If any Dakkanaut ask anything about our elections from native French fellow wargamers, ask away .
John Oliver did make a funny video about the elections.
Now I disagree with him on the comparison between Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump. Ms. Le Pen is a career politician that has been leading a well-established party for quite some time now. She had the Front National full support during the previous election, which she lost. This is quite different from Donald, a complete outsider with no experience in politics that somehow managed to have the full support of the Republican party for the first time. Therefore I don't think his analogy stand, and I'm pretty sure Ms. Le Pen is going to be beaten again. It is also the reason why, as much as it pains me to say anything positive about Ms. Le Pen, I think she would be much more competent than Donald if she was elected, which is not necessarily a good thing due to her opinions.
Man, I was in tears at the end of the vid, from the laughing, that is.
Edit : Yeah, aside from the jokes, it's a fairly accurate of things too. Sure, he does take some short-cuts, and misses some bits, but there's nothing I felt was off-target there.
With populists Left and Right threatening to storm the Élysée, can the center hold?
Not so long ago, it appeared that ever-more-advanced polling techniques would soon render every election a snoozer: Models would tell us well in advance who would vote and how, taking drama out of the equation. Such was the case in 2012, when Nate Silver and his Five Thirty Eight team called every single state in the U.S. presidential election.
Not five years later, the idea that polling science could be perfected seems quaint. The comforting faith in polls gave way to the suspended disbelief of London elites as results came in from Sunderland on the long night last June when Brexit materialized, and to Silver’s own wildly shifting predictions the night Donald J. Trump won the White House in November.
Outcomes are once again in doubt, which means elections have been made fun again. This year’s French presidential campaign has never been boring. For starters, the primaries of both established parties — the storied Socialists and the Gaullist UMP, now somewhat oddly rebranded “Republicans” — led to the selection of extreme non-consensus candidates. On the right, the clean-cut Thatcherite François Fillon beat shoe-in centrist Alain Juppé and former president Nicolas Sarkozy. On the left, Benoît Hamon — a man who argues for the taxation of robots — beat sitting president François Hollande’s centered, centrist prime minister, Manuel Valls. Hamon and Fillon, as the standard-bearers for France’s two major parties, were supposed to be the biggest challengers to the woman who had led the race since polling first began in 2013: Marine Le Pen. After inheriting the Front National from her fascistic father, the younger, populist Le Pen has been busy “de-diabolizing” the party, moving it to the left economically while maintaining its extreme-right positions on Europe and immigration.
This direction became only more accented in the aftermath of Brexit and Trump, hence the accounts of Socialist strongholds now voting Front National. But Le Pen’s problem was the same one her father always faced: the second round of French elections is designed to prevent a fragmented field from leading to a populist victory by mandating that the winner takes more than 50 percent of the vote. With disapproval consistently over 50 percent, Le Pen loses badly in almost every conceivable scenario — “almost” being the operative word.
Although the Anglo-American press has been veritably Le Pen–obsessed, with outlets in Britain writing more articles on her than their Gallic peers, she has led not a single runoff poll in the whole campaign. She was projected to lose against Juppé and then Fillon when they led the polls, and now she is projected to lose to the election’s third man, Emmanuel Macron. Like Le Pen, Macron is running as an outsider, having left the Socialist party to form his own eponymous “movement,” EM. (His initials nominally stand for “En Marche!”)
Over the last four months, Macron’s campaign has gathered momentum as front-runner Fillon nose-dived in polls amid corruption allegations that tainted his wife, his children, his expensive suits, and his real-estate holdings.
Macron is running on a pro-European, anti-populist platform that calls for the French welfare state to be preserved even as pro-market economic reforms, including the loosening of France’s notoriously strict labor laws, are implemented. Though sometimes weak on foreign policy, he is very strong on the question of Europe, arguing clearly that the EU needs monetary reform rather than mere monetary accommodation to be sustainable, and calling for a serious conversation about deeper integration of European finances and defense (incidentally the two of the pillars of the early American republic). His best speech on these ideas was delivered, of all places, in Berlin. Without arguing for Fillon’s Thatcherite revolution, Macron promises a new take on “third way” supply-side reforms at a time when social democracy looks to be in decline everywhere else, from the United States to Britain, Spain, Greece, Germany, and even Italy.
Aggregate polling puts him in the second round, where he is predicted to beat the other likely candidates by a considerable margin. Over the last 40 years, second-round polls have tended to tighten, but never topple. And yet, after two long televised debates, a fourth man has risen over the last few weeks: Jean Luc Mélenchon, who is to the extreme left what Le Pen is to the extreme right — the Bernie Sanders to France’s wannabe Trump.
Not unlike Le Pen, Mélenchon and his upstart party, La France Insoumise (literally, “Unsubmissive France”), have made “la finance” and the elite the main enemy of their campaign. Given such rhetoric, it is rather unsurprising that his platform is about as realistic as Sanders’s: He calls for the immediate dismantling of the Gaullist Fifth Republic, to be replaced by a Sixth Republic “for the people”; a 100 percent tax rate on incomes over 20 times the median; the “freeing of France from finance”; and a unilateral withdrawal from NATO. His position on Europe is at best contradictory and at worst confused: He wants to change the charter of the European Central Bank to allow it to lend directly to member states and “leave current treaties” while still somehow preserving the European Union. One suspects, in other words, that Mélenchon would not fare quite as well as Macron in Berlin. The trouble is that he appears to be faring quite well in France. With an impressive online operation rivaled on the European left only by that of Italy’s savvy 5 Star Movement, Mélenchon has gone viral. He is now the preferred candidate of the 18–25 demographic, many of whom follow his weekly YouTube fireside chats and dial thousands of potential supporters daily in a gameified twist on the tedium of electioneering.
Though his rise has so far seemed to come mainly at the expense of the uninspiring Hamon, he is no longer all that far behind the front-runners. After Hollande’s disastrous experiment with a 75 percent marginal tax rate at the beginning of his presidency, the French elite has been losing sleep over Mélenchon’s proposed 100 percent tax rate. Of course, enraging the rich has only helped him with his base, and that is what his critics miss: The main threat represented by his ascendancy is political rather than financial, given his expressed admiration for left-wing Latin American populists such as Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales.
In the post-Marxist tradition of philosophers Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Chávez, Morales, and their ilk have tended to deem republican checks and balances incompatible with a “volonté generale” of the disenfranchised. This populist logic may have justified their work in behalf of the poor, but it also underpinned their authoritarian lust for power and the egregious corruption of their cliques. Mélenchon is so closely identified with Chavismo in the public imagination that he felt the need to clarify this week that he does not want to “make France into Cuba.” Yet, all protestations to the contrary, his lofty plans for a Sixth Republic “free from finance” and elites are eerily reminiscent of Chávez’s own illiberal “democratization” of Venezuela. It takes real gall to argue for Venezuelan-style socialism in France at the same time that Venezuela itself is collapsing amid food shortages and the gutting of its democratic institutions.
With less than a week to go, then, the atomized French presidential field has four plausible candidates: Le Pen, Fillon, Macron and Mélenchon. Although both Le Pen and Mélenchon would lack a legislative majority to implement their extreme platforms, there are now politically viable populists on both the extreme left and the extreme right. And their populism is worryingly popular, making this election a nail-biter to the bitter end. The so-called Republican pact — the age-old unspoken agreement whereby centrist parties band together to prevent the victory of a fascistic candidate, especially one with the surname Le Pen, in the run-off — can fend off one of them in the second round, but not both. —
-Pierpaolo Barbieri is executive director of the geopolitical macroeconomic advisory firm Greenmantle and a senior associate in the Applied History Project at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He is working on a history of Latin American populism.
So La Pen is like a competant Trump? That's pretty dam terrifying considering Trump's inability to enact policy is possibly the largest factor preventing the US from taking a steep slide downward. Good luck to you all, and I mean that honestly.
5-way I would even say. As far as I know, the candidates with reasonable chances to win a ticket for the second round include Marine Le Pen, François Fillion, Benoit Hamon, Emmanuel Macron and Jean-Luc Mélanchon. This makes for a really interesting election. Some of those would normally never hold a chance in the second tour, but for instance if we get a second tour with Marine Le Pen (far-right) against Jean-Luc Mélenchon (far-left), the usual reservation won't hold ^^.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So La Pen is like a competant Trump? That's pretty dam terrifying considering Trump's inability to enact policy is possibly the largest factor preventing the US from taking a steep slide downward. Good luck to you all, and I mean that honestly.
I wouldn't say that she is a competent Trump, because for me incompetence is part of what makes Trump what Trump is. Her main commonalities with Trump are being nationalistic, xenophobic, populist and socially conservative, but hey, that's something basically all extreme-right party shares. For instance, I am very sure that she doesn't believe in the various conspiracy theories from the unhinged fringe of her electorate, and she rarely ever openly perpetuates them. And she doesn't for her opinion on what she saw last evening on TV. And she is… actually able to speak like a grown-up adult, and stuff. And of course she isn't as sleazy as he is. I still can't believe that adults could vote for Trump, while I guess not being drunk or on drugs.
Also, it's Le Pen, not La Pen. Just mentioning, because it's a typo I have seen several times ^^.
Why the bold? Is it because you believe Marine Le Pen to be bold? Did you know that Marine Le Pen's niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is the youngest member of the French parliament? Here is a picture for you so you can fanboy like a fanboy. I know you will.
Did you know that Marine Le Pen's niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is the youngest member of the French parliament? Here is a picture for you so you can fanboy like a fanboy. I know you will.
So, basically, is Spain one of the the only occidental country where in this times of crisis, the populist movement that has rise is from the left and not from the right?
I asume it is because the right has been in charge the last 2 legislatures.
Why?
I find it weird but interesting how literally the only party to get a young woman elected is the far-right, socially conservative party. There are reasons that explain this (the party is kinda sorta a dynasty at this point, founded by Jean-Marie, lead by his daughter Marine, and with the future ready with his grand-daughter Marion), but it's still weird.
And in a quite saddening move, many opponents of the Front National (not politicians I mean, just regular folks) display a quite insane amount of misogyny when they attack Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, because they feel she is an “acceptable target”. Pretty sad, if you ask me.
As for the pictures, I knew they'd emerge at some point so we might as well be done with it now, right?
Well, what do you think of Macron? He is not bad in that regard either, no? For me I think he's the best looking guy in the campaign.
I mean, they sure both look way better than Trump.
This Sunday. I'm going back to my home town to vote!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: So, basically, is Spain one of the the only occidental country where in this times of crisis, the populist movement that has rise is from the left and not from the right?
Compared to the previous elections, the far-left is definitely way stronger than it used to be. I think it's the only election where I feel like the far-left has a chance to go to the second tour.
The far-right has been strong for quite some time, but it isn't becoming stronger recently.
You appear to be overtly socially progressive, especially in terms of how women are treated and represented in Western society, and yet you present the youngest member of French parliament to this forum as merely a piece of flesh to be ogled. It just doesn't sync with your usually posting style.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: As for the pictures, I knew they'd emerge at some point so we might as well be done with it now, right?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: and yet you present the youngest member of French parliament to this forum as merely a piece of flesh to be ogled.
I didn't meant to do that. I don't see her as a piece of flesh to be ogled.
Spoiler:
Okay, okay, I was trollbaiting just don't tell the mods please. I mean, I just wanted to get an interesting discussion started. They might be watching!
Also quite interestingly she got into an internal fight in the party over the issue of stuff like abortions with some older guy from the party called Florian Philippot over abortion. Unlike what one would expect when a young woman gets into a political fight with an older man, she was the one arguing against abortion.
If anything, Marion is quite more blatently hardcore right-wing than Marine, who spent years trying to pretend the FN is a conventional, mainstream political party, with a fair amount of success, I might add. In that way, that makes her the more direct heir to her very rotten Vichyst grand-father.
As the grandson of a sefaradi decorated resistant and son of a slavic imigrant, I'd still totally hate-feth her like a Red Army armored corp storming a German town in '45*.
Decomplexed mysoginy aside, she's the attractive face of the National Front, literaly, and quite the hit with younger voters.
The consensus is that Macron and MLP will make it in the second turn, when people will go "feth no !" and massively vote for Macron. Still, I don't think it'll be the land slide that got Chirac re-elected in 2002, and the first-turn polls are closer than it's ever been, so... who knows.
Macron's most impressive trick so far, has been to make people forget he was instrumental in Hollande's economical policies. The very policies that got many people to relabel the "socialist party" liberal right**, and ended up with a record low popularity. Yeah.
That's going to be some interesting 5 years...
*. Interestingly, given Putin's authoritarian trends, Russia has become very popular with the extreme-right, and assorted "the nazis just had bad rep" crowd. Yeahhhhh.
**. It should be noted that, outside the US, "liberalism" is a label used for right-wing economy policies.
HudsonD wrote: As the grandson of a sefaradi decorated resistant and son of a slavic imigrant, I'd still totally hate-feth her like a Red Army armored corp storming a German town in '45*.
I don't think threats of sexual violence are appropriate for Dakka. Or, you know, for literally anywhere. (Spoilered for terrible, terrible pun, and a little bit NSFW. You have been warned)
Spoiler:
So maybe keep the thread about elections rather than about erections.
And I have Jew and Ukrainian ancestry too so you don't get to play that card .
Anyway, if Mrs Le Pen makes it to the second tour, then it will make deciding who to vote for a no-brainer, for me and most French people I guess. Though it would pain me greatly if that means having to vote for François despite his terrible policies and corruption.
Also, since Marine has been compared to Trump, I'd like to compare another candidate to Trump. This guy, Philippe Poutou, is basically what some delusional Trump supporter believe Trump is. He is basically almost as inexperienced (though not necessarily as incompetent) as Trump is in governing matters (he has never been elected or hold any public office yet), but in his case I can see how it could work in his favor for some people. Maybe you heard the rhetoric that Trump will “drain the swamp”, that he isn't part of the elites, that he is closer to the average American and that he will care more for them. Yeah, I know it's hard to decide whether to laugh or cry at these kind of statements. Well, they basically are true for Philippe Poutou. This guy actually know what the daily life of a factory worker is… because he is a factory worker. The above picture was taken from a big televised debate with most candidates, and Philippe Poutou was the only one not to wear a suit. Because he doesn't have money to waste on it and because he doesn't give a damn about it. Also he doesn't have “friends” to “gift” him super-expensive suits. Or, you know, golden penthouses. (Also he isn't a far-right douche)
As a Russian, I can confirm that Marine le Pen will win. I have the election results right here. Oh wait...
...
...
...
Товарищ Коробов? Простите меня. Я говорил необдуманно. Возможно изменить результат, чтобы избежать подозрений.
Wait, France has elections? When did Germany screw up and allow them to vote. Time to send more Germans tourists to march on the Champs Elysee and sneak in and take all the pool chairs before anyone else!
Ahhh, Frazzled, bringing in some good old United States of America into the thread by reminding us of their long tradition of preventing other countries to have elections. The CIA salutes you, Frazzled.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Ahhh, Frazzled, bringing in some good old United States of America into the thread by reminding us of their long tradition of preventing other countries to have elections. The CIA salutes you, Frazzled.
Everything went downhill after Le Emperor was forced out. Vive Le Boss!
I guess it all turned out for the best, then Frazzled would not have discovered the joys of Tex Mex.
Iron_Captain wrote: As a Russian, I can confirm that Marine le Pen will win. I have the election results right here. Oh wait...
...
...
...
Товарищ Коробов? Простите меня. Я говорил необдуманно. Возможно изменить результат, чтобы избежать подозрений.
Hey now, the US is all in favor of democracy when it benefits us. Or at least the wealthy.
The left really needs to figure out how to weed out that misogyny that creeps out everytime the far right puts up a pretty face. It is one of the reasons the right loves to prop up attractive white women as a face. It appeals to their lowest common denominator, draws out hypocritical attacks from the left, and diffuses some of the inherent misogyny in right wing politics. Le Pen is even better than the typical face because she is smart and has advocated moderation on issues that can draw more mainstream support (her positions on same sex marriage, death penalty, and abortion would likely get her nixed by the US right, but her immigration stance would put her at odds with the left). She also has an excellent demeanor and can hold her own in a war of words, something that puts her miles ahead of the US president.
jmurph wrote: The left really needs to figure out how to weed out that misogyny that creeps out everytime the far right puts up a pretty face. (...)
How do you mean ? I certainly won't disagree on the premise, although I wouldn't mind a more detailed explanation of that pattern.
For the latter part of your post, I assume you're talking about Marine, not Marion, who's not what I'd call a "pretty face", but yeah, her speeches have been pretty good, and under her leadership, the FN is gaining ground in voter blocks that would have been thought impossible previously, like teachers. In improvised talks though, her style is... a little less refined.
You appear to be overtly socially progressive, especially in terms of how women are treated and represented in Western society, and yet you present the youngest member of French parliament to this forum as merely a piece of flesh to be ogled. It just doesn't sync with your usually posting style.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: As for the pictures, I knew they'd emerge at some point so we might as well be done with it now, right?
LOL okay.
You're right, thats a complete turn around from the hyper feminist stance he normally holds
jmurph wrote: The left really needs to figure out how to weed out that misogyny that creeps out everytime the far right puts up a pretty face. (...)
How do you mean ? I certainly won't disagree on the premise, although I wouldn't mind a more detailed explanation of that pattern.
For the latter part of your post, I assume you're talking about Marine, not Marion, who's not what I'd call a "pretty face", but yeah, her speeches have been pretty good, and under her leadership, the FN is gaining ground in voter blocks that would have been thought impossible previously, like teachers. In improvised talks though, her style is... a little less refined.
I think it stems from elements of the hard left that still have some problems with female leadership and established power structures that don't like challenge (and historically weren't particularly inclusive of women). Factions such as labor, and political leadership in general, in much of the west are heavily male dominated and while progress has been made, it's hard not to see France as very much a "boys club" dominated by men. So, while there has been progress, I think a lot of it is reflexive.
Yes, I meant Marine, and pretty face is relative. The stereotypical far right wingnut is a frothing white man ranting about immigrants and Jews (so, basically the original Le Pen). While I hate to reduce it to physical trains, Marine Le Pen is a not unattractive, polished, professional woman who has softened a lot of the party edges and embraced a much moderated outlook. Keep in mind that in the US, her views are further left than the Republicans and would be right in line with a hawkish Democrat! She is drawing more women and moderates than her party ever has before while still keeping the hard line element, even if she is a little rougher when speaking off the cuff.
Regardless, I think it would be a serious mistake to underestimate her chances and if France is targeted by another terror strike, it would certainly push sentiment in her direction.
Yeah, misogyny is pretty universal across the spectrum of political parties. How many female French leaders have existed? We hold them up as saints or witches.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How many female French leaders have existed? We hold them up as saints or witches.
Well, Segolène Royal almost became president but she lost to Sarkozy. Sad times.
Also, speaking of witches, does Joan of Arc count? And why do you call her Joan of Arc instead of Jeanne d'Arc ^^?
Jean-Marie Le Pen is famous for being a huge fan of Joan of Arc.
jmurph wrote: I think it stems from elements of the hard left
I would disagree here, I think it's basically a background of misogyny that is very pervasive in all the political spectrum. Left, right and center.
A very good point. Like I said, I think it is a problem with entrenched interests that were established from very limited groups. By hard left, I was more referring to specific elements (like labor) than the view as a whole. Interestingly, labor also tends to frequently swing anti-immigrant/nativist as well.
As for Joan d'Arc, she would be interesting to try to map onto modern politics. Fervently religious, nationalistic, and militaristic, she was also illiterate, believed she received divine visions, and refused to conform to mores of the time. Ultimately, her bluntness and populism engendered anger from the established ruling class on her own side as well as her foes, and she was captured, jailed, and executed. I am not sure their would be a modern parallel, but she certainly is and inspiring, if cruelly mistreated, historical figure. Interestingly, there seem to be a lot of parallels between her and the UK veneration of Boudica and their symbolism.
Ahtman wrote: Genitalia is an important part of leadership. Without it how would the leader point to where they want people to go?
You jest, but there is some truth to humans tying power to phallic imagery. There is a reason the most important person gets the biggest hat! And that's when it is subtle and not just dongs carved/sculpted/etc. everywhere.
Even today, leadership and power is often equated positively to masculine traits with females showing those traits viewed negatively.
It's part of what makes a strong female leader of the right wing so interesting!
jmurph wrote: You jest, but there is some truth to humans tying power to phallic imagery. There is a reason the most important person gets the biggest hat! And that's when it is subtle and not just dongs carved/sculpted/etc.
Maybe Europe should contemplate a switch to USA as Natural Gas supplier...we've got more than we'll ever know what to do with and we're finally getting the export mechanism going...time for Russia to just be an isolated thug-run gas station until it learns how to play nice with others.
"I didn't think they'd actually do it!" has to be the worst rationale for voting for someone ever. You think someone's lying and thus will vote for them? Wut?
Any hint on whether the latest terror attack may have a significant effect? I know that France has been on a constant state of emergency and would imagine this would play strongly for the right.
Thought this might be of interest. These chaps would have been running for their lives from the FN not that long ago.
Milo .
jmurph wrote: Any hint on whether the latest terror attack may have a significant effect? I know that France has been on a constant state of emergency and would imagine this would play strongly for the right.
I don't know if the terror attack will have an effect, but the state of emergency was declared by the left, and frankly politicians that want to lift the state of emergency definitely get a plus in my book. The state of emergency is there to deal with very precise threat during a short period (hence the Emergency part), it should NOT be the new normal. If the current laws outside of the state of emergency are not suitable for the current situation, then change the laws, but don't keep us in an Egyptian-style perpetual state of emergency, this is crypto-dictatorship stuff!
Thought this might be of interest. These chaps would have been running for their lives from the FN not that long ago.
Milo .
jmurph wrote: Any hint on whether the latest terror attack may have a significant effect? I know that France has been on a constant state of emergency and would imagine this would play strongly for the right.
I don't know if the terror attack will have an effect, but the state of emergency was declared by the left, and frankly politicians that want to lift the state of emergency definitely get a plus in my book. The state of emergency is there to deal with very precise threat during a short period (hence the Emergency part), it should NOT be the new normal. If the current laws outside of the state of emergency are not suitable for the current situation, then change the laws, but don't keep us in an Egyptian-style perpetual state of emergency, this is crypto-dictatorship stuff!
Whoever is in charge would declare a state of emergency when there is a major terrorist attack, regardless of their political leaning.
What practical effects does the state of emergency have?
Kilkrazy wrote: Whoever is in charge would declare a state of emergency when there is a major terrorist attack, regardless of their political leaning.
Which is not what I am complaining about. What I am complaining about is not lifting it years after. The state of emergency is there to quickly react to an imminent threat. Not to be the new normal. And yeah, I am not saying the right would have done better. You will pretty rarely hear me say “I think the right would have done better” to be honest ^^.
Kilkrazy wrote: What practical effects does the state of emergency have?
Basically a reduction on civil rights. Notably, it's much easier for the police to do house search and house arrest, or to forbid specific gatherings.
No need to. They have every right to give their opinion.
I just find it pretty telling that Trump supports Marine Le Pen rather than François Fillion. It shows clearly that your current government is extreme-right, not just right-wing.
Cothonian wrote: Is it true that Macron said that Paris will "just have to learn to live with terror" ?
Don't know and don't care. And I do live in Paris.
So currently in France it's the rise of the Extreme-Right and the Extreme-Left and the Extreme-Center and the RIght and the Left are losing fast. That's… interesting . Anyway the second turn should be super-easy for Macron now.
Cothonian wrote: Is it true that Macron said that Paris will "just have to learn to live with terror" ?
Don't know and don't care. And I do live in Paris.
So currently in France it's the rise of the Extreme-Right and the Extreme-Left and the Extreme-Center and the RIght and the Left are losing fast. That's… interesting .
Anyway the second turn should be super-easy for Macron now.
Should be.. But if thr past year or two has proved anything. Relying on what "should be logical" is not ernough.
Its proven that very wrong and thrown at least 2 wild cards into the game.
Recent events may prove otherwise.
They claimed Hilllary had the election all tied up. Look how that turned out.
Cothonian wrote: Is it true that Macron said that Paris will "just have to learn to live with terror" ?
If he did then he should be absolutely ashamed of himself.
Let's get some context before we start jumping to condemnation, yes? After all, if the full quote were to be something like "If it were possible to end all terrorist attacks but only by returning to the horrific days of the Reign of Terror, then Paris will just have to learn to live with terror." then wouldn't that just be a statement that the French people are not going to give into terrorism by destroying their own freedoms?
That is an awful example, I admit, but you get the idea
It was Manuel Valls that said that. He meant that threat of terrorism wasn't going to simply disappear in the near future. To me, it felt as if he was saying <<we simply don't have the balls to do anything about it>>.
jhe90 wrote: Relying on what "should be logical" is not ernough.
Well, I'm going to vote for Macron and not worry in the meantime. The alternative would be voting for Macron and worrying in the meantime, and I like my option better .
Khornate25 wrote: To me, it felt as if he was saying <<we simply don't have the balls to do anything about it>>.
I'm sure the sucker doesn't even have the balls to do anything about cancer. Such a wimp.
If only we had a president with big hands, that would brag about how he is going to cure cancer all by himself! He knows the best guys, you are gonna love how they beat the crap out of cancer!
Cothonian wrote: Is it true that Macron said that Paris will "just have to learn to live with terror" ?
If he did then he should be absolutely ashamed of himself.
Let's get some context before we start jumping to condemnation, yes? After all, if the full quote were to be something like "If it were possible to end all terrorist attacks but only by returning to the horrific days of the Reign of Terror, then Paris will just have to learn to live with terror." then wouldn't that just be a statement that the French people are not going to give into terrorism by destroying their own freedoms?
That is an awful example, I admit, but you get the idea
Well like Khornate25 said, it just sounds like "we don't have the balls to stop it". Or worse, that doing something about it means admitting that we were wrong. And that we would rather let the killing continue than admit that we were wrong.
Pretty disgusted with the results, caused me to sculpt a dark mechanicus demon fetus then drink probably too many beers. Not sure this is the result John Oliver hoped for, but nothing to be proud/smug about imho.
jhe90 wrote: Relying on what "should be logical" is not ernough.
Well, I'm going to vote for Macron and not worry in the meantime. The alternative would be voting for Macron and worrying in the meantime, and I like my option better .
Khornate25 wrote: To me, it felt as if he was saying <<we simply don't have the balls to do anything about it>>.
I'm sure the sucker doesn't even have the balls to do anything about cancer. Such a wimp.
If only we had a president with big hands, that would brag about how he is going to cure cancer all by himself! He knows the best guys, you are gonna love how they beat the crap out of cancer!
Aye my point was more meant as the candidates.
As proven just because polls say you should does not mean you can rely on that to be true on the night.
You have to keep on your toes until the end.
And beer/cider...
Even UK and France can agree that's a good way not to worry.
But that doesn't mean that is what it is, or even what it sounds like to others; it seems like a bizarrely context free interpretation of a snippet of what someone else said. It reminds me of when people took President Obama's statement about how taxes are used to build roads, fire departments, contract law, et al but some people wanted to believe that it sounded like he was saying no one does anything, even though is not even close to what was said.
KernelTerror wrote: Pretty disgusted with the results, caused me to sculpt a dark mechanicus demon fetus then drink probably too many beers. Not sure this is the result John Oliver hoped for, but nothing to be proud/smug about imho.
jhe90 wrote: Relying on what "should be logical" is not ernough.
Well, I'm going to vote for Macron and not worry in the meantime. The alternative would be voting for Macron and worrying in the meantime, and I like my option better .
Khornate25 wrote: To me, it felt as if he was saying <<we simply don't have the balls to do anything about it>>.
I'm sure the sucker doesn't even have the balls to do anything about cancer. Such a wimp.
If only we had a president with big hands, that would brag about how he is going to cure cancer all by himself! He knows the best guys, you are gonna love how they beat the crap out of cancer!
Nah, I'm fine with cancer. It's easy to avoid and I've beaten it once.
The passivity towards terrorism, the constant re-telling of the same old one-liners, all this while they eat, dress and sleep in a luxury they don't deserve, on the other hand...
Khornate25 wrote: the constant re-telling of the same old one-liners, all this while they eat, dress and sleep in a luxury they don't deserve, on the other hand...
See here in the US we treat people like this differently, we elect them President.
Cothonian wrote: Is it true that Macron said that Paris will "just have to learn to live with terror" ?
He didn't. It's just more fething lies.
What Macron has said is that "“no such thing as zero risk” and terrorism will be "part of our daily lives for the years to come."
In order to make the claims sound outrageous, the liars in conservative media are trying to confuse Macron's comments with a statement made by former Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who said “Times have changed and we should learn to live with terrorism.”
Khornate25 wrote: It was Manuel Valls that said that. He meant that threat of terrorism wasn't going to simply disappear in the near future. To me, it felt as if he was saying <<we simply don't have the balls to do anything about it>>.
Or, you know, he knows there is no wand that you can wave to just make terrorism not happen, and he was being honest enough to tell that to people. There's an unkillable myth that you can make people safe if only the people in power are tough enough, do things that 'take balls'. It's a total fantasy.
This doesn't mean I want to defend Valls' comment. It was poorly worded and the timing was even worse, coming in the wake of the Bastille Day attack. I mean, there's a reason that people are trying to make that comment sound like it was said by Macron.
jhe90 wrote: Relying on what "should be logical" is not ernough.
Well, I'm going to vote for Macron and not worry in the meantime. The alternative would be voting for Macron and worrying in the meantime, and I like my option better .
Khornate25 wrote: To me, it felt as if he was saying <<we simply don't have the balls to do anything about it>>.
I'm sure the sucker doesn't even have the balls to do anything about cancer. Such a wimp.
If only we had a president with big hands, that would brag about how he is going to cure cancer all by himself! He knows the best guys, you are gonna love how they beat the crap out of cancer!
Nah, I'm fine with cancer. It's easy to avoid and I've beaten it once.
The passivity towards terrorism, the constant re-telling of the same old one-liners, all this while they eat, dress and sleep in a luxury they don't deserve, on the other hand...
Did you just follow up a complaint about one-liners with a one-liner?
KernelTerror wrote: Pretty disgusted with the results, caused me to sculpt a dark mechanicus demon fetus then drink probably too many beers. Not sure this is the result John Oliver hoped for, but nothing to be proud/smug about imho.
Sorry. Who were you rooting for?
Jean Luc Melenchon, his program got me out of a long abstention period. 19.5 is a decent score but seeing a banker, a racist and a crook ending up preferred to him is pretty depressing. I am concerned that 5 more years of stomping on the poorest of us and on the public services will only make Le Pen's party stronger for 2022. Then there is Macron's surveillance program, and his overworking of our old nuclear infrastructure.
KernelTerror wrote: Pretty disgusted with the results, caused me to sculpt a dark mechanicus demon fetus then drink probably too many beers. Not sure this is the result John Oliver hoped for, but nothing to be proud/smug about imho.
Sorry. Who were you rooting for?
Jean Luc Melenchon, his program got me out of a long abstention period. 19.5 is a decent score but seeing a banker, a racist and a crook ending up preferred to him is pretty depressing. I am concerned that 5 more years of stomping on the poorest of us and on the public services will only make Le Pen's party stronger for 2022. Then there is Macron's surveillance program, and his overworking of our old nuclear infrastructure.
I agree, Melenchon was by far the best option available. Between the banker and le pen, the latter seems the lesser evil, and that tells a lot. If le pen doesn't win now and Hollande II won't solve france's problems next time she (or her successor) can get 35-40%.
Khornate25 wrote: The passivity towards terrorism, the constant re-telling of the same old one-liners, all this while they eat, dress and sleep in a luxury they don't deserve, on the other hand...
Is that a goddamn joke? You call that passivity?
“Why aren't politics using their magic wand to solve terrorism?”
KernelTerror wrote: 19.5 is a decent score but seeing a banker, a racist and a crook ending up preferred to him is pretty depressing.
I know but if we look to the bright side, he is on a very strong rising trend, and if he keeps the momentum he maybe very well be on the second turn next time.
The only problem is he is starting to get a bit old.
Also you should have written “a banker, a racist crook and a crook” .
I find it fascinating when people talk about the need solve a country's problems. Its interesting in part because not only are solutions not offered, but the problems themselves are often not actually detailed. It is just accepted there are national problems of a great and pressing urgency that it is within the power of government to fix, if only government chose to fix them.
The other part that's interesting to me is how people only look at the problems that might be fixed, they give no consideration for the possibility that new problems might be created, if the wrong solutions are tried, or a poorly chosen government allows new issues to rise unchecked. This one sided look at politics heavily favours unconventional and even chaotic candidates, as only the upside of change is considered, not the downside. This, to me, is how many outsider candidates become viable.
The move to these outsider candidates, on the right, seems to be fairly consistently from establishment conservatism to a kind of conservatism that isn't necessarily racist, but is certainly heavily xenophobic. Add in some strong man populism, and this explains not just Brexit, Le Pen and Trump, but also Putin and Duterte. On the left though, there doesn't seem to have been much actual gain among properly socialist politics, some groundswell in support, but little actual winning. Instead it seems like the move has been to keep with mainstream, neo-liberal politics, but to just have them sold by more youthful candidates, ones who can make the same old politics sound like something new and positive. This is the space that Obama, Trudeau and now Macron have operated in.
This is by no means a complete theory, of course. And it certainly isn't that heavily based in the ins and outs of French politics, to which I know nothing. But a couple of posts here about the problems that need fixing in France, plus some thoughts that were already bouncing around in my head got me thinking.
Add in some strong man populism, and this explains not just Brexit, Le Pen and Trump, but also Putin and Duterte.
Brexit isn't even started yet, no one can say if it will be bad or good for the UK or/and for the other countries. Trump is president since 2 months, le pen never governed. Putin and duterte don't belong to democracies. I'd wait the proper amount of time before judging.
Obama was one of the worst american presidents, considering how his politics affected europe, africa and middle eastern countries. If he wasn't half black very few people would have praised him.
Add in some strong man populism, and this explains not just Brexit, Le Pen and Trump, but also Putin and Duterte.
Brexit isn't even started yet, no one can say if it will be bad or good for the UK or/and for the other countries. Trump is president since 2 months, le pen never governed. Putin and duterte don't belong to democracies. I'd wait the proper amount of time before judging.
Obama was one of the worst american presidents, considering how his politics affected europe, africa and middle eastern countries. If he wasn't half black very few people would have praised him.
You don't know much about the American economic situation when Obama took office do you? Hint: It was bad. So bad it was even acknowledged as the Great Recession. Since then, unemployment has plummeted to under 5% and the Dow Jones more than doubled. Likewise, international relations were very strained at the end of the Bush presidency as the US had embroiled itself in some rather unpopular military engagements. Obama reversed that trend and remained popular internationally with some exceptions (Russian and several Muslim nations, specifically).
But all of this has *nothing* to do with the topic, which is French elections!
It looks like the first round pretty much followed expectations. Any thoughts on the runoff? Le Pen seems to have a motivated core of voters.
Blackie wrote: Obama was one of the worst american presidents, considering how his politics affected europe, africa and middle eastern countries. If he wasn't half black very few people would have praised him.
You are the guy that wrote something akin to “Those savages (sic) don't belong to a lab, except maybe as test subjects” for anyone who was educated in a third world country. Therefore, your opinion is irrelevant .
The talking heads seem convinced Le Pen is going to win, and use her election to either force significant change in France's relationship with the EU, or else Frexit. And if France Frexits, Italy may well be next in line, and then the house of cards may very well collapse.
Not sure how much of this is true or just hot air, but may you live in interesting times. It's kind of unsettling to see the EU experiment unraveling in such a short period of time, and I can't help but think this French election will have dramatic implications for the future of Europe at large.
It certainly seems to me that the EU is being put on notice that it must make major reforms or die. I wonder if the institution is even capable of change, or if there is too much inertia and the bureaucracy is too entrenched.
jasper76 wrote: The talking heads seem convinced Le Pen is going to win, and use her election to either force significant change in France's relationship with the EU, or else Frexit. And if France Frexits, Italy may well be next in line, and then the house of cards may very well collapse.
Not sure how much of this is true or just hot air, but may you live in interesting times. It's kind of unsettling to see the EU experiment unraveling in such a short period of time, and I can't help but think this French election will have dramatic implications for the future of Europe at large.
It certainly seems to me that the EU is being put on notice that it must make major reforms or die. I wonder if the institution is even capable of change, or if there is too much inertia and the bureaucracy is too entrenched.
I very much doubt that.
Le Pen has been banging on that 'Frexit' drum for quite some time, and still can't seem to reach the 40% range in the polls.
I recently saw a poll (can't find it at the moment) quite some time ago that a large majority French, by and large, want to stay in the EU. I can't imagine those voters going with Le Pen...
Get used to saying President Macron. Another outsider... eh?
jasper76 wrote: The talking heads seem convinced Le Pen is going to win, and use her election to either force significant change in France's relationship with the EU, or else Frexit. And if France Frexits, Italy may well be next in line, and then the house of cards may very well collapse.
Not sure how much of this is true or just hot air, but may you live in interesting times. It's kind of unsettling to see the EU experiment unraveling in such a short period of time, and I can't help but think this French election will have dramatic implications for the future of Europe at large.
It certainly seems to me that the EU is being put on notice that it must make major reforms or die. I wonder if the institution is even capable of change, or if there is too much inertia and the bureaucracy is too entrenched.
So if Le Pin wins, will Europe be moving back to a NAFTA type free trade system (probably the best for them). If so, will that mean a recession for Belgium with lots of bureaucratic unemployment?
jasper76 wrote: The talking heads seem convinced Le Pen is going to win, and use her election to either force significant change in France's relationship with the EU, or else Frexit. And if France Frexits, Italy may well be next in line, and then the house of cards may very well collapse.
Not sure how much of this is true or just hot air, but may you live in interesting times. It's kind of unsettling to see the EU experiment unraveling in such a short period of time, and I can't help but think this French election will have dramatic implications for the future of Europe at large.
It certainly seems to me that the EU is being put on notice that it must make major reforms or die. I wonder if the institution is even capable of change, or if there is too much inertia and the bureaucracy is too entrenched.
I very much doubt that.
Le Pen has been banging on that 'Frexit' drum for quite some time, and still can't seem to reach the 40% range in the polls.
I recently saw a poll (can't find it at the moment) quite some time ago that a large majority French, by and large, want to stay in the EU. I can't imagine those voters going with Le Pen...
Get used to saying President Macron. Another outsider... eh?
If the US election taught us anything, it's that polls cannot be trusted...not even a little bit. I'm not sure that the polling industry has proven that it has made sufficient adjustments to its techniques to be trusted.
Which is not to say I think Le Pen will win, I have no idea. But the sway of history is moving towards nationalism, isolationism, and closed borders. The extent to which France is caught up with or immune from this motion I guess waits to be seen.
jasper76 wrote: The talking heads seem convinced Le Pen is going to win, and use her election to either force significant change in France's relationship with the EU, or else Frexit. And if France Frexits, Italy may well be next in line, and then the house of cards may very well collapse.
Not sure how much of this is true or just hot air, but may you live in interesting times. It's kind of unsettling to see the EU experiment unraveling in such a short period of time, and I can't help but think this French election will have dramatic implications for the future of Europe at large.
It certainly seems to me that the EU is being put on notice that it must make major reforms or die. I wonder if the institution is even capable of change, or if there is too much inertia and the bureaucracy is too entrenched.
I very much doubt that.
Le Pen has been banging on that 'Frexit' drum for quite some time, and still can't seem to reach the 40% range in the polls.
I recently saw a poll (can't find it at the moment) quite some time ago that a large majority French, by and large, want to stay in the EU. I can't imagine those voters going with Le Pen...
Get used to saying President Macron. Another outsider... eh?
If the US election taught us anything, it's that polls cannot be trusted...not even a little bit. I'm not sure that the polling industry has proven that it has made sufficient adjustments to its techniques to be trusted.
US polling industries are nothing like those across the Atlantic.
Traditionally, they're much more solid than the one we see here in the states.
Which is not to say I think Le Pen will win, I have no idea. But the sway of history is moving towards nationalism, isolationism, and closed borders. The extent to which France is caught up with or immune from this motion I guess waits to be seen.
True... but, the beauty to the French's 'Two Rounds' for their election can mitigate the populist rise we've been seeing elsewhere... in that, the losing coalitions can band together and play the 'not votes' in the 2nd round. That's actually what typically happens there...
Just to put things into perspective: another outsider… that was part of the previous government . His elections means a LOT for the Socialist party, but it doesn't mean you should expect a lot of change in the way France is governed. This is very different from a Donald “Who knew healthcare was complex?” Trump.
Frazzled wrote: You don't know who David Byrne is? Barbarian!
I don't know what the expression talking head means. And I also don't know who David Byrne is. But, you see, as you are American and I am French, I laugh at the very suggestion that you could be in any way more civilized or sophisticated than I am . See, you have this reputation for being uncouth and crude, while we…
C'est vous qui n'êtes qu'un barbare, un cowboy mal décrotté tout juste descendu de son cheval, très cher. /
Just to put things into perspective: another outsider… that was part of the previous government . His elections means a LOT for the Socialist party, but it doesn't mean you should expect a lot of change in the way France is governed. This is very different from a Donald “Who knew healthcare was complex?” Trump.
Frazzled wrote: You don't know who David Byrne is? Barbarian!
I don't know what the expression talking head means. And I also don't know who David Byrne is. But, you see, as you are American and I am French, I laugh at the very suggestion that you could be in any way more civilized or sophisticated than I am . See, you have this reputation for being uncouth and crude, while we…
C'est vous qui n'êtes qu'un barbare, un cowboy mal décrotté tout juste descendu de son cheval, très cher. /
Sorry but the best of France bailed for New Orleans-all your best thieves, rascals, swindlers, and supporters of Bonaparte left to be assimilated by the Borg, er the US. Next you'll be telling me your Eiffel Tower copy is better than the Vegas original. Pfft!
whembly wrote: I'm not convinced we're seeing that now... right Hybrid?
I don't think we will either.
Frazzled wrote: Next you'll be telling me your Eiffel Tower copy is better than the Vegas original. Pfft!
Meh, we made your Statue of Liberty, and really given how much your current president is smearing gak all over every idea in “The New Colossus” you should give it back to us .
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible, she cannot win ths time, but in 5 years with marion, it will be another story, next president will be Macarony, no surprise, french like money they will be serve.............Poor country, so sad. So many people choosed him because he is young or handsome...........Crying!!!
Future War Cultist wrote: Macron is still a part of the establishment, however much he pretends otherwise. I'll be very disappointed if he wins...which it looks like he will.
Le Pen isn't exactly outside of the system either. Are you looking for Poutou or Arthaud?
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible
I have heard that too many times lately in politics to believe anything is impossible.
Yep. Pundits "in the know" were quite literally laughing their asses off when presented with even the suggestion that Trump could possibily win the election. Surprise, surprise.
I don't know if Le Pen will win, I have no idea. But I won't just accept these predictions of impossibility. I just gone done watching that movie.
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible
I have heard that too many times lately in politics to believe anything is impossible.
Yep. Pundits "in the know" were quite literally laughing their asses off when presented with even the suggestion that Trump could possibily win the election. Surprise, surprise.
I don't know if Le Pen will win, I have no idea. But I won't just accept these predictions of impossibility. I just gone done watching that movie.
Everything about this election is different than what we've seen here in the states though...
In the first round, the age group of 18-34 year olds broke for Le Pen. The 35+ year olds overwhelmingly broke for the 'not Le Pen' candidates.
I guess the question would be, which age demographics votes?
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible
I have heard that too many times lately in politics to believe anything is impossible.
Yep. Pundits "in the know" were quite literally laughing their asses off when presented with even the suggestion that Trump could possibily win the election. Surprise, surprise.
I don't know if Le Pen will win, I have no idea. But I won't just accept these predictions of impossibility. I just gone done watching that movie.
Everything about this election is different than what we've seen here in the states though...
In the first round, the age group of 18-34 year olds broke for Le Pen. The 35+ year olds overwhelmingly broke for the 'not Le Pen' candidates.
I guess the question would be, which age demographics votes?
Well given youth and young unemployment is high across Europe.
The fact they look at someone different and are thinking that that shaking up the whole political pot is a good idea.
I can understand. They want someone to break the status quo and do somthibf to help them...
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible
I have heard that too many times lately in politics to believe anything is impossible.
Yep. Pundits "in the know" were quite literally laughing their asses off when presented with even the suggestion that Trump could possibily win the election. Surprise, surprise.
I don't know if Le Pen will win, I have no idea. But I won't just accept these predictions of impossibility. I just gone done watching that movie.
Everything about this election is different than what we've seen here in the states though...
And so much about the last US election was different than anything we'd seen before in previous US elections.
I think way too many people here are forgetting that the actual polls for recent elections (brexit, the us pres) were actually quite accurate. The polling for both were within 2 percentage points, not even outside the margin of error. It was the pundits reading the polls who were making the "not going to happen" statements. Part of it was they couldn't believe what their own data was telling them because it ran counter to conventiaonal wisdom. I.e. People just couldn't be that stupid/gullible. Their data said otherwise. They should have listened to it and reported it accurately.
This is completely different. Le Pen is down by 26 points on average in a head to head. If we added up the point spread on polls vs. vote in the Brexit vote and the US election together, she would still be down by 20 points. She has two weeks to make that up. Unless ISIS has some sort of master plan up its sleeve to dramatically change things (and it's going to take more than the Charlie Hubdou/random nut with a gun or a bomb situation), I don't see how she does it.
Added to that, since the Trump election when he took power and people began realizing ,"hey, wait a minute, this is empty crazy talk", I don't know of a single right wing faction that has actually won an election. Trump isn't a sign of things to come, but a warning of what not to do. He is a weight on Le Pen's shoulders, not an asset.
Considering the situation is an outcome of the exact same problem I don't think expecting a similar result is unwarranted. The wealthy of the first world are doing exceedingly well while the majority suffers for it. It surprised me how little this is brought up considering how widespread the impact is. How often is the sentiment that 'everything sucks' spoken of? Remember how at the end of 2014 we were talking about how much it sucked? And 2015? And 2016? There's a basic connection there with the average person having to work harder to earn less than they used to, it's a trend that's unsustainable and we are really starting to see what happens as a result.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Considering the situation is an outcome of the exact same problem I don't think expecting a similar result is unwarranted. The wealthy of the first world are doing exceedingly well while the majority suffers for it. It surprised me how little this is brought up considering how widespread the impact is. How often is the sentiment that 'everything sucks' spoken of? Remember how at the end of 2014 we were talking about how much it sucked? And 2015? And 2016? There's a basic connection there with the average person having to work harder to earn less than they used to, it's a trend that's unsustainable and we are really starting to see what happens as a result.
Your assumption of "a similar result" is unfounded. See above. "A similar result" would mean she loses by 24 points, not 26. Granted, she has a bit of time to make it up, but it would take an act of Todd (Todd being whatever particular being you ascribe faith to, maybe Bealzeeub, maybe Azathoth, maybe Jaweh, maybe just Todd, the guy in the cubicle next door. Though he is probably more interested in his Milky Way he is munching on right now to care).
Ah yes, naysayers once again confusing polls and pundits. The US presidential election was well within most polls margin. In Georgia, they continue to be accurate as they are in the first round of French elections. Polling, like anything, is an imperfect tool, but the outright rejection is grossly misplaced. Especially if you don't get how polls and pundits are two different things entirely.
jmurph wrote: Ah yes, naysayers once again confusing polls and pundits. The US presidential election was well within most polls margin. In Georgia, they continue to be accurate as they are in the first round of French elections. Polling, like anything, is an imperfect tool, but the outright rejection is grossly misplaced. Especially if you don't get how polls and pundits are two different things entirely.
I agree, and while I do think people like Silver do great work, he does sort of dip his toe into punditry too, often much to his ridicule. It does what he does no service or help to what he really does and just feeds the "MSM are just stooges to the powers that be" narrative that is way too appealing to online feed groups. Just look at the numbers, read the numbers and explain the numbers. No need for the commentary, thank you very much.
It's sort of like people who can look at temperature variables and means over years and then walk outside and feel the bite of the wind and say, "yeah, global warming, my ass." It's just numbers folks, they don't lie like humans do.
Blackie wrote: Obama was one of the worst american presidents, considering how his politics affected europe, africa and middle eastern countries. If he wasn't half black very few people would have praised him.
You are the guy that wrote something akin to “Those savages (sic) don't belong to a lab, except maybe as test subjects” for anyone who was educated in a third world country. Therefore, your opinion is irrelevant .
I sure hope he didn't say anything like that. I've heard the whole racist, xenophobic, islamaphobic, misogynistic crap before. I'd just like a little more proof to the statements and the context.
As far as the U.S. elections i didn't vote. Can a person not be disgusted with the main candidates?
On the subject of obama didn't he do a lot of drone strikes and ya know help make ISIS come around. It's like "Oh cool we finally killed Bin Laden (the dying leader of a dying terrorist group) now let's do something so the middle east gets its terrorism back". Electric Boogalo 2 or "How the Middle East got its terrorism back".
I'm not sure what you misread, but I'm glad you are now thinking about what you are posting online. More people need to do that. Huzzah to you, good sir!
flamingkillamajig wrote: I sure hope he didn't say anything like that. I've heard the whole racist, xenophobic, islamaphobic, misogynistic crap before. I'd just like a little more proof to the statements and the context.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Added to that, since the Trump election when he took power and people began realizing ,"hey, wait a minute, this is empty crazy talk"
Disagree, people are way dumber than what you give them credit for!
flamingkillamajig wrote: I sure hope he didn't say anything like that. I've heard the whole racist, xenophobic, islamaphobic, misogynistic crap before. I'd just like a little more proof to the statements and the context.
I'm not sure what you misread, but I'm glad you are now thinking about what you are posting online. More people need to do that. Huzzah to you, good sir!
Ooooo...how I love finding a backhanded compliment in the wild.
I'm glad you are now refraining from being a jerk, Gordon. Kudos!
I'm not sure what you misread, but I'm glad you are now thinking about what you are posting online. More people need to do that. Huzzah to you, good sir!
Ooooo...how I love finding a backhanded compliment in the wild.
I'm glad you are now refraining from being a jerk, Gordon. Kudos!
flamingkillamajig wrote: I sure hope he didn't say anything like that. I've heard the whole racist, xenophobic, islamaphobic, misogynistic crap before. I'd just like a little more proof to the statements and the context.
Even worse he was allowed to accuse others of being bigots purposefully twisting words or just making up imaginary opinions we supposedly hold to attack...
On the elections. I'm glad Macron got through to the second round. It got a bit closer in the run up to round 1 in the polls than I would have suspected. If Le Pen wins I can't see anything good happening as she certainly won't be able to fix the economy with her approach, just drive it off a cliff. As a European and a EU supporter I'm glad that Macron seems to be the favored winner for round 2.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even worse he was allowed to accuse others of being bigots purposefully twisting words or just making up imaginary opinions we supposedly hold to attack...
Thankfully those kind of attacks are very easy to disprove by sending links to the actual words, in the actual context of the thread, right ?
Le Penn will lose. The support for the left will not vote for far right over center.
But what's all this "2% difference in polls" I'm hearing about the US election? There were many double digit polls for Clinton.
Those polls had Clinton at the 40-ish percent threshold above Trump's 30-ish percents. And Trump still ended up losing the popular vote.
Trump had:
third party votes to siphon off,
the right population distributions in the states,
"shy voters" because so many people didn't want to admit they would ultimately vote for Trump over Clinton.
Trump would have lost in the US if we had used the French system.
Soo..... what I'm saying is, the Trump election was more shocking than some on this board want to remember and Le Penn winning would be an entire order of magnitude more unbelievable.
French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen announced Monday she is temporarily stepping down as head of her National Front party with less than two weeks ago before the country chooses its leader in a runoff vote.
The move appears to be a way for Le Pen to embrace a wide range of potential voters ahead of the vote pitting her against Emmanuel Macron, the independent centrist who came in first in Sunday's first round, The Associated Press reported.
"Tonight, I am no longer the president of the National Front. I am the presidential candidate," she said on French public television news.
Le Pen has said in the past that she is not a candidate of her party, and made that point when she rolled out her platform in February, saying the measures she was espousing were not her party's, but her own.
She also has tried to distance herself numerous times from a string of controversial comments by her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the party before being kicked out in 2015.
Le Pen has worked to bring in voters from the left and right for several years, cleaning up her party's racist, anti-Semitic image to do so.
Scrabb wrote: Le Penn will lose. The support for the left will not vote for far right over center.
But what's all this "2% difference in polls" I'm hearing about the US election? There were many double digit polls for Clinton.
Those polls had Clinton at the 40-ish percent threshold above Trump's 30-ish percents. And Trump still ended up losing the popular vote.
Trump had:
third party votes to siphon off,
the right population distributions in the states,
"shy voters" because so many people didn't want to admit they would ultimately vote for Trump over Clinton.
Trump would have lost in the US if we had used the French system.
Soo..... what I'm saying is, the Trump election was more shocking than some on this board want to remember and Le Penn winning would be an entire order of magnitude more unbelievable.
No, dude, go back and actually look at the polling data in the last few days before the polls. You are wrong. You may have heard differently, but you may have also heard about the New Jerseains celebrating after 9/11. No polls had Clinton at double digits.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I sure hope he didn't say anything like that. I've heard the whole racist, xenophobic, islamaphobic, misogynistic crap before. I'd just like a little more proof to the statements and the context.
Jesus Christ Blackie wtf! I mean i used to know a really educated guy from the middle east that was in my calculus 2 class and he said he had to take the classes over in this country (saying our version was easier). It's common custom for certain educations to not be accepted in other countries and for you to re-learn but that's a bit much. I mean i merely am just uncomfortable with extremist religion and their's is the worst in this day and age. Of course i won't let people convince me an entire group is 100% evil and should be hated. If they turn out to not be extremists since i can't visit them then i would be the only extremist if i gave into that hate (i've had friends fall into that extremism like a previous feminist friend though thankfully hybrid is a good example for his group unlike the previous friend). That's why you have to make sure a group are extremists due to learning about them firsthand and in person before you commit to hatred at the very least.
Back on topic i think Sebster hit the nail on the head. When things don't work people want change. Would you believe Obama's campaign promise and slogan was for 'Change'? I guess that's a bigger indicator of who wins now. Maybe things just suck so bad in the usa politically that any political change would be accepted. I honestly things you guys would've had a good shot if Bernie Sanders was one of the 2 main candidates but you went with Hillary instead. Big mistake. Course these days it's usually 2 term democrat and 2 term republican for usa so i dunno.
----------
I tend to not know the politics in other countries but it couldn't be any worse than here for the french and british.
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible, she cannot win ths time, but in 5 years with marion, it will be another story, next president will be Macarony, no surprise, french like money they will be serve.............Poor country, so sad. So many people choosed him because he is young or handsome...........Crying!!!
I remember the same being said of Trump with only a couple weeks to go before the election. Don't underestimate the power of the dynamics behind Brexit, Trump, LePen, etc. Now that she has shed the party label, I'd take odds that she does win.
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible, she cannot win ths time, but in 5 years with marion, it will be another story, next president will be Macarony, no surprise, french like money they will be serve.............Poor country, so sad. So many people choosed him because he is young or handsome...........Crying!!!
I remember the same being said of Trump with only a couple weeks to go before the election. Don't underestimate the power of the dynamics behind Brexit, Trump, LePen, etc. Now that she has shed the party label, I'd take odds that she does win.
Dude, read the post you are posting in, and respond accordingly. It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even worse he was allowed to accuse others of being bigots purposefully twisting words or just making up imaginary opinions we supposedly hold to attack...
Thankfully those kind of attacks are very easy to disprove by sending links to the actual words, in the actual context of the thread, right ?
Still feels weird that you would be allowed to do so as its seems its really skirting rule one.
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible, she cannot win ths time, but in 5 years with marion, it will be another story, next president will be Macarony, no surprise, french like money they will be serve.............Poor country, so sad. So many people choosed him because he is young or handsome...........Crying!!!
I remember the same being said of Trump with only a couple weeks to go before the election. Don't underestimate the power of the dynamics behind Brexit, Trump, LePen, etc. Now that she has shed the party label, I'd take odds that she does win.
Dude, read the post you are posting in, and respond accordingly. It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts.
Its really strange people keep making this comparison after being corrected multiple times. France has two rounds and most of the people voting for Le Pen will have already done so in round 1 and she finished behind Macron in that one. Its like saying I'm sure Trump would win if we redo the vote!
Also the party label means nothing Le Pen is the FN and vice versa, this is just desperation.
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible, she cannot win ths time, but in 5 years with marion, it will be another story, next president will be Macarony, no surprise, french like money they will be serve.............Poor country, so sad. So many people choosed him because he is young or handsome...........Crying!!!
I remember the same being said of Trump with only a couple weeks to go before the election. Don't underestimate the power of the dynamics behind Brexit, Trump, LePen, etc. Now that she has shed the party label, I'd take odds that she does win.
Dude, read the post you are posting in, and respond accordingly. It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts.
What the feth are you talking about? I commented on the probability, or not, of a LePen win. Did I misread "Impossible, she cannot win this time..."? Seemed pretty clean cut or are you just in the mood to troll? Also, your comment that "It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts." is a bit premature as the only fact that will matter hasn't manifested yet and will only do so when we see who wins the election in a couple weeks. So until then, opinions are what we've got.
Hybrid... is this gambit... a smart thing for her to do?
What can she say/do in two weeks to get new voters to vote for her?
I may not have Hybrid's insight, but it seems like a brilliant tactic to me. Her faithful will follow her regardless of party affiliation and over the next two weeks, she can put some symbolic distance between herself and FN, which is obviously a possible stumbling block for some people to come over and vote for her.
The big issue is that if Le Pen loses here, she's done for higher office aspirations unless she has a fix in to get her old job back, which may be tricky.
That said, at this juncture, she might as well go all in, it may be the only chance she ever gets anyway.
Vaktathi wrote: The big issue is that if Le Pen loses here, she's done for higher office aspirations unless she has a fix in to get her old job back, which may be tricky.
That said, at this juncture, she might as well go all in, it may be the only chance she ever gets anyway.
I suspect this analysis is correct. If it can't hurt, it can only help, or perhaps have no effect.
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible, she cannot win ths time, but in 5 years with marion, it will be another story, next president will be Macarony, no surprise, french like money they will be serve.............Poor country, so sad. So many people choosed him because he is young or handsome...........Crying!!!
I remember the same being said of Trump with only a couple weeks to go before the election. Don't underestimate the power of the dynamics behind Brexit, Trump, LePen, etc. Now that she has shed the party label, I'd take odds that she does win.
Dude, read the post you are posting in, and respond accordingly. It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts.
What the feth are you talking about? I commented on the probability, or not, of a LePen win. Did I misread "Impossible, she cannot win this time..."? Seemed pretty clean cut or are you just in the mood to troll? Also, your comment that "It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts." is a bit premature as the only fact that will matter hasn't manifested yet and will only do so when we see who wins the election in a couple weeks. So until then, opinions are what we've got.
It for say, it's not like with trump here, it's not 51% vs 49% we speaking about more than 10%, and all tvs, show etc..Speak about her like devil, so here in france the majority and a big majority don't like her, if she will a good president? Nobody know she will never do, in town where they are "major" they make good things but tvs say bad etc......Since many years lepen is like hitler etc......True sure not but people thing it's true. And french people don't thing, the evidence is Macron is holland number 2, all people wanted hollande out and they choose the same.
Just because he is young and cool...............Asked to french to be intelligent..........Forget.........So Macron will win with a minimum of 60%. I choose melanchon this year because he could beat macron, but lepen cannot.
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible, she cannot win ths time, but in 5 years with marion, it will be another story, next president will be Macarony, no surprise, french like money they will be serve.............Poor country, so sad. So many people choosed him because he is young or handsome...........Crying!!!
I remember the same being said of Trump with only a couple weeks to go before the election. Don't underestimate the power of the dynamics behind Brexit, Trump, LePen, etc. Now that she has shed the party label, I'd take odds that she does win.
Dude, read the post you are posting in, and respond accordingly. It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts.
What the feth are you talking about? I commented on the probability, or not, of a LePen win. Did I misread "Impossible, she cannot win this time..."? Seemed pretty clean cut or are you just in the mood to troll? Also, your comment that "It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts." is a bit premature as the only fact that will matter hasn't manifested yet and will only do so when we see who wins the election in a couple weeks. So until then, opinions are what we've got.
Yup, and as was pointed out above, we should probably avoid the punditry, as it leads to false predictions. No need to swear or get upset about it. Just respond to the discussion. Want to bet on red 5 all in, fair enough, just make clear that you realize that is an outside bet.
whembly wrote: […]Hybrid... is this gambit... a smart thing for her to do?
What can she say/do in two weeks to get new voters to vote for her?
I may not have Hybrid's insight, but it seems like a brilliant tactic to me. Her faithful will follow her regardless of party affiliation and over the next two weeks, she can put some symbolic distance between herself and FN, which is obviously a possible stumbling block for some people to come over and vote for her.
I tends to agree with this. Seems like a risky but potentially successful strategy.
Also it will monopolize all the attention on her, and about this specific issue rather than other that could hurt her more, so…
I think if I was Macron I would try to focus the debate as much as possible on her “affairs” (she did something similar to Fillon, where she gave tons of money from the European Union to her bodyguard to be her “parliamentary assistant” when she was in the UE parliament, likely actually paying him for his work as a bodyguard rather than for any service to the actual UE parliament).
whembly wrote: […]Hybrid... is this gambit... a smart thing for her to do?
What can she say/do in two weeks to get new voters to vote for her?
I may not have Hybrid's insight, but it seems like a brilliant tactic to me. Her faithful will follow her regardless of party affiliation and over the next two weeks, she can put some symbolic distance between herself and FN, which is obviously a possible stumbling block for some people to come over and vote for her.
I tends to agree with this. Seems like a risky but potentially successful strategy.
Also it will monopolize all the attention on her, and about this specific issue rather than other that could hurt her more, so…
I think if I was Macron I would try to focus the debate as much as possible on her “affairs” (she did something similar to Fillon, where she gave tons of money from the European Union to her bodyguard to be her “parliamentary assistant” when she was in the UE parliament, likely actually paying him for his work as a bodyguard rather than for any service to the actual UE parliament).
I find it hard to believe she can really shake the FN image in two weeks, she will still have to depend on them for campaigning. The whole family is intrinsically linked to the FN and she has already said a number of absolutely horrible things.
While Le Pen would be a disaster on so many levels, it could help get the UK off the Brexit hook enormously. France doesn't want to leave, and it is genuinely not in French interests as France was always at the core of the EU, something the UK never was and never could be.
Orlanth wrote: While Le Pen would be a disaster on so many levels, it could help get the UK off the Brexit hook enormously. France doesn't want to leave, and it is genuinely not in French interests as France was always at the core of the EU, something the UK never was and never could be.
Her election might be the wake up call they need. The EU needs reform if it going to survive. Thr fact she is second round should be noted and taken seriously. There's a big problem and its bot going away.
Orlanth wrote: While Le Pen would be a disaster on so many levels, it could help get the UK off the Brexit hook enormously. France doesn't want to leave, and it is genuinely not in French interests as France was always at the core of the EU, something the UK never was and never could be.
Her election might be the wake up call they need. The EU needs reform if it going to survive. Thr fact she is second round should be noted and taken seriously. There's a big problem and its bot going away.
Seems they missed it with Brexit.
Why? If she gets elected and that's a gigantic if her policies are going to drive France of a cliff financially speaking. Her policies are going to drag down the EU whether France leaves or stays in. Reform won't do anything to avoid disaster if she's in.
On the second round thing. Her father also managed to do it in 2002. Lets not pretend its somehow a big problem now while its just an attempt at getting some extra votes and mainly just focused on the internal economy. EU bashing is just a good way to get those kinds of voters on board. Whats Le Pen going to do, pay all those French farmers herself?
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible, she cannot win ths time, but in 5 years with marion, it will be another story, next president will be Macarony, no surprise, french like money they will be serve.............Poor country, so sad. So many people choosed him because he is young or handsome...........Crying!!!
I remember the same being said of Trump with only a couple weeks to go before the election. Don't underestimate the power of the dynamics behind Brexit, Trump, LePen, etc. Now that she has shed the party label, I'd take odds that she does win.
Dude, read the post you are posting in, and respond accordingly. It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts.
What the feth are you talking about? I commented on the probability, or not, of a LePen win. Did I misread "Impossible, she cannot win this time..."? Seemed pretty clean cut or are you just in the mood to troll? Also, your comment that "It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts." is a bit premature as the only fact that will matter hasn't manifested yet and will only do so when we see who wins the election in a couple weeks. So until then, opinions are what we've got.
Yup, and as was pointed out above, we should probably avoid the punditry, as it leads to false predictions. No need to swear or get upset about it. Just respond to the discussion. Want to bet on red 5 all in, fair enough, just make clear that you realize that is an outside bet.
No need for your condescension either, or did I miss your appointment as omniscient arbiter of what is acceptable as a post?
Easy E wrote: I will not be surprised by a Le Pen win.
Impossible, she cannot win ths time, but in 5 years with marion, it will be another story, next president will be Macarony, no surprise, french like money they will be serve.............Poor country, so sad. So many people choosed him because he is young or handsome...........Crying!!!
I remember the same being said of Trump with only a couple weeks to go before the election. Don't underestimate the power of the dynamics behind Brexit, Trump, LePen, etc. Now that she has shed the party label, I'd take odds that she does win.
Dude, read the post you are posting in, and respond accordingly. It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts.
What the feth are you talking about? I commented on the probability, or not, of a LePen win. Did I misread "Impossible, she cannot win this time..."? Seemed pretty clean cut or are you just in the mood to troll? Also, your comment that "It seems we are truly in a world where only our own opinion matters, damn the facts." is a bit premature as the only fact that will matter hasn't manifested yet and will only do so when we see who wins the election in a couple weeks. So until then, opinions are what we've got.
It for say, it's not like with trump here, it's not 51% vs 49% we speaking about more than 10%, and all tvs, show etc..Speak about her like devil, so here in france the majority and a big majority don't like her, if she will a good president? Nobody know she will never do, in town where they are "major" they make good things but tvs say bad etc......Since many years lepen is like hitler etc......True sure not but people thing it's true. And french people don't thing, the evidence is Macron is holland number 2, all people wanted hollande out and they choose the same.
Just because he is young and cool...............Asked to french to be intelligent..........Forget.........So Macron will win with a minimum of 60%. I choose melanchon this year because he could beat macron, but lepen cannot.
Don't be complacent with your thinking that this is simply a percentage gap analysis matter. The point I'm making is that there is a bigger, global macro-trend in play and it's proven polls horribly wrong repeatedly so far and this election has the potential to be no different. I was calling for our current Liar-in-Chief to win weeks before the US election and getting called out for it on the...RIP...US Politics thread. This is one of those moments in history where the apple cart has been turned over and the aftermath is proving, as it will in such circumstances, to be predictably unpredictable.
Nio matter how it is spun France is angry because of recent attacks, and only FN has been seen to actually do more than paste over the problems.
Now their cure is likely worse than the plague, but people are angry and people are desperate.
If you were to ask me two years ago who would be the most likely to win a presidential election, Marine Le Pen or Donald Trump, I would never have said Trump, everyone ought to know he is an unelectable moron.
Orlanth wrote: While Le Pen would be a disaster on so many levels, it could help get the UK off the Brexit hook enormously. France doesn't want to leave, and it is genuinely not in French interests as France was always at the core of the EU, something the UK never was and never could be.
Her election might be the wake up call they need. The EU needs reform if it going to survive. Thr fact she is second round should be noted and taken seriously. There's a big problem and its bot going away.
Seems they missed it with Brexit.
Why? If she gets elected and that's a gigantic if her policies are going to drive France of a cliff financially speaking. Her policies are going to drag down the EU whether France leaves or stays in. Reform won't do anything to avoid disaster if she's in.
On the second round thing. Her father also managed to do it in 2002. Lets not pretend its somehow a big problem now while its just an attempt at getting some extra votes and mainly just focused on the internal economy. EU bashing is just a good way to get those kinds of voters on board. Whats Le Pen going to do, pay all those French farmers herself?
That was my thoughts, too. It's EU funding that supports the Common Agricultural Policy that helps French small farmers, and its EU enterprise and development funds that help to rejuvenate the kind of post-industrial cities and the small towns. These places are much of the core support of Le Pen. It's cutting off their nose to spite their face to get out of the EU.
Orlanth wrote: While Le Pen would be a disaster on so many levels, it could help get the UK off the Brexit hook enormously. France doesn't want to leave, and it is genuinely not in French interests as France was always at the core of the EU, something the UK never was and never could be.
Her election might be the wake up call they need. The EU needs reform if it going to survive. Thr fact she is second round should be noted and taken seriously. There's a big problem and its bot going away.
Seems they missed it with Brexit.
Why? If she gets elected and that's a gigantic if her policies are going to drive France of a cliff financially speaking. Her policies are going to drag down the EU whether France leaves or stays in. Reform won't do anything to avoid disaster if she's in.
On the second round thing. Her father also managed to do it in 2002. Lets not pretend its somehow a big problem now while its just an attempt at getting some extra votes and mainly just focused on the internal economy. EU bashing is just a good way to get those kinds of voters on board. Whats Le Pen going to do, pay all those French farmers herself?
That was my thoughts, too. It's EU funding that supports the Common Agricultural Policy that helps French small farmers, and its EU enterprise and development funds that help to rejuvenate the kind of post-industrial cities and the small towns. These places are much of the core support of Le Pen. It's cutting off their nose to spite their face to get out of the EU.
The idea that the EU is such a massive drain on France is absolutely ridiculous. Net contributions to the EU in 2013 were 9 billion Euros. That is on a government budget of 1383.9 billion Euros in 2013. So the crippling and backbreaking EU contribution is a total of .6% of total expenditure. Here I pause for dramatic and emotional outrage...
In the end France only pays in a fraction to the EU, but in exchange it gets acces to the largest market in the world that negotiates trade deals on their behalf and everything. .6% is a tiny investment for all the economic benefits membership brings.
France cant leave the EU, it would destroy the EU in doing so. Le Pen could then force concessions, France is already a major beneficiary, things would just get more lobsided.
However the main break is not so much her EU policy but the two ballot system. Its a good firebreak against extremist politicians. Any complacency after the first ballot is scared right out of the electorate in the second.
Had some of the more controversial electoral and referendum results been held on a twin ballot, they simply would not have turned out as they have.
Le Pen is too scary to win, electoral turnout will be massive. I am not however saying she can't win, the fact that she has got this far means she is no longer a fringe politician, the actual main reason fringe parties remain on the fringe is because voting for them is often seen as just a wasted vote. Le Pen has a genuine shot at power, and enough people might give that to her.
Orlanth wrote: While Le Pen would be a disaster on so many levels, it could help get the UK off the Brexit hook enormously. France doesn't want to leave, and it is genuinely not in French interests as France was always at the core of the EU, something the UK never was and never could be.
Her election might be the wake up call they need. The EU needs reform if it going to survive. Thr fact she is second round should be noted and taken seriously. There's a big problem and its bot going away.
Seems they missed it with Brexit.
Why? If she gets elected and that's a gigantic if her policies are going to drive France of a cliff financially speaking. Her policies are going to drag down the EU whether France leaves or stays in. Reform won't do anything to avoid disaster if she's in.
On the second round thing. Her father also managed to do it in 2002. Lets not pretend its somehow a big problem now while its just an attempt at getting some extra votes and mainly just focused on the internal economy. EU bashing is just a good way to get those kinds of voters on board. Whats Le Pen going to do, pay all those French farmers herself?
That was my thoughts, too. It's EU funding that supports the Common Agricultural Policy that helps French small farmers, and its EU enterprise and development funds that help to rejuvenate the kind of post-industrial cities and the small towns. These places are much of the core support of Le Pen. It's cutting off their nose to spite their face to get out of the EU.
The idea that the EU is such a massive drain on France is absolutely ridiculous. Net contributions to the EU in 2013 were 9 billion Euros. That is on a government budget of 1383.9 billion Euros in 2013. So the crippling and backbreaking EU contribution is a total of .6% of total expenditure. Here I pause for dramatic and emotional outrage...
In the end France only pays in a fraction to the EU, but in exchange it gets acces to the largest market in the world that negotiates trade deals on their behalf and everything. .6% is a tiny investment for all the economic benefits membership brings.
The EU is not a burden to France, France and Germany are in the inner circle. Their main advantage is that they never have to lobby for what they want, if they don't want something it is never even tabled to begin with. The entire EU agricultural policy is built to match to the agricultural methodology of the French, overmanned and heavily dependent on subsidy. The EU would have been better off asking European farmers to use the far more efficient British or German model, but that just wasn't going to happen.
Orlanth wrote: France cant leave the EU, it would destroy the EU in doing so. Le Pen could then force concessions, France is already a major beneficiary, things would just get more lobsided.
However the main break is not so much her EU policy but the two ballot system. Its a good firebreak against extremist politicians. Any complacency after the first ballot is scared right out of the electorate in the second.
Had some of the more controversial electoral and referendum results been held on a twin ballot, they simply would not have turned out as they have.
Le Pen is too scary to win, electoral turnout will be massive. I am not however saying she can't win, the fact that she has got this far means she is no longer a fringe politician, the actual main reason fringe parties remain on the fringe is because voting for them is often seen as just a wasted vote. Le Pen has a genuine shot at power, and enough people might give that to her.
It doesn't matter if France leaves or stays in though. The promises she has made in her campaign can't possibly be fulfilled even if France stays in the EU. She's simply asking for too much just to keep the French economy running at its current level, which will be unsustainable.
Her dad hit the same snag in 2002 and it shows that the system works. She might stil win but the chances for that are astronomical, the start would need to align and double rainbows would need to grace the sky to get a voter coalition together to get her over 50%. But the FN has been big since 2002, there is no reason to assume its going to be bigger than it is now after she loses. People always forget her father ran in the elections and made it to round 2.
Orlanth wrote: While Le Pen would be a disaster on so many levels, it could help get the UK off the Brexit hook enormously. France doesn't want to leave, and it is genuinely not in French interests as France was always at the core of the EU, something the UK never was and never could be.
Her election might be the wake up call they need. The EU needs reform if it going to survive. Thr fact she is second round should be noted and taken seriously. There's a big problem and its bot going away.
Seems they missed it with Brexit.
Why? If she gets elected and that's a gigantic if her policies are going to drive France of a cliff financially speaking. Her policies are going to drag down the EU whether France leaves or stays in. Reform won't do anything to avoid disaster if she's in.
On the second round thing. Her father also managed to do it in 2002. Lets not pretend its somehow a big problem now while its just an attempt at getting some extra votes and mainly just focused on the internal economy. EU bashing is just a good way to get those kinds of voters on board. Whats Le Pen going to do, pay all those French farmers herself?
That was my thoughts, too. It's EU funding that supports the Common Agricultural Policy that helps French small farmers, and its EU enterprise and development funds that help to rejuvenate the kind of post-industrial cities and the small towns. These places are much of the core support of Le Pen. It's cutting off their nose to spite their face to get out of the EU.
The idea that the EU is such a massive drain on France is absolutely ridiculous. Net contributions to the EU in 2013 were 9 billion Euros. That is on a government budget of 1383.9 billion Euros in 2013. So the crippling and backbreaking EU contribution is a total of .6% of total expenditure. Here I pause for dramatic and emotional outrage...
In the end France only pays in a fraction to the EU, but in exchange it gets acces to the largest market in the world that negotiates trade deals on their behalf and everything. .6% is a tiny investment for all the economic benefits membership brings.
The EU is not a burden to France, France and Germany are in the inner circle. Their main advantage is that they never have to lobby for what they want, if they don't want something it is never even tabled to begin with. The entire EU agricultural policy is built to match to the agricultural methodology of the French, overmanned and heavily dependent on subsidy. The EU would have been better off asking European farmers to use the far more efficient British or German model, but that just wasn't going to happen.
That's exactly my point. Le Pen tries to pretend the EU is some sort of horrible constricting nightmare for France while France has probably been the single largest beneficiary of its existence! The whole CAP basically exists because of France and costs a ton of budget. Its ridiculous how were subsidizing a failing industry to such an extent and almost everyone but France hates it.
Orlanth wrote: Nio matter how it is spun France is angry because of recent attacks, and only FN has been seen to actually do more than paste over the problems.
Now their cure is likely worse than the plague, but people are angry and people are desperate.
If you were to ask me two years ago who would be the most likely to win a presidential election, Marine Le Pen or Donald Trump, I would never have said Trump, everyone ought to know he is an unelectable moron.
That's thr problem. If they keep ignoring thr problems.
They seem to be offering more than a soundbite. (as in perception)
Now for some that seems worth the risk. Main party did not stop thr attacks. And people don,t wanna live under terror threat with constant military patrols.
In these 1-on-1 contests, the motivation ofthe base is all important. Le Pen has proven that her base is highly motivated. Macron's has not proven it over multiple elections.
Will the people who voted a 3rd party previously fall in line with Macron or Le Pen? I do not know, but if the Conservatives who have no other candidate fall in line and 3rd party voters do not fall in line for Macron then the gap in the initial election does not matter much.
New wave of election tampering incoming. Let's see, Trump took loans from Russian banks...LePen took loans from Russian banks. Trump praised Putin...LePen praised Putin. Russia was actively involved in U.S. election manipulation...Russia is actively involved in French election manipulation. Yet, some think there's no reason to be alarmed. Yeah, ok.
Easy E wrote: In these 1-on-1 contests, the motivation ofthe base is all important. Le Pen has proven that her base is highly motivated. Macron's has not proven it over multiple elections.
Will the people who voted a 3rd party previously fall in line with Macron or Le Pen? I do not know, but if the Conservatives who have no other candidate fall in line and 3rd party voters do not fall in line for Macron then the gap in the initial election does not matter much.
If you mean that Le Pen's 20% voter share is motivated then sure, but Macron already beat that by several percent in just the first round. Also previous election against the FN have shown that people easily cross party lines at what is still seen as a semi-fascist party.
Easy E wrote: In these 1-on-1 contests, the motivation ofthe base is all important. Le Pen has proven that her base is highly motivated. Macron's has not proven it over multiple elections.
Will the people who voted a 3rd party previously fall in line with Macron or Le Pen? I do not know, but if the Conservatives who have no other candidate fall in line and 3rd party voters do not fall in line for Macron then the gap in the initial election does not matter much.
If you mean that Le Pen's 20% voter share is motivated then sure, but Macron already beat that by several percent in just the first round. Also previous election against the FN have shown that people easily cross party lines at what is still seen as a semi-fascist party.
Easy E wrote: In these 1-on-1 contests, the motivation ofthe base is all important. Le Pen has proven that her base is highly motivated. Macron's has not proven it over multiple elections.
Will the people who voted a 3rd party previously fall in line with Macron or Le Pen? I do not know, but if the Conservatives who have no other candidate fall in line and 3rd party voters do not fall in line for Macron then the gap in the initial election does not matter much.
If you mean that Le Pen's 20% voter share is motivated then sure, but Macron already beat that by several percent in just the first round. Also previous election against the FN have shown that people easily cross party lines at what is still seen as a semi-fascist party.
I hope you are correct.
In both the 2002 presidential election in which father Le Pen ran as well as in the more recent regional elections, both right and left wing have united to keep the FN out of power. No reason to assume they won't do so again. Anyone who really wanted Le Pen would have already voted for her in round 1. As she didn't beat Macron its hard to see her attract the more moderate electorate to her instead of Macron, not to mention the revulsion the average far left Melenchon voter will have for her.
Yes, but do the far left voters care enough to go out and vote for Macron? That is basically what happened in the US. The left didn't really turn out for Clinton (as many preferred Sanders), but the right base did. Therefore Trump Presidency.
Not saying tht is what will happen in France as I am not that close to it. However, it does highlight my point that this election will be decided by the base of each political wing.
The left turned out for Clinton by 3 million votes more than the right for Trump.
The election fell to Trump because of the built-in bias towards conservatism of the construction of the EC, and a very small number of votes in a couple of important swing states.
According to the BBC analysis, if about 100,000 people in Pennsylvania and Florida had voted Clinton rather than Trump, instead of a marginal Trump victory, we would have been looking at a major Clinton landslide.
Easy E wrote:Yes, but do the far left voters care enough to go out and vote for Macron? That is basically what happened in the US. The left didn't really turn out for Clinton (as many preferred Sanders), but the right base did. Therefore Trump Presidency.
Not saying tht is what will happen in France as I am not that close to it. However, it does highlight my point that this election will be decided by the base of each political wing.
Kilkrazy wrote:The left turned out for Clinton by 3 million votes more than the right for Trump.
The election fell to Trump because of the built-in bias towards conservatism of the construction of the EC, and a very small number of votes in a couple of important swing states.
According to the BBC analysis, if about 100,000 people in Pennsylvania and Florida had voted Clinton rather than Trump, instead of a marginal Trump victory, we would have been looking at a major Clinton landslide.
KK is correct, however, the subject is verboten currently.
Here's hoping all conventional analysis is correct and Le Pen is kept out of power.
Easy E wrote: Yes, but do the far left voters care enough to go out and vote for Macron? That is basically what happened in the US. The left didn't really turn out for Clinton (as many preferred Sanders), but the right base did. Therefore Trump Presidency.
Not saying tht is what will happen in France as I am not that close to it. However, it does highlight my point that this election will be decided by the base of each political wing.
Don't worry too much, if Macron picks up the moderate Hamon and Fillon voters, who have already pledged their support to him he will have at least 49% (24 of himself, 6 from Hamon and 19 of Fillon) of the votes cast in round one and easily double that of Le Pen. While the 20% far left vote is a significant chunk them staying home might not be as much of a problem, as it would be doubtful they would actually vote for any candidate that is not far left and they certainly won't go for far right Le Pen. So between the 5 more major candidates that is already over 85% of the vote accounted for. Even if Le Pen manages to scrounge the few percent of the smaller candidates which in some cases is equally impossible she would still not come close to Macron, its why the polls give him a comfortable 20% lead. Waaaaay more than Clinton had before the election and really far away from the margin of error becoming a problem.
Easy E wrote: Yes, but do the far left voters care enough to go out and vote for Macron? That is basically what happened in the US. The left didn't really turn out for Clinton (as many preferred Sanders), but the right base did. Therefore Trump Presidency.
Not saying tht is what will happen in France as I am not that close to it. However, it does highlight my point that this election will be decided by the base of each political wing.
Don't worry too much, if Macron picks up the moderate Hamon and Fillon voters, who have already pledged their support to him he will have at least 49% (24 of himself, 6 from Hamon and 19 of Fillon) of the votes cast in round one and easily double that of Le Pen. While the 20% far left vote is a significant chunk them staying home might not be as much of a problem, as it would be doubtful they would actually vote for any candidate that is not far left and they certainly won't go for far right Le Pen. So between the 5 more major candidates that is already over 85% of the vote accounted for. Even if Le Pen manages to scrounge the few percent of the smaller candidates which in some cases is equally impossible she would still not come close to Macron, its why the polls give him a comfortable 20% lead. Waaaaay more than Clinton had before the election and really far away from the margin of error becoming a problem.
Fillion votes won't necessarily go to Macron though. He was already relatively hardliner for the Les Républicains party (damn that name is so stupid I can't wait for the party to die/rename), and I am sure some of them will go to Le Pen. And Hamon was also pretty left-wing, so not all Hamon voters will vote for Macron either.
Fillion votes won't necessarily go to Macron though. He was already relatively hardliner for the Les Républicains party (damn that name is so stupid I can't wait for the party to die/rename), and I am sure some of them will go to Le Pen. And Hamon was also pretty left-wing, so not all Hamon voters will vote for Macron either.
Sure Fillon was a hardliner, but I can't imagine a good chunk of his voter base is willing to go for Le Pen as they are relatively older and that generation tends to dislike Le Pen the most. The problem still is that Le Pen is too extreme even for their voters. A one to one transfer is not completely expected of course.
Kilkrazy wrote: The left turned out for Clinton by 3 million votes more than the right for Trump.
The election fell to Trump because of the built-in bias towards conservatism of the construction of the EC, and a very small number of votes in a couple of important swing states.
According to the BBC analysis, if about 100,000 people in Pennsylvania and Florida had voted Clinton rather than Trump, instead of a marginal Trump victory, we would have been looking at a major Clinton landslide.
Wasn't Pennsylvania one of those states Clinton didn't bother canvassing?
Easy E wrote: Yes, but do the far left voters care enough to go out and vote for Macron? That is basically what happened in the US. The left didn't really turn out for Clinton (as many preferred Sanders), but the right base did. Therefore Trump Presidency.
Not saying tht is what will happen in France as I am not that close to it. However, it does highlight my point that this election will be decided by the base of each political wing.
Don't worry too much, if Macron picks up the moderate Hamon and Fillon voters, who have already pledged their support to him he will have at least 49% (24 of himself, 6 from Hamon and 19 of Fillon) of the votes cast in round one and easily double that of Le Pen. While the 20% far left vote is a significant chunk them staying home might not be as much of a problem, as it would be doubtful they would actually vote for any candidate that is not far left and they certainly won't go for far right Le Pen. So between the 5 more major candidates that is already over 85% of the vote accounted for. Even if Le Pen manages to scrounge the few percent of the smaller candidates which in some cases is equally impossible she would still not come close to Macron, its why the polls give him a comfortable 20% lead. Waaaaay more than Clinton had before the election and really far away from the margin of error becoming a problem.
This is welcome news. Thanks for sharing.
Even if that does happen and say Le Pen polls 20-30%
Now anything from one third max to a 5th of France has a issue. Its a big issue and unless the other guy Is a fool. He will see that is somthibf to consider tackling why that is.
Example. If Terror attacks keep happening. And they do nothing different . People will want answers, to feel safe from terror in there own county and anyone with a brain will see if mainstream not interested. Le Pen and others outside the main parties will still find strong support.
Like wise would be the UK cannot just ignore the SNP and the remainers.
Yes you may disagree but tgefe toolarge vpter blocks to ignore at this point.
Kilkrazy wrote: The left turned out for Clinton by 3 million votes more than the right for Trump.
The election fell to Trump because of the built-in bias towards conservatism of the construction of the EC, and a very small number of votes in a couple of important swing states.
According to the BBC analysis, if about 100,000 people in Pennsylvania and Florida had voted Clinton rather than Trump, instead of a marginal Trump victory, we would have been looking at a major Clinton landslide.
Wasn't Pennsylvania one of those states Clinton didn't bother canvassing?
You're thinking of Wisconsin... but, yeah they barely did that at Pennsylvania as well.
Easy E wrote: Yes, but do the far left voters care enough to go out and vote for Macron? That is basically what happened in the US. The left didn't really turn out for Clinton (as many preferred Sanders), but the right base did. Therefore Trump Presidency.
Not saying tht is what will happen in France as I am not that close to it. However, it does highlight my point that this election will be decided by the base of each political wing.
Don't worry too much, if Macron picks up the moderate Hamon and Fillon voters, who have already pledged their support to him he will have at least 49% (24 of himself, 6 from Hamon and 19 of Fillon) of the votes cast in round one and easily double that of Le Pen. While the 20% far left vote is a significant chunk them staying home might not be as much of a problem, as it would be doubtful they would actually vote for any candidate that is not far left and they certainly won't go for far right Le Pen. So between the 5 more major candidates that is already over 85% of the vote accounted for. Even if Le Pen manages to scrounge the few percent of the smaller candidates which in some cases is equally impossible she would still not come close to Macron, its why the polls give him a comfortable 20% lead. Waaaaay more than Clinton had before the election and really far away from the margin of error becoming a problem.
This is welcome news. Thanks for sharing.
Even if that does happen and say Le Pen polls 20-30%
Now anything from one third max to a 5th of France has a issue. Its a big issue and unless the other guy Is a fool. He will see that is somthibf to consider tackling why that is.
Example. If Terror attacks keep happening. And they do nothing different . People will want answers, to feel safe from terror in there own county and anyone with a brain will see if mainstream not interested. Le Pen and others outside the main parties will still find strong support.
Like wise would be the UK cannot just ignore the SNP and the remainers.
Yes you may disagree but tgefe toolarge vpter blocks to ignore at this point.
Sigh, Le Pen's dad got 20% of the vote in 2002, this is not in any way a new problem. This voting block is nothing new. Its hard to tackle the concerns of ultra nationalists because in the case of Le Pen those concerns are based on hardcore racism. Le Pen even used the analogy of migrants coming to France being the same as people breaking into your house and violating your wife and stealing your wallpaper! What are you going to tackle, people's irrational fear of brown people?
Le Pen must be in a strange state where she kind of wants a major terrorist attack in France to boost her numbers.
ugh, the life of a populist...
Actually, both would benefit. Macron would easily use that to look more "presidential". For now, the main danger is for him to look way too much assured of his victory.
Thing is, both of them barely got a fourth of the votes in the first round. And one of them will become Supreme Leader of France. There is anger in the streets. Macron isn't that attractive to the left, after all. And the right finds common grounds with both of them.
Easy E wrote: Yes, but do the far left voters care enough to go out and vote for Macron? That is basically what happened in the US. The left didn't really turn out for Clinton (as many preferred Sanders), but the right base did. Therefore Trump Presidency.
Not saying tht is what will happen in France as I am not that close to it. However, it does highlight my point that this election will be decided by the base of each political wing.
Don't worry too much, if Macron picks up the moderate Hamon and Fillon voters, who have already pledged their support to him he will have at least 49% (24 of himself, 6 from Hamon and 19 of Fillon) of the votes cast in round one and easily double that of Le Pen. While the 20% far left vote is a significant chunk them staying home might not be as much of a problem, as it would be doubtful they would actually vote for any candidate that is not far left and they certainly won't go for far right Le Pen. So between the 5 more major candidates that is already over 85% of the vote accounted for. Even if Le Pen manages to scrounge the few percent of the smaller candidates which in some cases is equally impossible she would still not come close to Macron, its why the polls give him a comfortable 20% lead. Waaaaay more than Clinton had before the election and really far away from the margin of error becoming a problem.
This is welcome news. Thanks for sharing.
Even if that does happen and say Le Pen polls 20-30%
Now anything from one third max to a 5th of France has a issue. Its a big issue and unless the other guy Is a fool. He will see that is somthibf to consider tackling why that is.
Example. If Terror attacks keep happening. And they do nothing different . People will want answers, to feel safe from terror in there own county and anyone with a brain will see if mainstream not interested. Le Pen and others outside the main parties will still find strong support.
Like wise would be the UK cannot just ignore the SNP and the remainers.
Yes you may disagree but tgefe toolarge vpter blocks to ignore at this point.
Sigh, Le Pen's dad got 20% of the vote in 2002, this is not in any way a new problem. This voting block is nothing new. Its hard to tackle the concerns of ultra nationalists because in the case of Le Pen those concerns are based on hardcore racism. Le Pen even used the analogy of migrants coming to France being the same as people breaking into your house and violating your wife and stealing your wallpaper! What are you going to tackle, people's irrational fear of brown people?
And however you think there has to ve somthibf underpinning the fear and the hate she plays off.
There's deeper reason than there just racist. That might by a symptom but the greater illness that causes it lies down below it.
Easy E wrote: Yes, but do the far left voters care enough to go out and vote for Macron? That is basically what happened in the US. The left didn't really turn out for Clinton (as many preferred Sanders), but the right base did. Therefore Trump Presidency.
Not saying tht is what will happen in France as I am not that close to it. However, it does highlight my point that this election will be decided by the base of each political wing.
Don't worry too much, if Macron picks up the moderate Hamon and Fillon voters, who have already pledged their support to him he will have at least 49% (24 of himself, 6 from Hamon and 19 of Fillon) of the votes cast in round one and easily double that of Le Pen. While the 20% far left vote is a significant chunk them staying home might not be as much of a problem, as it would be doubtful they would actually vote for any candidate that is not far left and they certainly won't go for far right Le Pen. So between the 5 more major candidates that is already over 85% of the vote accounted for. Even if Le Pen manages to scrounge the few percent of the smaller candidates which in some cases is equally impossible she would still not come close to Macron, its why the polls give him a comfortable 20% lead. Waaaaay more than Clinton had before the election and really far away from the margin of error becoming a problem.
This is welcome news. Thanks for sharing.
Even if that does happen and say Le Pen polls 20-30% Now anything from one third max to a 5th of France has a issue. Its a big issue and unless the other guy Is a fool. He will see that is somthibf to consider tackling why that is.
Example. If Terror attacks keep happening. And they do nothing different . People will want answers, to feel safe from terror in there own county and anyone with a brain will see if mainstream not interested. Le Pen and others outside the main parties will still find strong support.
Like wise would be the UK cannot just ignore the SNP and the remainers. Yes you may disagree but tgefe toolarge vpter blocks to ignore at this point.
Sigh, Le Pen's dad got 20% of the vote in 2002, this is not in any way a new problem. This voting block is nothing new. Its hard to tackle the concerns of ultra nationalists because in the case of Le Pen those concerns are based on hardcore racism. Le Pen even used the analogy of migrants coming to France being the same as people breaking into your house and violating your wife and stealing your wallpaper! What are you going to tackle, people's irrational fear of brown people?
And however you think there has to ve somthibf underpinning the fear and the hate she plays off. There's deeper reason than there just racist. That might by a symptom but the greater illness that causes it lies down below it.
2002 was an entirely different time however, Europe did not suffer any large scale Islamic terror attacks like 9/11 in the US yet. France has always had political extremes very much present in society. Of course something underpins the fears and hate she plays of off, but that underpinning could be and usually is completely irrational. Furthermore she picked up some anti EU sentiment (while heavily mooching off the EU herself, spot the trend!) but a few others and I have already pointed out how ridiculous that criticism is when France has been the largest beneficiary of the existence of the EU in the first place. Of course she collects some of the protest and 'free money' vote. But real reform needs to happen regardless of these people being afraid of it and wanting to go back to the good old days. The good old days when you could just close yourself off in a single country just won't cut it anymore. Every country is now vulnerable to the fluctuations of the global market, and France has shown to be very unstable indeed and were it not for her size and importance in the EU, it would have also received the harsher treatment reserved for 'wayward' Southern European states. They can't keep running that kind of deficit anymore, Le Pen is going to scare away every investor and no one will want to loan France money anymore. Giving in to the underpinnings of Le Pen supporters isn't a helpful, its madness.
Blackie wrote: Brexit isn't even started yet, no one can say if it will be bad or good for the UK or/and for the other countries. Trump is president since 2 months, le pen never governed. Putin and duterte don't belong to democracies. I'd wait the proper amount of time before judging.
You didn't read my post, and got yourself quite confused. I was explaining the forces behind that drove the votes in Brexit, Trump and Le Pen. Pointing out the effects of the final results aren't yet known is replying to a point that wasn't made.
If you don't get what I'm saying, consider this example;
Tom - I was rushed for time and only had $2 for lunch, so I bought sandwich at the petrol station.
Dave - You don't know if that sandwich will be nice or gross, as you haven't eaten it yet.
Do you understand now?
Obama was one of the worst american presidents, considering how his politics affected europe, africa and middle eastern countries. If he wasn't half black very few people would have praised him.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/4/obama-competing-with-jimmy-carter-for-worst-former/
Ok, and now what you've done is raise Obama pretty much out of the blue, make a hyperbolic claim about him, tinge that with racial weirdness, and then link to a newspaper owned by a cult. I predict your time on dakka will be long and full of many polite, nuanced debates.
jasper76 wrote: The talking heads seem convinced Le Pen is going to win, and use her election to either force significant change in France's relationship with the EU, or else Frexit. And if France Frexits, Italy may well be next in line, and then the house of cards may very well collapse.
Not sure how much of this is true or just hot air, but may you live in interesting times. It's kind of unsettling to see the EU experiment unraveling in such a short period of time, and I can't help but think this French election will have dramatic implications for the future of Europe at large.
It certainly seems to me that the EU is being put on notice that it must make major reforms or die. I wonder if the institution is even capable of change, or if there is too much inertia and the bureaucracy is too entrenched.
I very much doubt that.
Le Pen has been banging on that 'Frexit' drum for quite some time, and still can't seem to reach the 40% range in the polls.
I recently saw a poll (can't find it at the moment) quite some time ago that a large majority French, by and large, want to stay in the EU. I can't imagine those voters going with Le Pen...
Get used to saying President Macron. Another outsider... eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: If the US election taught us anything, it's that polls cannot be trusted...not even a little bit. I'm not sure that the polling industry has proven that it has made sufficient adjustments to its techniques to be trusted.
First up, polls in different countries have different processes and different electorates with their own quirks. A lesson learned about US polling is not one that can be applied to another country.
Second up, you learned a completely wrong lesson from US polls. Polls told us Clinton was ahead by 2 to 3 points. She ended up winning the popular vote by 2 points. Trump won the election because the EC broke his way, but that was always possible when the popular vote was that close. Concluding that polls cannot be relied upon based on that is a very strange conclusion. The actual mistakes were made by some analysts, who wrongly thought Trump's odds of beating his polls in a 5 or 6 states were independent events, when actually they were closely correlated (if the WWC came out in large numbers, while black votes were depressed, then all those states would swing a few points in Trump's favour, which is what happened). And thing is, some analysts said this wasn't just possible, but reasonably likely. So the actual lesson is to trust analysts, such as 538, who apply such complexities to their models, and who talk in terms of real uncertainties in the election, and to not trust analysts with simplistic models and who speak in too much certainty in a close election.
Frazzled wrote: You don't know who David Byrne is? Barbarian!
I don't know what the expression talking head means. And I also don't know who David Byrne is. But, you see, as you are American and I am French, I laugh at the very suggestion that you could be in any way more civilized or sophisticated than I am . See, you have this reputation for being uncouth and crude, while we…
David Byrne is the lead guitarist, principle songwriter and singer for the great American band "Talking Heads" which is a New Wave group from the mid 70's featuring anxious vocals, clean precise production, funk and minimalist inspired aesthetic (and later more afrobeat), arty
experimentation, nerdy awkwardness and intellectual lyrics. Talking head is another way of saying television pundit and/or a person who is empty and pretentious.
whembly wrote: Traditionally, they're much more solid than the one we see here in the states.
The French system isn't better. It's different. The French polling system uses controlled, consistent samples more than the US, which relies on cold calling. Because of that, and a whole bunch of other reasons, the French produce a lot of polls that are much more stable. Unlike the US where two polls announced on the same day may differ by 5 points, and then both pollsters may see their result move 5 points in their next poll, in France the polls will be 'herded', all producing much the same results over time, and between pollsters. This means individual pollsters in France tend to be more accurate, but when you look at overall combined poll averages the US and France tend to be pretty similar. However, in France because the polls are so tightly herded, you get very little indication of uncertainty - in the US an uncertain race or boilover will suggest itself with big polling swings and variations between agencies, in France that kind of result will blindside you.
True... but, the beauty to the French's 'Two Rounds' for their election can mitigate the populist rise we've been seeing elsewhere... in that, the losing coalitions can band together and play the 'not votes' in the 2nd round. That's actually what typically happens there...
Probably the biggest thing hurting Le Pen is the response of the French right. They have all moved to support Macron as they acknowledge how terrible le Pen is. This is the same about a decade ago, when the left moved in behind Chirac to ensure Le Pen was defeated then as well. This is in contrast to the US right wing, which despite a lot of sound and fury all pretty consistently got behind Trump and got their votes out for him on election day, and got him over the line.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I agree, and while I do think people like Silver do great work, he does sort of dip his toe into punditry too, often much to his ridicule. It does what he does no service or help to what he really does and just feeds the "MSM are just stooges to the powers that be" narrative that is way too appealing to online feed groups. Just look at the numbers, read the numbers and explain the numbers. No need for the commentary, thank you very much.
Yeah, Silver did focus more on political norms, and not polls during the primary, such as speculating about a Trump 'ceiling' to his vote, that would cost him states once the field reduced to a couple of viable candidates. This speculation is understandable to an extent, because polls really are quite wild in the primaries and you can't just follow the polls by themselves. However, it is also not what Silver is good at. Arguably its not what anyone is good at, punditry is pretty useless and inaccurate across the board.
Silver took his lesson, and come the general he was very consistent in just following the model and nothing else. Silver's final prediction was that Trump had about a 30% chance because it was possible that if the WWC came out in decent numbers while other minorities were down on 2012, then he was a real chance of taking enough of the swing states. That final analysis was bang on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: Back on topic i think Sebster hit the nail on the head. When things don't work people want change. Would you believe Obama's campaign promise and slogan was for 'Change'? I guess that's a bigger indicator of who wins now. Maybe things just suck so bad in the usa politically that any political change would be accepted. I honestly things you guys would've had a good shot if Bernie Sanders was one of the 2 main candidates but you went with Hillary instead. Big mistake. Course these days it's usually 2 term democrat and 2 term republican for usa so i dunno.
I would like to clarify - I don't think things are actually broken. There is lingering frustration that the recovery from the Great Recession has been so anemic, particularly in much of Europe, and of course income equality is a major issue, but this is a long way from things being utterly terrible and demanding we tear down society and start all over again. But there is a powerful narrative in the community that our problems really are absolutely horrible, that things can't get worse. That's where I think this drive for reform from outsiders is coming from.
As to why people believe this... I dunno. Maybe because its been a long time since things were actually really gak. There's not many people alive today who lived through the last time global war tore first world countries to pieces, so maybe people have somewhat forgotten how bad that sucks. Similarly the prosperity of the first world has lessened the impact of recession - people lost homes and jobs and that really sucked, but we haven't seen abject poverty like people dying of malnutrition, or tent compounds housing hundreds of thousands. They've lost a bit of context, maybe?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: I may not have Hybrid's insight, but it seems like a brilliant tactic to me. Her faithful will follow her regardless of party affiliation and over the next two weeks, she can put some symbolic distance between herself and FN, which is obviously a possible stumbling block for some people to come over and vote for her.
It maybe suggests something of a hail mary tactic? When you're losing, you might as will do something to shake up the race. Playing it might be the approach you lose by 20, but that's still losing. Do something wild and most likely it will backfire or cost you, but if there's maybe a 10% chance it will work and drag you back in to the race.
I think what this shows us is that while a lot of dakka doesn't want to believe the polls between Le Pen and Macron, they are probably guiding Le Pen's strategy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That was my thoughts, too. It's EU funding that supports the Common Agricultural Policy that helps French small farmers, and its EU enterprise and development funds that help to rejuvenate the kind of post-industrial cities and the small towns. These places are much of the core support of Le Pen. It's cutting off their nose to spite their face to get out of the EU.
I read recently about a small town in Maine that had received a large influx of Somalian refugees. It rejuvenated the economy, and reversed the slide afflicting many similar small towns. The locals still resent the Somalis. The economy matters, but resentment of change can be powerful enough to overcome that, especially if people manage to remain ignorant of the economic benefits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You're thinking of Wisconsin... but, yeah they barely did that at Pennsylvania as well.
Clinton campaigned extensively in Pennsylvania. If it wasn't her most visited state, then it was at least top 3. There's a right wing perception that she didn't campaign in the state, because Clinton stuck to the Democratic strongholds in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. This is the standard Democratic strategy, and how they win the state - run up huge numbers in Pittsburgh and Philly to overwhelm the votes from the rural areas. And Clinton basically matched Obama's results in those two cities. The problem was that rural voters turned out in massive numbers for Trump, and swamped the lead built up in the cities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: And however you think there has to ve somthibf underpinning the fear and the hate she plays off.
There's deeper reason than there just racist. That might by a symptom but the greater illness that causes it lies down below it.
This sounds a lot like those arguments that end with people wondering if only the Jews had done more to assimilate.
Cheesecat wrote: David Byrne is the lead guitarist, principle songwriter and singer for the great American band "Talking Heads" which is a New Wave group from the mid 70's featuring anxious vocals, clean precise production, funk and minimalist inspired aesthetic (and later more afrobeat), arty experimentation, nerdy awkwardness and intellectual lyrics. Talking head is another way of saying television pundit and/or a person who is empty and pretentious.
Thanks!
Damn that first song, with the French lyrics .
How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017 ?
She isn't her father, and isn't responsible for his deeds and his words.
Her party has always fired racist and xenophobics.
Tell me what is wrong with protecting his own people ?
Would you vote for a man who told that his own nation has "no cultue, no art" and told that his own country was committing crimes against humanity (speaking about the colonization) ?
A man whose party told that 300 people loosing their job is "anecdotal", a man who was in the former governement (and was bad at that, people were rioting against his laws). ?
Just imagine M. Trump telling "America has no culture, and committed a lot of war crimes during its history, it is really bad !"...
This man has no love for its own country, nor for its people.
godardc wrote: How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017
How can one not? It is like when people sit there and get lied to constantly by Trump then say he isn't a liar. Not being as extreme as her father doesn't mean she still doesn't have problems in those areas. Conflating disliking Marcon's policies with him disliking France is part of the issue of reactionism being referred to I imagine. You see it here in the US with politicians. It isn't just that someone has a different perspective it is that they are criminal and hate the US, which is bs.
godardc wrote: How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017 ?
She isn't her father, and isn't responsible for his deeds and his words.
Her party has always fired racist and xenophobics.
Tell me what is wrong with protecting his own people ?
Would you vote for a man who told that his own nation has "no cultue, no art" and told that his own country was committing crimes against humanity (speaking about the colonization) ?
A man whose party told that 300 people loosing their job is "anecdotal", a man who was in the former governement (and was bad at that, people were rioting against his laws). ?
Just imagine M. Trump telling "America has no culture, and committed a lot of war crimes during its history, it is really bad !"...
This man has no love for its own country, nor for its people.
godardc wrote: How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017
How can one not? It is like when people sit there and get lied to constantly by Trump then say he isn't a liar. Not being as extreme as her father doesn't mean she still doesn't have problems in those areas. Conflating disliking Marcon's policies with him disliking France is part of the issue of reactionism being referred to I imagine. You see it here in the US with politicians. It isn't just that someone has a different perspective it is that they are criminal and hate the US, which is bs.
Ok, show me some racist things she said, or did.
You could told me she is bad at economics, or that you love the european union, ok, everyone has his point of view, but ,there isn't any argument for calling her racist and not voting for her.
It is just a way they found to keep her out, and it is still working apparently
godardc wrote: How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017
How can one not?
I'd recommend you provide specific examples of how she's a racist or xenophobe. Those are serious allegations to throw at somebody, should not be made lightly, and should be accompanied by actual evidence, not just "because I say so."
In France, some are even speaking about "fascism" about the FN.
And this week, a member of the Républicains, a man I never liked, took her defense, arguing that a legal, democratic, party, like the FN, is NOT fascist or nazi.
He even took the risk of being fired from his own party by voting for Le Pen (Henri Guaino IIRC).
godardc wrote: In France, some are even speaking about "fascism" about the FN.
And this week, a member of the Républicains, a man I never liked, took her defense, arguing that a legal, democratic, party, like the FN, is NOT fascist or nazi.
He even took the risk of being fired from his own party by voting for Le Pen (Henri Guaino IIRC).
The words Nazi, fascist, and racist are thrown around these days with such abandon that they are becoming meaningless, or else their meanings have been transformed to simply mean "somebody I don't agree with", which to me a sickening degradation of the English language.
godardc wrote: How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017
How can one not?
I'd recommend you provide specific examples of how she's a racist or xenophobe. Those are serious allegations to throw at somebody, should not be made lightly, and should be accompanied by actual evidence, not just "because I say so."
So if someone says "she isn't X" it is cool but if someone "she isX" suddenly it is imperative to cite sources? Seems like a lame attempt at deflection. If there is an onus anyone to back up a statement it would be the initial statement not the following one. Unless one just doesn't care either way and has made up their mind then it doesn't really matter how much anyone provides either way. I still see people saying things like "finally a good Christian in the White House instead of a Muslim" in the US , why would I believe foolishness to be any different because of an ocean?
The more funny (or the more sad) are the people from the Left calling to vote for Macron, despite his very liberal ideas, just because its opponent is Le Pen...
Betraying their own side just because of the name of one of the candidate...
godardc wrote: How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017
How can one not?
I'd recommend you provide specific examples of how she's a racist or xenophobe. Those are serious allegations to throw at somebody, should not be made lightly, and should be accompanied by actual evidence, not just "because I say so."
So if someone says "she isn't X" it is cool but if someone "she isX" suddenly it is imperative to cite sources? Seems like a lame attempt at deflection. If there is an onus anyone to back up a statement it would be the initial statement not the following one. Unless one just doesn't care either way and has made up their mind then it doesn't really matter how much anyone provides either way. I still see people saying things like "finally a good Christian in the White House instead of a Muslim" in the US , why would I believe foolishness to be any different because of an ocean?
Cut the BS. You either have examples of Le Pen being a racist and xenophobe, or you do not. Godarc was questioning a positive claim from Kilkrazy that Le Pen is a racist, and you jumped in to support the original, positive claim. By your own logic, the onus is indeed on you, so let's see the evidence.
godardc wrote: How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017
How can one not?
I'd recommend you provide specific examples of how she's a racist or xenophobe. Those are serious allegations to throw at somebody, should not be made lightly, and should be accompanied by actual evidence, not just "because I say so."
So if someone says "she isn't X" it is cool but if someone "she isX" suddenly it is imperative to cite sources? Seems like a lame attempt at deflection. If there is an onus anyone to back up a statement it would be the initial statement not the following one. Unless one just doesn't care either way and has made up their mind then it doesn't really matter how much anyone provides either way. I still see people saying things like "finally a good Christian in the White House instead of a Muslim" in the US , why would I believe foolishness to be any different because of an ocean?
The burden of proof lies with the accuser, this is why. You can't tell "x is racist" and be ok with this without proof
The language we use to describe the political spectrum has its limits. In case you’ve been confused by the last few days of punditry, let me say outright that France is not America.
For example, we recently concluded a presidential election in the United States in which many argued that it was imperative to smash the “final glass ceiling” by electing a female president. One doesn’t hear that kind of talk in France about Marine Le Pen, who just came in second in the first round of presidential elections.
If she wins the runoff against Emmanuel Macron on May 7, she would be France’s first female president. Why is there no “ready for Marine” rhetoric? Because Le Pen would also be the first “far-right” president.
Identity politics has its limits. And so does the term “far-right.” Indeed, the terms “left” and “right” rank among the worst of France’s exports. Their inspiration wasn’t ideology, but a seating chart. Supporters of the monarchy sat on the right in the General Assembly while radicals, revolutionaries, republicans, and other foes and critics of the Ancien Régime sat on the left. (In Britain, by contrast, members of Parliament switch sides according to whichever party is in power.)
Thus, champions of free markets and limited government were every bit as “leftist” as the Jacobin totalitarians who would usher in the Reign of Terror. To this day, a “liberal” in France is closer to what many call a “right-winger” in America, at least on economic issues.
As for what constitutes “far-right,” that has come to be defined as a grab bag of bigotry, nativism, and all the bad kinds of nationalism. Le Pen is the youngest daughter of the even more “far-right” anti-Semitic politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, who until recently led the National Front party (FN), which was founded in 1972 by, among others, veterans of the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy government. How far the apple fell from the tree is hotly debated, but what is clear is that Marine Le Pen is a smarter, more opportunistic, and more inclusive politician. She even defenestrated her father from the FN in an effort to “un-demonize” the party.
One of the main reasons she has come so close to being the next president of France has been her ability to sap support from former strongholds of the French Communist Party in the north. This is less shocking than it may sound, once you account for the fact that the French Communist Party has its own history of racially tinged attacks on immigration. Nearly a third of FN voters said their second choice in the first round of the elections was the doctrinaire socialist candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the French Bernie Sanders.
Le Pen rejects the “far-right” label, preferring a “third-way” approach that has a long intellectual history among nationalists and fascists. She says that the symbiotic issues of immigration and globalization (specifically relating to the European Union) yielded a new politics that “no longer put the right and left in opposition, but patriots and globalists.” She has downplayed social issues, highlighting the fact that she’s a twice-divorced single mother who champions “women’s rights.” She’s vowed to leave abortion laws alone. Her “economic patriotism” — a mélange of anti-immigration, protectionism, support for civil-service protections, and entitlements (at least for the native-born French) — is an updated variant of old-fashioned national-socialism.
In other words, those looking to cherry-pick easy comparisons to American politics have their work cut out for them.
Except in one regard. For decades, critics of America’s mass immigration have argued that the social upheaval such policies produce is dangerous and destabilizing. But the topic became radioactive for reasonable politicians, creating an opening for unreasonable ones among the working-class constituencies most affected by immigration. This is precisely what has happened in France. Interviews with Le Pen voters tell this story over and over again. They bemoan the great “replacement” of not only workers but also customs, traditions, and lifestyles brought by waves of immigrants. These resentments are perhaps more acute in France than elsewhere, a country where national identity precedes political and ideological orientations, and where assimilation is narrowly defined. But the same dynamic is playing itself out across Europe and America.
Le Pen will probably lose, but the problem will endure long past May 7.
whembly wrote: She even defenestrated her father from the FN in an effort to “un-demonize” the party.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I want to applaud the author for the use of such a fantastic word as defenestrated. On the other, it's such a clumsy attempt to shoehorn in the word, it appears to be very sesquipedalian writing.
You'd think the short interview in the OP where MLP claims immigrants are there to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife, or that she's happy not to hear about Sikhs would be evidence enough that she's still as xenophobic as the FN always has been, despite the new fresh coat of paint, but nope.
HudsonD wrote: You'd think the short interview in the OP where MLP claims immigrants are there to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife, or that she's happy not to hear about Sikhs would be evidence enough that she's still as xenophobic as the FN always has been, despite the new fresh coat of paint, but nope.
Indeed, the examples are even in a video in this very thread!
HudsonD wrote: You'd think the short interview in the OP where MLP claims immigrants are there to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife, or that she's happy not to hear about Sikhs would be evidence enough that she's still as xenophobic as the FN always has been, despite the new fresh coat of paint, but nope.
Probably because a comedy show known for its leftist tilt and for clipping videos for maximum laughs and/or outrage is not a good source of information.
You have even managed to distort the clips that were presented, one assumes out of context since the clips were only seconds long.
You said she claims "immigrants are here to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife" when she was clearly taking about illegal immigrants, and there is a distinction to be made there because illegal immigrants, although many are perfectly decent people, are by definition criminals. Again, a longer stretch of the clip, including the question that was asked of her, might have provided some context for the comments.
You said she was happy not to hear about Sikhs, when she said there weren't many Sikhs in France, and she's happy about that. That is perhaps more racist than your misinterpretation of what she did say, but again it was likely taken out of context. Could she have meant, for example, that she's happy that less people would be potentially affected by her headwear ban, especially since Sikhs are particularly devoted to wearing turbans as a religious duty? I don't know, because it was immediately cut off after the potentially offending comment.
I'm open to he possibility that she may indeed be racist or xenophobic, but good sources would help, and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is not a good source for anything but laughs, if he's your style, and partisan outrage, if that's your thing.
You said she claims "immigrants are here to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife" when she was clearly taking about illegal immigrants, and there is a distinction to be made there because illegal immigrants, although many are perfectly decent people, are by definition criminals. Again, a longer stretch of the clip, including the question that was asked of her, might have provided some context for the comments.
I'm puzzled by your hair splitting here. Illegal or no, she is claiming that they are all rapists. That's absurd.
You said she claims "immigrants are here to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife" when she was clearly taking about illegal immigrants, and there is a distinction to be made there because illegal immigrants, although many are perfectly decent people, are by definition criminals. Again, a longer stretch of the clip, including the question that was asked of her, might have provided some context for the comments.
I'm puzzled by your hair splitting here. Illegal or no, she is claiming that they are all rapists. That's absurd.
Bottom line, I'd like to hear the entire interview, including the question that was asked, before branding someone a xenophobe off a 5-10 second clip edited by a show known for its partisanship, outrage manufacture, and comedy.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but she said that SOME illegal immigrants would "steal your wallet and brutalize your wife", not ALL as you have stated.
godardc wrote: How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017 ? […] Tell me what is wrong with protecting his own people ? […] Would you vote for a man who told that his own nation has "no cultue, no art" and told that his own country was committing crimes against humanity (speaking about the colonization) ? […] This man has no love for its own country, nor for its people.
Well, you sure help that perception .
godardc wrote: Just imagine M. Trump telling "America has no culture, and committed a lot of war crimes during its history, it is really bad !"...
That would be a realistic Trump.
jasper76 wrote: I'd recommend you provide specific examples of how she's a racist or xenophobe.
Well, she made “national preference” a central theme of her campaign, she keeps talking about secularism but only with respect to Islam, and avoid talking too much about it when talking in front of the hardcore Christian part of her electorate, and so on. Beside, you can go all “She is not responsible for her father”, but when she took over his party, rather than starting her own…
You said she claims "immigrants are here to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife" when she was clearly taking about illegal immigrants, and there is a distinction to be made there because illegal immigrants, although many are perfectly decent people, are by definition criminals. Again, a longer stretch of the clip, including the question that was asked of her, might have provided some context for the comments.
I'm puzzled by your hair splitting here. Illegal or no, she is claiming that they are all rapists. That's absurd.
Bottom line, I'd like to hear the entire interview, including the question that was asked, before branding someone a xenophobe off a 5-10 second clip edited by a show known for its partisanship, outrage manufacture, and comedy.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but she said that SOME illegal immigrants would "steal your wallet and brutalize your wife", not ALL as you have stated.
True always gonna be some bad eggs but if you do then there needs to be real consequences too.
However not a reason to deamonize every single one.
Like Calais. The Jungle and attacks on lorries, port etc have probbly not helped there image..but its no reason to judge all against.
godardc wrote: I'd recommend you provide specific examples of how she's a racist or xenophobe.
Well, she made “national preference” a central theme of her campaign, she keeps talking about secularism but only with respect to Islam, and avoid talking too much about it when talking in front of the hardcore Christian part of her electorate, and so on.
I believe you have incorrectly attributed my quote here to godardc.
I'll respond that nationalism and secularism, whether you think they are good or bad concepts, are not inherently racist or xenophobic. And it's worth mentioning that a subset of Muslims do indeed want to institute Shariah law, some as he law of the land and others as a parallel legal system. There is only a tiny sliver of fringe Christians who want to impose Christianity as the law of the land. The institution of Shariah Law as a primary or parallel system of law is in direct opposition to the concept of secular government, and it is no wonder that supporters of secular government would oppose this movement specifically.
godardc wrote: I'd recommend you provide specific examples of how she's a racist or xenophobe.
Well, she made “national preference” a central theme of her campaign, she keeps talking about secularism but only with respect to Islam, and avoid talking too much about it when talking in front of the hardcore Christian part of her electorate, and so on.
I believe you have incorrectly attributed my quote here to godardc.
I'll respond that nationalism and secularism, whether you think they are good or bad concepts, are not inherently racist or xenophobic. And it's worth mentioning that a subset of Muslims do indeed want to institute Shariah law, some as he law of the land and others as a parallel legal system. There is only a tiny sliver of fringe Christians who want to impose Christianity as the law of the land. The institution of Shariah Law as a primary or parallel system of law is in direct opposition to the concept of secular government, and it is no wonder that supporters of secular government would oppose this movement specifically.
True always gonna be some bad eggs but if you do then there needs to be real consequences too.
However not a reason to deamonize every single one.
Like Calais. The Jungle and attacks on lorries, port etc have probbly not helped there image..but its no reason to judge all against.
I agree with you that the actions of a few bad actors should not be used to tarnish an entire group of people.
Though I will add. If we stick to theme and imagine out large box of eggs.
We find a bad rotting egg. Now if we leave that egg or may turn others bad.
For the good of the larger whole its imperative we handle that swiftly.
If you are a legitimate refugee. That's fine. Yur safe, support etc.
If you are not. Lieing, criminal or such then we should be enforcing the law and deporting or such etc.
If your a terror preacher or such you can just go.
Go and never return.
Thr thing is at the end of the day if laws are enforced, but also fair and reasonable to. Also honest. If your stand no hope of day reaching UK or legal asylum. Make that clear. No false hopes or lies to pass the buck. You give no other options but thr legal route of application. And if your caught illegally. Well . We have laws for a reason. And there's a price. Legaly everyone would have a fair go to prove there claims.
You said she claims "immigrants are here to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife" when she was clearly taking about illegal immigrants, and there is a distinction to be made there because illegal immigrants, although many are perfectly decent people, are by definition criminals. Again, a longer stretch of the clip, including the question that was asked of her, might have provided some context for the comments.
I'm puzzled by your hair splitting here. Illegal or no, she is claiming that they are all rapists. That's absurd.
Bottom line, I'd like to hear the entire interview, including the question that was asked, before branding someone a xenophobe off a 5-10 second clip edited by a show known for its partisanship, outrage manufacture, and comedy.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but she said that SOME illegal immigrants would "steal your wallet and brutalize your wife", not ALL as you have stated.
You can say that about any group of people. Why single out immigrants if not to pander to the fear vote?
godardc wrote: The more funny (or the more sad) are the people from the Left calling to vote for Macron, despite his very liberal ideas, just because its opponent is Le Pen...
Betraying their own side just because of the name of one of the candidate...
I don't agree with everything you say, but what you're saying is clearly pushing on what the Left is feeling with this second turn.
Let's face it, Macron is not from the Left, he's from the Right. He's the typical "big manager", completely cut from the base of commoners.
The recent events where the two candidates are "battling" over a factory being closed and its salarymen being fired show it quite good. The way Macron reacted is clearly out of touch with the people - he reacts like a manager having to deal with numbers rather than people. And Marine Lepen attacked just on that. What she's saying is, of course, part of her strategy - but the words sound right, because that's indeed the truth about Macron.
Macron thinks being elected on second turn makes him victorious. It's clear Lepen will fight on his arrogant side and show all of his weak points, to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of voters. And it works, because there is a fertile soil in Macron's cracks. Because you can't help but see them. First turn wasn"t really focusing on them so far, but now Lepen can give her full attention on her opponent. And it's clear he's not as experienced as her on this ground.
You said she claims "immigrants are here to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife" when she was clearly taking about illegal immigrants, and there is a distinction to be made there because illegal immigrants, although many are perfectly decent people, are by definition criminals. Again, a longer stretch of the clip, including the question that was asked of her, might have provided some context for the comments.
I'm puzzled by your hair splitting here. Illegal or no, she is claiming that they are all rapists. That's absurd.
Bottom line, I'd like to hear the entire interview, including the question that was asked, before branding someone a xenophobe off a 5-10 second clip edited by a show known for its partisanship, outrage manufacture, and comedy.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but she said that SOME illegal immigrants would "steal your wallet and brutalize your wife", not ALL as you have stated.
You can say that about any group of people. Why single out immigrants if not to pander to the fear vote?
I don't know why, because the John Oliver clip did not provide the context in which her statement was made, to include the question she was asked that elicited her statement, which is my point. She was probably asked something about illegal immigrants, so that could potentially explain why she was talking about illegal immigrants. That's my guess anyways.
jasper76 wrote: I'll respond that nationalism and secularism, whether you think they are good or bad concepts, are not inherently racist or xenophobic.
In case you didn't notice it, I am quite found of secularism myself. However, selective secularism is definitely a pretty strong hint for xenophobia. Just like those people that care a lot about animal welfare when talking about ritual slaughter but will gorge on foie gras . Xenophobia, and, notably, hypocrisy on top of it.
Nationalism is basically xenophobia with a fancy name .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: She was probably asked something about illegal immigrants, so that could potentially explain why she was talking about illegal immigrants. That's my guess anyways.
My guess is more that she was asked about anything on her program about immigrants, and that she mixed both legal immigrants and illegal immigrants in a good scaremongering way, because there is just no way the “wallpaper” analogy is about stuff done by illegal immigrants.
Nationalism is basically xenophobia with a fancy name .
It's more about adressing to a highly motivated voting base. Nationalism gives a strong base for their sympathizers; pride, belonging to a strong common history, great facilities to design a clear "opponent" to "fight/repel"...it's not a mystery it's used so often for such a long time in Mankind's history.
Talking about tolerance is still seen as being "weak" and "open to all evils" to a lot of people.
Here isn't the same situation than in 2002. We dont have Chirac in front of Jean-Marie Lepen. We don't have the same gravity as well. The tone has changed. Just look at what Macron said on his speech after the first turn: it was a victory speech. There is no shock. People were prepared to having the FN on second turn. It's already becoming normal.
I don't think it's such an "easy victory" for Macron here. We may have surprises. Like it or not, Macron has not the "charisma" of Chirac - and certainly not the same experience.
godardc wrote: The burden of proof lies with the accuser, this is why.
Actually it is on a person making a claim, not just 'accusers'. If someone explicitly claims that a person is one way or another then you should back up the claim unless of course someone makes a claim without backing it up, like you did, so then there isn't really a need to provide proof since my job isn't to do your homework. You just state she absolutely isn't a thing with no proof I see no reason to provide proof she is.
And as I said before it wouldn't matter anyway because minds are already made up and no proof would change anything on this; it would be a fools errand.
godardc wrote: The burden of proof lies with the accuser, this is why.
Actually it is on a person making a claim, not just 'accusers'. If someone explicitly claims that a person is one way or another then you should back up the claim unless of course someone makes a claim without backing it up, like you did, so then there isn't really a need to provide proof since my job isn't to do your homework. You just state she absolutely isn't a thing with no proof I see no reason to provide proof she is.
And as I said before it wouldn't matter anyway because minds are already made up and no proof would change anything on this; it would be a fools errand.
So someone claims someone is a racist, and we're just meant to accept the smear with no evidence provided? Guilty until proven innocent? What an awesome society we are creating for ourselves, where we can brand anyone we don't like with any smear we like, and just move on with our lives to go find another sinner to brand with our Scarlet 'R'.
Spinner wrote: There's been evidence. You just don't like it.
Yep. Someone's going to have to produce a source more reliable than selectively edited clips from a partisan comedy show in order for me to drop the gavel and condemn someone as a racist or xenophobe.
I'd suggest to you that if you are accepting Last Week Tonight with John Oliver as a sufficient source to prove a serious allegation, or even as a reliable source of any information at all, that your standards are much too low, and you are choosing to inform yourself via infotainment. I'm not willing to do that personally.
If anyone can produce evidence of Le Pen's alleged racism and xenophobia from a reputable source, I'd be quite happy to consider it. I am not close -minded to the possibility that she is a racist or xenophobe. Go ahead and provide a valid source, and if I agree with the accusing side here after reviewing it, I'll gladly say so. I don't like racism or xenophobia. I also don't like sketchy allegations of racism or xenophobia levelled against someone without credible evidence.
If you all keep throwing these terms around wily-nilly, no-one is going to believe any of it eventually. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is an instructive parable here.
godardc wrote: How can one still think that Le Pen is "racist and xenophobic", in 2017 ?
She isn't her father, and isn't responsible for his deeds and his words.
Her party has always fired racist and xenophobics.
Ask yourself why her party keeps attracting new racists and xenophobes. Le Pen has been president of FN for 6 years, wields enough clout to force her father from the party, but somehow just can't manage to get the racism out of her party, and only acts when racist members are revealed by the media. Wonder what could possibly be happening there? Could Le Pen just be using her anti-Islam position as a more politically acceptable kind of xenophobia, which many of her followers understand, at least on an emotional level, as being a resentment against all foreigners? Surely not, that just couldn't be so, because Le Pen says she isn't racist and that should be that.
A man whose party told that 300 people loosing their job is "anecdotal", a man who was in the former governement (and was bad at that, people were rioting against his laws). ?
So Le Pen isn't responsible for anything her party says or does, but Macron is. Good to know.
Anyhow, 300 jobs is anecdotal. We are talking about a national economy that has 28 million people in work, 22 million of them in full time work. If the nation was to come to a crashing halt and demand government got involved every time 300 people lost their jobs the country would cease to function. What you are attempting to argue is emotive, populist nonsense.
jasper76 wrote: I'll respond that nationalism and secularism, whether you think they are good or bad concepts, are not inherently racist or xenophobic.
Actually, Nationalism is by definition Xenophobic. Thats the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism. A nation is the natural state of the human society evolution. It is a natural construct through centuries and history, but it has no objetive, it is just what it is.
Nationalism takes that natural construction of human nature and put it with a "divine" objetive. As if a nation had an ultimate goal.
Basically, Patriotism is about liking your nation for his goods things and wanting the best to your people because they are your people, but with no further connotations. Nationalism is seeing your nation as superior to the others around you, With a goal that must be met.
jasper76 wrote: You said she claims "immigrants are here to change the wallpaper and brutalize your wife" when she was clearly taking about illegal immigrants, and there is a distinction to be made there because illegal immigrants, although many are perfectly decent people, are by definition criminals.
Ah, so because the immigrants are criminals through their visa status, then it is reasonable to claim they're here to brutalise our wives. Uh huh. Yep. This is an argument that someone has tried to make.
I'm open to he possibility that she may indeed be racist or xenophobic
You just tried to claim that because someone is a criminal due to their visa status, then it is reasonably to say they are here to brutalise our wives. I'm gonna suggest that maybe you're not quite as open as you claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: If anyone can produce evidence of Le Pen's alleged racism and xenophobia from a reputable source, I'd be quite happy to consider it.
One of the issues is that Le Pen has learned how to play the modern racism game, unlike her father. This new version of the game is very strange, because it accepts that everyone knows racism is bad, but no-one agrees on what it is, and no-one thinks they personally could possibly be racist.
So the way to play the game is to stoke racist fears, while never saying any specific word or sentence that clearly shows what you're doing. A Republican strategist and architect of the Southern Strategy used by that party explained it years ago;
"You start out in 1954 saying "[see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules]." By 1968 that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now that you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is that blacks get hurt more than whites."
That's the game Le Pen has learned. You never, ever say 'France should be white'. Instead you just show a great deal of concern for French citizens, whenever immigrants are mentioned. You don't say every muslim is a wife abusing turd, but whenever Islam is mentioned you start talking about how concerned you are about the rights of women. You don't say that all immigrants are criminals, but wen a small group of immigrants in Germany commit a terrible string of sex crimes, you start talking about a need to review border controls and immigration.
So yeah, you're not going to get a smoking gun quote from Le Pen where she clearly says something that's pure racism. If that's your requirement then it won't be met, and you can conclude her race politics are just fine. But you'd just be closing your eyes to game played by the modern generation of racists.
Spinner wrote: There's been evidence. You just don't like it.
Yep. Someone's going to have to produce a source more reliable than selectively edited clips from a partisan comedy show in order for me to drop the gavel and condemn someone as a racist or xenophobe.
I'd suggest to you that if you are accepting Last Week Tonight with John Oliver as a sufficient source to prove a serious allegation, or even as a reliable source of any information at all, that your standards are much too low, and you are choosing to inform yourself via infotainment. I'm not willing to do that personally.
If anyone can produce evidence of Le Pen's alleged racism and xenophobia from a reputable source, I'd be quite happy to consider it. I am not close -minded to the possibility that she is a racist or xenophobe. Go ahead and provide a valid source, and if I agree with the accusing side here after reviewing it, I'll gladly say so. I don't like racism or xenophobia. I also don't like sketchy allegations of racism or xenophobia levelled against someone without credible evidence.
If you all keep throwing these terms around wily-nilly, no-one is going to believe any of it eventually. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is an instructive parable here.
Well, I mean, I do like John Oliver. He usually gets pretty in-depth in the issues he covers, instead of simply bashing people, and as far as I know he hasn't had issues with chopping up quotes to make it seem like someone was saying something they weren't. That hardly means that it's the only place I get the information from. How about the interview itself? Have you watched it? I know you said that the clips were 'taken out of context', but in what context does "I'm glad we don't hear from a religious minority" sound good, especially when you're discussing keeping them from practicing parts of their faith?
I've seen you've come up with a couple of potential justifications, but they seem pretty...thin.
There is only a tiny sliver of fringe Christians who want to impose Christianity as the law of the land.
Sarouan wrote: It's more about adressing to a highly motivated voting base. Nationalism gives a strong base for their sympathizers; pride, belonging to a strong common history, great facilities to design a clear "opponent" to "fight/repel"...
Xenophobia with a fancier name indeed ^^.
jasper76 wrote: What an awesome society we are creating for ourselves, where we can brand anyone we don't like with any smear we like, and just move on with our lives to go find another sinner to brand with our Scarlet 'R'.
Why do you hate free speech so much?
Random accusations of being racist are a very very important part of free speech. You may not agree with them but you should fight for the right of people to make baseless accusation of racism. It is very important. For free speech.
Also you didn't answer to this. I somehow guess that it's not a question of you not having seen the right quote, but more a question of you denying that anything beside overt “This race is inferior to that race” is xenophobia…
godardc wrote: In France, some are even speaking about "fascism" about the FN.
And this week, a member of the Républicains, a man I never liked, took her defense, arguing that a legal, democratic, party, like the FN, is NOT fascist or nazi.
He even took the risk of being fired from his own party by voting for Le Pen (Henri Guaino IIRC).
The words Nazi, fascist, and racist are thrown around these days with such abandon that they are becoming meaningless, or else their meanings have been transformed to simply mean "somebody I don't agree with", which to me a sickening degradation of the English language.
One can excuse Americans because we don't tolerate no readin round these parts, but you would think Europeans would be far more familiar with the real meaning of these terms.
whembly wrote: She even defenestrated her father from the FN in an effort to “un-demonize” the party.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I want to applaud the author for the use of such a fantastic word as defenestrated. On the other, it's such a clumsy attempt to shoehorn in the word, it appears to be very sesquipedalian writing.
Always remember that the Thirty Years War was sparked by the Defenestration of Prague.
whembly wrote: She even defenestrated her father from the FN in an effort to “un-demonize” the party.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I want to applaud the author for the use of such a fantastic word as defenestrated. On the other, it's such a clumsy attempt to shoehorn in the word, it appears to be very sesquipedalian writing.
Always remember that the Thirty Years War was sparked by the Defenestration of Prague.
That was good reading. Nothing like getting hurled out of your own window by an angry mob to ruin you day, or kick off a decades-long conflict.
The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.
The French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.
The former president Jacques Chirac and the current leader, François Hollande, have both apologised for the role French police played in the corralling of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel d’Hiv cycling track, which was ordered by Nazi officers in 1942. But Le Pen told the LCI television channel on Sunday: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”
I honestly can't be bothered to go over French media reporting on the horrible things she says, because I can't be bothered wasting more of my time on something so obvious.
The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.
Opening an investigation of the regime's political opponent is not exactly evidence of malfeasance. I'll grant though thats prima facae evidence of the same stupid puffery we get a lot of now.
The French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.
The former president Jacques Chirac and the current leader, François Hollande, have both apologised for the role French police played in the corralling of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel d’Hiv cycling track, which was ordered by Nazi officers in 1942. But Le Pen told the LCI television channel on Sunday: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”
That doesn't sound like she is denying it, more denying the responsibility. Obviously the actual french used may be different then this translation and more condemning.
The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.
Opening an investigation of the regime's political opponent is not exactly evidence of malfeasance. I'll grant though thats prima facae evidence of the same stupid puffery we get a lot of now.
Regime's political opponent? That's a bit excessive Fraz, she knew what she said was already against the law and only said it because she would be immune from prosecution under that law because of her position as a member of the European Parliament. This is not a witch hunt, this is hate speech pure and simple in almost every country in Europe. Our freedom of speech laws are not as lenient as those in the US and Le Pen was definitely aware of that.
The French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.
The former president Jacques Chirac and the current leader, François Hollande, have both apologised for the role French police played in the corralling of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel d’Hiv cycling track, which was ordered by Nazi officers in 1942. But Le Pen told the LCI television channel on Sunday: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”
That doesn't sound like she is denying it, more denying the responsibility. Obviously the actual french used may be different then this translation and more condemning.
She's denying any involvement of France because it was individuals helping them. This is seen to be incredibly distasteful however as the French police were an extension of the French government cooperating with the Germans. This would be like Germany denying any responsibility for the Holocaust because that was a different Germany under different people. I mean you can technically be correct, but its still a vile thing to say.
Its not just that alone, its also to be viewed in light of the horrible things her father said about the Holocaust and measuring to what extent she might privately share that opinion.
Frazzled wrote: Opening an investigation of the regime's political opponent is not exactly evidence of malfeasance. I'll grant though thats prima facae evidence of the same stupid puffery we get a lot of now.
It isn't the investigation, it's what she said. She said the sight of a person practicing a religion different to her own is the same as being occupied by a hostile foreign government.
That doesn't sound like she is denying it, more denying the responsibility.
That's right, she's denying responsibility. This matters because she's denying the existence of racism in her own country's past, and the toll in lives that racism caused.
As I said above, none of this is a smoking gun. Le Pen has learned that these days you can't just come out and say "I hate/fear people who don't have my background and skin colour." Instead you have to play it smart, touch on insecurities and link those to foreigners in a sinister way. This works because just about everyone agrees racism is a terrible thing, but at the time we have no agreed definition of what racism is, except that most people earnestly believe they personally can't possibly be racist.
Thing is, everyone does this to an extent. We are all a little bit racist, as the song goes. It'd be nice if we could all address this and work to get better. The difference is that Le Pen and people like her do this kind of thing all the time, and without it their political platform stops making any sense at all. That's a pretty good sign that she is racist, or is at the least operating a racist political campaign.
The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.
The French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.
The former president Jacques Chirac and the current leader, François Hollande, have both apologised for the role French police played in the corralling of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel d’Hiv cycling track, which was ordered by Nazi officers in 1942. But Le Pen told the LCI television channel on Sunday: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”
I honestly can't be bothered to go over French media reporting on the horrible things she says, because I can't be bothered wasting more of my time on something so obvious.
It was ordered by nazis when France was occupied. What are they supposed to do? Say no and die. I mean yeah they could have but if you had a choice of complying and living and not and dying which choice would you make. Be honest it wouldn't be easy.
Sides the french which fought with the allies to retake their home and punish the other french who sided with the nazis is apparently not relevant. I'm not saying they didn't do bad things but they were forced to do them. Can't hate everybody in a country just because a powerful dictator forces all those in his/her nation to comply or to die. If they actually did it without coercion that's different though.
Isn't 'The Guardian' a very left wing news source anyway so wouldn't they try to smear her?
That said i will admit muslims praying in the streets isn't like the nazi occupation but i mean come on i've heard so much between the political parties these days with smearing others with grossly over-the-top accusations and comparisons that are unfair.
I'm not saying i know much about Le Pen or french politics and it's your country and your election so i will be more than happy allowing the french to vote however they please just as the british did with brexit. I just wish i was allowed to do the same.
flamingkillamajig wrote: It was ordered by nazis when France was occupied. What are they supposed to do? Say no and die. I mean yeah they could have but if you had a choice of complying and living and not and dying which choice would you make. Be honest it wouldn't be easy.
Besides resisting, they could also pretend to comply and then just do a really crappy job. That option is not without peril, but it's something plenty of press-ganged officials in Nazi occupied territory did.
I agree it is a difficult question, but ask yourself how many people would have answered that question differently if the people they were being required to round up were White, French Catholics much like themselves. That's the issue, how much people are willing to go along with it, or passively accept it, when the terror is happening to the 'other'.
Can't hate everybody in a country just because a powerful dictator forces all those in his/her nation to comply or to die. If they actually did it without coercion that's different though.
It isn't about what they were forced in to. Nor is it about hating everyone in a country that was occupied by a tyrant. It's nowhere near that simple. It is about recognizing that France was not the pure victim that national myths often make it out to be. It is about recognising that France also has a legacy with anti-semitism, like most of Europe.
Isn't 'The Guardian' a very left wing news source anyway so wouldn't they try to smear her?
The Guardian is left wing, but it has journalistic standards. There's a few opinion writers that should be avoided, but that's true everywhere. Thing is, people need to stop confusing 'has a point of view' with 'makes stuff up'. This is one of the biggest issues with media today - readers either demand milquetoast reporting that's so neutral it won't even dare suggest that someone is lying no matter how blatant, or they accept bias but then think that's any and all bias is equal and that it's just about finding something that suits your POV with no regard for accuracy or decent reasoning.
I'm not saying i know much about Le Pen or french politics and it's your country and your election so i will be more than happy allowing the french to vote however they please just as the british did with brexit.
The French are being allowed to vote. People are just pointing out that one of the candidates is pretty clearly racist. If French voters want a racist, or like enough of her other policies that they are happy to look past the racism, then that's how they'll vote.
The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.
The French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.
The former president Jacques Chirac and the current leader, François Hollande, have both apologised for the role French police played in the corralling of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel d’Hiv cycling track, which was ordered by Nazi officers in 1942. But Le Pen told the LCI television channel on Sunday: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”
I honestly can't be bothered to go over French media reporting on the horrible things she says, because I can't be bothered wasting more of my time on something so obvious.
It was ordered by nazis when France was occupied. What are they supposed to do? Say no and die. I mean yeah they could have but if you had a choice of complying and living and not and dying which choice would you make. Be honest it wouldn't be easy.
Sides the french which fought with the allies to retake their home and punish the other french who sided with the nazis is apparently not relevant. I'm not saying they didn't do bad things but they were forced to do them. Can't hate everybody in a country just because a powerful dictator forces all those in his/her nation to comply or to die. If they actually did it without coercion that's different though.
Isn't 'The Guardian' a very left wing news source anyway so wouldn't they try to smear her?
That said i will admit muslims praying in the streets isn't like the nazi occupation but i mean come on i've heard so much between the political parties these days with smearing others with grossly over-the-top accusations and comparisons that are unfair.
I'm not saying i know much about Le Pen or french politics and it's your country and your election so i will be more than happy allowing the french to vote however they please just as the british did with brexit. I just wish i was allowed to do the same.
That's forgetting and forgiving France's very intolerant past. The French didn't allow the Inquisition in, but that was a purely political move. Instead, every level of society took it upon itself to ostracize jews and huguenots, and for a long time. 250 years ago, it was generally acceptable to decapitate young atheists and burn their corpses at the stakes. Dreyfus, Callas, Sirven, La Barre, Lally- Tollendal are all forever the names of stains of gross injustice which the French must accept to bear. Vel d'Hiv is simply worst because it is more recent.
There is gross hypocrisy in a nationalism based on the spirit of Enlightened justice and fraternity, but that requires at the same time to deny responsibility for the injustices of your ancestors.
It was ordered by nazis when France was occupied. What are they supposed to do? Say no and die. I mean yeah they could have but if you had a choice of complying and living and not and dying which choice would you make. Be honest it wouldn't be easy.
Er... Nope.
That's why it's so infamous, and such a stain on our history.
The Vichy governement did this on its own, without having been ordered to, to please its "ally".
Furthermore, many countries in Europe, even Axis-aligned ones, passively, or actively resisted such orders.
The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.
The French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.
The former president Jacques Chirac and the current leader, François Hollande, have both apologised for the role French police played in the corralling of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel d’Hiv cycling track, which was ordered by Nazi officers in 1942. But Le Pen told the LCI television channel on Sunday: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”
I honestly can't be bothered to go over French media reporting on the horrible things she says, because I can't be bothered wasting more of my time on something so obvious.
It was ordered by nazis when France was occupied. What are they supposed to do? Say no and die. I mean yeah they could have but if you had a choice of complying and living and not and dying which choice would you make. Be honest it wouldn't be easy.
Sides the french which fought with the allies to retake their home and punish the other french who sided with the nazis is apparently not relevant. I'm not saying they didn't do bad things but they were forced to do them. Can't hate everybody in a country just because a powerful dictator forces all those in his/her nation to comply or to die. If they actually did it without coercion that's different though.
Isn't 'The Guardian' a very left wing news source anyway so wouldn't they try to smear her?
That said i will admit muslims praying in the streets isn't like the nazi occupation but i mean come on i've heard so much between the political parties these days with smearing others with grossly over-the-top accusations and comparisons that are unfair.
I'm not saying i know much about Le Pen or french politics and it's your country and your election so i will be more than happy allowing the french to vote however they please just as the british did with brexit. I just wish i was allowed to do the same.
Saying no and die is a bit over-exaggerated. The amount of Jews caught in European countries frequently depends on the amount of collaboration. Overall France did ok on the part of dragging their heels on this (as Sebster points out as an option), but they still need to take responsibility for their officers rounding up these people. Certainly people in Western Europe would not have been pressured too much as there could always be others found to participate in these roundups. The first years up until 1942-3 German occupation was not as harsh yet on the population. The really brutal repression occurs once they start losing and become much more brutal in things like labour conscription.
The Free French argument has been made before, but the overwhelming majority of the state apparatus (aka France) stayed in France and helped the Germans govern the country. They could not have done it without the French helping them. There is the running joke in a lot of European countries that when you ask older people what they did during the war they will say they were all in the resistance. But the truth is most people just put up and shut up and worked with the Germans to continue their normal lives. I'm certainly not blaming modern day French. I'm saying that the state of France should feel responsible for what its representatives did and that is the point which she doesn't agree to.
Look, the Guardian being left wing or not has nothing to do with what I quoted. This is just something she said and I don't need you to focus on any spin on what she said, just her words, which are bad enough.
Again the Nazi comment against Muslims comes from herself, she actually said that. This is not some smear campaign, those are her own words!
Also I'm not French, I'm Dutch so our Le Pen would be Wilders (equally racist in a different way). Whether we like it or not we all live in democracies and that means people like Le Pen can run for election. But being a democracy doesn't mean we have to pretend shes not a terrible human being.
France should have learned from Spain. We kick out our jews in 1492, when it was cool, and so far in history that no one will use it today as a political weapon
Furthermore, many countries in Europe, even Axis-aligned ones, passively, or actively resisted such orders.
History Trivia:
The Japanese Ambassador to Lithuania Chiune Sugihara was declared by Israel to be one of the Righteous Among Nations in 1985. He received this honor because from 1940 until he was forcibly removed from the country, he issued thousands of travel visas to European Jews, and arranged for the USSR (who was at war with Japan at this time) to allow the holders of these visas to reach Japanese territory via the -Trans-Siberia Railway. He continued to write visas up to the point he was on the train himself, recalled by his country for his actions, and threw them out the windows into a crowd of pleading refugees from across Eastern Europe desperately trying to flee the Soviets and the Nazis. Lithuania per capita had one of the highest Jewish populations in Europe. Thousands escaped because a Japanese Ambassador refused to do what his government told him to.
When a guy working for a country committing its own inhuman war crimes is doing the right thing, you kind of start running thin on excuses.
"They were ordered" is not and never will be an excuse for committing war crimes. Every single person who willingly went along with the holocaust is as complicit as Hitler himself. To even suggest that it is not an issue because they were "just following orders" is absolutely disgusting.
The Japanese Ambassador to Lithuania Chiune Sugihara was declared by Israel to be one of the Righteous Among Nations in 1985. He received this honor because from 1940 until he was forcibly removed from the country, he issued thousands of travel visas to European Jews, and arranged for the USSR (who was at war with Japan at this time) to allow the holders of these visas to reach Japanese territory via the -Trans-Siberia Railway. He continued to write visas up to the point he was on the train himself, recalled by his country for his actions, and threw them out the windows into a crowd of pleading refugees from across Eastern Europe desperately trying to flee the Soviets and the Nazis. Lithuania per capita had one of the highest Jewish populations in Europe. Thousands escaped because a Japanese Ambassador refused to do what his government told him to.
When a guy working for a country committing its own inhuman war crimes is doing the right thing, you kind of start running thin on excuses.
There's a museum in Austria commemorating the resistance against the Nazis, Archives to the Austrian Resistance. It was originally built in the 60s celebrating the figures who worked against the Nazis. But decades ago the museum changed its message, now they straight up say as you come in that there was little resistance, and most of it was ineffectual leaflet drops. They accept that while many Austrians weren't necessarily in favour of the atrocities of the Nazis, very few were actually hostile to the regime, and as a result the resistance was very small.
This doesn't mean everyone modern Austrian has to beg for forgiveness in their morning prayers or anything like that. But it is very important to be honest about the past, and admit how many people really were okay with scapegoating ethnic groups, or at least were okay with it enough that they didn't do anything about it. It's a big part of making sure nothing like it ever happens again.
Le Pen and people like her hate ideas like that and deny them, in large part because it shows how dangerous her racial undertones can be.
The Japanese Ambassador to Lithuania Chiune Sugihara was declared by Israel to be one of the Righteous Among Nations in 1985. He received this honor because from 1940 until he was forcibly removed from the country, he issued thousands of travel visas to European Jews, and arranged for the USSR (who was at war with Japan at this time) to allow the holders of these visas to reach Japanese territory via the -Trans-Siberia Railway. He continued to write visas up to the point he was on the train himself, recalled by his country for his actions, and threw them out the windows into a crowd of pleading refugees from across Eastern Europe desperately trying to flee the Soviets and the Nazis. Lithuania per capita had one of the highest Jewish populations in Europe. Thousands escaped because a Japanese Ambassador refused to do what his government told him to.
When a guy working for a country committing its own inhuman war crimes is doing the right thing, you kind of start running thin on excuses.
There's a museum in Austria commemorating the resistance against the Nazis, Archives to the Austrian Resistance. It was originally built in the 60s celebrating the figures who worked against the Nazis. But decades ago the museum changed its message, now they straight up say as you come in that there was little resistance, and most of it was ineffectual leaflet drops. They accept that while many Austrians weren't necessarily in favour of the atrocities of the Nazis, very few were actually hostile to the regime, and as a result the resistance was very small.
This doesn't mean everyone modern Austrian has to beg for forgiveness in their morning prayers or anything like that. But it is very important to be honest about the past, and admit how many people really were okay with scapegoating ethnic groups, or at least were okay with it enough that they didn't do anything about it. It's a big part of making sure nothing like it ever happens again.
Le Pen and people like her hate ideas like that and deny them, in large part because it shows how dangerous her racial undertones can be.
Actual Austrian history is still not prominently taught however. Austrians weren't really a victim of the Nazi regime as much as a willing partner. Austrians were considered German and the amount that served in the Wehrmacht, SS and just Nazi's organs isn't significantly different than Germans. That's the real trick Austria pulled, trying to pretend they were the first victims of Germany with the Anschluss, and succeeding to an extent.
sebster wrote: There's a museum in Austria commemorating the resistance against the Nazis, Archives to the Austrian Resistance. It was originally built in the 60s celebrating the figures who worked against the Nazis. But decades ago the museum changed its message, now they straight up say as you come in that there was little resistance, and most of it was ineffectual leaflet drops. They accept that while many Austrians weren't necessarily in favour of the atrocities of the Nazis, very few were actually hostile to the regime, and as a result the resistance was very small.
This doesn't mean everyone modern Austrian has to beg for forgiveness in their morning prayers or anything like that. But it is very important to be honest about the past, and admit how many people really were okay with scapegoating ethnic groups, or at least were okay with it enough that they didn't do anything about it. It's a big part of making sure nothing like it ever happens again.
Sounds like the excuses are thin to me
To be clear I'm not suggesting there was massive and widespread resistance of this type. While many diplomats are now famous for going out of their way, even defying their own countries, to help Jews flee Europe we're really talking about two to three dozen people in a community of thousands. To me the point is that just because some pedestrians walking around a dying girl didn't commit any crimes doesn't mean they weren't responsible on some level for their wilful inaction.* Wilful action in furtherance of immoral acts, is even worse. The buck of responsibility can be distributed by circumstance, but it is not so easily abdicated.
Co'tor Shas wrote: "They were ordered" is not and never will be an excuse for committing war crimes. Every single person who willingly went along with the holocaust is as complicit as Hitler himself. To even suggest that it is not an issue because they were "just following orders" is absolutely disgusting.
Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something. Everybody acts like they'd be so righteous when the time comes but self preservation kicks in when you're staring death in the face. It depends really how noble you are and how much you value your life or need to live so that your family can still have a father, son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. the next day.
Co'tor Shas wrote: "They were ordered" is not and never will be an excuse for committing war crimes. Every single person who willingly went along with the holocaust is as complicit as Hitler himself. To even suggest that it is not an issue because they were "just following orders" is absolutely disgusting.
Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something. Everybody acts like they'd be so righteous when the time comes but self preservation kicks in when you're staring death in the face. It depends really how noble you are and how much you value your life or need to live so that your family can still have a father, son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. the next day.
That or you and your family end up in some hell of a concentration camp where you get worked/starved to death.
Yes they had a choice. But some of the consequences of refusing pretty pretty bad. People forget the Nazi Party could ve as cruel to own people as it was to Jews, Russians and such.
To be clear I'm not suggesting there was massive and widespread resistance of this type. While many diplomats are now famous for going out of their way, even defying their own countries, to help Jews flee Europe we're really talking about two to three dozen people in a community of thousands. To me the point is that just because some pedestrians walking around a dying girl didn't commit any crimes doesn't mean they weren't responsible on some level for their wilful inaction.* Wilful action in furtherance of immoral acts, is even worse. The buck of responsibility can't be distributed by circumstance, but it is not so easily abdicated.
Yeah, sorry didn't mean it to sound like I was challenging your point. It was a great story and very relevant to the thread. I didn't take it as a claim of what was done everywhere, but as a statement of what could be done.
As to responsibility, I'm a bit mixed on the issue. I think people often assume they personally would be very brave and principled, and so criticise too harshly people who were placed in those situations. But take that idea too far and you end up excusing everyone for going along, and I'm not comfortable with that either.
Maybe it's best to just make sure the historical record stands as it happened, and leave judgement out of it? To me, that's the issue with Le Pen's statement. Austria, or at least that one museum, was very honest about the complicity of Austria. Much of France is also honest about that. Le Pen not so much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something. Everybody acts like they'd be so righteous when the time comes but self preservation kicks in when you're staring death in the face. It depends really how noble you are and how much you value your life or need to live so that your family can still have a father, son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. the next day.
I think there's a fair point there. I remember seeing images of people who spoke out against the Nazis and were murdered. It's a mistake to assume we personally would be very principled and very brave. But it is also a mistake to expect nothing of people.
And it is also a mistake to assume that all collusion with the Nazis was done out of fear. Make no mistake about it - France was also a very anti-semitic country. There's a line that goes around that if you told someone in 1920 that a major European country would be taken over by a tyrant with a deeply anti-semitic message, people would assume you were talking about France.
As to responsibility, I'm a bit mixed on the issue. I think people often assume they personally would be very brave and principled, and so criticise too harshly people who are placed in those situations. But take that idea too far and you end up excusing everyone for going along, and I'm not comfortable with that either.
Agreed. I think especially when it comes to societal problems, "blame" becomes extremely messy. Especially in a nominal democracy. An elector you're total responsible, even if you voted for the other side I think. A democracy cannot claim to enact the will of the people while simultaneously the people dissolve their responsibility for political outcomes. At the same time it's like a lot of other things in life. You can't control everything. gak happens. Cultural forces limit and impede our ability to act freely. Especially with past stuff it's hard to gauge an appropriate present response.
But ignoring all that is not the answer from a mature adult with even a modicum of perspective. The problem with Le Penn is that she doesn't want to tackle the question at all, and the job she's running for is the last job where anyone should be trying to ignore such difficult quandaries which in my experience is par for the course for nationalist fear mongers stirring the racial/ethnic/xenophobe pot.
Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something.
Except (and you obviously didn't read the responses), Vichy France was not a country the Nazi's could "issue orders" per se in 1942. Nazi Germany wanted Vichy France to hand over its remaining Navy, and Vichy France said no (then blew up its Navy when Germany tried to force the issue later). No one had a gun to their head. It wasn't "do this or die." In meetings planning the operation French police were more concerned with their public image than they were that "maybe this is kind of gak." Later testimony from post-war criminal trials conducted in Germany, France, and the Netherlands even found that officials were eager to deport local Jews. Some people have even accused the Vichy state of unofficially proposing the plan in the first place. EDIT: And this is without delving into the shocking popularity of the Nazi regime among French citizens until late 1943.
It's really not a comparable event to say, Sri Lanka, were some "freedom fighters" were forced to gun down civilians under threat of being gunned down themselves; or various African conflicts like Sierra Leone where you recruit your army by drugging up young boys, forcing them to murder their families, and then making them do the same to the boys in the next village.
sebster wrote: There's a museum in Austria commemorating the resistance against the Nazis, Archives to the Austrian Resistance. It was originally built in the 60s celebrating the figures who worked against the Nazis. But decades ago the museum changed its message, now they straight up say as you come in that there was little resistance, and most of it was ineffectual leaflet drops. They accept that while many Austrians weren't necessarily in favour of the atrocities of the Nazis, very few were actually hostile to the regime, and as a result the resistance was very small.
This doesn't mean everyone modern Austrian has to beg for forgiveness in their morning prayers or anything like that. But it is very important to be honest about the past, and admit how many people really were okay with scapegoating ethnic groups, or at least were okay with it enough that they didn't do anything about it. It's a big part of making sure nothing like it ever happens again.
Sounds like the excuses are thin to me
To be clear I'm not suggesting there was massive and widespread resistance of this type. While many diplomats are now famous for going out of their way, even defying their own countries, to help Jews flee Europe we're really talking about two to three dozen people in a community of thousands. To me the point is that just because some pedestrians walking around a dying girl didn't commit any crimes doesn't mean they weren't responsible on some level for their wilful inaction.* Wilful action in furtherance of immoral acts, is even worse. The buck of responsibility can be distributed by circumstance, but it is not so easily abdicated.
When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them? What about a person that has their car break down on the side of the road? How about something super simple like holding the door open for somebody carrying something heavy?
In my experience almost nobody helps for the first two questions. I'll admit feeling bad doesn't count as doing something and often inaction is compliance in a sense. However in this situation when it's your life and possibly their's at risk (if for example you took them into your home to hide) for trying to help them vs just their life at risk which option do you choose. It's probably right to help them but is it right to potentially kill yourself as well when you have family that depends on your life to keep existing?
I'll admit i don't know the exact history or how much is propaganda (written to remove a stain on their history) or what. I'm not saying france didn't have some racists. The USA had a nazi party too and neo nazis continue to exist. It's not completely fair for an entire country to repent for the sins of people that are long dead. I can understand it should be acknowledged some did some bad things however. I suppose it depends how much they were coerced into doing what they did and how much they weren't.
-------
All this said i don't know Le Pen enough so maybe she is racist. It's just i've heard the racist and xenophobic and islamaphobic card pulled so much. I'd almost bet if she wasn't female they'd see if they could pull the sexist against women comment too.
Not saying i like certain political figures. The one that leads us has a lot of character flaws regardless of political stances. I mean the guy is very self absorbed and probably thinks he's the greatest. Some modesty goes a long way even if you are great.
-------
We should get more on topic though with the candidates.
When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them? What about a person that has their car break down on the side of the road? How about something super simple like holding the door open for somebody carrying something heavy?
Soup kitchens are more productive (point your local hobos to them even if you don't volunteer or donate), I honestly wouldn't be able to help anyone with a car I'm mechanically idiotic (bet I'd make it worse), I hold open doors even for people who are carrying nothing because its polite and seriously you're doing the same thing Le Penn did when she proclaimed the horrors of people coming to change the wallpaper. Even ignoring the xenophobic/racist bent to that comment it's notable for just being weird. I don't think it's a cultural thing either because the French seem as baffled by it as the rest of us XD
Galas wrote: France should have learned from Spain. We kick out our jews in 1492, when it was cool, and so far in history that no one will use it today as a political weapon
Franco did his own part sending jews to nazi germany or even puting them in concentration camps in Spain. It is famous too, many Republican exiles in France that where jailed and put to death by the Vichy Goverment, or just sended back to Spain.
Many goverments in that period of history did very horrible things (Basically everyone. The URSS and USA had concentration camps too. And not nice ones), and those goverments don't ruled over a population of robots, but of people that allow or even helped them to do that. When someone try to ignore those things is because they have an agenda, just like when communist defend the crimes of Stalin or Mao.
When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them?
Once in a blue moon, yeah, but there's a lot of hobo in Montreal. Now let's say you see a hobo with a knife sticking out of his chest. Would you not, at least, you know, do something.
And then let's say you realize the guy was shanked by a distant relative of yours you haven't even met.
Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.
When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them?
Once in a blue moon, yeah, but there's a lot of hobo in Montreal. Now let's say you see a hobo with a knife sticking out of his chest. Would you not, at least, you know, do something.
Yep. Take the safety off my full auto wiener dog, and leave the area in case whoever did it has another knife.
And then let's say you realize the guy was shanked by a distant relative of yours you haven't even met.
In that case I'd have to help find a nearby pig farm wouldn't I.
Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.
Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.
Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.
Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.
Wouldn't it be an issue for a german politician to deny that Germany was historically responsible for the Holocaust?
FN legitimize radical opinions by offering an acceptable outlet to lukewarm racism and xenophobia, something which the French have always had in troves.
FN came from Ordre Nouveau (New Order, in part funded by a Korean sect), which itself came from Groupe Occident after the 1960s.
Groupe Occident was (and was proud of being) a blackshirts organisation which attacked vietnamese students in university, before devolving in so much paranoia that it disintegrated as members kidnapped, tortured and interrogated each others.
With a filiation like this, decency seems to dictate that one shouldn't deny random racist events that your not even responsible for. It's pretty freaking crass.
Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.
Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.
Wouldn't it be an issue for a german politician to deny that Germany was historically responsible for the Holocaust?
FN legitimize radical opinions by offering an acceptable outlet to lukewarm racism and xenophobia, something which the French have always had in troves.
FN came from Ordre Nouveau (New Order, in part funded by a Korean sect), which itself came from Groupe Occident after the 1960s.
Groupe Occident was (and was proud of being) a blackshirts organisation which attacked vietnamese students in university, before devolving in so much paranoia that it disintegrated as members kidnapped, tortured and interrogated each others.
With a filiation like this, decency seems to dictate that one shouldn't deny random racist events that your not even responsible for. It's pretty freaking crass.
Wouldn't the German individual had to have been asked about it first? What I mean to say is, why was she asked in the first place?
I would like to see more on their actual policy positions and less on the "ism" charges.
Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.
Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.
Wouldn't it be an issue for a german politician to deny that Germany was historically responsible for the Holocaust?
FN legitimize radical opinions by offering an acceptable outlet to lukewarm racism and xenophobia, something which the French have always had in troves.
FN came from Ordre Nouveau (New Order, in part funded by a Korean sect), which itself came from Groupe Occident after the 1960s.
Groupe Occident was (and was proud of being) a blackshirts organisation which attacked vietnamese students in university, before devolving in so much paranoia that it disintegrated as members kidnapped, tortured and interrogated each others.
With a filiation like this, decency seems to dictate that one shouldn't deny random racist events that your not even responsible for. It's pretty freaking crass.
Wouldn't the German individual had to have been asked about it first? What I mean to say is, why was she asked in the first place?
I would like to see more on their actual policy positions and less on the "ism" charges.
I'll watch the interview and report, just a few min.
edit.
It was on a very highbrow political show (le Grand Jury). The theme was Marine's brand of nationalism, starting on the subject of a statement she made towards Corse's status within France.
One (stupid) theme of the election was the existence of a shadow cabinet within the goverment. She was asked if she trusted France's justice. She replied by saying she had great faith in her country, but didn't trust those in power. She then took the opportunity to snipe in and say that it was like Vel d'Hiv, France's isn't responsible, the people in power at the time were. Which is just as useless as it can get as far as a statement goes.
Honestly, the "Jury" didn't even grab the comment, it was so freaking random. Imagine Trump saying "And honestly, folks, Hitler wasn't even that bad of a guy" in the middle of an address on climate issues.
Co'tor Shas wrote: "They were ordered" is not and never will be an excuse for committing war crimes. Every single person who willingly went along with the holocaust is as complicit as Hitler himself. To even suggest that it is not an issue because they were "just following orders" is absolutely disgusting.
Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something. Everybody acts like they'd be so righteous when the time comes but self preservation kicks in when you're staring death in the face. It depends really how noble you are and how much you value your life or need to live so that your family can still have a father, son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. the next day.
Honestly, no, especially when we are talking about tens of thousands of people. I'd rather die that kill an innocent person. I can die with the knowledge that I have done good, I couldn't live lie with the knowledge that I had killed an innocent person.
And we are talking about people willingly following orders, no theoretical guns on theoretical heads. I'd thought we learned after the Nuremberg Trials that being ordered doesn't absolve people of guilt.
LordofHats wrote: Agreed. I think especially when it comes to societal problems, "blame" becomes extremely messy. Especially in a nominal democracy. An elector you're total responsible, even if you voted for the other side I think. A democracy cannot claim to enact the will of the people while simultaneously the people dissolve their responsibility for political outcomes. At the same time it's like a lot of other things in life. You can't control everything. gak happens. Cultural forces limit and impede our ability to act freely. Especially with past stuff it's hard to gauge an appropriate present response.
I really like that distinction between societal and individual responsibility. That helps clarify my thinking on the issue. Cheers for that. Also that line that a democracy cannot enact the will of the people, and also dissolve them of responsibility for the outcome was rather good. I'm going to make this conversation happen somewhere in the real world just so I can use that line and look clever
But ignoring all that is not the answer from a mature adult with even a modicum of perspective. The problem with Le Penn is that she doesn't want to tackle the question at all, and the job she's running for is the last job where anyone should be trying to ignore such difficult quandaries which in my experience is par for the course for nationalist fear mongers stirring the racial/ethnic/xenophobe pot.
As we've seen the various populist/racists that have been popular in various first world democracies in the last few years, I'm starting to wonder if xenophobia isn't the primary element. Maybe it is more just about simple solutions for complex problems, and particularly about simple solutions that flatter the voting base. Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.
Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.
Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.
I think you can draw a parallel to the people who keep insisting that the American Civil War was all about states' rights and had nothing to do with slavery.
LordofHats wrote: Agreed. I think especially when it comes to societal problems, "blame" becomes extremely messy. Especially in a nominal democracy. An elector you're total responsible, even if you voted for the other side I think. A democracy cannot claim to enact the will of the people while simultaneously the people dissolve their responsibility for political outcomes. At the same time it's like a lot of other things in life. You can't control everything. gak happens. Cultural forces limit and impede our ability to act freely. Especially with past stuff it's hard to gauge an appropriate present response.
I really like that distinction between societal and individual responsibility. That helps clarify my thinking on the issue. Cheers for that. Also that line that a democracy cannot enact the will of the people, and also dissolve them of responsibility for the outcome was rather good. I'm going to make this conversation happen somewhere in the real world just so I can use that line and look clever
But ignoring all that is not the answer from a mature adult with even a modicum of perspective. The problem with Le Penn is that she doesn't want to tackle the question at all, and the job she's running for is the last job where anyone should be trying to ignore such difficult quandaries which in my experience is par for the course for nationalist fear mongers stirring the racial/ethnic/xenophobe pot.
As we've seen the various populist/racists that have been popular in various first world democracies in the last few years, I'm starting to wonder if xenophobia isn't the primary element. Maybe it is more just about simple solutions for complex problems, and particularly about simple solutions that flatter the voting base. Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.
Mainstream leaders offer no real differences. Thr parties blend into one. Then suddenly the popularists come claiming to have a answer, however simplistic but they claim to have answers, they claim to bring change to the problems that never seem to end.
Musch as there claims might be a facade, and not much behind em, you can see why they are gaining ground.
If the mainstream took on some of the difficult problems, thr ones that may not sound nice but are genuine things that need to be discussed. They may weaken there reasons to exist.
sebster wrote: Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.
I think people who look for simple solutions/explanations to complex problems end up prone to such. No one but God can judge anyone by their head space, and when presented with the distinction between "actual racist/xenophobe/bigot" and "person who says lots of racist/xenophbic/bigoted gak" I just fail to see why I should care to notice that a distinction might exist. It's such a paper thin difference, and practically they lead to racist/xenophobic/bigoted gak happening whether the person saying it earnestly believes it or not.
It's the kind of detail that matters in an autobiography, not an election.
sebster wrote: Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.
I think people who look for simple solutions/explanations to complex problems end up prone to such. No one but God can judge anyone by their head space, and when presented with the distinction between "actual racist/xenophobe/bigot" and "person who says lots of racist/xenophbic/bigoted gak" I just fail to see why I should care to notice that a distinction might exist. It's such a paper thin difference, and practically they lead to racist/xenophobic/bigoted gak happening whether the person saying it earnestly believes it or not.
It's the kind of detail that matters in an autobiography, not an election.
True but if people feel like no ones litioning, nothing being done they tend to go with the irrational solutions over the more sensible voices at times.
sebster wrote: Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.
I think people who look for simple solutions/explanations to complex problems end up prone to such. No one but God can judge anyone by their head space, and when presented with the distinction between "actual racist/xenophobe/bigot" and "person who says lots of racist/xenophbic/bigoted gak" I just fail to see why I should care to notice that a distinction might exist. It's such a paper thin difference, and practically they lead to racist/xenophobic/bigoted gak happening whether the person saying it earnestly believes it or not.
It's the kind of detail that matters in an autobiography, not an election.
True but if people feel like no ones litioning, nothing being done they tend to go with the irrational solutions over the more sensible voices at times.
Interesting point. I just looked up the French unemployment rate, and it's at 9.6%. Relative to the US, UK, and Germany, this is abysmal...more than double. So just on the economy alone, I can see why affected people are inclined to abandon the existing institutions, even if the alternatives are problematic. If these institutions were effective, it's likely Le Pen would not have gained whatever level of support that she has, because why rebel against a system that is working?
It's also no wonder that anti-immigration politics would gain support when there is not enough work to go around for the people who are already citizens.
People in the UK and USA are doing the same revolting against the system that supposedly is working there. People in Spain aren't revolting against a system that supposedly is working a lot worse than in France.
Kilkrazy wrote: People in the UK and USA are doing the same revolting against the system that supposedly is working there. People in Spain aren't revolting against a system that supposedly is working a lot worse than in France.
The impression I get in the US is that there's a perception that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are working for the American people, so Trump rises. The impression I get from Brexit is that the people who voted in favor do not want to be under the thumb of EU officials that they did not elect or subject to an authority they view as inherently foreign and not working for their interests.
I don't have enough info to form an impression for what's going on in France, which from most accounts here is indeed not going to revolt, but when you have almost 10% unemployment, it comes as no surprise to me that there would be some level of unrest, and some level of antagonism towards liberal immigration policies.
Maybe the Spanish are cool with every thing because they take siestas.
I think you can draw a parallel to the people who keep insisting that the American Civil War was all about states' rights and had nothing to do with slavery.
It wasn't all about States rights. But at the core, that was the KEY issue that the other major issues, such as slavery, revolved around. There was a line to be crossed between the few and defined powers of the Federal Government, and the broad and general powers held by the Several States. The fight over where that line was, ultimately, led to the war itself. And it's legacy is part of the reason for the breakdown in our checks and balances system, a Federal Government that has a bad habit of overreach, and the continued racial divide in the United States.
sebster wrote:
As we've seen the various populist/racists that have been popular in various first world democracies in the last few years, I'm starting to wonder if xenophobia isn't the primary element. Maybe it is more just about simple solutions for complex problems, and particularly about simple solutions that flatter the voting base. Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.
The people blame the Establishment because the Establishment is a part of the problem. A big part. You are correct that the voting public has to take some responsibility, due to their participation in the body politic. But to absolve the Establishment of any blame is A: Putting too much faith and trust in the political and financial establishments, to the point of naivete. And B: To fall for the Establishment's "party line" that anybody who opposes the spun narrative is a "racist" or a "xenophobe", even directed at those with legitimate concerns about such policies and their effects on their homelands and lives.
Sooner or later, some among the "sheeple" will get tired of it, and stop falling for the bull spoon fed to them by vote-hungry, money-hungry politicos and fat cats, and their agenda ridden useful idiots. Others among the "flock" will get desperate and grab on to any politician smart enough to play on concerns (legitimate or otherwise), while offering no real solutions. I fall into the first category. And understanding the historically proven fact that politics is just another form of prostitution, that ALL politicians are driven by self-interests (money, influence, and power), and are inherent liars/silver tongued devils, doesn't convince with of anything else otherwise.
flamingkillamajig wrote:
When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them? What about a person that has their car break down on the side of the road? How about something super simple like holding the door open for somebody carrying something heavy?
This is an interesting point. This also ties partly into my response to sebester above.
Any of the above, obviously, will be dictated by circumstance and personal experience.
Asking for a sandwich and a drink because they are hungry? I have done so, and will probably do so again. But I WILL be on my guard. Drug addicts have used this as a technique to get people to let their guard down, in order to mug them for dope money/valuables to pawn.
Asking for money? The answer is no. The most likely result is that the panhandler in question will take that money, and buy dope or booze. And I would be on my guard for potential belligerence or robbery.
Stopping to help somebody on the side of the road? Not likely, unless it's obviously a potential life or death situation (like a car wreck). This has been used as a set-up for insurance scams, robbery, or car jackings in the past.
Holding open the door for somebody? You bet. That's low risk and a whole different animal than the other examples you used above.
The same goes for politics, politicians, and my world view. You have to be on your guard for potential risks in daily life, and understand Human nature. That includes dealing with potential, and actual, scumbags who are a threat to your life and Liberty. That's not throwing around blame or being paranoid. That's just good caution and plain, old fashioned common sense. Trust has to be EARNED. Human beings are not inherently good or trustworthy. We are all allowed the benefit of the doubt to prove trustworthiness and earn it. How hard you have to work at it is going to vary, depending on who you are and the current situation in society.
Politicians and the political/economic establishment, in my view, haven't done that. In fact, I was once naive enough to believe that some politicians could be trusted. But I got older and wiser. They are among the actual scumbags who, if were held to the same standards as the rest of us, would be sitting in prison. It's been that way every since the first caveman started politicking among the tribe to support him when he bashes the current chieftain in the head, and takes power. And I am cynical enough to believe it will always be this way.
Politics is a game where the stakes is your future. And the players don't have your best interests or the public's at heart. They are out to win the prize for themselves. It's up to us to watch our own backs, defend our nation and it's future, and take a stand, even if it's not popular among the suckers who still buy into the BS spun by the Establishment.
jasper76 wrote: Maybe the Spanish are cool with every thing because they take siestas.
We revolt at the beginning of the crisis. We had the change at our hands when the 15-M movement took place and last for weeks... but then from that movement two Political parties emerged to "solve" the unrest in the people (Podemos, leftist populist, and Ciudadanos, a Political party without principles, only maintaining the status quo, but they sell itself as "center-economical liberal") so basically two new faces to absorb the unrest both from the right and from the left, and here are we now.
With a government that need 2 elections to form government, with political parties that can't do nothing more than just dance to Bruselas flute and steal public money, and 18,4% of Unemployment, with a 55% of young unemployment. (And don't let that number trick you, we have more than a 18,4% of people unemployed, they just stop registring themselves in the social welfare)
But all of this is, sadly, offtopic
PD: The siestas are a thing from the south! We don't take siestas in other parts of the country! (Ok, maybe somedays if you eat to much...or if you sleep bad... or... ok, many people take a nap after the midday... but they are very healty! I'm sure... )
This double election system is interesting, I doubt Trump would have been elected had this system been in place in the US. Even those Democrats that despised Hillary would probably have come out in force at the second round of voting once they saw how close the difference was (depending on their State).
I suppose it's a decent alternative to compulsory voting.
sebster wrote: Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.
I think people who look for simple solutions/explanations to complex problems end up prone to such. No one but God can judge anyone by their head space, and when presented with the distinction between "actual racist/xenophobe/bigot" and "person who says lots of racist/xenophbic/bigoted gak" I just fail to see why I should care to notice that a distinction might exist. It's such a paper thin difference, and practically they lead to racist/xenophobic/bigoted gak happening whether the person saying it earnestly believes it or not.
It's the kind of detail that matters in an autobiography, not an election.
True but if people feel like no ones litioning, nothing being done they tend to go with the irrational solutions over the more sensible voices at times.
Interesting point. I just looked up the French unemployment rate, and it's at 9.6%. Relative to the US, UK, and Germany, this is abysmal...more than double. So just on the economy alone, I can see why affected people are inclined to abandon the existing institutions, even if the alternatives are problematic. If these institutions were effective, it's likely Le Pen would not have gained whatever level of support that she has, because why rebel against a system that is working?
It's also no wonder that anti-immigration politics would gain support when there is not enough work to go around for the people who are already citizens.
When there's not ernough work for own citizens. Yeah. Taking in refugees, workers from outside country while in a normal economy with low unemployment is fine. At 9.6% that's not gonna go down well. Also youth unemployment can be higher and you got young people who want work. But can,t. They want change... They want a chance. If someone offers they may take it.
Its creating conditions for the outsiders to look like attractive ideas.
While Le Pen is not nice. And her parties statements at times offensive. She has a very real, very powerful well of support she drawing from that could be larger than meets the eye.
UK is at least half and people still struggle to fond work yet alone a near 1-10 ..
The thing is, when you look at the rate at which European countries have been accepting refugees, it doesn't bear any relation to economic success and unemployment rates
We also know that in many European countries, unemployment is concentrated in the non-white population.
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.
We also know that in many European countries, unemployment is concentrated in the non-white population.
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.
A)There are non-whites in our country that do not have jobs.
B)Therefore any position stating that we should no longer accept anymore non-whites into the country is inherently immoral.
Not sure I follow your logic there, buddy.
For the most part, at least in my own experience, people that are genuinely opposed to maintaining current levels of immigration are based on cultural matters. Most people don't care if David Wu and a couple of his mates come over for snags around the BBQ, but they don't like the idea of Hassan and his buddies setting up shop here and keeping to themselves and their own exclusive clique. If an immigrant makes an effort to assimilate into their host nation most people that aren't jerks will give them the time of day. If they stick to themselves or try to impose their views on the non-standard then trouble starts.
When you get to a point where there are entire suburbs of your city that people avoid because it's considered the 'territory' of a particular group, it's not incredible that there is a negative reaction to that.
A)There are non-whites in our country that do not have jobs.
B)Therefore any position stating that we should no longer accept anymore non-whites into the country is inherently immoral.
Not sure I follow your logic there, buddy.
You're following the wrong logic. He's arguing first that there is no factual basis on which immigration and refugees can be blamed for lackluster employment rates. Therefore we can conclude that anti-immigrant, and anti-refugee feelings are not based in fears about employment, but ignorance/xenophobia, and any politician who advances those positions for political gain is in a bad moral position.
When you get to a point where there are entire suburbs of your city that people avoid because it's considered the 'territory' of a particular group, it's not incredible that there is a negative reaction to that.
I could go into a very long explanation on why this is itself ignorant, but I don't have that kind of time. Short version; This ideal "immigrant who assimilates" and "immigrant who refuses to assimilate" are about as real as unicorns. Ethnic enclaves are a constant in immigration for a multitude of reasons, two of the most obvious being that cheap real estate tends to be clustered together, and people moving from one country to another tend to lean on already established friends and relatives for support early on for housing, work, money, and emotional support. First generation immigrants almost never assimilate into a society, while second generation immigrants often find themselves awkwardly split between the place they came from and where they are now. It inevitably goes away by the third or fourth generation except when people ignorantly alienate successive generations for superficial cultural differences like preferring hanging out with friends and family (how alien) over going out and getting beers with strangers. I mean heaven forbid your religion require food be prepared in a specific way! You'll never assimilate!
You're following the wrong logic. He's arguing first that there is no factual basis on which immigration and refugees can be blamed for lackluster employment rates.
At the same time, he has said (the article didn't actually comment on it in depth) that there isn't any correlation between immigration and unemployment or economic success. So even if there isn't a strong economic argument -against- immigration, neither is there a strong economic argument -for- immigration. Unless someone were to argue that there are available jobs in a nation that simply aren't suitable for the population currently residing there, which would be ridiculous. It would be akin to arguing that a binman or janitor job is -beneath- a native-born citizen of the country, but not beneath a foreigner. That's how the Emiratis in Dubai viewed it, and my goodness they were absolute .
When you get to a point where there are entire suburbs of your city that people avoid because it's considered the 'territory' of a particular group, it's not incredible that there is a negative reaction to that.
I could go into a very long explanation on why this is itself ignorant, but I don't have that kind of time. Short version; This ideal "immigrant who assimilates" and "immigrant who refuses to assimilate" are about as real as unicorns. Ethnic enclaves are a constant in immigration for a multitude of reasons, two of the most obvious being that cheap real estate tends to be clustered together, and people moving from one country to another tend to lean on already established friends and relatives for support early on for housing, work, money, and emotional support. First generation immigrants almost never assimilate into a society, while second generation immigrants often find themselves awkwardly split between the place they came from and where they are now. It inevitably goes away by the third or fourth generation except when people ignorantly alienate successive generations for superficial cultural differences like preferring hanging out with friends and family (how alien) over going out and getting beers with strangers. I mean heaven forbid your religion require food be prepared in a specific way! You'll never assimilate!
You are arguing with a random person on the internet, of course you've got time.
Of course immigrants with the same background and culture in common will congregate. How would you fix such a thing? You can't, obviously, breaking up a neighbourhood because it's "too black" or "too white" would be ridiculous and like an extreme reverse of segregation. But such massive enclaves don't remain self-sufficient and isolated enough to retain their foreign cultural identity if they are not allowed to immigrate in such a large number in the first place. Several hundred immigrants in a city would have to be highly uniform in their exclusivity for them to retain a separate identity, however several hundred thousand can easily retain their distinct cultural identity without ever having to assimilate into the nation after successive generations.
One solution is to encourage assimilation into the national cultural norm, whatever that may be. At the other end you could introduce so many different cultures in such a large number that the consensus on what the national culture even is would be lost. That latter result scares quite a few people, and not because they are afraid of the pigment of someones skin.
Humble Guardsman wrote: You are arguing with a random person on the internet, of course you've got time.
It's finals week (which for me means upwards of 100 written pages, sources, cited, and organized in a way that makes it look like I know what I'm talking about)
A quick hint for Hats is I always post most when vainly procrastinating brain hurt inducing academic gobledygook
Well to stick to topic. Its fair to say they Le Pen is potentially able to take advantage of the economic situation, thr high unemployment, thr fact 9.6% of workers have no jobs, economy is going to be weaker with higher levels like that.
Its twice the rate of quite a few other big countries.
That's going to have some influence on people choices of president.
I think you can draw a parallel to the people who keep insisting that the American Civil War was all about states' rights and had nothing to do with slavery.
It wasn't all about States rights. But at the core, that was the KEY issue that the other major issues, such as slavery, revolved around.
Please no. Read the various Declarations of Secession and notice how they explicitly state that the main issue is slavery. Slavery is the key issue that the states' rights were to be used to affect, not the other way around. The entire business around states' rights was born in the context of slavery, the two are inseparable.
A)There are non-whites in our country that do not have jobs.
B)Therefore any position stating that we should no longer accept anymore non-whites into the country is inherently immoral.
Not sure I follow your logic there, buddy.
You're following the wrong logic. He's arguing first that there is no factual basis on which immigration and refugees can be blamed for lackluster employment rates. Therefore we can conclude that anti-immigrant, and anti-refugee feelings are not based in fears about employment, but ignorance/xenophobia, and any politician who advances those positions for political gain is in a bad moral position.
When you get to a point where there are entire suburbs of your city that people avoid because it's considered the 'territory' of a particular group, it's not incredible that there is a negative reaction to that.
I could go into a very long explanation on why this is itself ignorant, but I don't have that kind of time. Short version; This ideal "immigrant who assimilates" and "immigrant who refuses to assimilate" are about as real as unicorns. Ethnic enclaves are a constant in immigration for a multitude of reasons, two of the most obvious being that cheap real estate tends to be clustered together, and people moving from one country to another tend to lean on already established friends and relatives for support early on for housing, work, money, and emotional support. First generation immigrants almost never assimilate into a society, while second generation immigrants often find themselves awkwardly split between the place they came from and where they are now.
Wow, apparently unicorns are real then! Yay! They must actually be quite common, because well-assimilated and totally not assimilated immigrants both are very common, at least here in the Netherlands. I know loads of people of both categories. I also consider myself a pretty well-assimilated 1st generation immigrant (and know plenty of others who moved from Russia or other countries to the Netherlands and assimilated very well), so that conclusion of yours is also wrong.
Maybe you got the wrong idea of what assimilation means. It doesn't mean that an immigrant abandons all things of his parent culture and becomes indistinguishable from the native population, but rather that an immigrant tries to fit in by actively interacting with natives, learning their language, accepting their cultural values and participating actively in his host society instead of isolating himself in an ethnic enclave.
If a 1st-generation immigrant assimilates like that, any differences between the immigrants and the natives will usually have disappeared by the 3rd generation. If however the immigrants isolate themselves, the differences never disappear. The Netherlands has plenty of 4th generation immigrants that aren't much more assimilated into the native culture than their great-grandparents. I suspect the situation in France to be even worse.
LordofHats wrote: It inevitably goes away by the third or fourth generation except when people ignorantly alienate successive generations for superficial cultural differences like preferring hanging out with friends and family (how alien) over going out and getting beers with strangers. I mean heaven forbid your religion require food be prepared in a specific way! You'll never assimilate!
You are getting it the wrong way around. It is the immigrants who alienate the native population, not the native population alienating the immigrants (although that is a vicious cycle that can eventually develop).
You are getting it the wrong way around. It is the immigrants who alienate the native population, not the native population alienating the immigrants (although that is a vicious cycle that can eventually develop).
It's usually both happening at the same time in different degrees. Russians moving to the Netherlands isn't a particularly big shock. The closer a host society is to the one the immigrant came from the easier it is for immigrants to find acceptance. You don't see Le Penn complain about Spanish immigrants because Spanish it's not hard for someone from Spain to blend (you can even understand a lot of French as a Spanish speaker and vice versa). Then you have Sihks and Muslims, who have customs that instantly stand them out like wearing turbans, favoring beards, or having noticeably darker skin tones and they don't really get the luxury of blending like someone from America or Germany might enjoy. Compare Jews, who have ethnic enclaves around the world, and it's not just because they don't want to assimilate but because their customs and the distinctions between them and a host culture work to isolate them. Multitudes of factors come in to play other than that but I'm not writing a research paper on Dakka XD
Stand a white Russian, German, and American together in a room and you'd have to talk to them to really notice they come from different places. They blend with less effort and language barriers among the developed world are less apparent than those in the developing and third world. You're treating it too simplistically. The idea of assimilation you describe is counter to the definition you give in relation to my example. Superficial differences in culture are superficial but often pose the greatest barriers to the developing of new social bonds for immigrant groups. Even non-superficial differences become problems over time as people decide to be dicks. Someone in their forties doesn't really learn new languages well. Assimilation is not rigid. it's not a checklist you're going to able to consistently apply and get a desired effect. It shifts and differs between countries and groups, which is why I call the ideal of "assimilation" a unicorn. Someone like Le Penn will attach themselves to something absurd like the Sikh mandate on covering ones head, or the Jewish Orthodox payots to talk about how people don't matter and their traditions are incompatible as if somehow a turban or some curly side burns is some great barrier to being a functional French citizen. It's absurd. Part of that is that people just really don't care to see a display of any culture distinct from their own, but that's kind of inherently xenophobic which doesn't really advance the counter argument.
jhe90 wrote: Mainstream leaders offer no real differences. Thr parties blend into one. Then suddenly the popularists come claiming to have a answer, however simplistic but they claim to have answers, they claim to bring change to the problems that never seem to end.
Musch as there claims might be a facade, and not much behind em, you can see why they are gaining ground.
If the mainstream took on some of the difficult problems, thr ones that may not sound nice but are genuine things that need to be discussed. They may weaken there reasons to exist.
That is true to a large degree. However the flip side of that is the public itself, who are far too happy to condemn politicians for failing to solve difficult problems, and then even happier to abuse them when they attempt difficult but realistic answers to those problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I think people who look for simple solutions/explanations to complex problems end up prone to such. No one but God can judge anyone by their head space, and when presented with the distinction between "actual racist/xenophobe/bigot" and "person who says lots of racist/xenophbic/bigoted gak" I just fail to see why I should care to notice that a distinction might exist. It's such a paper thin difference, and practically they lead to racist/xenophobic/bigoted gak happening whether the person saying it earnestly believes it or not.
It's the kind of detail that matters in an autobiography, not an election.
Yeah, I'm not looking to excuse people for any racist policies of statements. I was just more wondering about how people best counter this kind of populist thing, and that starts with figuring out what it is that voters find so appealing. I wonder to an extent if it isn't as simple as being drawn to the candidate who says the racist things they are thinking. Afterall, racism isn't new, but these candidates and parties are suddenly gaining large vote counts where previously they did not. Which hints that possibly the appeal isn't as simple as racism.
That said, even if my thought bubble is true and it isn't racism that you have to counter but the popularity of simple solutions, I still have no idea about how you go about addressing the problem. Just watch as the idiots win office and break a whole bunch of stuff?
Sometimes, its hard to convince voters that they have it good in the status quo. So, it's not that difficult to understand that people will vote for something entirely different, even if many believe they're voting against their own benefit.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The people blame the Establishment because the Establishment is a part of the problem. A big part. You are correct that the voting public has to take some responsibility, due to their participation in the body politic. But to absolve the Establishment of any blame is A: Putting too much faith and trust in the political and financial establishments, to the point of naivete. And B: To fall for the Establishment's "party line" that anybody who opposes the spun narrative is a "racist" or a "xenophobe", even directed at those with legitimate concerns about such policies and their effects on their homelands and lives.
Your argument is based on a false dichotomy. There isn't a binary state of accepting establishment politics absolutely, or rejecting establishment politics completely in favour of any halfwit with a string of empty promises. You've the real world position of almost every voter. That's quite a feat. For instance, the idea that a person could be happy that establishment policies are typically informed by expert analysis and reflect more or less the best way forward, but at the same time are frustrated that in some cases the expert conclusions are ignored due to political cowardice or subversion by insider special interests. There is no place for anyone who thinks anything like that in your description.
Sooner or later, some among the "sheeple" will get tired of it, and stop falling for the bull spoon fed to them by vote-hungry, money-hungry politicos and fat cats, and their agenda ridden useful idiots. Others among the "flock" will get desperate and grab on to any politician smart enough to play on concerns (legitimate or otherwise), while offering no real solutions. I fall into the first category. And understanding the historically proven fact that politics is just another form of prostitution, that ALL politicians are driven by self-interests (money, influence, and power), and are inherent liars/silver tongued devils, doesn't convince with of anything else otherwise.
So your answer is that it comes down to heaping dose of cynicism and crude generalisation? Well as a description of modern politics it's a total disaster. But as an explanation of the thought process that has led a lot of people to cast very foolish votes recently, it actually works okay.
sebster wrote: That said, even if my thought bubble is true and it isn't racism that you have to counter but the popularity of simple solutions, I still have no idea about how you go about addressing the problem. Just watch as the idiots win office and break a whole bunch of stuff?
I'm of the opinion that to get a real and lasting solution the average person's life needs to improve. Right now there are a whole lot of people working harder to earn less, making ends meet for the average person has gotten much harder over the last several decades. These people are worn out from their lives, and as any of us can say simple solutions without much thought become a lot more attractive when one is tired. If people had the energy in their lives to invest in looking a bit further than the superficial we would see candidates like Le Pen, who turn ugly real quick when looking beyond skin-deep, not gather as much support. At least that's my take on things.
Humble Guardsman wrote: For the most part, at least in my own experience, people that are genuinely opposed to maintaining current levels of immigration are based on cultural matters. Most people don't care if David Wu and a couple of his mates come over for snags around the BBQ, but they don't like the idea of Hassan and his buddies setting up shop here and keeping to themselves and their own exclusive clique. If an immigrant makes an effort to assimilate into their host nation most people that aren't jerks will give them the time of day. If they stick to themselves or try to impose their views on the non-standard then trouble starts.
I think you are right here in pointing out that the issue is primarily cultural, not economic. The economic stuff actually makes no sense, even on a simple, intuitive level, it is what people add on to bolster their argument, once they've already decided they're resentful of immigrants. After all, the people who are worried about foreign workers coming here are almost always the same people who are also worried about foreign investment, when the latter creates jobs so should be supported by people who are primarily concerned by jobs.
And ask yourself, can anyone name a single person they know who just loves foreign cultures, looks to engage with foreigners to learn about them, their lives and experiences, but then says as much as they love that, they just can't support more immigration
As to whether the cultural issue is correct... that's a tougher issue. You are right that it is natural for people to resent it when an area they live in or around begins to feel alien. But this has been a concern as long as there's been migration. Here in Australia we hated the Italians and the Greeks because they didn't assimilate, then another generation on their kids were assimilated and we forget that it ever bothered us. By that point we were hostile to the Chinese because they didn't assimilate. But their kids did assimilate, and by then we'd moved on to being hostile at the Somalis and the Lebanese who weren't assimilating. When the history of second generation assimilation is pointed out, people assert this time is different, this group really won't be assimilating. That's almost certainly not true.
So assimilation does happen, but its generational. It is understandable that people don't see, or appreciate, or believe in change at that slow speed. Hence much of the resentment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Humble Guardsman wrote: Of course immigrants with the same background and culture in common will congregate. How would you fix such a thing? You can't, obviously, breaking up a neighbourhood because it's "too black" or "too white" would be ridiculous and like an extreme reverse of segregation.
You can place visa requirements on people to settle in certain areas, and not in others. Typically this isn't done over ghetto concerns, more to address town population issues, but there's no reason it can't be done to restrict ghettos forming.
But such massive enclaves don't remain self-sufficient and isolated enough to retain their foreign cultural identity if they are not allowed to immigrate in such a large number in the first place. Several hundred immigrants in a city would have to be highly uniform in their exclusivity for them to retain a separate identity, however several hundred thousand can easily retain their distinct cultural identity without ever having to assimilate into the nation after successive generations.
Britain's immigration might be very high by British historic standards, but it's nothing compared to the immigration in to countries like Australia and the US. And despite massive waves of immigration, the experience here has shown that ghettos happen, but then they fade. All the various Chinatowns, that were once strong ghettos, are now just novelties for the tourists. The children of the immigrants moved out in to mainstream society.
One solution is to encourage assimilation into the national cultural norm, whatever that may be.
The solution really is time. You have to trust that in time the awesomeness of the 'native' way of life will win people over. If not the first generation, then the second and subsequent generation.
But certainly there are things you can do to help that process along. Free language classes, for instance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Well to stick to topic. Its fair to say they Le Pen is potentially able to take advantage of the economic situation, thr high unemployment, thr fact 9.6% of workers have no jobs, economy is going to be weaker with higher levels like that.
Sort of. For lots of reasons France typically has a higher unemployment rate than other countries*. It's been below 8% for only 12 months in the last 30 years. In that time its never been below 7%. Just straight comparing the current French rate to the US and then thinking about how bleak the US economy was when unemployment was 9.5% there gives a false impression.
This isn't to say there aren't problems in the French economy. Productivity has been flat for a sustained period. Unlike France and Germany which slowly clawed back the jobs lost in the GFC, France is basically in the exact same place it was in 2009. There would be a level of angst impacting the political results. I'm really just saying that straight number to number comparisons often confuse more than they reveal.
*There's some reporting issues, like France counting people with no fixed hours as unemployed, but I've been told that's more an excuse than a real, material difference. It is probably more to do with the structure of the different economies, France is a much less horrible place to be unemployed, to put it at its simplest.
Sometimes, its hard to convince voters that they have it good in the status quo. So, it's not that difficult to understand that people will vote for something entirely different, even if many believe they're voting against their own benefit.
Yeah, I think this sums up a lot of it really well. I think it is natural for people to stop appreciating things they have had for a long time. Taking those things for granted, they focus largely on small things changing at the margins. This leads to an irrational decision that ends up putting at risk lots of good stuff
This is complicated more by, as you put it, the reality that sometimes the grass is actually greener on the other side. Sometimes there are brave new ways of doing things that are simply better than what we have now. The rise of activist unions was terrifying to the status quo, but in time it gave us safe working conditions and levels of pay that created the middle class. The deregulation of the 70s and early 80s was a massive reversal from the previous 50 years of post depression institution building, but it gave us the productivity gains of the 80s and 90s (alongside computing and trade).
The trick, I guess, is for people to be able to really study how things are, and what can be changed to fix problems without risking the greater system and its qualities. And then to really study possible solutions, to figure out exactly how green the grass is over there. The problem is that analysis just isn't informing the public debate. It is largely happening in academia, but that doesn't filter down in to public debate in a meaningful way. There are very few people right now who can present an informed, expert opinion in a way that retains its substantial meaning while being understood and accessible to a mainstream audience. Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson are doing a job like this on general science, but they're almost entirely preaching to the converted, they have very little effect in presenting science in a way that wins over doubters. And in other areas, like economics or immigration there's simply no-one even at that level.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm of the opinion that to get a real and lasting solution the average person's life needs to improve. Right now there are a whole lot of people working harder to earn less, making ends meet for the average person has gotten much harder over the last several decades. These people are worn out from their lives, and as any of us can say simple solutions without much thought become a lot more attractive when one is tired. If people had the energy in their lives to invest in looking a bit further than the superficial we would see candidates like Le Pen, who turn ugly real quick when looking beyond skin-deep, not gather as much support. At least that's my take on things.
While I'm sympathetic to the challenges facing many people on low incomes, I'm not sure its an excuse for ignorance. That's a bit of a cop out, really. Most everyone I know works really hard, most of us have young families on top of full time jobs, so we're never going to be more tired. Some of us follow the news and politics, and others don't, it isn't a product of tiredness but a product of what you're interested in.
But I certainly agree that it is all about the average person's life improving, at the end of the day. If someone has most spare cash for fun stuff than they had 10 years ago, and they're more financially secure, then they're going to be disinclined to vote to break the system. The issue is that's really hard to do. You can't just wish productivity increases in to existence. And the reforms we've enacted in the last 20 years, combined with the natural trend of the economy has seen increases, but they've been concentrated on the very rich.
I didn't mean to excuse voting for a toxic candidate, especially in the case of someone like Le Pen it takes very little time or effort to figure out she isn't all that great. And even beyond that it just doesn't take that much extra effort to get oneself reasonably informed on candidates before voting for them. I was attempting to explain a reason rather than an excuse. But to elaborate, I think it extends beyond the low income bracket, because the argument applies to what I feel is a significant group of middle class people who are working their assess off to stay there.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I didn't mean to excuse voting for a toxic candidate, especially in the case of someone like Le Pen it takes very little time or effort to figure out she isn't all that great. And even beyond that it just doesn't take that much extra effort to get oneself reasonably informed on candidates before voting for them. I was attempting to explain a reason rather than an excuse. But to elaborate, I think it extends beyond the low income bracket, because the argument applies to what I feel is a significant group of middle class people who are working their assess off to stay there.
Yeah, cool, didn't mean to imply you were trying to excuse Le Pen.
But I still don't accept that working hard and being tired is the reason people aren't engaging with politics. Reading the news isn't exhausting. Even after a really hard day, after an hour or so of spacing out anyone can do something like read an opinion piece.
You make a good point about the issue extending in to the middle class. I was making a fairly classist assumption in just limiting it to the working class.
I think you can draw a parallel to the people who keep insisting that the American Civil War was all about states' rights and had nothing to do with slavery.
It wasn't all about States rights. But at the core, that was the KEY issue that the other major issues, such as slavery, revolved around.
Please no. Read the various Declarations of Secession and notice how they explicitly state that the main issue is slavery. Slavery is the key issue that the states' rights were to be used to affect, not the other way around. The entire business around states' rights was born in the context of slavery, the two are inseparable.
OT. Take it to another thread or another board. This has nothing to do with the French, the French election, or a technical manual on how to convert stale French bread into nonchuks to take out Spanish conquistadors (kudos to Cheech and Chong).
High unemployment, immigrations problems, mmm yea Le Pen has a better chance than you think.
As sebster pointed out though, it's not actually high unemployment in the French context.
On a related note, how does le Pen intend do handle the notoriously militant French farmers if France leaves the EU? If they're disgruntled now, just imagine them being outside the CAP.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As sebster pointed out though, it's not actually high unemployment in the French context.
On a related note, how does le Pen intend do handle the notoriously militant French farmers if France leaves the EU? If they're disgruntled now, just imagine them being outside the CAP.
Hang a few of them. If its good enough for Washington, its good enough...oh wait this is France. Bring back the guillotine.
That's the thing, though. Facts don't matter; perceptions do. So if people get fired up that they perceive that they have no jerbs and that immigrants are taking their jerbs, the will act on that, no matter how unfounded in reality it is. The problem is that it is a lot easier to scapegoat people who look different and dress and talk funny than to analyze underlying systemic and economic trends. And guess what reactionaries tend to do (Hint: it's not the analysis option!) Worse, there is that primitive part of the brain that all humans have that desires simple actions, safety, and buys into this at some level (threat of the Other) and has to be overridden by knowledge and experience, so it bleeds over into the mainstream, where it can mobilize just enough to swing elections.
jmurph wrote: That's the thing, though. Facts don't matter; perceptions do. So if people get fired up that they perceive that they have no jerbs and that immigrants are taking their jerbs, the will act on that, no matter how unfounded in reality it is. The problem is that it is a lot easier to scapegoat people who look different and dress and talk funny than to analyze underlying systemic and economic trends. And guess what reactionaries tend to do (Hint: it's not the analysis option!) Worse, there is that primitive part of the brain that all humans have that desires simple actions, safety, and buys into this at some level (threat of the Other) and has to be overridden by knowledge and experience, so it bleeds over into the mainstream, where it can mobilize just enough to swing elections.
They both matter. Because facts don't care about people's perceptions. If they act on a perception that isn't true, the fact will still be there causing the problem at the end of the day. So after all the immigrants are kicked out and people are still angry because their issues haven't been resolved, they will round on the next most obvious target; those who lied to them. Even politicians can only sell a lie for so long before it bites them in the ass.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So after all the immigrants are kicked out and people are still angry because their issues haven't been resolved, they will round on the next most obvious target;
So, the Jew? Or the Free Mason? Or the bankers? Or the gays? Or anyone the politicians will decide to scapegoat?
NinthMusketeer wrote: So after all the immigrants are kicked out and people are still angry because their issues haven't been resolved, they will round on the next most obvious target;
So, the Jew? Or the Free Mason? Or the bankers? Or the gays? Or anyone the politicians will decide to scapegoat?
Actually, then you'll see a version of what our illustrious idiot is doing, which is to deflect blame at the press for reporting fake news, being unfair and labelling them the "enemy of the XXX people". The blame game is what despots, or in this case right wing mouthpieces, do.
As I was just saying...
White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Sunday the Trump administration considered changes to libel laws that could limit certain freedoms of the press, but contended that whether any changes happen is a “different story.”
NinthMusketeer wrote: So after all the immigrants are kicked out and people are still angry because their issues haven't been resolved, they will round on the next most obvious target;
So, the Jew? Or the Free Mason? Or the bankers? Or the gays? Or anyone the politicians will decide to scapegoat?
Thats why Nationalism is xenophobic by definition. I know many many Spanish nationalists that now fuel their rage towards muslims (Even when Muslism in Spain, outside Ceuta and Melilla are totally quasi-unexistant) and refugees. But you only need to mention them the Catalonia Independence problem to make them rage, or say "Blas de Lezo" to give them a boner for their English-hatred..
That people only whant to put a face to their "problems" because problems are complex, and need complex solutions. Any politician that full his mouth with empty promises like "I will give you jobs again!" without a carefull crafted economical plan is full of gak. And unfortunate, all of this recent elections are full of that, the French one is just another example.
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is, when you look at the rate at which European countries have been accepting refugees, it doesn't bear any relation to economic success and unemployment rates
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.
Ok, so no relation to economic success and unemployment rates. That's fine.
Does acceptance of more refugees correlate with increased crime and sexual assault of young women?
How much more likely to sexually assault someone can an immigrant be before it becomes no-longer-xenophobic-and-ignorant to want them out? Are you Killkrazy considering say, "only 5 times more likely to rape" as not enough reason to be phobic and they deserve our sympathy, but perhaps "10 times more likely to rape" would be acceptable? What sort of indication would be "enough" for you to consider that maybe it's not racist to not want your young daughter surrounded by more people who would do her harm?
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is, when you look at the rate at which European countries have been accepting refugees, it doesn't bear any relation to economic success and unemployment rates
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.
Ok, so no relation to economic success and unemployment rates. That's fine.
Does acceptance of more refugees correlate with increased crime and sexual assault of young women?
How much more likely to sexually assault someone can an immigrant be before it becomes no-longer-xenophobic-and-ignorant to want them out? Are you Killkrazy considering say, "only 5 times more likely to rape" as not enough reason to be phobic and they deserve our sympathy, but perhaps "10 times more likely to rape" would be acceptable? What sort of indication would be "enough" for you to consider that maybe it's not racist to not want your young daughter surrounded by more people who would do her harm?
I think that the statisc of the high number of Rapes in north countrys has been very mythified. I think that it has to do with the fact that the legislation about what is legally "rape" has been very expanded and a very insistent social campaing to make people more aware of what constitutes sexual assault in Sweden and similar countrys.
But you have a point. We can see cases of people don't persecuting crimes on inmigrants or refugees because they don't want to see as racist, like the ones in Germain in a music festival, etc... but to be honest, I don't think the reason to don't make those sexual assault public was fear about being called "racist"; but because it will be a very very bad PR case, and make them lose a lot of money.
And don't think by this that I'm defending muslims. I'm a defender of forced integration in social and legislative values for inmigrants of any kind, and cases like where one muslim was payed because he feel disrespected when his female-boss say that he need to give his hand to salute her are total absurd to me. I know people born un Morocco and other african countries that live in Spain and some of them are even muslism but are totally integrated, and their daugthers don't gear an hiyab and their parents don't do emotional pression to make them wear it, they are free to choose, but at the same time they don't eat pork.
According to Brå, it is likely that as many as 80 per cent of all rapes are not reported, which was confirmed in a 2001 study of the extent of violence against women, funded by the Government of Sweden and the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority.[39][49]
Long before any Inmigration crisis.
EDIT: Ok, I have noticed now that this is totally offtopic, so I'm not gonna continue to discuss this issue here!
.
Marine 
.
.
forget what he said.
)
