Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
It is funny because this time the woman is older than the man! TEEHEE!

If only he had married a Slovenian immigrant 25 years younger or something

 Ahtman wrote:
It is funny because this time the woman is older than the man! TEEHEE!

You know what they said. Once you experience it with a cougar, you can't go back to a deer!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Also to my knowledge the Jews didn't attack anybody before they were discriminated against. Maybe i just don't know the full history but what sort of jewish terrorist attacks could there have been before WWII?

I failed to understand how you went there .
And no, the Jews didn't do anything.

It was more the comparison of islamaphobia vs anti-semitism. Muslim people sometimes do terrorist attacks while the jewish people before ww2 did not. It's a bit more justified to at least be cautious around muslims whereas with the jews before ww2 it was not. Of course judaism is very old and we've had a long history of getting our asses kicked around by everybody so we don't really blame anybody anymore or at least nobody in specific. To be fair there are legit reasons not to like some of the teachings as they fully support loaning money (which causes debt slaves) and well the old testament god is a jerk to put it bluntly. Also jews persecuted jesus so yeah that was a thing. We're not a blameless group. We've been through a lot but that's what happens when the religion's been around so long.

All that said this is coming from somebody that's only jewish by blood so it's more a technicality thing.

 Sarouan wrote:
It's not massive when you know how France's presidential election works.

It is a big win if you look at the actual history of French elections.

1974 2 point win
1981 4 point win
1988 8 point win
1995 5 point win
2002 64 point win
2007 6 point win
2012 3 point win
2017 33 point win

What you see is a range of 2 to 8 points across six elections, average winning margin of 4 to 5 points. Macron's margin of victory was 8 times bigger than the average, and 4 times bigger than any election other than the one where her Dad got smashed by even more.

Second turn is basically a duel between the two first, but what you should take into accounts are actually the voting polls in the first turn.

You probably should have read my answer before you started your reply. I note the challenges Macron has, and yes, the base of supporters he has for his agenda is small (for that you shouldn't look at the first round of polling but at his party's current presence in parliament, where it is tiny). But all of that doesn't change the basic math of the election result - it was 33 points and that is a very big number by the history of French presidential races.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Since when is Islam a race?

Oh look, this old line. Yes, you are right that Islam isn't a race, and so it can't be technically racist. People often use racist when what they actually mean is bigoted. If your point is that the wrong term was used by the previous poster, then you are correct. I trust then we can all agree that Le Pen's views on Islam could be more accurately described as bigoted, small minded, xenophobic or some similar term like that.

In any event, best of luck to France with their new President. And don't forget, Sunday is Mother's Day.

Classy.

 sebster wrote:


Oh look, this old line. Yes, you are right that Islam isn't a race, and so it can't be technically racist. People often use racist when what they actually mean is bigoted. If your point is that the wrong term was used by the previous poster, then you are correct. I trust then we can all agree that Le Pen's views on Islam could be more accurately described as bigoted, small minded, xenophobic or some similar term like that.

I thought we weren't talking about that anymore. I'm always up for a PM if you want to continue this talk, you seem civil enough about it.

bigoted
ˈbɪɡətɪd/
adjective
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.


By that definition, someone that unironically says "Better Dead than Red" is bigoted against communists. That doesn't do anything to address the very real failings of communism or the well-founded fear of communist agendas being pushed on several fronts across the world.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
That doesn't do anything to address the very real failings of communism or the well-founded fear of communist agendas being pushed on several fronts across the world.

Neither does anything you've been saying on that particular topic. Just because there exist well founded concerns doesn't mean you can't be bigoted in how you confront them. I mean Jesus. Is the threat to French wall papers such a real concern? It's kind of childish really. I've always thought people from Muslim countries had excellent taste in visual design;



I mean sure it can be a little baroque but come on. Look at the intricacy! Just wait till you see their cabinets. A little foreign design work can only make things more fabulous.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
That doesn't do anything to address the very real failings of communism or the well-founded fear of communist agendas being pushed on several fronts across the world.

Neither does anything you've been saying on that particular topic. Just because there exist well founded concerns doesn't mean you can't be bigoted in how you confront them. I mean Jesus. Is the threat to French wall papers such a real concern? It's kind of childish really. I've always thought people from Muslim countries had excellent taste in visual design;



I mean sure it can be a little baroque but come on. Look at the intricacy! Just wait till you see their cabinets. A little foreign design work can only make things more fabulous.

I lived in the Emirates for 6 years, mate.

My argument would never be with the culture or art of the arab people. But, as the mods have already said, this isn't the place to discuss the things I do have issue with.

 Sarouan wrote:
There was absolutely nothing about the debate of the actual programs of both candidates - it was more personnal attacks and spreading rumors about the other candidate.

Frankly based on the debate that was much much more Le Pen's doing that Macron's. He focused on his program and his main attack against Le Pen was that she had no actual program and focused on attacking him to hide it. Meanwhile, she attacked him on being a banker, and… basically every thing that has been done by any politician from the last 10 governments or something .

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Since when is Islam a race?

Doesn't have to be a race for people to be racist. Jews aren't a race either. Still the nazi considered them one.
Now of course Marine Le Pen don't literally consider Muslims a race. But frankly, the opposition against Islam from many far-right people is way closer to hatred toward a race than opposition to a religion…

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It was more the comparison of islamaphobia vs anti-semitism.

Oh this comparison is usually total bs. Yeah, I know it sounds ridiculous when I make something a bit similar just above but really, the situation of Jews in the 30's and before is incredibly different from the situation of Muslims now. I don't know why you thought of that comparison though. I was more referring to stuff like this actually. The guy doing the punching is not the bad one among those two.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The view on Muslims is just racist

Since when is Islam a race?

Since when are there any human races at all?

 sebster wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
A simpler explantation would be that the populist promise them SOMETHING, in contrast to the radical centrist that pretty much tell them to feth off. It might be empty and stupid promises the populists give, but they at the least offer a solution to these people problems, which is more then the radical centrist offer them.

That makes no sense. Hearing one set of promises and being unimpressed doesn't make a person more willing to believe the con artist who comes along afterward. If you see a street vendor selling a chocolates, but then see the price is twice what you'd want to pay, you don't then get all excited when you see a van labelled 'free candy' and just jump right in.

It´s pretty simple logic, you have one side that openly dont give a crap about you and you have one side that speaks to you about your concerns, or rather claims to do it . Guess which side those people are going start listening more and more to when their situation keeps getting worse?

 sebster wrote:

No, there has to be a reason for people to suspend disbelief when someone makes wild, implausible promises. Maybe it isn't that they've already bought in to that candidate because of her racism, maybe it's something else. But it sure as gak isn't because they don't like some other candidate's promises.

And where does the racism comes from? If you blame this on racism you have to explain where it comes from, otherwise you have only sidestepped the issue rather then explained it.

 sebster wrote:


It is a big win if you look at the actual history of French elections.

1974 2 point win
1981 4 point win
1988 8 point win
1995 5 point win
2002 64 point win
2007 6 point win
2012 3 point win
2017 33 point win

What you see is a range of 2 to 8 points across six elections, average winning margin of 4 to 5 points. Macron's margin of victory was 8 times bigger than the average, and 4 times bigger than any election other than the one where her Dad got smashed by even more.

And you don't take into account the abstention and nul votes, without them these numbers mean nothing. Abstention was 25 %, nul votes was 8% - which mean the difference between the two scores has to be relative.

By using numbers without context, you're doing the exact same thing than dictators using their "100% votes" for justifying their own place. It is not relevant.

For the Elites wanting to reassure themselves, yes, it is a victory. They were much too afraid of having Le Pen as President. So they take comfort in these numbers, and quickly put the rest aside.

But nothing is solved. The same causes leading to this situation are still there. That's why I'm saying you should wait for the legislatives to really see how much support Macron will really get, and if the presidence will not become a really poisonous apple.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Frankly based on the debate that was much much more Le Pen's doing that Macron's. He focused on his program and his main attack against Le Pen was that she had no actual program and focused on attacking him to hide it. Meanwhile, she attacked him on being a banker, and… basically every thing that has been done by any politician from the last 10 governments or something .

Did you listen to what Macron was saying about his intentions? The guy didn't hesitate to say the opposite of what he was saying before, just to gain more votes from the side he was talking to. Listen to the interview on Mediapart and then read what he said to the Figaro. Journalists didn't really underline this point, because they were quite focused on beating Le Pen, and Macron wasn't that attacked in the first turn on his own contradictions. A lot of people were confused by what Macron says.

Macron was lucky he wasn't attacked on his program. Because there were a lot of confusing points, or even contradictions that are completely ridiculous. But I think these "vague areas" will quickly show themselves when the presidence will really start...

 Sarouan wrote:

And you don't take into account the abstention and nul votes, without them these numbers mean nothing. Abstention was 25 %, nul votes was 8% - which mean the difference between the two scores has to be relative.

In 2012 Abstention was 19.65% and null votes 5.8%. In 2002 when the margin was more than half the voters those numbers were much the same. 20% and 5% (rounded down) pretty much.

Forgive us if a respective 5+ and ~2+ rise in those stats is taken as an insufficient explanation for a 30 point swing in a given year.

And I think you're right overall that the underlying groundwork that got Le Penn that far to begin with is still there, and that this could easily go all over again, but come on.

 LordofHats wrote:


And I think you're right overall that the underlying groundwork that got Le Penn that far to begin with is still there, and that this could easily go all over again, but come on.

I would go even farther and say that the politics of Macron and his predecessors creates the groundwork for the likes of Le Pen. So after five years of Macron odds are we gonna get someone even worse then Le Pen, I reckon.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


And I think you're right overall that the underlying groundwork that got Le Penn that far to begin with is still there, and that this could easily go all over again, but come on.

I would go even farther and say that the politics of Macron and his predecessors creates the groundwork for the likes of Le Pen. So after five years of Macron odds are we gonna get someone even worse then Le Pen, I reckon.

That's what been said before. Did Le Pen jr make much better than last time?

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
I thought we weren't talking about that anymore.

Aren't we? Was there a mod thing or did people agree to stop talking about it? I didn't see anything. All I saw was nuggz repeat that tired old line and so I responded.

bigoted
ˈbɪɡətɪd/
adjective
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.


By that definition, someone that unironically says "Better Dead than Red" is bigoted against communists. That doesn't do anything to address the very real failings of communism or the well-founded fear of communist agendas being pushed on several fronts across the world.

If a person's opinion is based on very real failings or well founded fear, then it isn't an opinion they are obstinately or unreasonably attached to', by the definition you provided.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
It´s pretty simple logic, you have one side that openly dont give a crap about you and you have one side that speaks to you about your concerns, or rather claims to do it . Guess which side those people are going start listening more and more to when their situation keeps getting worse?

It's not logic at all. Once again, you have a person who offers you candy that's way more than you want to pay, and you have a van with "free candy" spraypainted on the side, and a guy gesturing you to get in. It doesn't matter how much you're sick of the first guy charging too much for candy, you don't get in that van. You either buy no candy, or you grumpily buy the expensive stuff, but you never get in the van because humans are stupid, but they aren't that stupid.

So it becomes a question of why some people decided the 'free candy' van was believable enough. Affinity through racism isn't necessarily all of the answer, but we can't deny it likely played a significant role.

And where does the racism comes from? If you blame this on racism you have to explain where it comes from, otherwise you have only sidestepped the issue rather then explained it.

Where does racism come from? That's a fairly big question, but to give a very quick answer... humans have natural tribal instincts, they trust people 'like them' more than groups with differentiating features. From this, people have a tendency to blame outside groups for their own issues. There are also economic tensions tied in to this, both people finding reasons why they don't have as much as they feel entitled to, and also people trying to explain why they might have a lot more than some other people.

 sebster wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
I thought we weren't talking about that anymore.

Aren't we? Was there a mod thing or did people agree to stop talking about it? I didn't see anything. All I saw was nuggz repeat that tired old line and so I responded.

The last UK politics thread got locked over the issue, I think.

 Sarouan wrote:
And you don't take into account the abstention and nul votes, without them these numbers mean nothing. Abstention was 25 %, nul votes was 8% - which mean the difference between the two scores has to be relative.

No, it means one candidate beat the other candidate by a lot. That's just fething there in the vote count. When one pile of votes is a lot bigger than the other pile of votes, it really is okay to say 'that pile of votes is a lot bigger than that other pile of votes'.

What you are trying to argue is what authority this gives Macron to govern. You have a point that it isn't actually all that much, because his win was in large part due to the weakness of his opponent and a bunch of other factors... but you'll notice I've never tried to argue against you on any of those points - I think Macron has no electoral authority and will have to do a lot of work building a coalition to get any work done. But you just aren't actually reading what I'm saying, it's more than a bit frustrating.

By using numbers without context, you're doing the exact same thing than dictators using their "100% votes" for justifying their own place. It is not relevant.

Well that came out of nowhere. Wow.

For the Elites wanting to reassure themselves, yes, it is a victory. They were much too afraid of having Le Pen as President. So they take comfort in these numbers, and quickly put the rest aside.

Except what you've said is nothing like what we've actually seen. Actually what we've seen is a candidate win by more than 30 points, and still most of the nattering liberal class flagellates themselves, asking how Le Pen got as many votes as she did, while still others claim that next time around she'll totally close that 30 point gap unless socialism.

That's why I'm saying you should wait for the legislatives to really see how much support Macron will really get

Go back and read my posts please. Go read my points about Macron's tiny presence in the current legislative. Go on, I'll wait. Then come back and we can have a conversation in which you've actually fething read my argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
I would go even farther and say that the politics of Macron and his predecessors creates the groundwork for the likes of Le Pen. So after five years of Macron odds are we gonna get someone even worse then Le Pen, I reckon.

I think your analysis is quite crude, it basically lumps every liberal poltician together. It is possible to believe that open markets are a key driver of prosperity, without holding to some kind of laissez faire position regardless of stability or social impact. Macron has shown, particularly with his attempts to get Greece a fair deal, that he understands the social impact and how that impacts on politics.

Not saying he's the saviour, or that any one person could be. Truth is much of France's fate in the next five years is outside the control of their own country, never mind the powers of the president. But this idea that he's just the same as the worst of the neo-liberals is really simplistic politics.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
It´s pretty simple logic, you have one side that openly dont give a crap about you and you have one side that speaks to you about your concerns, or rather claims to do it . Guess which side those people are going start listening more and more to when their situation keeps getting worse?

It's not logic at all. Once again, you have a person who offers you candy that's way more than you want to pay, and you have a van with "free candy" spraypainted on the side, and a guy gesturing you to get in. It doesn't matter how much you're sick of the first guy charging too much for candy, you don't get in that van. You either buy no candy, or you grumpily buy the expensive stuff, but you never get in the van because humans are stupid, but they aren't that stupid.

If we are keeping the candy metaphor, I would rather say you have one side that sells you candy that you cant afford and another side with the aforementioned van. You cant afford candy from the first side and you aren´t thrilled about the other sides creepy van, but as the hunger starts growing that van looks more and more acceptable...

 sebster wrote:

I think your analysis is quite crude, it basically lumps every liberal poltician together. It is possible to believe that open markets are a key driver of prosperity, without holding to some kind of laissez faire position regardless of stability or social impact. Macron has shown, particularly with his attempts to get Greece a fair deal, that he understands the social impact and how that impacts on politics.

Not saying he's the saviour, or that any one person could be. Truth is much of France's fate in the next five years is outside the control of their own country, never mind the powers of the president. But this idea that he's just the same as the worst of the neo-liberals is really simplistic politics.

The status-quo (which many liberals are a part of) is clearly ideology neoliberal in nature. Now I cant say that I'm an expert on French politics, but from what I have seen of Macron he seem to fit that status-quo mould. An ex-banker that was part of the former government that implemented the austerity measures and instituted the now 2 year long state of emergency. I could be wrong be about him, but thats how it looks to me.

And of course you are right that in a global world much of a countries future is outside of it´s control, but in the context of the presidential election I think Macron will continue the processes that give leverage for types like Le Pen.