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.
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 .
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
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."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 19:30:03
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 19:38:01
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 19:39:59
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 19:47:11
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 19:46:22
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.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
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!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 21:56:55
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.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 22:06:25
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…
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 22:55:59
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
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.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 22:43:13
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
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?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
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.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 23:00:36
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 22:52:48
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 23:08:54
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 23:25:56
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
.
