolution in Turkey or in Germany for that matter.
Germany does have a lot of credibility staked upon painting the Erdogan administration as an evil autocracy though. While I'm not really interested in debating the merits of how bad he is or isn't (we've been there in this thread already), that the German government claims it to be so is very true. So I guess there's some merit in showing that Germany is willing to back the positions it holds. I just wonder if Merkel's govt understands what they're getting into...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
